I welcome Mr. Bob Collins, director general of RTE, and Mr. Patrick Wright, chairman of the RTE Authority. Perhaps Mr. Collins will introduce the members of the group.
Public Service Broadcasting: Presentations.
The chairman of the RTE Authority will do so.
On my own behalf and that of my colleagues, I thank the members of the joint committee for their invitation to the representatives of RTE to meet them this afternoon. I am accompanied by Mr. Bob Collins, director general of RTE; Ms Bríd Rosney, director of communications; Mr. Conor Hayes, chief financial officer; Mr. Liam Miller, managing director, organisation and development, and Mr. Cathal Goan, director of television.
I advise members that the purpose of the presentations is to inform the joint committee of the financial crisis facing RTE in public service broadcasting, the recommendations of the Forum on Broadcasting and the case for an increase in the licence fee. Both RTE management and representatives of the RTE group of unions will make presentations to the committee. I advise everyone that the following format will apply: Mr. Collins will make a presentation on behalf of RTE which should not exceed 15 minutes, following which there will be an open question and answer session with members of the committee. The presentation and question and answer session are scheduled to conclude not later that 2.20 p.m. The representatives of the RTE group of unions will then make a presentation which should not exceed 15 minutes, following which there will be an open question and answer session with members of the committee. The presentation and question and answer session are scheduled to conclude not later than 3.30 p.m. at which stage the committee will go into private session to consider its draft work programme for 2002-03 and the draft report on the issues facing the fishing industry in the Common Fisheries Policy. I stress that the meeting must conclude not later than 3.30 p.m. In order for everyone to benefit from this process I have no option but to adhere strictly to the time schedule.
I draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee enjoy absolute privilege, the same privilege does not extend to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or an official by name, in such a way as to identify him or her. I welcome the representatives of RTE management and ask Mr. Wright to make his presentation.
As has been well publicised, these are very difficult times for RTE, particularly in the financial sense. We have seen deficits over the last number of years. By the end of this year we will have had, through a major cost reduction programme, a net reduction of 480 staff members, including over 400 permanent and pensionable staff, and a reorganisation of work practices which will have resulted in more flexibility and increased productivity from the remaining staff members. This reduction has been achieved without the loss of a single hour of output. Unfortunately, during 2003 we expect a further reduction in the order of 150 staff members.
As you are no doubt aware, last week we submitted an application for a review of the licence fee to the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. At yesterday's Cabinet meeting a sub-committee consisting of the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Ahern, was established to consider the submission and report back to the Cabinet. I am sure you understand that while this submission is under active consideration by the Government, it would be entirely inappropriate for us to discuss it in any public forum. However, mindful of the invitation to appear before the joint committee today, the Director General will outline some of the difficulties and opportunities facing us and which have shaped our submission. At the end of this presentation we will be happy to respond to your questions.
I echo the expression of thanks of the chairman of the RTE authority for the opportunity to appear before the joint committee. I just want to offer some of the context for the present position in RTE, in financial terms and other respects. As the chairman of the authority said, over recent years - a set of charts has been circulated to members of the committee - we have had financial deficits which have in the main been due to the erosion of the real value of the licence fee and the sharp reduction in advertising revenues, particularly last year. Taken with the inevitable level of inflation in broadcasting which in the normal course exceeds that in the economy as a whole, this combination of circumstances prompted us in 1999 to begin a process of transformation of the organisation. While the work began some time before that, the process of changing the organisation began then.
There has been, as the chairman of the authority said, a target of a net reduction of 480 staff to be achieved by the end of next month, excluding those who have left the organisation. This has been accompanied by very substantial changes in work practices with the result that the process of programme making and provision is dramatically different from what it was five years ago. If you set this in the context of the way in which the environment for broadcasting in Ireland has changed, there has been a very dramatic growth in competition, which is good. It is important that there is choice in this respect, as in any other service of which we all avail from time to time.
Our radio channels are available to the entire population as are RTE 1 and Network 2. TV3 and TG4 are available to more than 90% while almost 80% have access to the four main British channels: BBC1, BBC2, UTV and Channel 4. Sky One and Sky News are available to more than 55%. A range of other channels are available to varying numbers of the audience depending on how they receive their channels. Sky Digital is now available in more than 200,000 homes. While this range of competition is valuable because it provides choice, it does not necessarily enhance the range of programmes available. None of the programmes originating outside Ireland enhances to any degree the volume of Irish content available to Irish audiences. RTE is, always was and always will be the predominant producer of Irish made programmes, including Irish language programmes, in the State and on this island. That is one of the crucial considerations which arise in any view of the role of a public broadcaster.
Like most broadcasters in Europe we are funded through a combination of public funding and advertising revenue. At less than 37% our percentage of public funding is one of the lowest in Europe, with our level of dependence on advertising standing at 67%. One of the charts you have been given indicates the position in a variety of other countries which are members of the European Broadcasting Union and, with the exception of Switzerland, the European Union. It gives the breakdown of revenue for public service broadcasters in the European Union. We are almost the inverse of that, at 63% commercial and 37% public. There is also a chart available which sets out in graphic form the income and expenditure and out-turn of a variety of European broadcasters. The licence fee has substantially eroded in terms of its real value and has under-performed inflation to a very significant extent. This means the level of things we were able to do a number of years ago with the licence fee are no longer capable of being done because the licence fee has not kept pace.
It is one of the few areas of expenditure in Irish life that has not reflected inflationary changes and changes in the need for provision. That the level of service is where it is now is in itself a measure of the efficiencies and cost reductions that have been achieved within the organisation. If one looks at household budget surveys compiled by the CSO in 2001, from a range of activities the licence fee consumes comparatively little of people's expenditure. People spend considerably more on subscriptions to cable companies. They spend almost as much on renting videos. They spend more on going to the cinema. They spend more on music CDs. They spend more on ice cream. They spend almost four times as much in chip shops. They spend almost four times as much on newspapers and almost six times as much on milk.
It is not a significant expense at its present level or even at the level we have sought. It will be considerably less than €3 per week or 40 cent per day. The real purpose of RTE's existence is to provide a programme service that is distinctive and that is of a quality which meets the expectations and needs of the Irish audience. Those expectations increase as the level of competition grows. The production values and standards of some of the programming with which we have to compete from the BBC and ITV are extraordinarily well funded.
Irish audiences expect the same range of programming. We have to offer them radio and television content which relates to the lives they lead on this island. We believe we do that as effectively as we can but we recognise the gaps in what we provide. We know there are areas where our schedules should be stronger. In our submission to the forum, we identified provision for children, educational programming, drama and documentaries as areas where we want to improve. We want to expand in news and current affairs. We want to increase the number of regional correspondents. We want to have a greater presence of programming produced outside Dublin. These simply cannot be provided without adequate resources.
The issue we have to confront, not just as a broadcasting organisation but in a general sense, is the appropriate expectation that an Irish audience can have of a public broadcaster. Members will have seen copies of what we submitted to the forum. We outlined in a very detailed sense our view of what the role of a public broadcaster is, what it is that we will commit to, what it is that people can expect from us and how accountable we should be. We have been urging a forum or a framework of accountability for several years. That framework cannot really be put in place by ourselves, it must be seen to be put in place and operated independently so that the commitments we make to our audience can be evaluated, that our performance in relation to them can be measured every year and that that information can be made available to the entire audience.
The forum report was a very important document for all broadcasting. It was greatly encouraging for RTE but also very challenging. It was encouraging because it reinforced the importance of public broadcasting in this State. It reiterated its view of the role which RTE has in that context and reiterated the importance of RTE being a programme maker and not just a commissioner of programmes made exclusively by other people. That is an important issue for us.
It challenged us in terms of what it identified as the requirements of the audience in respect of public broadcasting. We share that view. It challenged us in relation to the necessary framework of accountability. We share that view. It challenged us in terms of the transparency with which our accounts will be presented annually and with which information about our expenditure of licence fee revenue will be dealt with. Over the coming months, anybody's reasonable expectations will be met by the quality of our financial reporting.
RTE takes very seriously the responsibility of spending the licence fee. Its principal purpose is for the provision of a programme service, and the principle focus of any additional public money that is made available to us will be used to enhance its radio and television schedules, taking into account that we have to deal with a current deficit and that we have to make prudent provision for working capital. The principal purpose and destiny of any additional funding is programme making on radio and television.
We behave properly when there are competitive issues. We do not, as has been suggested, either under charge for advertising or over pay for programmes which we acquire. We will continue to operate on that basis. The forum has recommended that there should be a charter and that there should be a code of fair trading practice. We welcome these proposals and will be very happy to adopt them and incorporate them in circumstances where the Government decides that should be the case.
We will in any event develop a code of fair trading and set out clear statements of programme commitments to the audience at the beginning of each year. This can be independently evaluated and our performance publicly reported. It would be inappropriate to go into great detail on the proposal that has been made to the Government because the Government has not had an opportunity to consider it. However, we are happy to answer any questions on the broad issues that are fundamental to the role of public broadcasting and the issues that confront us in terms of our financing. Tá fáilte roimh aon cheist i nGaeilge agus freagrófar ceisteanna i nGaeilge nó i mBéarla, nó in aon teanga eile b'fhéidir, ar na rudaí atá faoi chúram an chomhchoiste.
Could you expand for us a little, Mr. Collins, on how you will control your costs and remain viable in the future? Do you object to an independent body monitoring RTE's finances in the future if you are successful in your application? Are we clear in our understanding that you think the licence fee should be index-linked and should not have to go back to Government for consideration in future? Should there be new legislation to allow for that?
We have taken very significant measures to ensure that our cost base is as low as possible. Part of our concern is that the cost base is much lower than it should be in terms of making the range of programming we believe is necessary for the audience.
We made substantial reductions this time last year to avoid what would have been a very significant deficit this year, significantly more than the one that we will have. We reduced programmes to ensure that was the case. This was not our preferred option. We want to enhance rather than reduce the range of programming we offer the audience but there was no option for us because we could not have sustained the level of deficit that would have ensued. Neither can we sustain on a continuing basis the level of deficit we will encounter this year. Significant budgetary controls are in operation in RTE. Our budget outcome will be substantially as we predicted at the beginning of the year. Our expenditure will be what we expected it to be, or maybe a little less. Regrettably, advertising revenue has not recovered to the extent we hoped for and we do not hold great expectations for next year. Our costs will be kept at the appropriate level and the full benefit of a licence fee increase will go to programme making.
We have no difficulty with our financial performance being monitored externally; our auditors do it and our annual report is published. There are important issues regarding the independence of any broadcasting organisations, particularly a national public broadcaster. It must be seen to be organisationally and editorially independent. This is a fundamental part of the commitment a public broadcaster gives to the audience. It is one of the valuable traditions we want to retain.
Our proposal to the Government clearly suggests that the level of the licence fee, once appropriately established, should be protected from erosion. This is one of the findings of the forum. The most appropriate way to do this is through the CPI, otherwise, its value will decrease annually. It would be appropriate to review the level of the licence fee on a three or five yearly basis. Setting of the level of the licence fee will always be a ministerial decision, subject to Government approval.
The introduction of a financial reporting and control system was one of the authority's major objectives in the past 12 months. We employed a new chief financial officer, Conor Hayes, and he has overseen the introduction of the system. It enables us to report in whatever way the Government, or anyone else, wants. While we had difficulties in this in the past, we will not have difficulties in the future.
I welcome the RTE delegation. It has made an excellent case for an increase in the licence fee. If the Government agrees to an increase in the licence fee, what is the increase RTE has in mind? If the imbalance was addressed, does RTE foresee an increase in advertising revenue? How would RTE improve its service regionally? Will there be an increase in a community based service for outlying regions? Some people look at RTE as having a catchment area of the Pale. Why are TG4 and TV3 available to only 90% of the population?
I welcome P. J. Wright, his colleagues and the unions to this meeting. The authority is fortunate to have someone as professional as P. J. Wright as chairman. How can a licence fee increase of €43 be justified? Are there distinct roles for public and independent broadcasting services in Ireland? Having regard to the present level of broadcasting services in the Irish language, what responsibility should broadcasters have for the development and broadcasting of programme content in Irish? Do broadcasters have a duty to reflect non-Irish, as well as Irish, culture? Why are not more home produced programmes aired on RTE? How much commercial revenue is under threat from indigenous competition in radio and television? Should more have been done to retain television rights for Republic of Ireland soccer matches? Should there be more presenters from different ethnic backgrounds on RTE? Many young people are undertaking and completing courses in communications, why is RTE recycling the same old faces?
I welcome the delegation. I understand Conor Hayes came to RTE from Ryanair, therefore, he will have a background of keeping down costs. RTE's workforce has declined by around 480. Rumours suggest many of that number are working as consultants at the station. I have noted the increase in the deficit in 2001 caused, in part, by the cost of retirement packages. This is reminiscent of what happened with Team Aer Lingus and Aer Lingus.
The Labour Party strongly supports public service broadcasting and index linking. Before the election, we made a commitment to consider an increase in the licence fee. Since it was founded in the 1920s, the organisation has been charged with key national objectives such as our culture, news, sports coverage, drama, national language and brilliant musical tradition in the form of the symphony orchestra. For example, has there been an attempt to cost those elements of the national role, which my party strongly supports, and to say to the Government that this is what a national station should and must do and is doing, that this is what it costs and that this is the reason the figure of €43 was arrived at? I congratulate the station on recent initiatives such as Lyric FM, the outstanding work in news reporting and journalism, TG4 and other outstanding achievements.
The station had plans for a digital platform which its representatives outlined to our predecessors. This was in light of similar plans by the BBC with which RTE is often compared favourably. Among RTE's plans was a 24 hour news channel. Has consideration been given to proceeding with this digital platform?
Does the delegation see the pressure the organisation is under as having echoes of what the BBC - the model for public service broadcasting for most countries - underwent during a previous administration when cost-cutting and constraints were given priority over programme content which has only recently been given priority again?
I welcome everyone from the management team and unions in RTE. I hope this is not a cosmetic exercise and that decisions will not be taken regardless of what happens here. I hope we have some function as a committee in making recommendations.
I support the role of public service broadcasting and agree in principle with the need for a licence fee increase. Going with that, there must be assurances to the public who pay the fee that they receive value for money. I am glad to see an emphasis by RTE management on transparency, efficiency and value for money.
Given the size of the population, we need to rely on a dual funding process for public service broadcasting. That is accepted by everyone. RTE is not in a similar position to the BBC. Does Mr. Collins believe it is realistic for 100% of licence fee money to be spent on making programmes? I understand the station has other expenses and costs which are not directly related to making programmes, but it also has a dual funding system and revenue is raised through advertising and so on. Does Mr. Collins believe it is realistic for all public money from the licence fee to go towards making programmes? I understand the BBC has achieved an 85% to 15% comparison with the larger amount going towards making programmes. That is an improvement from a 70% figure for programming a few years ago.
On the independent monitoring, does the delegation believe the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland is a suitable body to monitor the costings and money spent within RTE and whether it fulfils the targets for public service broadcasting it sets itself at the beginning of each year? I say that in the knowledge that, if the BCI were to conduct this monitoring or fulfil this watchdog role, its structures would need to change. It would not be appropriate for the same office that monitors private broadcasting to monitor public broadcasting. There would need to be two separate offices within the umbrella organisation of the BCI. What does the delegation think about the commission filling this role?
Now that RTE and An Post are in the same Department, can the collection of licence fees be improved and made more efficient? I understand a significant number of people who have televisions and avail of RTE's services do not pay licence fees. That is a result of a lack of enforcement and efficiency in the services offered to people.
Deputy Coveney should ask a question. A document was circulated at the beginning of the meeting relating to the licence fee and the way it is collected from An Post.
That makes it all the more relevant to ask a question on it.
Six other members wish to contribute.
I will leave it at that.
Can Mr. Collins reply to the questions of the four speakers?
I wish to speak about revenue before the Director General goes into detail. The Deputy asked about the licence fee. The increase we are seeking is €43, which would bring us to €150. More than two thirds will be used in new programme making. Obviously that will help improve programmes which, in turn will help improve advertising revenue. Advertising is obviously based on the economy and market forces. We do not know whether the improvement in programmes will improve advertising revenue, but I hope it will.
In regard to the BBC, it has a budget in excess of £3 billion sterling and that is index linked over a seven year period under a deal between the BBC and the British Government. It has the wherewithal and the finance to do whatever it wants. Even though we are compared with the BBC on a regular basis, it is an unfair comparison notwithstanding the quality we put out on an annual basis.
I will take a number of themes reflected in the questions. I may not get to every one of them. Deputy Kelly had a range of questions and I may not get back to them all.
The principal purpose for which we exist is to provide a programme service to the Irish audience. That is the beginning and end of it. We are broadcasters, programme makers and programme commissioners. We assemble schedules and offer them to the audiences on television and radio. The reason we have had to focus attention on our costs is precisely so that we could maintain that programme service. None of us would have chosen to have spent as much time as we have done over the past three or four years on issues of finance and cost reduction, but it is one of the realities we have had to face. If one is spending public money, one has a far greater level of responsibility than if one is spending one's own money. Therefore, not only had we no option, neither is there an apology to be made for the fact that we dealt with cost issues.
It was not done in isolation from nor at the expense of a focus on programme making and our editorial priorities which will always be our starting point. It is the provision of a programme service that is the justification for the licence fee increase we are seeking. It is not possible with the resources we have at present to provide a programme service on radio and television that meets the legitimate needs of the Irish audience across the range of issues in which people have an interest. Despite our best endeavours, our schedules are weak in areas where they should be stronger. As I listed some of the areas in question, I will not go into them in detail.
I want to be as clear as I possibly can on the issue of staff numbers. There are rumours, but like many rumours that circulate they are not true. There will be a net reduction of 480 staff in RTE by the end of this year, 18 of whom have had a subsequent substantial relationship with RTE. Two were funded by the European Union because they were undertaking a project which happened to be located in RTE. The other 16 had particular skills which were required for particular purposes at particular times. Some 50 or 60 others have had very brief relationships with RTE, which included filling in for a day or two when others were not available or reviewing books on an arts programme, as any other citizen might be invited to do. However, the notion that large numbers who left RTE on severance arrangements are back in the organisation under one guise or another is simply without foundation. It will give me a great deal of relief when people stop making that particular allegation.
I do not know whether one should consider, as Deputy Coveney suggested, making the licence fee a hypothecated tax, whereby every penny collected would be spent on programme making. I have no difficulty with the principle of spending that amount of money. Under the law, however, the RTE authority was established to do a number of things, including to provide a national broadcasting service, operate it, make and acquire programmes and do all the things necessary to achieve its purposes. Under the 2001 Act there is a recognition that it has a non-broadcast role, for example, in relation to the maintenance of performing groups. The provision of a service that covers the entire country, including the performing groups and the commissioning of programmes, as we are obliged to do under the law, is a valid and legitimate charge on the licence fee.
I do not want to draw distinctions between public service and commercial programmes, but ours is a public service, full stop. The key issue is the balance within the schedule in order that every interest is reflected and an organisation which is funded by the entire community has programme output which engages the entire community. We will report in detail what was spent on programme commissioning or output, including the performing groups and it will be evident the amount is greater than what we get by way of the licence fee, but I hesitate to link one with the other. We share the view of our broadcasting colleagues on the neighbouring island that administration costs should be as low as possible and we, too, have set ourselves a 15% target in that regard. Given the modest amount available to us, we achieve dramatically more in relative terms than the BBC with the €5 billion available to it. If we had one tenth of its revenue, we would have none of the problems mentioned.
I have significant reservations about the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland or the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland as the proposed forum to be the agent which regulates all broadcasting in Ireland because of the fact, as Deputy Coveney said, that there is an essential conflict between, on the one hand, awarding licences and franchises, regulating performance, approving business plans of private broadcasters and, on the other, doing this in relation to others. We could stay here for a long time debating the matter, but there are a number of fundamental issues involved. I do not think we should always follow the pattern of Britain in terms of public policy-making because it is interesting that in this respect they have not established a unitary system of regulation. In establishing OFCOM it specifically does not have responsibility in respect of the BBC or S4c, the Welsh fourth channel. Mr. Goan may want to say something about regional coverage, a matter raised by Deputy Kelly.
I am conscious of the time because there is another delegation to be heard. I will take a question from Senator Finucane and Deputies Fitzpatrick and Morgan.
As a fellow Limerick man, I welcome Mr. Collins and his management team to this meeting. The Flood tribunal referred to the capping of RTE advertising revenue. Has there been any financial projection within RTE of the advertising revenue lost to RTE at the time? Can I take it that the increase of up to €43 in the television licence fee was acceded to? Mr. Collins said there was no significant regeneration of advertising revenue and that looking ahead there would be no demand from RTE for an increase in the time devoted to advertising on an hourly basis. I know independent persons outside RTE look at the number of minutes per hour devoted to advertising. Has the amount of revenue lost been significant in terms of the decision referred to in the Flood tribunal report? If an increase of €43 is granted, will there be a parallel request to extend the number of minutes per hour devoted to advertising? The figures indicate that 16% of TV licensing revenue was lost due to a whole series of factors. Assuming the increase of €43 is granted, will the figure 16% be still factored in as a loss?
I am pleased to welcome the delegation. Mr. Collins spoke about a framework of accountability in regard to the TV licence fee. This is probably an unfair question in this forum, but does Mr. Collins think total licence fee revenue, which is set aside for public service broadcasting, should be controlled by RTE? I do not expect a long answer to that question.
Ceist eile, an bhfuil gearradh siar ar an gcéatadán airgid atá ag dul do TG4 agus do Raidio na Gaeltachta?
Lyric FM is one of RTE's great triumphs. Whoever buys films for TG4 should also be praised. Even though they are "oldies," they are among the best films shown on television.
Some of the best TDs are also older. I welcome the members of the authority. I am pleased to hear that there will be additional regional reports and further outside broadcasts, particularly outside of Dublin, as well as improved transparency and accountability. I am curious about that because we heard many of these things before and they were not delivered. In November 1998 we were promised that by the middle of 1999 a new company would be established for RTE's transmissions. That has not happened and I wonder what progress has been made on that matter after four years. In July 2001 we were told that RTE was to launch four new digital television channels, costing in the order of €50 million and that detailed proposals were being prepared for a 24 hour news, education and youth channel. What has become of those channels? I ask about these promises in the context of the promises being made today.
When the former Minister, Deputy de Valera, refused an increase in the licence fee in July of last year she cited the report of PricewaterhouseCoopers as a reason for her refusal. What has changed in the meantime to create the need for such a large increase now?
Sinn Féin is totally committed to public service broadcasting. However, can RTE assure us of more transparency and accountability? We do not even know the salaries of major figures in the station. We have heard promises in the past in this regard. Why should we believe RTE's promises now?
I am in favour of the rise in the licence fee and I understand the need for it. However, the general public must get something in return and they deserve transparency and accountability. Everyone who works for RTE is as much a public servant as a Member of the Oireachtas. My salary is known and I want to know the salaries of people who work for RTE, such as Gerry Ryan. I do not want to see a list which merely states that three people earn between €500,000 and €750,000. In this age of transparency, openness, accountability and the Freedom of Information Act, people in RTE must be as accountable as the people in this room.
I was a member of the corresponding committee in the 28th Dáil when the questions asked by Deputy Morgan and Senator MacSharry were asked. We will be told that it is in the contracts of certain people in RTE that their salaries are not to be divulged. The salaries of gardaí, nurses, the Judiciary, civil servants and everyone else who gets money from the public purse are in the public domain. When new contracts of employment are agreed that clause should not be included.
Is there a difficulty in RTE with regard to pressure from advertisers? Is there a reluctance to be critical of the people who are, to a large extent, paying the wages? I am thinking of the recent furore about road safety advertisements. I understand that because the makers of a particular car complained that their car could be identified the advertisement was doctored. I am surprised to hear of RTE being subject to that sort of outside influence. I had not identified the type of vehicle until this controversy arose, as I am sure most people had not.
Will RTE have a difficulty with regard to advertising revenue in the future? I saw a recent newspaper report about people being asked about television advertisements. The people questioned could not remember the advertisements and there appeared to be a low level of interest in them. Video recorders are available which can be set to record a television programme without the breaks for advertisements. I believe technology is now available which will allow a viewer to begin to watch a programme ten minutes later than the scheduled time and not see the advertisements. I believe a broadcasting entity in California is taking a case against this new technology. If this type of technology becomes widely available it will mean the death of advertising on television. Do the representatives of RTE have any views on this?
RTE did not doctor any advertisement. Cathal Goan will clarify the position in this regard in a moment. However, we must be very clear that RTE did not doctor an advertisement. One must be careful about how language is used.
Deputy Morgan referred to a number of issues as if they were commitments given by RTE and not delivered. That is not the case. We made proposals on what we would like to see in the context of digital channels. We said what our priorities would be if the resources were available. It was always absolutely clear that the achievement of these proposals was dependent on getting the amount of licence fee increase we sought two years ago and having the level of resources which that and the advertising rate of that time would have given. Neither of those two conditions was met and it has not been possible to develop digital channels.
The establishment of a separate network company was contingent on the implementation of two crucial aspects of the Government's policy. First there was to have been a multiplex licence but the sole applicant withdrew so there is no multiplex licence. Second, the authority therefore terminated the process by which it was going to sell its network. We should not confuse these proposals and suggest they are examples of commitments made by RTE which it did not follow and that RTE, therefore, should not be believed now.
One frequently gets the impression that RTE is totally unaccountable and has no obligations. If we had the time I could recite a list as long as my arm of the areas in which RTE is regulated and accountable, has ministerial obligations and obligations to the Government and to the Oireachtas. It is fashionable to represent RTE as being both opaque and unaccountable. Neither is the case. We want to be more transparent and our accounting processes to be more readily available to the public than they are at the moment. We believe there is a need for an independent measure of our performance but one should not infer from that that RTE is unaccountable.
Regarding Deputy Finucane's question, in response to comments made in the Dáil we have been examining the impact the 1990 decision to impose a limit on advertising revenue had on RTE's total income. I will report to the authority on that at its next meeting. The authority will then decide whether action needs to be taken on that matter. That decision was made 12 years ago and is now history, although painful. At the moment there is no parallel proposal on minuting. We have no proposal before the Government on minuting at present.
The question of salaries was raised by a number of people. The salaries of every RTE representative at this meeting are public knowledge. There is significant commercial interest and sensitivity about what we pay certain broadcasters in a competitive environment. It would be a competitive and commercial advantage for other broadcasters in the State, and some in this room, to know exactly how much we pay our broadcasters. I made a commitment to the committee about accountability and this year we published a clear indication of the levels of remuneration achieved by the top 20 broadcasters and programme presenters in RTE. While we did not identify specific amounts for specific individuals, the figures given reflected precisely the level of commitment given at a previous joint committee meeting. They also served the genuine public interest in terms of indicating how much RTE pays broadcasters.
Not all our funding derives from public funds. There is a combination of public and commercial revenue. RTE is charged to generate as much commercial revenue as possible consistent with its public service obligations. I do not believe we should be asked to do things which are manifestly to our commercial disadvantage. We have reflected the commitment we gave the committee.
The question of regional coverage has been raised several times and perhaps Cathal Goan will comment on that and the advertisement issue.
Mr. Cathal Goan
The advertisement in question related to road safety and it was reported the following day that it had been changed. The sequence of events was that a particular car retailer objected to the use of its car in the road safety advertisement and communicated its dissatisfaction to the makers of the advertisement and the agency which had done the creative work for the National Road Safety Council. As is customary, where two separate clients have different perspectives, we sought legal advice. Our advice was that we should remove the advertisement until a resolution was achieved. That resolution was achieved, without interference by RTE, between the car retailer and the National Safety Council. The edited tapes were brought to RTE, and other broadcasters, at no cost to the station. I add to Mr. Collins rebuttal that there is no question of RTE lying down under the protests of any particular advertiser over another.
A question was asked about the potential of the device that can reduce advertising. These devices are now available here and in Britain. If advertising suffers as a result it will probably be replaced by sponsorship. It does not represent as catastrophic a loss of income to broadcasters as might at first appear.
On the question of regional programming, we recognise that there are many ways of reinforcing our presence in the regions. We have a number of regional studios and correspondents. We also have a commitment to independent productions in the regions outside Dublin. We are increasingly of the view that the best way to give force to that is through the recruitment of somebody charged with the organisation and overall implementation of a regional policy. We will implement that with the creation of a specific post in the near future. We will also increase the number of regional corespondents. In addition, we have committed to raising the number of independently produced programmes from outside the Dublin area. Those specific initiatives will give further strength to RTE's presence around the country. There is a significant number of RTE regional studios. In areas where we are under-represented it would be difficult for us to achieve the community based idea to which reference was made earlier.
Radio na Gaeltachta is probably the best example of RTE working as a community broadcaster, where the initiative is based around the local community in Baile na nGall, Casla and Na Doirí Beaga. This is shown by the popularity of Radio na Gaeltachta in those areas.
Cuireadh ceist ansin faoin laghdú a tháinig ar mhaoiniú cláraithe de TG4 agus Raidió na Gaeltactha. Mar aon le gearrthacha eile de sheirbhísí RTE, gearradh siar ar an chaiteachas ar an bheirt acu. Leis sin a a chur i gcomhthéacs leis na gearrthacha uilig a rinneadh, ní déarnadh an gearradh siar céanna ar an sólathar cláir de TG4 agus RnaG. Bhí sé mar cúis bhróin go dtarlódh sé go mbeadh gearradh siar mar bhí an éigeandáil céanna i gceist, is cuma cén teanga a labhartar - má tá ganntannas airgid ann, tá ganntannas airgid ann.
I wish to refer to what Deputy Morgan said about the PricewaterhouseCoopers recommendation. It was said that at that time what RTE was looking for was not deserved. PwC may not have recognised the full extent of what RTE requested but it specifically recognised that we should be given more than what was granted by the Minister. It is important to note this and also that, at the time, PwC had considerably underestimated the impact of the fall in advertising revenue. All in all, it is not fair to impute that PwC implied that RTE was not deserving of the increase it sought.
I wish to clarify our proposals on the regions. It is part of our proposal vis-à-vis the licence fee. It would not be within our compass to achieve our regional plans without the licence fee increase we have sought.
Will our guests indicate from what quarter its higher paid presenters are being headhunted? The identity of the relevant competition is not obvious.
Perhaps that question could be asked of the union representatives. We cannot address the matter now, however, because we have gone over time. I thank Mr. Collins and the chairman of the RTE authority, Mr. Wright, and the other members of RTE who have come in and given their time at short notice. I am sure there is considerable support here for the authority.
I thank the Chairman. I would like to issue an invitation to the Chairman and members to visit RTE to meet the authority members, management and staff and see the facilities. It would give the committee a better understanding of RTE's situation.
That is very kind. I hope it will not be recorded as a junket by RTE or any scribes in the press. The committee Clerk will liaise with RTE on the matter.
By the time the Chairman returns home from the station he will know it was not a junket.
The RTE members will now leave and the members of the unions can take their seats.
The witnesses withdrew.
I welcome Mr. Ó Braonáin, acting secretary of the trade union group and I invite him to introduce the other members.
Mr. Donal Ó Braonáin
On behalf of RTE staff I thank the committee for its interest and concern about public service broadcasting and for giving us the opportunity to address the members. I am Donal Ó Braonáin. My background is in the news room in RTE where I worked as a television reporter for Nuacht, RTE and TG4. I am acting secretary for the group of unions. Mr. Jimmy Jordan is the broadcasting branch secretary of SIPTU which represents broadcast industry workers both nationally and regionally.
Séamus Dooley is the Irish secretary of the National Union of Journalists and represents up to 4,000 journalists on industrial and professional matters throughout the island of Ireland. Herbie Corkey is a member of SIPTU and a chair of the trade union group. He has many years experience in programme operations in RTE. Máirtín Ó Fátharta, nó Matty Joe Shéamuis is the senior music specialist in Raidió na Gaeltachta and is a member of the National Union of Journalists and is Father of the Chapel in Raidió na Gaeltachta. Nuala O'Neill is a member of SIPTU and is a senior radio producer in RTE Radio 1 and has worked on a wide range of programmes. Aidan Stanley is a senior radio producer in RTE Cork, the largest national production centre outside RTE. He has worked on many different programme strands, particularly documentaries.
The members of the committee will be more than acutely aware that the future of the Irish fishing industry is being discussed in Brussels today. We heard this morning from our marine correspondent, Tom McSweeney, that 2,000 jobs were at risk. If I recall correctly, this committee heard the concerns of a delegation of fishermen this day last week. It is clear these are trying times for workers in a number of industries in all sectors of the economy. Unfortunately, we come before the committee to warn that 2,000 jobs in RTE are at risk and the very existence of public service broadcasting is endangered.
In the written submission to the committee the group has outlined its position on the key questions facing public service broadcasting in RTE in particular as we see it. These key questions are to be found on page one. Throughout the submission we also identify areas in which we can contribute towards public policy - the implementation of the Forum on Broadcasting report, securing the future of public service broadcasting, the importance of accountability and transparency, the formulation of a charter for RTE and the issue of a single regulator for broadcasting and representation of industry workers generally on the regulatory body.
I hope we have set out our submission clearly and unambiguously and we urge you to carefully examine the arguments of the submission. I am conscious that our Director General has spoken before us and that members of the committee may have questions for our group arising from the situation outlined by the Director General. It is very easy to get bogged down in the figures and the finance, the costs, the accounting and the transparency.
We are a public service, a semi-State company owned by the people for the people and most important, paid for by the people through the licence fee. It is a national enterprise which enriches the social, political and cultural life of the country by dint of those Reithian concepts of informing, educating and entertaining. RTE is fundamentally about people and services. Those services include enriching the cultural life of the country through the orchestras, reaching the emigrant community in America and elsewhere through our web services and a wide range of other programming which tries to cater for the widest range of people in Irish society. We think this role was well recognised in the forum report. Do we always get it right? No, we do not. Do we have shortcomings? Yes, we do. Is the criticism we read in the letters' pages and the opinion columns of the newspapers justified? Some of it is but not all by any means.
If we are about people and programming there is another dimension to that relationship: the people who make the programmes. I am talking about Jeannie Whelan and John Hughes in Lyric FM who will produce the live concert by the RTE Philharmonic Choir and National Symphony Orchestra in the National Concert Hall on Friday and which will be broadcast live on Lyric FM. I am talking about Seán Whelan or Tony Connelly who will bring us news of those fisheries talks in Brussels later today. I am talking about Seán Ó Ciobháin or Jackie MacGearailt in Baile na nGall in west Kerry who may follow up the story in "Adhmhaidin" tomorrow morning. I could mention Mary Raftery and Mick Peelo who worked on that amazing documentary, "Cardinal Sins" or we could mention the team who worked on the live coverage of the re-interment of the volunteers or the coverage of the last general election or any All-Ireland both on radio and on TV.
That we have a network of correspondents and regional production centres around the country makes us a truly national broadcasting organisation. All this and more is at risk. Five hundred or 480 jobs, depending on one's point of view, have been lost in the organisation since 1999 and there are currently 190 more jobs at risk. We could be looking at a situation where RTE will have shed almost 700 staff in a three-year period by June of next year.
I do not need to tell any member of the committee that our economic circumstances have changed radically and that in the case of many of our staff who are specialised broadcast professionals, the likelihood of securing suitable re-employment is bleak, to say the least. We think we have played our part. In addition to the job losses we have radically changed the way we work and how we operate. Multi-skilling is the norm where lines of demarcation previously existed. In many areas we are operating with minimal staffing levels and under exceptionally tight budget constraints. This is affecting our output and our programming, not to mention the morale of a highly creative and very committed staff. This crisis is as serious as the current fisheries crisis.
The irony is that a blueprint exists and the director general referred to it in his presentation and that is the Forum on Broadcasting report. This is an important policy document which clearly recognises the challenges facing public service broadcasting in a digital era. It has made clear recommendations to the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern. It makes it clear that throwing more public money at the problem is not acceptable. This group also recognises that fact. The forum report offers measured and well thought out perspectives on the way forward: a charter for RTE which will be a contract of services between the organisation and the public; a new regulation system to ensure that RTE delivers on those services; added proposals on a multi-annual funding mechanism through index linking which will ensure that the funding of public service broadcasting is not eroded. These recommendations come from the forum and we believe they offer the best way forward for RTE.
We welcome any questions that the members may wish to ask, i nGaeilge nó i mBearla. I ask the committee to turn to page one of our written submission and examine our key questions. I ask the members to consider those questions carefully when this committee is submitting its report to the Minister. Will the Government accept and implement the recommendations of the forum report? What funding provision will the Government make to ensure that the current level of services provided by RTE is maintained and that RTE can invest to grow for the future? We are passionate about public service broadcasting but as trade Unionists we will not apologise about coming in here and telling you that we are also concerned about our jobs. What measures will be taken to ensure that employment in RTE is protected? On a more general point, will the trade union movement be represented in a meaningful way in any new regulator and board of directors in RTE?
Do you fully support the RTE proposal and viability plan and are you convinced that the authority will survive if the Government comes to its aid on this occasion?
Mr. Ó Braonáin
With your permission, I will answer part of that question and my colleague, Mr. Jordan, from SIPTU will answer another part. We fully support the licence fee application the RTE authority has made to the Government and believe a €43 licence fee increase is the minimum necessary to ensure that RTE discharges its statutory obligations to the public. Maybe, Mr. Jordan can come in on the rest.
Mr. Jimmy Jordan
With regards to the company's proposals, as has been said before, in recent years, we have seen up to 480 jobs go out of RTE. The bulk of those job losses took place through the transformation agreement. That agreement was arrived at through a process of a partnership. Both sides agreed there was a necessity to reduce staffing across the organisation. There was a formula and a process put in place to deal with that. The company's proposals, as they are framed now, are the company's proposals. They have not been worked out with us and have not been agreed to by us. It is the company's way forward and it is something with which we fundamentally do not agree. We do not believe it is possible to continually strip out jobs at the rate they are being stripped out of RTE. As I have said, we have seen up to 480 job losses. If the company had its way, up to about 770 jobs will go out of RTE. We do not believe RTE can fulfil the remit, which it has been given by the forum and take the number of jobs out of the organisation.
We entirely support the company in its licence fee application and I, along with the acting secretary and all the other people before the committee have actively canvassed every party in Dáil Éireann in recent weeks on this issue. We do not have any question regarding the licence fee increase. However, we have fundamental differences with the company in its proposals to make another 190 of our members redundant. Mr. Paddy Wright, the chairman of the RTE Authority, in his remarks this afternoon made the point that the 480 jobs that have gone have been lost without one single solitary hour of production being lost, because that was done through a partnership process. I cannot give guarantees at this point that another 150 or 180 jobs will be lost in the same way. We are down to the wire. We are not talking about people sitting on their butts all day. We are talking about people who are actively engaged in making programmes in RTE.
There are proposals, particularly in the facilities area, but also right across the organisation to take out more people. We do not believe that RTE can fulfil the remit, which was given in the forum report, and continue to lose jobs at the current rate. Output will be affected both in quality and quantity. We will have serious difficulties in dealing with this issue with the company over the coming months. We will have to sit down and deal with the company, but this will not be achieved easily and it will not be achieved on a voluntary basis. People who have wanted to leave the organisation have had the opportunity over the past two or three years under various different packages to exit the organisation. People who wanted to go have gone. The people who have stayed have voted with their feet by staying in this company and have shown their commitment to the organisation.
I welcome Mr. Ó Braonáin and all his colleagues. I thank them for the excellent briefing we have just received. I raised a point with the Director General in relation to the 480 people who have left and asked whether many people have had to come back effectively as consultants to keep the show on the road, as Mr. Jordan said. Is that still the case?
With the cutbacks so far, through the loss of staff and bearing in mind the large output of the stations, what changes have already taken place in an attempt to control costs? Some Members make occasional visits to RTE and some of its other outposts around the country. We notice superstars like Pat Kenny doing much of his own work. To what extent does that go on? During the past decade, since I became a Deputy, there has been a history of wanting to know the salaries of the superstars. Have any of those superstars been asked to bear some of the pain, bearing in mind their large salaries?
As Mr. Jordan has said, up to now, there has been significant consultation on staff who are departing. Is it anticipated that will happen into the future? There has been strong support for the forum report and its prognosis for the future of the organisation. A number of my colleagues, including Deputy Morgan, asked about the company's digital plans. We now understand it will not go in that direction.
The delegation obviously feels the principle of worker representation on the authority is critical. My party strongly supports the principle of worker representation at the highest levels of whatever new mechanisms emerge.
There are eight members offering and I ask them to be brief.
I will try to be brief. I thank all the union representatives for coming in today. I thank them for the very good briefing I received from them in the past week or so. I can understand the delegation's frustration with the forum report's lack of clarity as to whether the Government plans on implementing its recommendations. As an Opposition spokesperson, I have been trying to get answers on that and have not got them yet. However, I believe we will find out the Government's stance on that next week.
The delegation said 190 jobs are under threat. Management puts this figure at 150. There is a big difference between these two figures. It is important for us to get clarity on the reason for the disparity.
Deputy Broughan asked about the big earners in RTE. Is it correct that nine of the top ten broadcasting salaries in Ireland are for people in RTE? If so, should they take some of the pain in relation to cutbacks? Was the delegation surprised at the Estimates that show no increase for funding for RTE, which is surprising when we are in the middle of considering a licence fee increase and the Department would have to pay for 25,000 of those licences on behalf of social welfare recipients?
I welcome Mr. Ó Braonáin and all his colleagues. As did Mr. Wright and Mr. Jordan, I compliment the unions and management. We must give credit where it is due. No broadcasting hours have been lost up to now and this augurs well for the future of RTE. Do you consider that a licence fee increase is justified? If so, do you consider that an increase of €43 is sufficient to address the problems at the organisation?
I welcome the delegation. Is there a coherent and unified union view on the proposal to establish a broadcasting authority and the replacement of the RTE Authority by a board of directors? Would you prefer to see the RTE Authority removed from the remit of the broadcasting authority similar to the BBC?
It is difficult to find agreement on programme quality. TG4 is a good model for what can be achieved with a small budget. The station has achieved a remarkable amount of creative home programme making, either internally or by outside agencies. Does the delegation share that perception and is it your view that the main television and radio stations are good places in which to make creative programmes? Are the structures right for allowing the kind of programme creativity at TG4?
I agree with Deputy Ryan. People would be willing to pay more for quality programmes, investigative journalism and political satire, which we can handle. Only for British television's investigative television programming, the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six might still be in prison. That is a sad reflection on the major television station in the State. Would more indigenous programming of this kind save jobs and possibly create more?
I welcome the delegation. It is proposed to shed 190 jobs in 2003 while 330 have already been shed. Was this achieved through voluntary severance schemes? What discussions have been held on ways of achieving the proposed job losses for next year? If there was an agreed voluntary severance scheme, how would it be handled? I understand a small number of your members work from home. A couple of them have spoken to me and indicated they would be willing to participate in a voluntary severance scheme if they were dealt with on an individual basis. While I do not advocate that there should be 190 job losses next year, how would you respond if a severance scheme emerged that was attractive to your members? Apart from the effect on those working at the station, have these developments affected the quality of service provided?
Mr. Jordan, you indicated that the first tranche of redundancies was achieved without a loss of an hour of programming. However, you appear to indicate that the gloves are off with regard to further redundancies. Would you elaborate on what you mean when you refer to exploitative 19th century terms and conditions which will not be acceptable to staff working in a 21st century broadcasting environment? In the context of the reduction in staffing, will you clarify what the executive means when it states it is not prepared to shore up outmoded working practices and unjustifiable jobs?
I hope, Mr. Ó Braonáin, you and your colleagues will be able to answer all the questions. It is expected that at some future time the committee will consider with RTE further aspects such as programming and digital television. Our main priority today is to hear your views on the viability plan and the proposed licence fee increase.
Mr. Ó Braonáin
I am conscious of the wide range of questions and that my colleagues will also wish to become involved in the discussion. I will try to deal with the major concerns. As appropriate, my colleagues will then inform the debate.
As we are tight on time, let us first get answers to the questions raised.
Mr. Ó Braonáin
No member of this delegation is on a super star salary. Salaries are a matter for the individuals concerned and RTE. As such, we would not have a view. As they are individual arrangements, it should be a matter for the individuals concerned and RTE as to whether they should bear some of the pain.
Are they members of a trade union?
Mr. Ó Braonáin
Some of them are, but they would not be represented by us in the negotiations on salary terms and conditions.
Does that mean you do not represent all workers at RTE?
Mr. Ó Braonáin
We represent the vast majority. Management grades are also represented by the RTE managers association.
On the issue of jobs, a number of questions have been raised about the disparity between our figures and those provided by RTE regarding the process over the past couple of years. Under the transformation programme, agreed in 1999, 330 people voluntarily left the organisation under a severance package which was agreed between management and ourselves as unions. At the time we were on record as questioning the ability of the organisation to shed that number of staff and continue with the level of services provided. In November last year further cuts were imposed because of the financial difficulties. This was not achieved through a joint agreement. We muddled our way through this and 150 of our members lost their jobs.
In terms of the proposed cuts in the next round, last July the authority chairman, Mr. Paddy Wright, indicated that the number of jobs to be lost would be close to 200. We subsequently understood that to mean 190 jobs. Negotiations have been ongoing over the last four weeks to establish the exact number, but to date we have not received any information from the organisation. We are due something today which will give us a detailed breakdown of where the proposed cutbacks will be. Our understanding, to date, is that 190 jobs will be lost.
The forum report is not a panacea for all our ills, neither is throwing public money at the problem. It offers a significant direction for us and it has some of the answers. Some of the answers need to be teased out.
We were asked a very specific question about the unions' position on the single regulator. This is not an attempt to dodge the question but because the different unions, the NUJ and SIPTU, have different policy making machinery it has not been decided one way or another by either of the unions. Neither has taken a definitive stand on whether a single regulator is a good thing. Concerns have been expressed by the group of unions representing the vast majority of staff within RTE. We share RTE management concerns about one regulator regulating the commercial and independent sector and RTE. We have a sense of reality. This was in the forum report. The broadcasting authority of Ireland is mooted. We have to focus on that and see how best the regulation of public service broadcasting is served within that.
Deputy Coveney's idea of a two-arm system whereby one arm would deal with the regulation of public service broadcasting and the other would deal with the commercial area is worth teasing out. In regard to Deputy Broughan's question on the issue of representation, we feel that it is vital. The Oireachtas recognised that as far back as 1988, in terms of State enterprises and the worker participation Act. We have seen it happen in companies such as Aer Lingus where a joint approach taken at a high level helped turn the company around. We have seen it in the ESB as well, where there are four worker representatives on the board and from all accounts they have worked well.
We see the way forward for us happening on two levels. We have a worker director on the board of directors in RTE. Currently that is Anne Doyle, who is a member of SIPTU and the NUJ. She has served us very well as has Des Geraghty representing SIPTU. We are looking for increased representation at that level. In keeping with the ethos of social partnership we are looking for substantial trade union representation on the new regulator to ensure that the interests of society as a whole are safeguarded.
I will bring in some of my colleagues to discuss how the cutbacks have affected RTE, and programming in particular. Aidan Stanley will tell how programming has been affected. He will tell how easy it is to make programmes in RTE, in answer to Deputy Ryan's question. Perhaps my colleagues, Jimmy Jordan and Séamus Dooley may want to get in after that.
Mr. Aidan Stanley
I have been a producer in Cork for 25 years. Three years ago there was a blood letting before Christmas which ended Cork local radio. It was the end of the road for many people who had part-time and full-time jobs. At the time, a colleague of mine said that if the axe fell in Cork he hoped the rest of the organisation would get the same swing. I do not know if it did. I still look at the people who lost their jobs at that time and feel they did not get a fair shake in comparison to the rest of the organisation. I am not here as someone from the rebel county to talk about secession within RTE. Next Tuesday we have a meeting with a senior figure in RTE who will talk about cuts of 40% in regard to the remaining eight staff in Cork. That is not the way one should trail blaze regional broadcasting. That is not the way in which to answer questions to elected representatives who represent one side and perhaps try to defend the indefensible. I am here because I was invited on behalf of colleagues in both radio and television in Cork.
Every time one sees a programme from Cork, "made in Cork" appears at the end of it for no reason other than that it supports the idea of being able to make broadcasting in some area outside the Pale. I work inside the Pale and I have no difficulty visiting it but I live outside it and that is where programmes are made. I have to deal with a layer of management in RTE radio who have not dealt fairly with areas outside Dublin. Muddled decisions have been made in regard to what to chop and what to retain. I saw a man from the POA on television last night denying the right of the Government to close down facilities for delinquent youngsters. It had been run down for the previous two years at one third of its capacity which made it very easy to close the damn thing. The same thing is happening in regard to Cork. One of the jobs they are looking at cutting is a management job. I wonder if it should go first. I am angry about this. I am glad to be here to be able to say this.
I will still do programmes tomorrow. The next programme I do will be the march of O'Sullivan Beare out of Munster up to Leitrim where he lost 1,000 people. Only 35 arrived in Leitrim and that signalled the end of Gaelic culture. I wonder if what I am saying is echoing that in terms of recent broadcasting in the area I represent, which is Cork, Kerry, Limerick and Tipperary. We have allowed the new technology come in and change the way in which we work. I can now edit a programme and do not need anybody else to do it. I can be out with a laptop and send a report from Ballinlough in the west of Ireland and say what is happening here. A few years ago I would have needed an outside broadcast to do this. We are losing very good programme makers because they do not have the capacity to get direction. They do not get direction as to how to proceed to the next range of programming. The suggestions are not coming from the bottom up they are coming from the top down and they are serving daily needs more than long-term interests. I hope this committee may be able to address some of the difficulties to which I have alluded.
Thank you Mr. Stanley. You probably notice three faces from Cork here anyway.
Mr. Stanley
It is good to see them.
I distinctly heard the director-general speak about regional programming and regional centres. Some of our members focused very much on that and I note what is being said about Cork. Please pass on our regards for the excellent work you are doing. There are quite a number of excellent programmes being made.
Mr. Stanley
I hope it is not management jobs they are creating in the regional proposal because that has been the trend so far.
If the committee wants regional broadcasting and the investigative journalism that Deputy Ryan and Deputy Morgan have referred to then the marrow cannot be sucked from the bone, which is what the management in RTE have done. They have invoked partnership when it suited them. The arrogance of management in this process is reflected in their absence from this debate. Not one of them had the courtesy to stay and listen to what we have to say. That speaks volumes in regard to the process in which we are currently engaged.
In regard to Deputy Morgan's comments on investigative journalism, one has to examine the restrictions of libel law and section 31 as much as other issues in regard to internal RTE restrictions in this matter. One of the most costly areas of the media is investigative journalism and that is a real concern. If RTE is to develop itself as a public service broadcaster it has been recognised by the European Federation of Journalists in this area, then staff are required. Competition must be looked at. A question was asked as to who RTE competes with. RTE is a public service broadcaster and is obliged to meet certain standards. It also has collective agreements with trade unions which are denied by the main national competitor TV 3. I speak as someone whose union has had to hold secret meetings in pubs because trade union recognition is denied to both SIPTU and the NUJ.
The committee is talking about the independent radio sector. It is a low paid sector. There are contracts which are restrictive and these are issues——
Please confine your answers to the questions which relate to RTE. We will, in our own way, discuss BCI and all of our media shortly.
The question was asked and it referred to the fact——
Certainly, you can say with whom you are competing. Please let us do our own investigating of all the other matters.
It is very difficult to separate the dancer from the dance, I apologise. On the issue of representation, it is worth noting that there is no formal trade union representation on BCI. While there are union members there is no trade union representation at the moment and were we to look at using the BCI as a model that is an issue which would have to be addressed. Our concerns about representation are reflected by a Bill published and discussed at Second Stage in the Seanad today, the National Tourism Development Authority Bill. A feature of that Bill is the absence of trade union representation and we would be concerned at this being used as a precedent in the area and that we for instance, lose rights which are enshrined already.
I am under a little pressure. The Clerk tells me that the room must be vacated. Would it be possible for Mr. Ó Braonáin to sum up? It is important for the committee to draw a conclusion.
I suggest that those who have not spoken take a minute to give their views.
Ms O’Neill
I want to address what was said about creativity. I work on a small team that produces a programme called Five Seven Live. In recent weeks we have been running a series on housing in Ireland, who makes money who does not, who loses out, Section 23 tax shelters and all that kind of thing. It has got a great deal of critical attention and we have never had such a reaction to anything as we have had to this programme. In order to run with those queries we have had to release two people from our team. We lose them while they go off to do their research and they have to do a great deal of research and travelling around. Our team then has to make up the slack for them. The problem for us after Christmas, as we lose one more member of our staff, is can we still afford to let people off to do that kind of thing? The answer to your question about creativity and the kind of programmes we should be doing is, the more we lose staff the more difficult it becomes and that is as clear as I can make it. We cannot continue to do those kind of investigative reports which we should do, it is part of our public service remit, if we keep losing staff. That is all there is to it.
What happened today was that we were just going to invite in RTE management and then we received a general letter from you and we felt it only fair to invite you in. Unfortunately there is not time to tease out every issue and that is why we have asked you to touch on them very briefly. You have made some very important points and answered some very important questions for the Members.
I would like an answer to my question.
There are two people we have not heard from.
Mr. Corkery
The committee regularly talks about programming and so on.. When we make programmes now we constantly have to beg, borrow or steal for microphones, even for shows like the Late Late Show. We have to hire them in because they simply will not buy microphones for technical programmes. That is the kind of cuts which have been effected. I work in sound. I mix sound regularly on the Late Late Show. When the national broadcaster does not have enough mikes to mix an orchestra which arrives in the studio, it is a very bad indictment of the organisation.
Mr. Máirtín Ó Fátharta
Ní chuirfidh mé mórán moille ar an choiste ach amháin a rá gur thosaigh Raidió na Gaeltachta 30 bliain ó shin agus gur breathnaíodh air mar sheirbhís reigiúnda ag an am. Tá sé mar sheirbhís naisiúnta anois le 20 blianta. Go deireanach amháin, áfach, a fuair an fhoireann atá ansin aon chothromaíocht pá leis an gcuid eile den eagraíocht.
For the sake of those of you who cannot follow the native language, only recently, and we are 30 years old now, has Radio na Gaeltachta been recognised as a total part of the organisation as far as the broadcasters' wages go. We are definitely not a part of the superstars' salaries which have been mooted all day. Even in our recent negotiations, we are on the lowest point of the journalist scale.
Mr. Ó Braonáin
I am very conscious that Senator Finucane asked a direct question of my colleague and am anxious that——
Mr. Jordan
On the point of the 19th century conditions of employment, what is taking place in RTE is that people are exiting the organisation under various packages and we see them coming back on either part-time or casual contracts to fill short-term needs. Now jobs will go, in the sense that permanent, full-time posts will go and be replaced by people coming in on contracts. Those people will not have access to pension schemes etcetera, which, I believe, is a basic entitlement is this day and age. I do not apologise for saying that. There have been reasonably well paid jobs in RTE. People have worked very hard for that and built it up over the years.
Deputy Broughan asked what has changed, what is going on in the organisation. Very often to listen to people one would think RTE is the same monolith now that it was five, ten or 15 years ago. I would suggest that anyone like Senator Finucane take this very simple illustrative point. Up to six months ago if Senator Finucane had occasion to go into the RTE studio in Limerick there would have been two people working there, Jim Sadlier and Ms Eleanor Finnucane. Now there is no Jim Sadlier, Eleanor Finnucane is doing everything. That is an example of what has taken place in RTE in recent years. That has happened in Athlone, Sligo and all of the regions. That woman now meets, greets, puts people on air, and sets the whole system up. Before this it took two people to do it. That is simply an illustration of what is going on in the organisation. We have taken on change, we have paid our fair share.
We are now looking to the Government to give us what we need to maintain the company as a viable, real alternative. I agree with Deputy Eoin Ryan. We are as interested and concerned about what is happening to programming and creativity. The simple, plain fact is that for the past three years every ounce of creativity that has gone into the organisation has been to try to maintain it, to try to maintain output and see how to pay our way. The reality is that, unless the Government addresses the licence fee increase, RTE as we know it will no longer exist. That is the reality.
I want to give you a chance to refute, or otherwise, what was said about justifying getting rid of extra jobs "not to shore up outmoded work practices and unjustifiable jobs".
Mr. Jordan
I could be nasty and say that if there are jobs in RTE which people justify, I suggest it might be somewhere at management level because it is certainly not down here on the floor. Every job which we have is accounted for. Every one of our members have jobs to go to. We have outmoded work practices. In the past three years we have put in place agreements to deal with flexibility and change. To give an illustration, if one goes on the Den programme tomorrow one will see producers where before there would have been a vision mixer and producer. One does not have a vision mixer. The producer, assistant producer or director will now vision mix, which is a complex operation. As well as doing their own job they are now doing the vision mixer’s job. That is simply an illustration of what has taken place in recent years. I resent and reject, and I have made it absolutely clear to the company, the type of language which has been used. We have a difficult enough job facing us. It will not be dealt with or resolved by making such unjustifiable arguments or claims which only incense the staff and beg a reaction from them.
Thank you for making the presentation. I am sorry I had to swing the time axe today. The information you have given the committee is invaluable. We will need to tease out this matter again.
Mr. Ó Braonáin
I thank the committee for its time and interest. We are grateful it has heard our concerns.
The joint committee went into private session at 3.40 p.m. and adjourned at 4.15 p.m. sine die.