Amendment No. 1 arises from Committee Stage proceedings. Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 are related and amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 5 may be discussed together, by agreement.
Broadcasting (Funding) Bill 2003 [ Seanad ]: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, lines 5 and 6, to delete "THE BROADCASTING COMMISSION OF IRELAND" and substitute "RADIO TELEFÍS ÉIREANN".
Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 seek to address what the Labour Party considers to be the central problem of this Bill. The Labour Party supported strongly the increase in the RTE licence fee on the basis of the development of greater accountability, transparency and a commitment by the public service broadcaster to carry out a wide range of additional functions and engage in additional programme making to benefit the viewing public. My party's central problem with the Bill as it stands is that it seeks to establish the mechanism of the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland, or BCI, through which a portion of the licence fee will be diverted to a new broadcasting fund. This raises many issues about the editorial role of the BCI and the possible future development by Government of other methods by which it could restrict the ability of the public service broadcaster to independently and sufficiently carry out its functions.
As I said on Second Stage, the noted commentator Fintan O'Toole has stated that revenue lies at the heart of independence for public service broadcasting. Over the history of RTE, the State has sought at times to interfere unduly in the operation of the station. Therefore, the Labour Party regards this legislation as the thin end of the wedge in terms of licence funding. Throughout the world, we see the spectacle of growing commercialisation of broadcasting and alleged interference with editorial control in the operation of many satellite, cable and commercial channels. Punches are pulled or, as in the case of FOX News, stations become mere cheerleaders of government policy rather than its independent critics. The Labour Party takes fundamental issue with the road down which the Minister has chosen to go in this instance.
It would have been more appropriate to introduce this Bill after the publication of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland Bill. Major broadcasting proposals will be brought forward through the legislation in which we will see how the Minister intends to formulate the new body to regulate broadcasting. The authority will adopt key functions which are currently carried out by the RTE authority. Would it not have been better, therefore, for the Minister to wait until the role of the new authority had been clarified and until we had seen with what commissioning functions, if any, it will be tasked? In the meantime, we are providing the broadcasting commission with extensive powers in respect of the funding scheme despite the fact that it is in its last months of effective operation.
The timing of the Bill is inappropriate. The Minister would have done better to examine the role of the broadcasting authority, its membership, its broadcasting policy and commissioning remit, if any. Over the coming months, the existence of this fund will raise the issue of a dual mandate for the BCI which will have both a regulating and a programming function through its role in formulating the structure of the funding scheme. It would have been better to provide responsibility for the scheme to the public service broadcaster. That is the Labour Party's core objection to this Bill.
We had a similar debate on Committee Stage last week. It is important that the development and administration of the scheme is separate from any individual broadcaster. For this reason, responsibility for the scheme has been assigned to the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland and will pass to the broadcasting authority in due course. The amendments tabled by Deputy Broughan would have the effect of assigning responsibility for the scheme to RTE. The purpose of the scheme is to encourage the production of additional quality programmes by all broadcasting services, not just RTE. Given that RTE may apply for funds under the scheme, the preparation and administration of the scheme by RTE would represent an unacceptable conflict of interest.
As it is important that the development and administration of the scheme is separate from any individual broadcaster, these roles have been assigned to the broadcasting commission. It is likely that RTE would not like to be presented with such a conflict of interest. I cannot accept the amendments tabled by Deputy Broughan for the reasons I have outlined.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
As amendments Nos. 14, 15, 17, 18 , 21, 27 and 29 are related to amendment No. 2, which arises from Committee Stage proceedings, amendments Nos. 2, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 27 and 29 may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, line 9, after "PROJECTS" to insert ", INCLUDING CAPTIONING PROJECTS".
The fact that many amendments are being discussed together provides an opportunity to speak on a matter of concern to the Opposition spokespersons. In fairness to the Minister of State, his amendment No. 21 attempts to address our concerns. The establishment under this Bill of a fund, or a pool of money, to be spent on the promotion of Irish programming under a range of headings presents an opportunity to improve the level of subtitling, or captioning as it is technically called, on our television screens. I said at length on Second and Committee Stages that it would be a mistake to miss the opportunity provided by this Bill to allow independent broadcasters and RTE to apply for assistance in respect of projects that improve the levels of access to television for the deaf or the hard of hearing by providing subtitling. We will not solve our subtitling problems unless we make dramatic changes to the legislation.
Although it is possible for the Government to signal its intent to fund or partially fund improved captioning services, this needs to backed up by further legislation at a later date. The Broadcasting Commission of Ireland has been instructed to negotiate with broadcasters to try to improve the levels of subtitling and captioning on our television screens. It is important that we acknowledge that RTE 1 has made progress in respect of captioning. I welcome the fact that approximately 63% of programmes on RTE 1 at peak times are captioned. It is unfortunate that the figures in respect of Network 2 are not as impressive. The record of TV3 in providing captioning or subtitles has not been impressive. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, but I understand that "Coronation Street" is the only programme on TV3 that is captioned.
It is clear that we need to make progress. The BCI will be responsible for taking charge of the fund being established under this Bill and deciding how to spend it in support of certain programmes. This responsibility will probably be given to the BAI in future. I am glad that the Government's amendment No. 21, which I am sure the Minister of State will comment on in a moment, seems to attempt to provide for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing. I would like to clarify the rationale underlying some of my amendments.
Amendment No. 2 relates to the Title of the Bill. We feel that the Title, which states that the BCI will prepare "a scheme or schemes for the funding of grants to support certain radio and television programmes and projects", needs to be strengthened. The Bill would be strengthened by adding the words "including captioning projects" after the word "projects". I do not feel strongly enough about the amendment to push it to a vote, but I would like the Minister of State and his advisors to consider whether it is necessary.
Amendment No. 14 relates to section 2 of the Bill. This section is central to the legislation because it sets out what the fund will be spent on and clarifies its purpose. It is important that this section be strongly worded to signal our intent to companies such as TV3, which will not be persuaded to provide significant levels of captioning and subtitling from the goodness of its heart. It is a commercial operator which is under some financial pressure. The provision of captioning and subtitling on television programmes costs significant amounts of money. TV3 will not provide captioning until we have taken two measures. We should offer it some financial assistance to ensure it can put in place such services. We should pass laws that set targets which must be achieved by TV3. It is a debate for another day.
The Minister of State said on Committee Stage that he is not satisfied that we should spend public moneys on assisting private broadcasters to provide captioning. He suggested that they should provide such services without the assistance of public moneys. RTE would not have achieved the level of service it has achieved if it had not been in receipt of such funds. Some 63% of programming on RTE 1 at peak times is subtitled because we pay a licence fee which is used well by RTE. If we are to demand that TV3 should reach similar levels of service, as I believe we should, we have to offer it a means of applying for assistance. I do not suggest that we should fund subtitling on TV3 in full, but partial funding assistance should be provided so the captioning and subtitling service we want can be made available. The Minister wants such a service.
I recognise that the Department has come some way towards trying to meet the Opposition's concerns, and I look forward to listening to the Minister of State outline his rationale behind the changes he is introducing under amendment No. 21. I thank him for it.
In amendment No. 15, I urge the insertion, after "literacy", of "and measures including captioning or subtitling to improve access to television programmes". It is extraordinary that, at this late stage, we should have to insist that this be included in the legislation. It might have been expected under equality legislation and under the normal democratic workings of our country that national broadcasters, be they in the public or commercial sectors, would have set themselves targets long ago and fulfilled in so far as is possible technically the aim of having 100% of programmes captioned. A significant group of our fellow citizens have a hearing disability. Obviously they want to follow all the key current affairs and sports programmes. It is a serious state of affairs that we have not insisted on that.
As Deputy Coveney rightly concedes, it is an expensive business. It requires the employment of technical staff and the utilisation of equipment. Technically, it has been possible for a long time. I commend RTE 1 once again on the quantity of programmes it has captioned in recent years and for its determination to bring about a situation where the output of that station, Network 2 and TG4 is 100% captioned. The Opposition has witnessed an intense campaign by the Irish Hard of Hearing Association, the Irish Deaf Society and others over the last year or two to try to resolve the situation.
To the Minister of State's credit, he has come forward with amendment No. 21, in which he states: "The Commission, in preparing a scheme, shall have regard to the understanding and enjoyment of television programmes under the scheme by persons who are deaf or hard of hearing." My only problem is that it is not prescriptive enough. It does not lay down an absolute law that a percentage of programmes under the fund will be captioned. It is a step forward, but it does not go far enough. Any of the amendments tabled by the three Opposition Deputies here would go that little bit further. My own would clearly indicate that measures must be taken to ensure that programmes commissioned under the fund are fully accessible to people who are deaf or hard of hearing.
We had a debate last night on the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill produced by my colleague, Deputy Eamon Ryan, who is present. We heard the Government's response to it regarding the role of the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland. That obviously has a wide remit and a clear responsibility regarding the access rules under a European directive. I only got a chance to speak on it for about five minutes last night, but it was a valuable Bill on children's advertising. The BCI is obviously engaged in a long consultation programme, which I imagine will not end properly until perhaps the middle of next summer. It could follow exactly the key issues put forward by Deputy Eamon Ryan in his Bill.
However, one of the problems that I have with the organisation is that those desirable aims seem to be realised so slowly. In the case of children's advertising, on the BCI website at least, it is encouraging to see how it has tried to engage with the public on the issue, especially with children. However, I am not sure that there has been the same engagement with people who are hard of hearing or if there is the same determination to bring forward rules on access. Why could it not have been done heretofore? While welcoming the Minister's amendment No. 21, I feel that the Labour Party amendment No. 15 is stronger. I accept my colleague's amendments too. They are more prescriptive and would make for better law. Given that we have a significant obligation to citizens with disabilities, we should lay down the law on this matter and say that we want captioning from national television broadcasters – full stop.
I will not delay proceedings too much since my colleagues in the Opposition have made the relevant points. I commend the Minister of State on going some of the way. In fairness to him, he has entered into the spirit of our amendments. In hindsight, it is possibly a pity that we did not have an amendment which required every programme made with this funding to be subtitled. I do not know how he could have done that. However, that is perhaps the level of forward thinking in which we should be engaged. It may not be possible at this stage to achieve that, but at least we have signalled our intent in the Bill, and one hopes that it will encourage programme makers and the commission to move towards ensuring that every programme produced as a result of the fund is subtitled.
I praise RTE for being a commendable example of the benefits of public service obligations on companies with such remits in that it strives to achieve what is right. We must also acknowledge that, while we praise the Minister for the wording and agreeing to meet some of the concerns of the Opposition amendments, we have a great distance to go on this matter, especially regarding our regulation of commercial broadcasters. I hope that approval of the amendment is not seen as our having properly addressed this issue. We will have to revisit it and ensure that all have proper access to broadcasting produced in this country or bought in from other jurisdictions. I commend the Minister once again on the amendment he has tabled.
Before the Minister replies, I wish to make a final comment. I have been studying his amendment while the other two Opposition speakers had the floor. To be fair, the Minister's amendment deals with amendment No. 18 in my name, which concerns the issue that Deputy Eamon Ryan has just raised, namely, that all programmes funded under the scheme should be fully accessible to people who are deaf or hard of hearing. In other words, we suggest to the BCI that any programme it funds under the scheme should have captioning. That is welcome.
The problem with the Minister's amendment, as I read it – and I hope Members will correct me if I am wrong – is that it does not deal with amendment No. 14 in my name or with amendments Nos. 15 or 17. Their intent is that part of that pool of money be reserved for applications by independent broadcasters which need some assistance in providing captioning or subtitling.
There are two separate issues. The Minister has dealt with the first, which is that projects funded under this Bill be captioned, since they should be accessible to those who are deaf or hard of hearing. The Minister's amendment deals with that, and I commend him on it. The other side of the coin is, in my view, almost more important.
Some programmes will be funded under this scheme but they will not form the majority of programmes shown on television. The more important issue is whether we will allow anyone to apply for assistance to provide more subtitling or captioning on televisions screens, for example, TV3. For example, are there provisions for TV3 to approach the BCI with a proposal to subtitle certain prime time television programmes, such as news and current affairs programmes, which many people would like to access? The broadcaster may need assistance in setting up a captioning unit or upgrading equipment to provide subtitling, but the Bill does not provide funding for that aspect when it should.
I do not want to be mean-spirited because the Minister of State has come some way towards ensuring that the programmes which are supported will require captioning. However, it is more important to ensure TV3 and other independent broadcasters, such as community stations, can provide for captioning and can get some assistance for doing so from this pool of money. This is not addressed by the Minister of State's amendment.
Is it the Minister of State's intent that every programme produced will be subtitled? I hope so. If it is not will he clarify the position?
We have had an excellent debate on Committee Stage and again on this Stage on the area of subtitling and captioning. There was broad agreement that subtitling is an important issue and we agreed to consider it seriously for this Stage, which we have done.
Funds will not be made available for existing programmes on RTE and TV3 because it is outside the scope of the Bill. Nonetheless, we have sought to address Deputies' concerns in regard to programmes funded under this scheme.
Amendment No. 21 in my name provides: "The Commission, in preparing a scheme, shall have regard to the understanding and enjoyment of television programmes under the scheme by persons who are deaf or hard of hearing." This is a reasonable way to proceed as it requires the BCI to take account of the issues and concerns raised during this debate. It requires the BCI to take into account the ability of persons who are deaf or hard of hearing to enjoy programmes funded under the scheme.
In regard to existing programmes on RTE 1, Network 2 and TV3, the BCI is currently examining the area of subtitling and captioning and the issue is best left to it. The Bill deals particularly with the special programmes to be initiated under its provisions.
With regard to the point raised by Deputy Eamon Ryan, I expect the BCI to take on board the amendment which we have tabled today and, as far as possible, the programmes produced will be subtitled or captioned. There may be some programmes which are unsuitable. For instance, I understand there is a difficulty in regard to subtitling live events. However, I expect the BCI to take on board the spirit of the amendment and to seek to ensure that the programmes which are prepared will have a subtitled content.
I welcome the Minister of State's comments. I wonder if amendment No. 21 goes far enough. It states that the commission, in preparing a scheme, "shall have regard to the understanding and enjoyment of television programmes under the scheme. . . ". It could be interpreted that any programmes under the scheme should be captioned. Why can that not be stated? A number of Fine Gael amendments are more specific in regard to whether this applies to the literacy aspect or to programming. In that context, perhaps the funding could be specifically geared in order to assist broadcasters to meet the remit of captioning.
This is a valuable step forward and, as is always the case with the Minister of State, he has listened to comments from the Opposition and has attempted to meet them. However, the amendment does not go far enough. This is a golden opportunity. Therefore, will the Minister of State make it stronger in order that we could say we had clarified this aspect of the fund for the benefit of people with hearing disabilities?
I welcome the Minister of State's intentions in amendment No. 21 and, on that basis, I will withdraw amendment No. 18 because he has addressed what I try to state in it, namely, that all programmes under this scheme need to be captioned or subtitled. In other words, they need to be accessible to people who are deaf of hard of hearing. The Minister of State has attempted to do that in a fair manner.
I will not withdraw amendment No. 14 because it deals with a different issue, which the Minister of State indicates is outside the remit of the Bill. However, we should ensure it is within the remit and I see no reason it cannot. If we are providing for archiving, which is within the remit of the Bill, I see no reason we should not provide for subtitling or captioning. If the Bill was dealing purely with providing programmes to outline Irish history, culture and the other issues provided for under section 2, it would be difficult to introduce a new section on captioning or subtitling. However, when there are new sections dealing with improving adult literacy and the development of archiving of programme material produced in the State, the Bill is clearly dealing with issues outside of programme content. Within that remit there should be assistance to those involved in improving captioning and subtitling services on television. For that reason, I will press amendment No. 14 and will withdraw amendment No. 2 since my point is made on amendment No. 14.
As stated earlier, we are of the opinion that it is outside the scope of the Bill. The BCI is already considering the issue of subtitling. When it makes its report or issues recommendations, it may require broadcasters to pay from their own resources. The BCI was given that power by the House. We expect that it will report reasonably soon. It would be wrong to use some of the limited money in the fund to do what Deputy Coveney suggests. I appreciate the impetus behind the Deputy's amendment and I am aware that we need to deal with the issue of subtitling as it relates to the national and other broadcasters. However, the Bill is the wrong mechanism to use in that regard. While I accept what Deputy Coveney has said, I cannot make provision in the Bill for the matter with which the amendments deal because it falls outside the scope of the legislation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
" ‘Authority' means Radio Telefís Éireann;".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 3, line 18, after "Ireland" to insert "and its successors".
A similar amendment, the wording of which was somewhat clumsy, was debated on Committee Stage. The section deals with definitions and interpretations and states that "commission" means the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland. The amendment on Committee State suggested that the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, should it be established, should also be included here. The Minister of State indicated that we could not include the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland in a Bill when it does not yet exist. If plans change in the next six to eight months and the authority is not established, it would be stupid to have it included in legislation.
Acceptance of amendment No. 4 would mean that the definition would state that "commission""means the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland and its successors". This is a technical point I thought I would put forward for the Minister of State's consideration. If the amendment is not necessary, I will be happy to withdraw it.
Any successors of the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland will be provided for in legislation separate to that with which we are dealing today. Such legislation will make provision for the transfer of functions, including the broadcasting scheme, from the BCI. There is no need to make provision for the BCI's successors in the Bill and, therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 4, line 12, to delete "Commission" and substitute "Authority".
Amendment put and declared lost.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Amendments Nos. 6 and 23 are related, amendment No. 24 is an alternative to amendment No. 23 and amendment No. 25 is an alternative to amendment No. 24. We will, therefore, take amendments Nos. 6 and 23 to 25, inclusive, together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 4, lines 12 and 13, to delete "and submit to the Minister for his or her approval".
Amendment No. 6 seeks to delete the phrase "and submit to the Minister for his or her approval". I expressed concern on Second and Committee Stages about the level of ministerial control that might exist in respect of the schemes that would operate under the fund. The Minister of State will say that this does not give the Minister direct control over programming, but it will give him a great deal of influence over the type of issues which may, under the legislation, be considered by the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland or the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland.
The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, who has not spoken on any Stage of the Bill in the Dáil, indicated in the Upper House that broadcasting should be left to the broadcasters. That is his mantra. He stated on several occasions in the Seanad that broadcasting is the remit of broadcasters and the Oireachtas provides the conditions in which they, through the RTE Authority or the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland, operate. Having created a level playing pitch and set down standards in respect of public sector broadcasting, the operation of advertising, etc., we then let broadcasters make whatever programmes they want.
The difficulty with the Bill is that it appears to require strict invigilation on the part of the Minister in respect of the scheme as it will emerge. It must be said that the Bill contains desirable ideals in respect of new programmes on history, historical buildings, the natural environment, folk, rural and vernacular heritage, traditional and contemporary arts and our native language. I tried to add programmes on science to that list on Committee Stage. The Bill also deals with the development of archiving of the audio-visual record of our nation. These are laudable objectives but I am concerned about the extent to which the Minister might be able to interfere with the operation of the scheme.
As already stated, amendment No. 6 seeks to remove the requirement that the scheme be submitted to the Minister. In other words, the scheme should be operated, under this legislation, by the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland and its successor.
Amendment No. 23 seeks to delete lines 38 to 40 regarding the amendment of the scheme. Section 2(5) states that a scheme submitted to the Minister may be amended or revoked by the commission. Section 2(6) gives the Minister power to direct the commission or to make changes to the amendments to schemes. The Minister and his successors are, therefore, given an extensive remit under these provisions. The mantra the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, repeated in the Upper House in respect of leaving broadcasting to broadcasters should guide our way forward.
I am concerned about this matter and I support Deputy Eamon Ryan who has tabled an amendment which provides a safeguard by suggesting that any amendment to the scheme should be presented to the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. We, as representatives of the viewing and listening public, would then at least be in a position to comment at that stage.
I am nervous about this process. We have only a small fund and the Minister of State said it may cost approximately €400,000, out of €7 million or €8 million, to administer this process. Perhaps, as a result of index-linked licence fees, the fund may become reasonably substantial. One of the criticisms in this regard, when put in the context of domestic programming made by RTE, is that the fund would cover only one reasonably good television series. We are speaking about a relatively small amount which could become important as time goes on.
We should not provide for the Minister to be in a position to manipulate the general remit of experienced broadcasters or those who have an interest in communications. We are opposed to the principle of removing part of the licence fee in this fashion. At least if it proceeds, the new commissioning agent will be independent in terms of how it operates the fund as required by this legislation. I will press amendment No. 6.
Are we speaking to all four amendments?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
We are speaking to amendments Nos. 6, 23, 24 and 25.
I support amendment No. 6. Deputy Broughan makes a valid point on the necessity for maintaining a gap between us, as politicians, and broadcasters who should be independent in their decisions on editorial policy. Our first principle is to ensure broadcasting is removed from political interference or control so it can mirror society. I am not sure which official from RTE said that. I am not too sure what reflection of society we would get if the mirror were in the Minister's hands. I support Deputy Broughan's general point on the need to put a safe distance between us, as politicians, and any broadcasting decision.
Deputy Broughan's point relates to the overall scheme. My amendment No. 25 is tabled because I fear we are, if we pass the legislation as drafted, not only giving the Minister control in terms of approval of the overall scheme but also in subsection (6) saying that he may direct the commission to support a specific television or radio programme. The Minister is being given the power to say "Yes" or "No" to an application by a specific programme for funding.
To my mind, the Minister is not acting as a policymaker or legislator in this regard but as a programme producer. The first thing I would do, if I were a producer seeking to have my programme made, is put my case to the Minister. People believe it is who one knows in this country that matters and that, if one provides a little encouragement, one's programme will be funded by the scheme. I raised on Committee Stage the question of why the Minister believed he should have the power to direct the commission to include a specific programme in the scheme. However, I did not get clarification on that point.
I have maintained amendment No. 25 as drafted on Committee Stage. Providing that any decision by the Minister to grant funding to a specific programme will have to be put before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources means any such direction will be made public. If my amendment is not accepted, that provision will cast suspicion over any future scheme or programme which it might be suggested the Minister insisted be included in the scheme. It would be impossible to find out the truth. Acceptance of my amendment would ensure transparency and protect the Minister from such accusations.
Perhaps the Minister of State can inform us when replying of the reasons the Minister might have to direct a specific programme to be included. Acceptance of my amendment will protect the Minister from accusations of corruption, favouritism and cronyism that would no doubt ensue. I am anxious to hear what the Minister of State has to say in this regard before I comment on it further.
When debating the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill earlier this week, the Minister said he wanted nothing to do with decisions about the type of regulations applied to advertising. He said it was for the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland to decide such matters and we should not interfere in the process. He also said that, if we as legislators were to suggest amending the legislation, we would be planning on the hoof and pre-empting the process. I disagree with him in that regard. I understand his argument but find it difficult to accept the same Minister stating he should have the power under this Bill to say "Yes" or "No" about funding for individual programmes.
I hope the Minister has taken on board my concerns as expressed on Committee Stage and that he is in a position to accept my amendment. I believe the wording used provides the right approach. I had considered deleting the section but decided against that because the Minister may well have reason to amend, revoke or direct the commission regarding a specific programme. I cannot think right now of a reason he would need to do so, but one may arise in future. Should that be the case, we must ensure the process is open and transparent. The best way to ensure that is to provide that such decisions be brought before the appropriate committee for approval. No doubt the Government would have a majority and, as a result, this provision would not necessarily limit or hinder the Minister. However, it would ensure his decisions were made public. I hope the Minister of State will accept my argument and my amendment.
Deputy Broughan raised a valid point about whether the Bill allows the Minister to have too broad a contact with broadcasters. The specific example I have given and the purpose of amendment No. 25 are of major importance for the future of broadcasting in this country. To allow us to go in the direction of the Minister becoming, in effect, a producer and where there is no separation between him and the broadcaster would have serious consequences for the future of broadcasting.
I support Deputies Broughan and Eamon Ryan on this issue. I am not as concerned about amendment No. 6 as I am about amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25. I understand that the Minister, as policymaker, would require the BCI to seek clearance on the details of a scheme on broadcasting policy prepared by it for him or her.
I understand from where the Minister is coming on this. He is responsible for policy. The schemes, when completed, will relate to broadcasting policy and management of the fund. I understand that the Minister would wish to see the details of the scheme, improve it and ensure it was in line with what was intended when this legislation was first introduced. Having said that, I would like those schemes to be submitted to the committee for scrutiny by Opposition spokespersons. It would be sensible to do this. The Minister of State has a fair indication of the interest we have in this area.
Amendments Nos. 23 to 25, inclusive, are the most important from my perspective. I cannot understand why amendment No. 22 has not been grouped with them. The concerns strongly outlined by Deputy Eamon Ryan, and strongly supported by Deputy Broughan and I, both today and on Committee Stage, seem to be dealt with in amendment No. 22. Perhaps the amendment was introduced too late for it to be grouped for the purpose of debate. Amendment No. 22 seems to deal with the concerns expressed regarding section 2(6)(a), whereby the Minister was granting himself the ability to veto or insist on individual radio or television programmes being included on a funding scheme. That would have been outrageous. It would also have been entirely inconsistent with the trend in legislation coming from the Department as it seeks to remove the Minister from the micro-management of schemes or funding. An example of this approach is the issue of fish licences, where the Minister is trying to move away from interference, not on policy, but on its implementation.
Section 2(6)(a) provides that the Minister may direct the commission, “to support in a scheme a television or radio programme. . . ”. Had that been the case, people would lobby the Minister for inclusion in schemes for funding. This would have been a retrograde step and a mistake. The Minister of State has addressed this and proposes to delete subsection 6(a), lines 34 to 37, and introduce a much softer wording on approving a scheme as opposed to approving the detail of a scheme. While this is to be welcomed, I still consider that amendments Nos. 23 to 25, inclusive, have a point and I am anxious to hear the response from the Minister of State.
I had not seen amendment No. 22 and only received it a short time ago. Deputy Coveney is correct, it should have been grouped with the amendments now before us. Perhaps the Minister of State can outline in detail what is his intent. It is difficult for us to discover this when we receive ministerial amendments on an important issue only at the last minute. On my first reading of the amendment, I am unsure whether it clears up my concerns, particularly those I hold on section 2(6)(a). I do not understand the exact intent of this.
In its wisdom, the Bills Office decides on the grouping of amendments. Amendment No. 22 seeks to allay the fears and concerns raised on Committee Stage. As Deputy Coveney has said, since we came into the Department, both the Minister and I have tried to ensure that the Minister would have no role other than policy direction. The Minister would not want to be involved with programme makers or broadcasters of the type of programmes that will be initiated under the Bill.
I now turn to the amendments before us. The approval by the Minister of a scheme and laying it before the Oireachtas is important as there must be accountability. The detail of the scheme is still a matter for the BCI and relates to administrative arrangements, grant rates, assessment criteria, payment arrangements, etc. Therefore, I do not consider it to be a matter for approval by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. However, the committee can, at any time, call the BCI to account for the programmes it makes. It can also call the Minister before it. There is no reason the committee would not consider this legislation and how it evolves.
The parameters of the scheme include objectives, annual funding and reporting and reviews. These are already set out in legislation. Section 2(9) already provides that a scheme must be laid before each House as soon as may be after it is made and that either House may annul the scheme by resolution within 21 days. The House will also see that a review can be taken under section 5 and annual reports and accounts will be made under section 6. There will be many opportunities to discuss this matter if the House so wishes. Therefore, I do not propose to accept these amendments. However, I hope to be able to deal with some of the concerns raised by the Deputies on amendment No. 22.
The only involvement by the Minister under this legislation will be the approval of a scheme. Laying details of the scheme before the Houses is also important. Someone must be accountable for the scheme and the Minister will eventually be accountable for any schemes put in place. However, the detail of the scheme is a matter for the BCI.
I agree that amendment No. 22 should have been grouped with these amendments. People take for granted that the House should closely invigilate public sector broadcasting, given that Members represent the licence payers. However, I have grave concerns about the close regime of accountability that has been imposed on RTE in the past year. There is a requirement for monthly reporting, while PricewaterhouseCoopers has a large remit to consider the general direction of the charter and programme commitments, etc., of the national station.
There are many forces in the commercial media that are bitterly opposed to public sector broadcasting. Many of them are beholden to major advertisers – I think of the print media and property advertisers. Questions have been raised in recent years asking how dependent the print media has become on developers, auctioneers and others from this industry. The print media seems dependent on this area and one hopes it does not affect its analysis of these problems.
In view of this, I am concerned about the recently introduced close invigilation of the public service broadcaster.
There have been occasions of direct and gross interference by Ministers in the performance of public service broadcasting. Perhaps the overall problem is the way in which the Bill was framed. It does not acknowledge sufficiently the difficulties in this area, which need to be treated with great sensitivity. As my colleagues have said, section 2(6) states that the Minister can direct the commission "to support in a scheme a television or radio programme in relation to any particular matter mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (1)”. Although this will be changed, the Minister of State's new amendment No. 22 states: “(a) to prepare and submit to him or her a scheme relating to any matter in subsection (1)”. Programmes relating to the Irish language, for example, are listed under this subsection.
I know there must be accountability but I would have preferred if our existing public service broadcaster could have administered a new commissioning role regarding these objectives for other broadcasting sectors. I am still concerned about the extensive power afforded to the Minister. I do not share the Minister of State's concerns about section 2(9) which stipulates that the schemes be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. This presents a wide area of transparency and accountability. These Houses would obviously be able to have a role in this regard. My concern relates to the unseen actions of a bureaucracy and a Minister. I know the Minister's Department has a small budget but it is a vast Department in terms of its enabling powers regarding a huge tranche of our national life, from broadband to the fishing industry to the vital area of broadcasting.
I would have preferred a different mechanism rather than that by which the Minister can inform the broadcasting commission that he is not happy with the direction it is taking and that he requires certain programmes to be broadcast. I am not saying the Minister will suggest we should have the "Dermot Ahern Show", but he may—
It would not surprise me.
Oriel Park.
—be able to indicate areas which could, in future, be associated with a substantial fund. I am not happy about this and would welcome a role for the committee in this regard.
I would like a different approach to the fund and the national public service broadcaster to prevent politicians interfering in the broadcasting function. The Minister said we should leave broadcasting to the broadcasters, and this is also the belief of the Labour Party.
On a point of order, is it in order to request that amendment No. 22 be grouped with amendments Nos. 6, 23, 24 and 25? It is nonsense to consider it separately because it deals with the very issues the others are raising. It is unreasonable to ask the Deputies to push or withdraw these amendments without hearing the Minister of State's detailed remarks on amendment No. 22.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
They can be grouped together by agreement. There has been a certain amount of discussion on amendment No. 22.
We probably need to get a—
I have no problem.
Is it okay to group them?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank the Minister of State for yielding to that request. Having read amendment No. 22, I did not satisfy him with my response on its intent. My reading of the amendment is that it still allows for ministerial interference in the making of certain programmes. The phrase, "to amend or revoke a scheme", means the Minister can do just about anything regarding a scheme. The line, "to prepare and submit to him or her a scheme relating to any matter in subsection (1)”, gives the Minister carte blanche to do whatever he wants. Subsection (1) relates to the type of programming included.
It is interesting to note that the Minister of State has not amended section 2(7), which follows the two paragraphs he is proposing to delete by way of amendment No. 22. Section 2(7) states: "Any amendment or revocation of a scheme under subsection (5) or (6) shall be submitted by the Commission to the Minister for his or her approval”. In other words, the Minister will still be able to amend or revoke a scheme.
My main point is that legislation that allows a Minister to amend or revoke a scheme in private is not desirable. I wonder if we have learned anything from the tribunals which, month after month and at a cost of millions of euro, have examined the relationship broadcasters had with the then Minister regarding licensing and other arrangements in the broadcasting sector.
I have no problem accepting the Minster of State's amendment if he accepts the one small but vital principle that, if the Minister of the day wishes to amend or revoke a scheme, his or her decision should be open to public scrutiny. The Minister could be a Minister of any party. I am not trying to score political points. I accept that corruption does not belong in any one party. Any corrupt principle or cronyism would be countered immediately if the Minister had to explain his or her decisions regarding the amendment of a specific funding scheme. It is a question of the allocation of money.
I hope the Minister of State accepts the sense of my amendment which still applies even if amendment No. 22 is accepted. My amendment states that, where a Minister interferes directly in a funding scheme and makes changes thereto, his or her decision should be approved by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. This would immediately end any argument about cronyism, corruption or a decision having been made behind closed doors. It would avoid future tribunals of inquiry into what the Minister did or did not do to amend a scheme or to direct funding towards a specific programme.
The laying of a scheme before the Oireachtas, as set out in section 2(9), is insufficient because the real cause for concern is interference by the Minister. Committee approval is a simple, cheap, democratic and fail-safe measure that would protect the Minister from accusations of corruption and cronyism to which the Bill, as amended by the Minister of State by way of amendment No. 22, will leave the Minister open.
I await the Minister of State's interpretation of paragraph (a) in amendment No. 22. However, as I stated, I have no problem accepting his amendment if he accepts the need for transparent analysis of interference by a Minister in the schemes. To ensure he accepts this need, it is necessary to accept both amendments Nos. 24 and 25.
My amendment proposes the deletion of lines 34 to 37 from section 2(6)(a), page 5, and to substitute the following:
"(a) to prepare and submit to him or her a scheme relating to any matter in subsection (1), or
(b) to amend or revoke a scheme.
The Commission shall comply with a direction under this section.
This amendment takes account of concerns expressed by Deputies on Committee Stage that the existing wording could be understood as allowing the Minister to direct the commission to fund a particular programme or to have a say in the programme under the scheme. That was never the intention. It was intended to enable the commission to bring forward a scheme under any of the categories in section 2(1). This provision is necessary to deal with the possibility that the commission would not prepare a scheme and I am happy to table these amendments to clarify the matter.
We have four schemes on culture, heritage and experience, adult literacy, the Irish language and archiving. The only role the Minister will have will be to instruct the BCI to draw up a scheme. He or she will have no involvement or role in the detail or content of the programme. For example, if the BCI decided it was going to ignore the Irish language, that would be a scheme passed through legislation and adopted by the House. Then, in the case of a public outcry, the Minister would surely have the right to say to the BCI that the scheme had been passed by the Oireachtas and that it should be included because the public required it.
I listened carefully to Deputies on Committee Stage and I took their concerns on board regarding the possibility of the Minister becoming involved in making programmes. The amendment clarifies that the Minister's only role relates to schemes being prepared or submitted to him and that he may amend or revoke a scheme. He has no role, good, bad or indifferent, in drawing up the schemes, nor would he want such a role. He made it clear, particularly in the Seanad debate, that drawing up the content of programmes would be a matter for the BCI with no involvement from the Minister whatsoever.
This goes to the nub of the problem with the drafting of the Bill and the way the proposal was brought forward. The Minister of State stated the situation clearly and if something to that effect was in the Bill, which it could be, then our fears would be allayed. As it stands I still have concerns, given the past. We recall Fianna Fáil's former leader, Seán Lemass, who regarded RTE as an arm of Government to be phoned up at different times, if necessary. Other Fianna Fáil leaders, some less distinguished than others, also had a reputation for being quick to phone the national broadcaster about programmes and we also had the appalling interference with the basic commercial policy of RTE in the late 1980s when former Deputy Ray Burke was in charge of communications.
We have concerns and while I understand that with funding there is a responsibility to the House for the way in which public money is spent, the drafting of the Bill is sloppy. Maybe the whole scheme is sloppy and the concerns expressed by Deputy Michael D. Higgins and me on Second Stage, and by Senator O'Meara in the Seanad, regarding the operation and development of this idea, are a result of that idea not being well thought out. Maybe it would have been better if the Minister had come forward with another national broadcaster, funded in competition with the existing broadcaster from public money, and given it a clear remit in commissioning and broadcasting. Clearly the broadcasting authority will have considerable powers regarding this fund and in the commissioning area.
I am still unhappy with the carte blanche given to the Minister regarding elements of the scheme provided for in section 2.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
Tá
|
Ahern, Michael.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Blaney, Niall.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Browne, John.Callanan, Joe.Callely, Ivor.Carty, John.Cassidy, Donie.Collins, Michael.Coughlan, Mary.Cregan, John.Dennehy, John.Devins, Jimmy.Fleming, Seán.Fox, Mildred.Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel.Haughey, Seán.Hoctor, Máire.Jacob, Joe.Kelleher, Billy.Kelly, Peter.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Seamus.Lenihan, Conor. |
McDaid, James.McDowell, Michael.McEllistrim, Thomas.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Mulcahy, Michael.Nolan, M.J.Ó Cuív, Éamon.Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donovan, Denis.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Malley, Fiona.O'Malley, Tim.Parlon, Tom.Power, Peter.Power, Seán.Sexton, Mae.Smith, Brendan.Treacy, Noel.Wallace, Dan.Wilkinson, Ollie. Wright, G.V. |
Níl
|
Allen, Bernard.Boyle, Dan.Broughan, Thomas P.Bruton, Richard.Burton, Joan.Connaughton, Paul.Connolly, Paudge.Costello, Joe.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard J.Enright, Olwyn.Ferris, Martin.Gilmore, Eamon.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Harkin, Marian.Hayes, Tom.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Michael D. |
Howlin, Brendan.McCormack, Padraic.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Finian.McGrath, Paul.McHugh, Paddy.Mitchell, Olivia.Morgan, Arthur.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Sullivan, Jan.Pattison, Seamus.Penrose, Willie.Rabbitte, Pat.Ryan, Eamon.Ryan, Seán.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Twomey, Liam.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies M. Ahern and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Stagg and Durkan.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 7 arises from Committee Stage. Amendments Nos. 11 to 13, inclusive, and amendment No. 28 are related and will be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, lines 15 and 16, to delete "Irish culture, heritage and experience" and substitute "the diversity of culture, heritage and experience on the island of Ireland".
We had an interesting discussion on Committee Stage regarding the areas under which funding for programming could be granted. There are many desirable objectives. We should insert in lines 15 and 16 the words "the diversity of culture, heritage and experience on the island of Ireland" instead of the words "Irish culture, heritage and experience". In our island as a whole it is important to reflect the two main traditions of our nation and in view of developments over the past eight to ten years in particular, it is important that there is access for programmes which show the whole range of our cultural inheritance.
The Minister responded on Committee Stage that he believes the words in lines 15 and 16 of section 2(1)(a) include this. We tried to broaden the subsection. Submissions were made to us when the Bill was first published on the importance of ensuring that the programming to become available under this funding would also include all aspects of the experience of people newly arrived in our country, whether they come to work or study or are fleeing from oppression. Their experience and history, which now becomes part of our national experience, should also be included. The Minister stated it is included under the term “heritage and experience” but we feel the addition of the phrase “the diversity of culture, heritage and experience on the island of Ireland”, would be more comprehensive.
Amendment No. 13 relates to discussions we had when the Bill was published and, in particular, to a submission made to me and other parties by Dóchas regarding the experience of Ireland in the international context. There is a reference in section 2(1)(a)(vii) to “the Irish experience in European and international contexts”. Many of the issues which arise are based on our economic experience. The significant expansion of overseas development aid, begun by the Labour Party during the days of a partnership Government, is one of Ireland's great achievements over the past decade. We are unhappy that we have not reached the point of 0.7% aid. It is regrettable that we are no longer on target and that the 0.7% target is being pushed out because of the performance of the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, over the past seven years. Nonetheless it is a large fund.
It is being pushed to Limerick now.
Exactly. This large fund means our interaction in the development area with countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America is important. Dóchas wants us to look at the development of globalisation in economic terms. We should consider issues such as fairness regarding the production of goods in countries in the southern hemisphere, the treatment and exploitation of workers producing products for our markets, and fair trade. I have supported many initiatives in the past to ensure that globalisation happens in a fair and egalitarian manner. Amendment No. 13 seeks to allow for the inclusion of programmes along those lines and to develop further the word "contexts" used in the Bill.
In case anybody would think I was casting aspersions on Limerick, I would like to clarify the comment I made. I was not referring to Development Co-operation Ireland funds going to Limerick but to the decentralisation of that area of the Department of Foreign Affairs to Limerick.
The Deputy must be thinking of going to Europe. He is looking for a vote.
He is courting the vote all right.
The Minister should know not to believe everything he reads. This is an important section of the Bill. Earlier in this debate, I thought we might have missed a ministerial amendment. However, I checked and we have not, which is worrying. The Minister, hopefully, will accept one of our amendments, as opposed to introducing one.
There is genuine concern among Opposition spokespersons and groups outside the House regarding the Bill's definition of Irish culture. The purpose of this Bill is slightly narrow in its wording, because of the reference to Irish history, historical buildings, the natural environment, Irish folk and rural heritage, and traditional and contemporary arts – I know that is an issue for Deputy Eamon Ryan – and the Irish language. The only reference to the new multicultural Ireland is the Irish experience in a European and international context. There is a concern that it did not go far enough. In essence, the result will be that the schemes will be very much directed towards Irish language and culture, in the traditional sense. Many exciting projects which may apply to Ireland in an international context, or the effect of an international environment on Ireland and its people, may not be catered for.
I gave some examples of programmes on Committee Stage, such as "Race to the Bottom", an excellent programme on the influence of sweatshops in Bangladesh on the clothing industry in Derry. That was a very good example of the type of programme that could and should be funded under this scheme in the international context. Other relevant issues include the impact of people like Tom Hyland in East Timor and the subsequent impact of that on the Irish consciousness in terms of what was happening there. Many Irish people would not have been aware of East Timor's existence, never mind the detail of events there, were it not for that type of programming.
In the cultural musical context, one can refer to the development of projects such as Riverdance or an Afro-Celtic form of musical development which has occurred in Ireland. The development co-operation aid aspect is also relevant. In that context, for a relatively small country, Ireland is playing a truly remarkable role in many African countries and in other areas such as Afghanistan, where Concern and GOAL are both active. There are great possibilities for enlightening people as to the impact of Irish people and organisations abroad and, indeed, the impact of foreign cultures on this country.
I know the Minister of State is attempting to address that through section 2(a)(vii), but it needs further strengthening. That is the reason I introduced amendment No. 11, which proposes to add a new subsection referring to a new multicultural experience in Ireland. I hope the Minister of State will accept that in the spirit in which it is intended, which is, genuinely, to improve the legislation rather than trying to change it in any way. I believe the existing wording is not sufficient.
I am reminded of a recent television film in which two characters – one was John Travolta – swapped faces.
It was called "Face/Off".
I thank Deputy Coveney for that reminder. The idea worked so well in the film that I plan to trap the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, bring him to Carraroe in Connemara, place Bob Quinn on the other side of the operating table and carry out a face swap. I would then bring the new Minister Bob Quinn back to the Dáil to deal with the broadcasting legislation.
The characters in the film were allowed to keep their own brains.
One would hope so. My idea is not solely based on Bob Quinn's leadership and ethical concern, of which the Minister could do with an injection, but also because Bob Quinn impressed me as a remarkable broadcaster. I particularly recall one of his programmes – perhaps it was part of a series – entitled "The Atlantean", which examined the connection between our Irish – supposedly Celtic – culture and a culture from north Africa, involving the Barbary tribes in Tunisia and areas around Morocco and Algeria. That outstanding television programme broadened my mind, as a young person, to the realisation of the irrelevance of national borders and how people travelled over time.
If we could arrange the operation I suggested, whereby the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources had the face of Deputy Dermot Ahern and the mind of Bob Quinn, we might have a very different Bill before us. I believe the Minister, in his Bob Quinn format, would accept practically all of the amendments which have been put forward. It is that enlightened view of the world and Irish culture which is recognising our multiethnicity, our connection with other parts of the world and the remarkable phenomenon of cultural diversity which is now occurring in Ireland as new communities come in. That aspect should be celebrated in this programme which we are about to fund. Unfortunately, however, the required operation is only available in a film context, not in real life. Accordingly, we are left with our current Minister and without any amendments to the Bill, which I greatly regret.
While I will not go into the full logic behind each of the amendments I proposed on Committee Stage, it is regrettable that this opportunity is not being taken to broaden the definition of Irish culture and to recognise the fact that we have many different immigrant communities which are now part of our Irish experience. This was our chance to recognise that and ensure we have programming which reflects it.
A notable event in Irish life was referred to in a newspaper report today – the fact that our population has exceeded 4 million for the first time since 1871, if I recall the heading correctly. Part of that is attributable to immigration. In Bob Quinn's film, "The Atlantean", people came over great distances with the help of the trade winds. Some aspects of the present-day inflow can be very disconcerting, in terms of people coming into this country in cargo containers and landing in very difficult circumstances. Others may come because they are involved in the software industry, bringing some of the best brains in the world to help expand our economy. People come here for a variety of reasons. That is something we should celebrate by recording it in programmes and archives, as this Bill is doing. However, I regret we have not gone as far as we might have in terms of recording that new phenomenon in Irish cultural life.
I shall inform my senior Minister of Deputy Eamon Ryan's intention to make him Bob Quinn for a day. Following the debate on Committee Stage, we have reviewed the Bill and we believe its provisions are quite adequate to deal with the concerns of the Deputies opposite. The focus of the scheme is specifically on programmes relating Irish cultural heritage and experience which, in our view, is not necessarily as limited as Deputies have suggested. I cannot pre-judge the content of the scheme itself or the likely success of any programme ideas which may be put forward. However, it should be possible to develop a variety of good quality programmes which can fit within the objectives set out in the Bill. This could include programmes with a multicultural or international dimension, or which focus on the diversity of cultural heritage and experience on the island of Ireland.
I remind the House – Deputy Coveney already referred to this – that one of the categories of programme specifically mentioned in the Bill is that of the Irish experience in European and international contexts. In addition, section 3(1)(d) of the Bill specifically provides that the objectives of the scheme should include a programme which would represent the diversity of Irish culture and heritage. While I am satisfied the Bill provides that the scheme is to be focused on a programme of Irish cultural heritage and experience, I do not accept that it is, in some way, inward-looking or ignoring the modern Ireland. I believe this Bill will allow the diversity of culture in the context of our European and international experience. I would expect that programme makers will be in a position to take that into account when preparing programmes.
I acknowledge that the Minister of State has included a reference to the Irish experience in a European and international context, in accordance with one of my amendments, and Irish cultural heritage and experience, in accordance with another amendment. The original point we made on this side of the House was that there should be a broader reference to the diversity of Irish culture, as it has emerged in recent years. In that context, the Minister of State should have gone a little further with the wording.
It is helpful that the Minister of State has outlined his intention that the Bill would not be inward looking and that the schemes adopted by the BCI would take into account the international context in which Ireland is seen and under which it is influenced. In the future, if we have schemes coming back to the committee for scrutiny, we can make reference to that statement. I do not mean to be smart in saying that.
Dóchas asked that if amendments seeking to broaden the definition were not accepted would the Minister of State explain what is meant by the Irish experience in European and international contexts and in this regard his statement has been helpful. While the wording of this section could have been clearer and broader, I am happy the Minister of State has made clear its intention.
I am not sure that the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, is in the operating theatre in Carraoe, County Galway, but is in Geneva, involved in establishing institutions in Ireland for the spreading of information and communicating with the rest of the world. It is coincidental that the same spirit of that work needs to be replicated in the BCI decision-making process for the fund. Ireland is small island nation with a large international network of connections. When the BCI decides on funding, I hope it is made on a broad basis rather than a narrow Irish one.
The Bill adequately covers the intentions of the Deputies on the other side of the House. Modern Ireland includes asylum seekers and migrant workers who bring their cultures here and set up their own associations. It is an important recognition of modern Irish society. In Enniscorthy, County Wexford, there is a shop called "Afroscorthy", selling African produce, which is a sign of how integrated immigrants have become. The big difficulty is that they are not allowed to work, but that is another issue.
Given its track record, Wexford needs a few good hurlers.
We might have some Nigerian children hurling for us shortly.
The main concern with the wording is that there is no reference to the term "modern". The terms used are "historical", "traditional" and "contemporary".
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 8 to 10, inclusive, are related and will be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 4, line 21, after " environment" to insert "and science".
This amendment has arisen following submissions made to me over the last months by bodies, such as the Irish Research Scientists' Association, about the necessity for more scientific programming by the State broadcaster and to be included in the new fund. Compared to other national broadcasters, there seems to be a dearth of programmes addressing Ireland's attempts at becoming a high-tech and scientific society. In the past, areas in science were seen as too mundane to permit exciting broadcasting and programming, though the State broadcaster and the BBC have produced some good programmes on innovation and scientific development. With the rollout of broadband and the development of communications, the remit of this Department now includes an educational role in reaching the levels of development that we aspire to, such as those reached by South Korea and Japan. It is a fair request to include all aspects of science in the remit of the Bill.
Amendment No. 9 proposes to insert in section 2(1)(a)(iv), after the word “heritage”, the words “social economy and the voluntary sector”. The drafters of the legislation considered that the programming of our local heritage was an important area that would be funded. However, district and local development over the last several years has included the social economy and voluntary area, an aspect that is not celebrated enough. People on the ground have created a system of self-help through district Government and economic development. I am proud to have been involved in such efforts in north Dublin city. In section 2, there is an emphasis on looking backwards. However, recent achievements in the local and economic self-help area should also be in the remit for programming. I ask the Minister of State to consider this.
The concerns on the Opposition side are that the Bill is backward rather than forward looking and these amendments are an attempt to rectify this. Amendment No. 10 aims to be in line with Government policy, as set out by the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue, in the recent Arts Act 2003. This sees no distinction between contemporary arts and traditional arts. Irish traditional music and other traditional arts are just as contemporary as any other form of music, such as rock. Once a differentiation is introduced between the two, one is killing the flow and innovation that is in traditional music and other arts. The amendment intends to bring a bit of modern Ireland back into the Bill, which, as Deputy Coveney says, is badly needed.
The scope of the Bill, as set out in this section and in section 3, defines what the legislation is about. The categories of programmes are, and will remain, specifically focused on the subject of Irish culture, heritage and experience, and adult literacy. This is not an attempt to deny that there are many other interesting subjects for programming, but it is a more practical approach. Funding is limited and best focused on a specific category of programmes. Funding should not overlap with existing provisions, which already require broadcasters to prove a certain amount of news and current affairs programming. To extend the eligible categories would spread the scheme too thinly and dilute its effectiveness. As I have said, it should be possible to develop a variety of good quality programmes, which can fit within the objectives in the Bill, including programmes with a scientific or social theme.
On Committee Stage, I said that some of the increase in the licence fee RTE received was to be allocated for an education and science correspondent, who has been appointed and is doing very good work. Having considered the proposal to remove the reference to traditional arts, I would still prefer to leave it in. While I agree that in one sense all living arts are contemporary in that they are practised and developing today, contemporary arts, as a category, is usually taken to be quite different from traditional arts. I particularly want to keep a focus on the traditional arts as an important example of Irish culture and heritage. While the Arts Act 2003 defines neither traditional nor contemporary art, it did find it necessary to define art as "any creative or interpretative expression whether traditional or contemporary".
I feel the Bill adequately covers the areas mentioned by the Deputies and therefore I do not propose to accept the amendments.
I hope technological and scientific development will be covered by the present wording in these sections. There is some concern that the Bill appears somewhat backward looking. To address the need for a contemporary view, my colleague, Deputy Eamon Ryan, wanted to remove the word "traditional". The Bill needs a greater emphasis on contemporary arts, science, and the social economy and the voluntary sector. I hope these are adequately treated in whatever schemes emerge as a result of this Bill. On that basis I will withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 9 to 13, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 4, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
"(b) the development of improved levels of captioning or subtitling of televised programmes,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 4, line 28, after "literacy" to insert "and measures including captioning or subtitling to improve access to television programmes".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 16 and 19 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 4, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
"(c) the start-up costs of community broadcasters,”.
On Committee Stage we had a lengthy discussion of the role of community broadcasting. In preparing to debate this Bill, as with other broadcasting legislation, we were contacted by the Community Media Network and various community radio stations. The Minister will agree that we have neglected community broadcasting in this country. While we have allocated licences we have not given sufficient support to broadcasters who carry out a not-for-profit community remit.
In my area the leading community radio station is NEAR FM, North-East Access Radio, which covers the constituencies of Dublin North-Central and Dublin North-East. Over the years that station has struggled with start-up costs, renting premises at a local community campus and subsequently has had difficulties in maintaining staff. There is a constant need to rely on community employment and jobs initiative schemes. This community radio station and others around the country have provided very valuable coverage of local events. They have been involved in a considerable amount of archiving of interviews with local citizens, including people from the north-side suburbs who lived there from a time when they were rural communities.
Considerable valuable work has been done, particularly in the training of young broadcasters who emerged from broadcasting courses and then went on to commercial or public service stations. This fund could be used to support the development of community broadcasting. Recently there has been the development of community television and many community broadcasters are now moving into television broadcasting over limited areas. My amendment seeks to provide for part of the start-up costs from this fund.
The Minister said this fund should only be used for programming. However, those in the community-broadcasting sector feel there is a need for funding. For years there should have been a link between community broadcasters and the national public service broadcaster, the national commercial broadcasters and a network of local stations. Community broadcasters could have been taken under the wings of these larger broadcasters to give them some assistance in the territory they cover. It was for this reason that I tabled amendment No. 19, which recommends that a specified percentage of funding be allocated to community broadcasters.
My colleague, Senator O'Meara, also pressed for this amendment to be made when the Bill was taken in the Seanad. Legislation for this fund affords the first opportunity to allocate money to this very worthy cause. Some community stations have done very well in the past and have been very successful without finding themselves in the dire financial circumstances others have endured. This is an opportunity for the Minister to look at the funding of community broadcasting and, as a first step, to allocate part of this fund for that purpose.
We discussed this on Committee Stage. I can understand the spirit of these amendments and agree that the community-broadcasting sector can provide valuable services for communities. As this legislation only deals with a small amount of funding, it is not envisaged that we would fund the setting up of community radio or television stations. This area is being considered as part of the Department's review of radio licensing.
Community broadcasters can access the scheme for suitable programmes. As the focus of the scheme is on audiences and programmes, we cannot anticipate from where the best programmes will come. The Bill already allows the BCI to decide that funding in a particular year will be directed at particular classes of programmes or at programmes broadcast on a particular medium, such as radio or community television. The BCI will be able to direct funding to worthwhile programmes in the community radio and television sectors. Start-up, capital, training and other costs other than those relating to new programmes are outside the scope of this Bill.
While I appreciate the spirit in which the amendments are tabled, I cannot accept them at this time. In the review of radio licensing we will be examining many areas, including the evolution of funding.
I welcome the Minister of State's last point. His colleague, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, raised an interesting point in recent weeks when he said we had sold off valuable areas of our national spectrum. This was widely discussed in the media. When the sector is successful, elements are sold on for many millions of euro and the State has no come back. If the Minister is saying community broadcasting could serve as a means by which we could claw back funding, that might provide a basis to support community broadcasters. I would welcome that.
Why will the Minister of State not agree to specifying a percentage of the fund to help meet the start-up costs of community broadcasters? Such a provision was also the subject of an amendment tabled in the Seanad. What is wrong with directing some percentage of the fund to community programmes?
The purpose of the fund will be to provide money for programme making under the four headings I outlined earlier. It was never envisaged that moneys would be allocated to meet the start-up or capital costs of community television or radio.
Deputy Broughan suggested a possible claw back. I would have no problem with that. I am sure it can be examined within our Department. Some of the funding could be ring-fenced to help community television and radio. While we have community radio in many parts of the country, community television is not widespread owing to the prohibitive start-up costs involved. It is important that the Minister and the Department should examine this issue and consider some of Deputy Broughan's suggestions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 17 to 19, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 5, line 30, after "circumstances" to insert "and may in particular require that funding be allocated on a thematic basis during periods specified in the scheme".
The Labour Party also tabled this amendment in the Seanad on the basis of submissions made to us. The amendment relates to concerns that few programmes will be made in respect of some of the desirable aims of the fund set out in section 2. Concerns have been expressed that proper programmes might not be made in respect of, among other aspects, the natural environment or folk, rural and vernacular heritage. It is feared the programmes in this area may represent a sop to the aims of the Bill and that funding will not be available to more ambitious projects to make series of programmes based on the themes outlined in section 2.
The Minister of State has said he feels this fear is addressed, but concerns have been expressed to Senator O'Meara and me. We were told there was a need to make more specific provisions in this regard. I ask the Minister of State to look again at the amendment.
As I outlined on Committee Stage, this issue is adequately covered in section 2(3)(c) which allows the scheme to provide for a variety of funding arrangements for different types of programmes on different media in different years. Deputy Broughan's amendment is not necessary as there is adequate provision in the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 5, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
"(5) The Commission, in preparing a scheme, shall have regard to the understanding and enjoyment of television programmes under the scheme by persons who are deaf or hard of hearing.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 5, to delete lines 34 to 37 and substitute the following:
"(a) to prepare and submit to him or her a scheme relating to any matter in subsection (1), or
(b) to amend or revoke a scheme.
The Commission shall comply with a direction under this section.".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 23 not moved.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 5, line 39, to delete "or (6)”.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 5, line 40, after "approval." to insert "Any amendment or revocation of a scheme under subsection (6) should be presented to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources for approval.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 5, line 41, after "scheme" to insert "or an amendment to a scheme".
The major provision of section 8, whereby the scheme shall be published by electronic means, emerged with our colleagues in the Seanad. The Labour Party wishes to make a brief amendment to the provision to provide that any amendment to the scheme will be published also. I thought the Minister of State intended to accept that principle.
On Committee Stage, I indicated that it is not the intention to amend any scheme in a piecemeal fashion or to make individual amendments to a scheme which would stand on their own. If amendments to a scheme are required, the Minister will wish to see the original scheme revoked and a new scheme put in its place. The Minister can, if necessary, direct the commission to take this action under section 2(6). As there will be no such thing as an amended scheme or an individual amendment which stands alone, it is not necessary to make Deputy Broughan's amendment. Therefore, I cannot accept it.
I am not sure how all that hangs together. I see the point the Minister of State is making if the schemes will be completely renewed. If my amendment were made, it would provide a greater degree of transparency and clarity.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 6, line 18, after "State," to insert "including persons who experience a physical or sensory disability, which includes persons who are deaf or hard of hearing,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 28 to 30, inclusive, not moved.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I wish to make a general comment on the Bill before it proceeds to a division. I thank the Minister of State for accepting the spirit of many of the amendments we brought forward on Committee Stage. On that basis, Fine Gael will not oppose the passage of the Bill. I have some reservations about the legislation, but its spirit and content is generally to be welcomed. My colleagues have some serious concerns about it. I thank the Minister of State and the Department for their efforts in this regard. We have not got everything we would have liked, especially in respect of subtitling and captioning, but the progress that has been made should be recognised.
I thank the Minister of State for pursuing the Bill in his typically affable and efficient manner on all Stages. I welcome the fact that he accepted a number of amendments. The Labour Party has a problem with the principle of the Bill. It feels that the licence fee should continue to be given to the national public service broadcaster which should commission the programmes envisaged under the Bill. While the proposals in the Bill are superficially attractive, perhaps they are ill thought out.
I thank the Minister of State for accepting some amendments. The Bill that is about to be passed allows the Minister to interfere directly in funding decisions in respect of specific programming. It is a poor decision on the part of the Government. It is hypocritical that the Minister, who constantly says he wants to cease day-to-day interference, is assuming the power to amend or revoke detailed aspects of a scheme. I deeply regret that he has taken such a decision. It is a bad day for public sector broadcasting because we are facilitating close contact between politicians and the funding of programmes.
I thank the Deputies who have contributed to the debate on the Bill in recent days, specifically Deputies Coveney, Eamon Ryan and Broughan. I hope the legislation will provide a good framework for the broadcasting funding scheme. I thank my officials. I assure Deputy Eamon Ryan that there will be no political interference from the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, or me in the implementation of the Bill.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 23.
Tá
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Browne, John.
- Callanan, Joe.
- Carey, Pat.
- Carty, John.
- Tá–continued
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Collins, Michael.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cregan, John.
- Curran, John.
- Dennehy, John.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Glennon, Jim.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGuinness, John.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- O'Flynn, Noel.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Malley, Fiona.
- O'Malley, Tim.
- Parlon, Tom.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Sexton, Mae.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wilkinson, Ollie.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Boyle, Dan.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Burton, Joan.
- Connolly, Paudge.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harkin, Marian.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- McGrath, Finian.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Twomey, Liam.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies M. Ahern and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Stagg and Boyle.
Question declared carried.