On conflict of interest, are all the board members affected from time to time? In county enterprise boards, a committee would thoroughly evaluate the submission and make a recommendation. Does that happen? Does lobbying of members take place, or is it a completely transparent system with no lobbying whatsoever?
I will move on to the co-ops and communities. Kilkenny was mentioned specifically in the submission, and I will not enter into the legal aspect of a case from that city, since it is before the High Court. I am from Kilkenny, so I have an interest in this issue. Mr. O'Keeffe experienced at first hand the passion in that city when he argued the various points on our local radio yesterday, so my questions are not part and parcel of the court hearings. I would like to understand more clearly the commissions understanding of "community" and "co-ops" and the ownership issue in a local model. It appears in the case of Kilkenny that was mentioned that there is a very clear working model of local co-operative community radio where it is in the direct ownership of the community. I would like to hear, in the context of earlier comments, what the commissions understanding of "community" is. It seems to be different from that of many of the shareholders in the Kilkenny co-operative movement regarding the ownership of that radio station.
Mention was made that the hand-over must be fairly clear. There is a finish date and a date when the new people take up ownership. However, court cases have thrown some of those dates out of kilter, since there has been an extension of time for some radio stations. With that sort of movement taking place - without discussing the legality of it - I wish to ask, what is the commissions policy on the timeframe, and the lapse of time, between the closing of a station and the commencement of another? What is the policy on that gap? Is it within the commissions remit to force existing licence holders to co-operate with incoming licence holders? What effort does the commission make with the outgoing licence holder in the context of continuation or ending of the station? For example, does the commission have any regard, in its consideration of the licence or extension of time for the licence holder in that instance, to how many jobs might go and how staff might be moved on?
In the commissions consideration of "community" and "co-operative", does it have any regard for the assets if there is a licence holder who has built them up? In most cases, the assets are simply a loyal listenership or a loyal body or community of advertisers. Is there a total disregard for that? Mr. Maguire mentioned in another part of his submission the value of such licences, which can now run to millions of euro. As the commission makes a decision to close down one station or reopen another, it is effectively handing the assets, sometimes those of community or co-operative stations, straight to the commercial sector free of charge. There is no financial consideration given for that transfer, yet the commission encouraged it in some of its letters. The commission is encouraging co-operation between the closing station and the new owners. That seems to the general public to be more than a little unfair. If the accounts are examined in detail, as the witnesses say they do, they must be aware that the commission is handing a very valuable asset from one body of people to another. The commissions argument seems to be that they are making a decision but that it depends on the listenership, the customers, and what they want from the station. It is a little like an article that I read recently in The New York Times, which was brought to my attention. It referred to local radio and the changes that were taking place. It could be taking place in this country. It stated:
Driving across America you can chart your course by the accents, news and songs streaming in from the nearest AM transmitter. What is more, the invisible people who introduced the songs gave the impression that they listened to them at home. They were locals with local interests: when I turned on the radio I heard America singing, even in the dumb banter of the morning zoo hosts.
It is a comment in general on the imperfections of local radio, but yet, with all its imperfections the listenership is indicating through its support that is what it wants. In America it is noted that with the change of radio licences the "monotonous numbing hum" is now being experienced. I am afraid that is where we are going to because of the ownership of the various companies. Some of these are crossed - some concerns retain a common interest in a number of companies. The same play lists are in use, the same advertisers are being tapped into and so on. The BCI should have an obligation to ensure that co-operative groups involved in community ethos and delivering successful radio stations are not necessarily rolled over. There should be some sort of obligation to consider the particular community that is their main support base. They have existed for years and their figures and accounts show this. I do not believe this is reflected sufficiently in the context of BCI policy.
In the report, a "three-three" situation - or some such division - is referred to, and then the chairman steps in to give his casting vote. Three-three out of ten and the division was 30% to 40% in some of the decisions that were taken. It is a little unfair that it is that percentage of the board that is making the decision. Then there is the question of the chairman's role in the context of a three-three. In this House, for example, if there was a division and the Ceann Comhairle was to make his decision, it would be in favour of the status quo, and the Government in that instance would not fall, whereas in the case of the BCI no criterion is set down - or it has not been mentioned - as to how the chairman should make a decision in a three-three divide given the argument about co-operatives, the support from the public and the question of assets, which I believe to be a serious issue. The transfer of assets, free, to a commercial interest has not been addressed by anyone. I would like if this issue could be addressed.
The quotation I gave from America is reminiscent of the comment made by Mr. Maguire about "the top down" and "not in demand". That needs to be addressed. Some issues, raised by way of public perception, have not been addressed adequately in the report before us. Certainly, the experience of some radio stations - I am not speaking about Kilkenny solely - is that when a decision is made, regardless of what side one is on, the explanation for it is not given in a manner that comprehensively describes what exactly has happened vis-à-vis each application. Therefore, a scoring system - or some method that ensures the application is benchmarked against something real and tangible - would allay some of the concerns and fears over failed applications, whether in the case of existing stations or not. The BCI has a responsibility to explain that.
The final point I wish to make is that the BCI is not doing enough about the transition. The tone of the letters sent out by way of arranging the transition - or dealing with the transition period - took no cognisance of the listenership, a point made earlier by another member. The fact that elderly people in rural Ireland and remote communities, and other groups, rely on local radio as their only lifeline to life outside their own door or parish is not recognised. The BCI does not recognise the importance of 'local'. Mr. Tom Collins of NUI Maynooth dealt with it in detail in a paper published recently. The local public representative, community or whatever, is so important to people and this is not reflected in the actions of the BCI. There is a clear need for the board to spell out its intentions on the radio stations that have failed and during the interim. There is an onus on the commission to provide a 'road map', without appearing to bully those involved into moving from where they are to closure; to clearing the transition and to moving on. That obligation, really, is to local communities. The BCI does not seem to recognise that.