Vol. 711 No. 1
28 Deputy Lucinda Creighton asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he consulted with the Department of Tourism, Culture and Sport before proposing the addition of events as being of major importance to society for broadcasting purposes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23055/10]
34 Deputy Michael D’Arcy asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the length of the consultation process to determine the sporting events that will be A listed to require free to air live broadcast coverage; and when the Government will make a decision on the matter [23077/10]
76 Deputy Pat Rabbitte asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the position regarding his talks with an association (details supplied) in relation to free to air rugby; if he will outline any consultation he has had with his colleagues in Government and other interested parties on this matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23024/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 28, 34 and 76 together.
In my reply to the earlier priority question I set out the details of the consultation process. I am being asked whether I have consulted with the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport. Based on Deputy McManus's earlier comments, if there are derogatory comments about me of a personal nature, I will respond to those. However, I would prefer us to get down to the details and the meat of the issues.
It needs to be factual.
In response to the Deputies' questions, of course I have consulted with the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, before Government meetings, during Government meetings and since.
What did she say?
Obviously her views and Government discussion on the matter need to be kept within Government until we reach the conclusion of the process. That is how Cabinet works. It is a confidential system. She is absolutely right in being a party to the consultation process I need to carry out. However, it is done within Government where people have the freedom and respect for each other to work out the issue on a common sense basis.
Does the Minister believe it is appropriate for a Minister in his position to announce to the country that he will legislate to ensure that all Six-Nations rugby and Heineken Cup rugby is free-to-air in the future by placing it on the A list a few days before two Heineken Cup semi-finals without any consultation with the IRFU and taking everybody by surprise? He seems to be trying to grab political headlines rather than deal in a responsible way with an issue that is about balancing viewership with funding for one of the biggest sports in the country.
Is the Minister's position the Government's position as part of this consultation process or is he seriously suggesting that as part of the consultation process different Ministers will need to write to him giving their view on the issue so that he can come back to the Cabinet to seek approval from that consultation process? Is that the process in which he wants us to have faith?
It was absolutely appropriate and legal as set out in statute to come out with a designated list that I, as Minister, felt should be included and put out for the next stage of the process. That is set out in the law. The IRFU consultation started a year earlier when it made its submission, along with other bodies and individuals.
The Minister announced his decision.
That was continued with a lengthy meeting I had with the IRFU in November in which it set out its case followed by written correspondence. There has been extensive consultation and there will continue to be. I have met its representatives subsequently as part of this next phase and I look forward to talking to them further. This is what one does in a consultation phase. One listens, talks and makes one's case sharing one's views and arguments. If Deputies opposite have those, I am very interested and willing to hear them. We should be asking if these matches are of cultural significance. Is there a special importance in watching the Irish team or one's province? Is it better for sport in the long run to have a large fan base and audience or a smaller one? That is an issue we should be debating.
Let us get into the details of the broadcast rights and revenues. As it is entitled to do the IRFU has stated it would lose €12 million. However, is that on the basis that one could not see the Irish team except on a pay-per-view basis? As I see it, that is the case because the vast majority of broadcasting rights currently come from watching the Irish team in the Six-Nations matches. Do we agree with that? Do we want Ireland's matches to be on free-to-air television or not? Those are the detailed debates we should have here to aid the process. The Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport will not engage in the process in writing to me. We will engage in the way that is set out in the law as part of the process. It is a separate part of the consultation and one that goes on within Government as set out legally.
What the Minister has said does not get address the question we are asking. A formal letter was sent by the previous Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism to the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. This was not something at the Cabinet table; it was a formal letter sent to the Minister about an issue in which he was engaged. In that letter, the former Minister, Mr. Martin Cullen, said that he was opposed to what the Minister was doing. Unless there is an updated letter from the Department, one can only presume that is still the position of the Department responsible for sport. If that is not the case, I ask the Minister to tell us what the position is. Otherwise we must presume, as evidenced in the letter, that the Minister does not have the support of the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport.
I ask the Minister to deal with two other related issues. On Newstalk the Minister stated on, I believe, 24 May, that he would appoint an independent expert. I ask him to give details about that. Today he said that free-to-air was the policy in Britain. I understand that an independent review was carried out there, which did not recommend the Heineken Cup for free to view.
Either the Minister is not up to speed on that or some change has taken place of which I am not aware.
The former Minister is the former Minister. There has been no further written correspondence under the new Minister representing the Department. We have, obviously, discussed it at Cabinet and before Cabinet meetings and will do so again, but I have had no further written correspondence on the issue from the current Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport.
The appointment of external consultants to advise on the matter is an appropriate part of the process. We hope to issue an e-tender document by the end of this week to appoint a consultant who will take regard of the submissions that are made. Sometimes these are complex issues on which we would like outside advice. I hope to have the consultant appointed quickly and to move quickly towards the end of the consultation process and produce a report and presentation which I will bring to Government and Europe.
The UK Government is involved in a similar process to us and is considering bringing cricket back from being a pay-per-view sport to being a free-to-air broadcast. It also proposes to do the same with the Six Nations tournament within Wales. It is engaged in a process and has consultants examining the situation. It is useful to have this comparison. The David Davies report, to which the Deputy referred, provides interesting background material in terms of the implications for broadcasters and sports. The French Government includes the Heineken Cup in its free-to-air broadcasts when the French team is playing in the final and it includes Six Nations rugby. Therefore, what we are doing fits in with a common pattern across other European countries.
I need to allow the Deputies ask a supplementary question.
Let me make my final point.
I will call both Deputies again. If the Minister would keep his responses within the regulations, we would get more questions into the time.
There is a slight difference between us and France and Britain in this regard because Munster, Leinster and Connacht are provinces. There is an issue, therefore, because there is a fundamental difference between Harlequins Rugby Club and Leinster province.
That is very interesting. I call Deputy Coveney.
We might all learn something if we listen carefully to what the Minister is telling us.
A tutorial.
Perhaps we should try to get some answers to our questions. I would like confirmation with regard to the Minister's response to my previous question. He said the last time he met the IRFU on this issue was last November. Six months later he deemed it appropriate to announce that he was going to ensure free-to-air coverage for Heineken Cup and Six Nations rugby. That is the ideal scenario, if he can make it happen and ensure the IRFU keeps its funding base. Will he confirm it was last November when he met the IRFU? If so, it is a disgrace. It is a disgrace he would not meet the body responsible for developing rugby here before making his announcement. It is extraordinary.
Will the Minister acknowledge that the funding of international professional rugby in Ireland is very different from the funding of other international and domestic sports? It is not legitimate to compare what happens in France to what is being done in Ireland because of the fact that Ireland gets most of its revenue from advertising in Britain and France. That is how the deal works for Ireland. We get a totally disproportionate amount of broadcasting rights money because of the way in which Six Nations and Heineken Cup rugby is negotiated collectively and the revenue is then split six-ways. The Minister should accept this. Finally, is the Minister's position the Government's position?
I met the IRFU again about two weeks ago, after the announcement. This is the proper process. The process is that the Minister sets out and then consults. That is what we set out to do in legislation. I met the IRFU previously and will meet it again. I have a particular regard for the sport and for the success the IRFU has had in developing rugby here. It has done a professional job in developing professional rugby here. I am committed to that and want to see the Irish team being successful.
On the issue of rights, Deputy Coveney's position seems to be that he wants to keep the Six Nations team — we will discuss the Heineken Cup separately — on free-to-air. The figures are public on this so I will not breach any commercial sensitivities by mentioning them. Broadcasting the Six Nations free-to-air accounts for at least €10 million of the some €14 million or so revenue the IRFU gets from broadcasting rights. The Deputy is correct in that much of that accrues from the English or other markets where we get back more than we might pay for the rights just for Ireland. Nothing in what I am doing or suggesting would interfere in any way with rights in the UK or other countries or with the rights of Sky or Setanta or any other broadcaster to be able to provide coverage on a pay-to-view basis here. My proposal merely states that we would make it available also on a free-to-air basis because the experience is when it is not free-to-air, we lose at least four fifths of our audience. This is important on a public policy basis.
It is for this reason that we would get consultants to consider all the arrangements and ensure our proposal is sound and will not distort the market. I do not see how, when we have no intention of distorting anything that goes on in the UK or France, we are distorting the market. All we are concerned about is the Irish public and viewers rights without in any way favouring one broadcaster over another, because I do not have any intention of not having it available on a pay-to-view basis, the broadcasters of which do an excellent job.
I had just two questions but now have three, because the question Deputy Coveney asked was not answered. Is the Minister's policy the Government policy? With regard to the independent expert, would the Minister not have been better advised to get this advice before he made his announcement, which seems to have been poorly thought out and does not deal with the shortfall in funding for the IRFU? The Minister seems to have ignored the issue of the shortfall and seems surprised this announcement has blown up in his face. The Minister has met with the IRFU and is aware of the financial difficulties he has created and, as far as I can gather, suggests the shortfall can be made up in other ways. If that is the case, would the Minister, for example, be willing to guarantee that shortfall on the basis that he is confident it can be made up in other ways?
We have gone backwards and forwards on this in the Department over the past year. We have consulted the Attorney General's office and have examined what happens internationally and here. It is a multi-phased process where one starts off by listening to the general public and other submissions and then publishes the Department's view of what designated events should be included. Then a final decision is made. This has been noted by Government and I have gone through the Government on each stage. I am a Minister setting out the Government's approach.
So it is Government policy.
It is a deliberative process.
Is it the policy of the Minister with responsibility for sport?
Yes, it is a policy to follow the course we are taking, which is the right one.
That is not the question.
Allow the Minister to reply.
We are not at the end of the process. The Deputy can put her question at the end of the process. I have Government support for the approach I have taken. The Deputy said I have created a shortfall in funding. There was no intention to do that and that is not in any way the truth. With regard to broadcasting rights, which is the only area where this decision has a possible effect, the bulk of the funding comes from rights for the coverage of Six Nations rugby. I understand that funding is guaranteed for the next three years. The contract already in place for revenues from the BBC and RTE provides the bulk of the revenue. Therefore, no matter what we do, even in the next three years, it does not interfere in or change the majority of broadcasting funding. There is no intention to do that. As has been made clear on several occasions, the Government has provided significant support and huge resources to the sport. In return, is it not right that we ensure that events and games that have an effect of pulling the country together should be on view for everybody? That is the question we need to ask.
Perhaps the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, would like to get in on this discussion.
Please just allow one Minister respond at a time.
Perhaps he could clarify the Government position. I do not know about the Minister, Deputy Ryan, but I know the Minister of State, Deputy Lenihan, has an interest in this sport
He might allow hare coursing be shown free to air.
Will the Minister accept that the IRFU also has a vested interest in ensuring that as much rugby as possible is on a free-to-air basis? Will the Minister give us a date as to when we are likely to have a decision on this issue?
Will he also indicate when Government policy, rather than his views, will be finally forthcoming?
I accept that the IRFU has a valid and keen interest in this matter. However, there is also a public policy interest. The Government is entitled to examine issues and consider the public interest as well as that of the sporting bodies. I fully understand and accept the submissions and points made by the IRFU. I will continue to discuss the matter with its representatives on that basis.
Is the Minister rowing back on what he said previously?
I have already agreed that the consultation process should be extended to 4 July in order to allow the debate — which quickly became heated, although not at my instigation — to be worked through in a way that will be positive for all sides. It is not good to have uncertainty or for matters of this nature to be unduly delayed. As well as being brought to Government, this matter will also have to be submitted to the European Commission for approval. The latter will be obliged to ensure that what we intend meets the standards laid set down in the audio-visual media services directive. I hope to obtain clarity on the matter by autumn. It takes a certain period for issues of this nature to be dealt with at European level.
29 Deputy Joe Carey asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he will give details of the new tariff proposals to promote microgeneration on farms, homes and businesses here [23072/10]
I have already given this reply in respect of an earlier question. However, I might add to what has already been stated by saying that work is ongoing to encourage the on-site generation of electricity in homes and farms across Ireland. The ESB scheme currently in operation provides a guaranteed tariff of 19 cent per kilowatt hour of electricity produced and exported to the grid. Eligible technologies include small scale wind, photovoltaic, hydro and combined heat and power.
The Minister has already read this reply into the record.
Yes. Perhaps we might proceed to supplementary questions from Members.
I will not rake over old ground and refer to our frustration with regard to a date not being provided. However, will the Minister outline his views on the putting together of an effective new support scheme for microgeneration? Will he indicate whether his Department intends to model any new scheme on what is being done in the UK, which essentially involves having a relatively low export tariff but a strong support system in order to encourage people to produce their own power, or in Germany, where a generous export tariff is supplied in respect of excess power that can be sold back to the grid but where fewer supports are provided in respect of producing one's own power? From a Fine Gael perspective, the British approach would appear to be more appropriate to Ireland. It would be useful if the Minister could indicate the direction in which his Department intends to move.
In the first instance, we must move above the 11 KW range into higher scale categories. In addition, we must broaden out the debate to consider whether geothermal or other technologies should be included under the scheme. I am of the view that the price supports should be much higher for smaller producers than for their larger counterparts because the economies of scale that apply and the nature of this technology means that larger devices tend to be much more efficient and the economic case is, therefore, much stronger. Some form of upward grading scale that would support smaller units to a much more significant degree than their larger counterparts is one option that would be suitable.
The new scheme should also be simple in nature. We must move away from a grant-based model towards one that is relatively cheap and easy to implement. A REFIT price system that would build on what we have already done in this area would be acceptable. The scheme must apply to all producers. It cannot just relate to the ESB, which is the only producer to date to step up to the plate in the context of giving a higher price.
Whether the British model or that which obtains in Germany will be adopted is one of the matters we intend to consider. The Deputy's views in that regard will be taken into account.
When the Government introduces a new support scheme for microgeneration — I hope it will emerge by the end of this month — will European Commission approval in respect of it be required? It could take a further couple of months to obtain such approval. Does the Government intend to obtain approval in advance in order that the scheme can be implemented immediately rather than having a situation similar to that relating to the REFIT price for biomass, which has caused a two-month delay in the relevant scheme?
I would prefer not to be obliged to seek state aid clearance from Europe because this can delay matters. It is frustrating that, on one hand, Europe is pushing us to meet targets relating to renewable energy while, one the other, competition rules, which one cannot avoid, are in place. My preference would be not to have to seek such clearance. However, there may not be an easy of avoiding such an eventuality. I have asked officials in Brussels to ensure that our submissions are processed as a matter of urgency in order that the scheme will not be unduly delayed within the European system.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
