We will move on. I thank those who contributed on this topic. If further questions arise, we will return to them. Deputy Broughan will now ask questions on the duties of broadcasters. I ask members to be cognisant of the fact that we have structured this part of the proceedings in a certain way with their agreement.
Statutory Duties, Controls and Rules Imposed on Broadcasters.
On the 20% news requirement, from the submissions the joint committee received through the e-consultation process it emerged that nearly all parties, including the national public broadcaster, believe it is difficult to meet this requirement. I ask the witnesses to explain the reason for this. Politicians listen to and read news virtually 24 hours per day, seven days per week and want all stations, whether Spin FM or Lyric FM, to have a news service. What news quota do broadcasters favour for programming?
A number of submissions noted difficulties with section 3 of head No. 40 which states that "the authority may authorise derogation from the requirement in question in whole or in part in the case of a sound broadcasting service." The NUJ — perhaps correctly — expressed dissatisfaction with this provision but did not outline its reasons. Why should any broadcaster receive derogation from requirements on news and current affairs content? In local radio, the news output is often a great deal more than 20%. Many local and community stations are fantastic at covering local events. Is this not a modest requirement in terms of licences and the duties of a broadcaster? Why should we not ensure this provision will be in the legislation?
Does Mr. Feeney wish to contribute?
Mr. Feeney
For obvious reasons, it is not a major issue for RTE. The one significant area for us, for example, would be Lyric FM which is a classic music and arts channel and it does not make sense to put a 20% news and current affairs quota on it. Other than that, the quota is not a particular issue for RTE. By and large we are in favour of it because we believe this is what makes us uniquely Irish. This applies both to commercial and public service broadcasting. For us, it is only an issue in terms of particular niche channels.
Would Mr. Feeney make the same point about a rock music or alternative music station? Would one not expect to hear the news every 20 minutes on such stations?
Mr. Feeney
The thinking behind the 20% news quota is to try to maximise the audience for news and current affairs. That is why it is imposed on rock music stations, etc. That decision was taken by the Oireachtas in terms of commercial broadcasting over the past ten years. It is not an issue for RTE.
Does Mr. McMunn have any contribution to make in reply to the question?
Mr. McMunn
If there is to be a derogation from any of these rules, it should apply objectively to all stations, be they public service or commercial ones. If it is simply the case that RTE's Lyric FM can get a derogation because of what it does. That, in itself, would possibly contravene EU rules because it would imply a different regulation of the private sector and the public sector. A 17 or 18 year old who is into dance music and listens to Spin 103.8 should have just as much right to expect a derogation as somebody in his or her 60s or 70s listening to Mozart on Lyric FM.
In the case of Stockholm, for example, where one has up to 70 stations, they appear to be organised on a function basis relating to a particular kind of broadcasting. With the advent of Newstalk as a national station, there could be more news stations per se. Some parts of the Bill appear to refer to an archaic world. Would Mr. McMunn agree that part of the duties of broadcasters outlined in the Bill reflects a world where there was a maximum of 20 radio stations rather than one where it is possible to listen to hundreds of radio stations?
Mr. McMunn
That is a very fair comment. Different formats should be allowed, given the evolution of technology and as the digital audio spectrum broadens. It should be left to the market to decide. There is a market for news stations, as Newstalk has proven. It is a fair comment that people should be allowed to choose for themselves.
Mr. Tighe
I would agree. My organisation represents a diverse mix of different types of radio stations, including Newstalk and Spin 103.8. One of the most interesting questions is to clarify exactly what constitutes news and current affairs. To an 18 year old, news and current affairs could be about Britney Spears but to someone in his or her 60s or older, it could be nothing to do with Britney Spears, although it is possible he or she could be thinking about her. It is important to have some stipulation for news and current affairs.
Many commercial radio stations in the UK are currently on their knees because there are no longer points of difference between them. Big conglomerates are involved, all operating with the same marketing strap lines and logos. Local radio in Ireland is really good and I am proud to be a part of it. Those are the real questions. If a derogation is proposed, it should be available to all. This would ensure that some kind of programming or commercial advantage would not be conferred on existing operators. It obviously costs a lot of money to run a news and current affairs operation, regardless of whether the station is local or national.
There are two different areas about which I want to ask a question. The first, which pertains to section 1, concerns the need for better warning systems regarding programmes that might frighten children or contain other undesirable comment. On a public service basis, should television broadcasters, in particular, outline a better labelling scheme for content? I have a five year old who gets scared remarkably easily. It would benefit parents, in particular, if there was clearer public information on the types of programmes due to be broadcast. Regardless of whether Terry Gillespie is present, could the television broadcasters state whether they would object to a mechanism that would give a greater indication as to the content of programmes? This would possibly be useful.
My second point relates to television broadcasters, particularly those of TV3 — I do not believe we have Channel 6 yet. Further to the conversation on news requirements concerning radio stations, there is a question as to whether we should be legislating for Irish content in television programming. It seems that one of the outcomes of the increase in the licence fee is that it has allowed RTE to increase its domestic programming, to which the public is responding.
Mr. Tighe's point on O'Connell Street is valid, regardless of whether it is in Limerick or Tralee. When programmes were made on subjects such as Portrane, viewerships of up to 500,000 were achieved, even though such programmes might not necessarily be sure-fire hits in terms of viewers. The Irish public does respond to domestic content. Would TV3 object to a legislative stipulation that a percentage of production budgets be devoted to home-produced output such that there would not be so much formulaic television bought in from outside? While this may be very popular and may have a role, is there a case, on good policy grounds and perhaps on commercial grounds, for stronger domestic content?
Mr. McMunn
On the second point, which is related directly to TV3, there are obligations on TV3 with regard to Irish and independent production content, as the BCI representatives will confirm. We meet those requirements. If the Deputy is stating there should be more domestic content than there is at present, I can say no more than that the current director general of RTE, Cathal Goan, stated on Newstalk in June 2004 that operators in the Irish broadcasting market, as currently constituted, cannot afford to make Irish programmes other than with the licence fee. RTE is in receipt of approximately €200 million, if not more, per annum. The reality is that if more regulations are placed on TV3, which is within the remit of the Legislature, the very least the Legislature must do is control the funding currently used in broadcasting, particularly that of RTE. To put it bluntly, RTE is the dominant commercial broadcaster in the State, as well as the public service broadcaster. It is interesting that Mr. Feeney, when he referred to the licence fee not being diverted from Irish programming to running a regulator, used the expression "Irish-made radio and television". At the moment no one is remotely certain about the percentage of the licence fee used for Irish-made programming on RTE because there is no appropriate definition in accordance with EU competition law of the public service mission of RTE. That issue must be addressed before we put more regulations in place for the commercial sector.
I understand there are existing obligations in terms of Irish content and I find some of it to be very good. I have enjoyed going to TV3 at 6 a.m. to appear on its morning programme, which works well. I am concerned about extending that into drama and documentaries. It might be difficult for broadcasters to make a commercial success of such programming but I have friends working in the independent production sector, which is now fairly extensive, who work with TG4 on remarkably tight budgets. When I hear what my friends can do for so little it seems that we have created the conditions where it would be possible, if the conditions were set by the Legislature for commercial broadcasters, to avail of such an industry to ensure local programming. That is what the public responds to so there will be a commercial return, as Mr. Tighe said about radio programming, where there is a similar commercial return from having local content.
Mr. McMunn
There is undoubtedly a return on Irish-made programming. Just before Christmas we ran a programme called "Diary of a Debutante", an independent production for TV3 that worked remarkably well. I come back to the point, however, about more regulations being put in place for TV3 on Irish programming. The director general of RTE has acknowledged there is a market failure with regard to production costs in this jurisdiction and far be it from me to contradict the director general of RTE. We cannot impose more regulations on a solely commercially funded broadcaster without in some way addressing the wider broadcasting regime. In our case, we must be certain that RTE's licence fee goes on Irish programming only and does not, with the rest of the licence fee, upset or alter the broadcasting environment and our opportunity to make money and programmes.
Mr. Feeney
On Deputy Ryan's question on programme classification, RTE puts a logo on screen before every programme that states if it is suitable for a general audience or children and so on. We may not have done enough to promote that but every programme RTE shows includes that on-screen logo to indicate if it is suitable for children. In the case of any programme we feel is unsuitable for children, we say so in a continuity announcement. We also observe the watershed.
How is "children" defined in that instance?
Mr. Feeney
We break it down into more than one category. Generally "children" in broadcasting terms refers to everyone under the age of 18 but we recognise there is a huge difference between a 17 year old and a five year old so in the continuity announcements we recommend parental supervision or state that a programme is not suitable for children. It is difficult when it comes to different levels of understanding and the perception of programming for five and ten year olds. It is difficult to say for certain if a programme that frightens a five year old will not frighten a ten year old. In our mind there are three groups — preschool, under 12s and 12 to 18 year olds. We can improve on public information and continuity announcements in that area.
Income from the licence fee is used by RTE to make a wide range of drama, current affairs programmes and documentaries that are very popular with our audience. Without the television licence fee income, we could not afford to make those programmes. If it were removed, it would lead to a reduction in the quality and quantity of home productions. Our ratings show audiences want to watch Irish productions dealing with Irish subjects and using Irish participants. It is a simple equation. Cathal Goan is correct that it cannot be funded through commercial income but through the television licence fee income.
Mr. Michael O’Keeffe
With regard to the warning systems, we are coming to the end of a three-phase consultation process on a code of programme standards which will be introduced in April. This process addressed the issue of either classification, watershed or the notion of warnings. It will be addressed in the code and provide guidance for broadcasters.
I agree with much of what has been said on Irish content. TV3 has contractual requirements that 25% of its programme content should be Irish-made. There is an issue around advancing this figure, which links to the points made by Mr. Feeney on the cost of programming. Sound and vision, the broadcasting programme funding scheme, is designed to support programmes of a public service nature. It accounts for 5% of the licence fee and is available to all broadcasters. We have run two rounds and will soon start the third. Many good quality Irish programmes have come on stream because of this funding. The points made by RTE and TV3 on increasing the levels are valid because of the funding nature of the industry.
I have been intrigued for some time as to how the 20% news content requirement for independent radio broadcasters is measured. Many independent stations comfortably reach the target. However, the content of many Dublin stations seems to be wall-to-wall music. Unless they are including news content in the early hours to catch up on the requirement, I am dubious as to whether many of them are reaching the 20% figure.
Since the stipulation was introduced that television broadcasters must use locally produced programmes to a rate of 10%, there has been an explosion in the independent production market. It does not seem, however, to have happened in radio broadcasting. My local radio station produces some of its own local programmes which have been very successful. Outside of this, there are no independent producers producing radio programmes because there is no real market. Should the legislation be extended to include the 10% requirement for the radio sector?
Mr. Dusty Rhodes
I am chairman of the Association of Independent Radio Producers of Ireland and accompanied by Ms Mary Owens, the vice chairperson. The association represents 50 independent radio producers across 13 counties. They have had small but successful starts thanks to the sound and vision scheme. There are some network programmes running across multiple stations. Our members have won many PPI awards and one at the New York Radio Festival.
As we have received the association's submission, I ask Mr. Rhodes to address Senator Kenneally's questions.
Mr. Rhodes
There are many independent radio producers. Senator Kenneally is correct that he is not hearing-----
Are they not linked with the local radio stations?
Mr. Rhodes
They are not linked with the local radio stations, and all act independently. There are many of them, but the sector is not growing quickly enough, since there is currently no legislative requirement for radio stations to carry a certain proportion of independently produced programming. We have heard a great deal of talk regarding independent television companies and productions and their success on RTE and TV3. The reason was the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act 1993, which stipulates that broadcasters must take a certain percentage of independently produced output. In this new Bill we seek the introduction of a similar quota for radio to help grow the sector.
Ms Mary Owens
There is an anomaly between the positions of independent television production and radio in Ireland, whether publicly or privately owned. The requirement to source at least 10% of one's schedule or programming from independent producers has been placed on television, and no one present would dispute the contention that it has been good for both viewers and the Government, which has gained revenue and jobs. It has also created a greater diversity and range of programmes on television.
There is an embryonic independent radio production sector waiting to expand and anxious to show that it can bring to local, regional and national stations diversity and high-quality programmes that listeners want to hear. However, to do so we require a legislative framework. The current position is that there has been quite an increase in independent radio productions in the past year, mainly as a result of the sound and vision scheme funded under the Broadcasting (Funding) Act 2003. That is very much welcome and will make a great difference in coming years.
However, it is imperative that there be a legislative framework, which means that the requirement to source 10% from independents should be extended to radio, allowing the two media be treated in the same way. At present, there is quite an anomaly with no sound rationale or good reason in commercial or programming quality terms.
Does Mr. O'Keeffe wish to comment on that?
Mr. Maguire
Perhaps I might say that independent radio producers may be underestimating their own abilities. We obviously provide the supports referred to through the broadcasting fund, and there is also training and development support. The support available through the broadcasting fund will not become apparent for some time, since it is relatively new, although there have been two funding rounds. I suspect that independent radio producers will benefit greatly from that and that we will see the increase in participation so strongly desired.
Perhaps Senator O'Meara might like to comment on the same issues, after which Mr. Feeney might respond.
The introduction of a quota is the nub of the issue. I specifically recall the 1993 legislation, since I was working as an RTE journalist at the time. It was a matter of major public debate whether there should be a 10% quota for television. However, in the interim that requirement has provided the impetus for the development of a vibrant independent sector. I feel as a viewer that it has contributed greatly to television. The question now arises as to whether the same must be done for radio. In other words, if there is not that requirement, will the sector develop? Mr. Maguire seems to be saying that it is not necessary to make it a requirement. However, Ms Owens has argued that if we do not introduce a requirement similar to that for television, the sector will not develop, since big players such as RTE will not take that route unless made to do so, to put it bluntly.
Mr. Maguire
We have not adopted a position on whether there should be a requirement. I emphasise the other side of the argument, namely, that the supports in place are only beginning to make an impression. I suspect that when the true effect of the broadcasting fund becomes apparent, there will be an upsurge in the growth of independent productions. However, as I have already said, we have not yet taken a position.
Mr. Feeney
In its corporate plan, RTE has identified independent radio as a key sector in the future. It is our intention to increase commissioning from the independent radio sector. We are committed to increasing the amount of independent radio production that we broadcast on our radio channels. We do not want a quota because the industry must develop. If a high quota is imposed early on, there will be supply, training and continuity problems. If the sector is allowed to grow organically, a very healthy radio production industry can be developed. We are committed to that.
Should section 17 be extended to increase the percentage of independently produced programmes above the 10% level?
Mr. Tighe
I can only speak for the majority of my members, which are the local radio stations throughout the State. The Senator asked two different questions. One was about certain stations in Dublin meeting their news and current affairs requirements, which is a question for Mr. O'Keeffe. The second question was about the independent producers. The radio stations we operate are really dependent on market forces. We will not broadcast something that we do not think will attract listeners, who are the most important people to us. Independent radio now accounts for more than 60% of radio listening throughout the State. Those figures are increasing on a quarterly basis. We feel our members have a good handle on what their listeners want from their radio stations. That is not to say we are not open. My radio station in Limerick has a good programme produced by Mr. Rhodes, which works very well for us. We know what our listeners want better than anyone else and we are prepared to give them what they want, rather than seeking stuff from elsewhere. If it meets the quality threshold that most of our members have on their radio stations, then that is fine. If it does not meet that threshold, then we will do it ourselves.
Ms Owens
I would like to respond to both of those points. In the first case, we are rehearsing many of the arguments that arose from the imposition of a quota for television production in 1993. We know that independent television production has already made its mark and that two things are needed. In its 1993 review of the development of the sector, the audiovisual federation pointed out that two things are needed, namely, availability of funding, tax and fiscal incentives from the State as well as the imperative to set up an independent production unit within RTE, which was the only television broadcaster at that time. There are lessons to be learned here for independent radio production. We need funding, but we also need a legislative framework. In our experience, that means a quota.
In response to Mr. Tighe, independent radio producers do not want to make programmes that nobody wants. This is about a process of consultation and is very much in the hands of the commissioning process, so that commercial radio station owners can tell independent producers what they want in order to meet their listeners' needs. We will make programmes independently that will satisfy them and their listeners. It is a matter of formalising that process and generating that dialogue, because it is happening on a very ad hoc basis at the moment. We would like to see that situation improved and put on a slightly more formal basis.
Mr. O’Keeffe
On the point made about the 20% requirement, the Dublin stations are compliant with that on a consistent basis. They are monitored four or five times per annum and their record is good. We are introducing a public file this year, which will set out the performance of all the different stations under their various statutory requirements. It will be accessible on our website some time during the first half of this year — I hope I am not speaking too soon in this regard but that is our plan. The 20% requirement is being adhered to.
I thank Mr. O'Keeffe. We will return to some of the subjects mentioned at the end of the session. Deputy Eamon Ryan has a number of questions with regard to the allocation of 15 minutes of advertising time across a two-hour period rather than the ten minutes per hour suggested in section 7 and whether this should be extended to commercial broadcasters. I believe the Deputy wanted to develop these questions.
Again, this issue concerns the differing treatment of public and commercial broadcasters. My understanding from the submissions we have received is that RTE has a certain advantage in the sense that it operates to a 15 minutes per two-hour rule whereas independent broadcasters are required to operate on a per-hour basis, which means they have less flexibility, although I stand to be corrected on these figures. I ask RTE to justify why there should be differing treatment between the two types of broadcaster. What is the justification for the 15 minutes per two-hour period rule which does not apply to commercial stations?
We have received submissions from RTE and the IBI in that regard. Perhaps we could-----
Mr. Paul Mulligan
Let me introduce myself. Mr. Feeney has stepped back. I am the head of commercial affairs at RTE. Therefore, I am probably more familiar with the ins and outs of the matter.
Mr. Mulligan is welcome.
Mr. Mulligan
The issue is complicated. To clarify for Deputy Ryan, RTE is allowed by ministerial order to devote 10% of its broadcast time to commercials across the broadcast day, which means it is allowed an average of six minutes per hour. This is considerably less than in the commercial environment, which is allowed a figure of 15%, or nine minutes per hour. However, RTE is also allowed to have a maximum of seven and a half minutes in any one hour once the figures are balanced across the broadcast day. In other words, RTE can have seven and a half minutes of commercials per hour at peak time, when there are many viewers, but it must reduce this figure at off-peak times, when there are fewer viewers. That is the rule.
The 15 minutes over two hours requirement was purely a mechanism. We asked for flexibility, although this is seldom used. For example, one might want to take an advertising break at 8.57 a.m. but because a programme overruns or there is a public service announcement the break might not occur until 9.03 a.m. We wanted flexibility to have an average of seven and half minutes over a two-hour period if programmes move, as often happens, particularly in a public service environment. It was awarded by the Minister in 1993, when he lifted the embargo imposed on RTE's advertising time prior to that period.
Will Mr. Mulligan provide an example of how this would apply to the public sector but not the commercial sector? What type of overrun could occur?
Mr. Mulligan
I can give one regular example which relates to current affairs broadcasts. For example, most people are familiar with the hour of RTE television programming between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. We have the news at 9 p.m., an anchor point of the evening. As it is the main evening news programme for the public service broadcaster, we restrict the break in the middle, normally to just 90 seconds. Following the main evening news, we take a commercial break, on which we impose a limit because we want to keep our viewers with us and do not want to over-burden them with commercials. Therefore, the break is not long, probably four minutes.
Hence, on average one has five and a half minutes of advertising time between 9 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. On a couple of nights a week we subsequently broadcast "Prime Time". As a public service broadcaster, RTE should produce such programmes and it has taken the decision not to take any commercial breaks during "Prime Time". Consequently, there is no commercial break between 9 p.m. and 10.10 p.m. We operate this self-imposed restriction to ensure we fulfil our public service responsibilities in respect of current affairs. Having made the decision not to take commercial breaks on such occasions, the flexibility to make up for the lost commercial time is desirable. This is also done for concerts, operas, galas, etc., where it would be inappropriate to take a commercial break. However, one would wish to try to recoup some of the commercial time at another point.
I thank Mr. Mulligan. I ask Mr. Tighe to respond to this issue.
Mr. Tighe
I will follow on from Mr. Mulligan's points. Unfortunately the independent broadcasters do not have the flexibility to do this. I will use the example of a current affairs programme that runs on most local radio stations, for which we have the flexibility to introduce local reporters, news and information. Currently, we are allowed approximately ten minutes per hour of advertising, which must be used within that broadcast hour. Any minutes that cross into the next hour are effectively lost. If we have 15 spare seconds, they cannot be carried across.
For example, a current affairs programme had an advertising break that went into the news at the start of the hour. Something happened locally and the reports were extended within the current affairs programme. As the advertising minutage was quite tight for the hours in question, the advertising break was taken late and consequently it ran across the start of the following hour. The minutes that crossed the 10 a.m. point were then counted towards the next hour's minutes. The cumulative effect was that the second hour was in breach of our contractual obligations. The radio station would have been in breach in that regard.
As for our minutage, we would go a step further than the flexibility enjoyed by RTE at present. It would be a significant step forward to have the flexibility to be allowed to place the minutage across the total broadcast day. From the perspectives of both market forces and flexibility, this would enable us to place the advertising where it is required and to not necessarily incur breaches if a piece of current affairs news or whatever breaks.
I imagine it would be profitable and popular to concentrate advertising within a certain period.
Mr. Tighe
We do not advocate any more time. We simply advocate the ability to spread the minutes across the total broadcast day, rather than using or losing them within one specific hour. While it would be somewhat like the RTE position across two hours, we are trying to get it across the entire day.
Mr. McMunn should make a brief comment, to be followed by a response from the BCI.
Mr. McMunn
There is a general point to be made about the flexibility or otherwise of RTE. Mr. Mulligan made the accurate point that occasionally RTE does not take commercial breaks. However, RTE is the public service broadcaster and receives €200 million per year to so do. In respect of commercial minutage, the viewer and the public at large can expect RTE to be more flexible in this regard and not to have as much commercial time as the commercial sector, which depends solely on such advertising minutes. Ultimately, as Mr. Tighe — and the RTE representatives — noted, we provide a public service.
Mr. Maguire
I approach this from a slightly different perspective, namely, from the regulatory point of view. This raises a particular point that is worth mentioning and if nothing else, the previous contributions have illustrated the complexity of the matter. Obviously, different considerations must be applied in different scenarios. From our perspective, this is an indication and illustration of where one should have a single regulator in respect of the regulation of advertising minutage.
The television without frontiers, TWF, directive is the European legislation and regulation in this regard and this issue is encompassed within it. However, in so far as dealing with advertising in this jurisdiction and the amount of minutage to be given in a given situation, there is a logic in allowing the single content regulator to deal with that, as opposed to heading No. 106 applying to RTE while Nos. 40 and 41 apply to the independent sector. I would argue that this should be done. I acknowledge that there is a necessity for flexibility but that flexibility should be worked out by the single regulator, that is, the BAI. In this context, I should mention that the BCI hopes to engage in a consultation process on advertising minutage and the complexities that surround the allocation of time to advertising.
Is that not dealt with effectively under the current heads of the Bill?
Mr. Maguire
It is dealt with differently. Head No. 106 deals with the public broadcaster and heads Nos. 40(7) and 41(5) deal with the other side. We would advocate that there is a slight contradiction in some of this and that the overwhelming logic is to allow for a single determination relating to what necessarily is a varied application of principle.
Does Mr. Prasifka have any comment on the issue of advertising by the public service broadcaster as opposed to a commercial broadcaster?
Mr. Bill Prasifka
No, this is not an area on which our submission focused in terms of the minutage for the variety of broadcasters.
I did not wish to leave Mr. Prasifka on his own.
Mr. Prasifka
That is much appreciated.
We will proceed with a question from Senator Finucane.
Can I take it from what Mr. Maguire said that there is validity in what Mr. David Tighe said earlier about advertising and having to spread it out over 24 hours using the same advertising space? Mr. Maguire would see a role for the regulator there. Does the BCI not have any flexibility in that direction?
Mr. Maguire
No, and that it is the difficulty. There is validity in the argument.
Would the commission not look favourably on it on the basis that the amount of advertising space was not increased over the 24 hour allocation which was allowed? The point he was making with regard to the overlap was that the advertising could be picked up in another slot, as it were, but there was no increase in the overall advertising space.
Mr. O’Keeffe
We understand where the broadcaster is coming from on this. Our problem is that the legislation is quite specific about minutage. We are advocating that the legislation should not be so specific but that there should be some discretion for the regulator to make a determination on minutage within the overall television without frontiers directive.
If an incident occurs on a radio programme whereby, for example, something runs over time by a minute or so, how is that policed? The commission is checking five times per year but when this occurs it must be let go unless it happens to occur during one of the periods when the commission is checking. By its nature there must be flexibility in the system. The radio station will not phone the commission to admit it ran two minutes over time.
Mr. O’Keeffe
It is correct that it will only come to our attention within the general monitoring we conduct, or if there is a complaint. Generally, it arises in monitoring.
Mr. Maguire, should broadcasters be required to disclose any financial, political or economic relationship between the production team, including interviewers and presenters, and the subject matter or participants in, for example, news and current affairs programmes? Do you have a view on it?
Mr. Maguire
The straight answer is "Yes". One must not only be fair and independent in that sense but one must also be seen to be fair and independent. That information should be available. That is the general principle applied to this type of situation.
Does Mr. McMunn have a view on it? Do Mr. Feeney or Mr. Mulligan wish to answer the question?
Mr. McMunn
The independent sector is under obligation in any event regarding impartiality and TV3 makes it clear in its contracts of employment that our employees must work purely for the company and must not have financial interests outside of that.
This month we must declare our interests and that will be put on record in the Standards in Public Office Commission in Leeson Street. We do this annually. Should this not be a prerequisite for journalists, presenters and broadcasters who wield great power in managing political debates? Last night, Mr. Vincent Browne put forward an interesting argument to deal with the drugs crisis. Given the power broadcasters have, would it not be fair that they should make clear statements of their interests?
Mr. Feeney
RTE has two types of employee. One type is permanent, who works 100% for us and the other is freelance contractors who may have external interests. In principle, we have no objection to full disclosure and accountability of their activities but RTE cannot impose that on them. We only own them for what they do for us and their contracts say they must do nothing to bring RTE into disrepute. We have control of them to that extent but we do not—
We debated this issue at a previous meeting. RTE's highest paid presenters are subcontractors or independent contractors so they can maximise their incomes. They are famously identified with RTE and one or two other broadcasting companies. Would it not be fair for these individuals to make clear statements of their interests? This issue arose in the context of people being sponsored by companies and receiving benefits from them. Given that they have much more influence than politicians in the public life of the State, they should make a declaration of interests similar to us.
Mr. Feeney
I cannot disagree with the Deputy about this. It is in all our interests that both the reality and perception of independence is seen and clearly understood by viewers and listeners. Our problem is we cannot legally impose on our presenters obligations on them to do things, which refer to other activities in regard to which we have no contractual relationship with them. However, in principle, we fully support maximum accountability and transparency in all interests. If specific examples are drawn to our attention of presenters with a vested interest that may influence their broadcasting, we would be interested in hearing that.
Should RTE insist on such a provision in their contracts of employment?
It does. We went over this issue a few years ago with RTE, which accepted there were problems in regard to a number of its broadcasters. This was dealt with through a new code of ethics, which the committee should acknowledge.
Why can the principles that apply to law makers regarding declarations of interests not apply to broadcasters, given the platform they have puts them in a unique position to transmit their views covertly or overtly to the viewer in a digestible and rewarding way? Several issues need to be examined and there is room for much more clarity.
Does Mr. Feeney wish to make a final comment on that matter?
Mr. Feeney
I cannot disagree with the principle, but our understanding is there are legal and constitutional issues with regard to us forcing people to disclose certain levels of information, if we do not own them as it were.
We will see what results from the new legislation when it is prepared and in place. I was interested to hear what Mr. Maguire had to say. Perhaps it may be time for an organisation like RTE to look at re-employing people as opposed to having contractors who have their own opinion on issues like this.
Does Ms Curtin feel there is any objection to extending the wording of section 22 to include a prohibition of incitement to hatred on the grounds of disability?
Ms Curtin
Absolutely not, I see no reason to object.
That suggestion was made in a submission sent to us by the National Disability Authority.
I thank the delegates for their role in this part of our session and invite them to stay with us — I am beginning to sound like a public service broadcaster on contract. We will move on to the issues of the code and rules.
Before we move on to the code and rules, I am anxious to ask RTE about an issue with which it did not deal. It relates to question No. 24, which concerns moving "Oireachtas Report" and the report on the European Parliament to a daily evening slot, perhaps after the six o'clock news on RTE, so that more people will be aware of the workings of Government. A submission was made to RTE on this issue. "Oireachtas Report" is currently broadcast after 11 p.m when it has minimal impact.
There is cynicism among the public with regard to the work of politicians and compressing their work into a half-hour slot for "Oireachtas Report" at that late hour only reinforces that cynicism. The programme is treated as an adjunct to programming, but RTE should look at it differently in order to provide a service to voters. Statistics show that people who vote are generally the elderly, but they are probably gone to bed by the time the programme is aired. RTE should take a serious look at the slot for this programme.
Mr. Feeney
We have discussed this issue previously. There is significant coverage of the Oireachtas in our main six o'clock news bulletin which lasts an hour and in our nine o'clock bulletin which lasts half an hour. Therefore, it is not as if the only coverage is in "Oireachtas Report" or the European Parliament report. The majority of newsworthy events in Dáil and Seanad Éireann are covered in RTE's main news bulletins and the equivalent bulletins on radio. "Oireachtas Report" is a more specific programme for people with a serious interest in parliamentary affairs and is broadcast late at night because it has a small audience. If we were forced to broadcast it at peak time, we would lose a considerable audience and TV3 would be the main benefactor.
It was a person outside of the House who requested an earlier slot for "Oireachtas Report". I do not advocate it should be on at six o'clock. A civilised slot for such a programme might be after "Prime Time", a programme that often has a Government dimension, when people might still be up. That slot might be ideal. As a politician, I am interested in watching "Oireachtas Report", particularly on a Thursday night when I get home. However, often we must wait until 12.30 a.m. before the programme is aired.
What are the TV ratings for "Oireachtas Report"?
Mr. Feeney
Let us take last night as a good example. After our "Prime Time" report we aired a documentary on Nazi sympathisers coming to Ireland after the Second World War. I did not see the ratings, but I estimate that programme got 300,000 to 400,000 viewers.
What are the ratings for "Oireachtas Report"?
Mr. Feeney
They are very low. I cannot say what the figures are, but they are low. If we had run "Oireachtas Report" at 10.15 p.m. last night for the half hour before the documentary on the Nazi sympathisers, we would have lost a significant proportion of our audience.
If RTE had run the Cathal O'Shannon programme at 12.30 a.m., it would also have lost a significant proportion of the audience.
Perhaps TV3 would like to take over "Oireachtas Report".
There is a need for an Oireachtas channel so the work that goes on here day in, day out, involving specialist subjects which might not attract many listeners, can be made available to those who are interested. If we were debating drift net fishing, for example, fishermen throughout the country could tune into the Oireachtas channel at 3 p.m. to listen to the debate. They could find out what is going on in an open, public and democratic forum. If we extend the service by providing digital channels and all sorts of other things, it is essential we make full use of the facilities which are available in the Oireachtas, such as the cameras that are always ready to go. We should develop an Oireachtas channel so our democracy can be opened up.
We will put that to the Oireachtas broadcasting committee, which might deal with it.
We have done that. The theory outlined by cynics — that nobody would watch an Oireachtas channel — is incorrect. The public tunes in whenever live broadcasts of the Oireachtas are carried by RTE. When public representatives are seen on air live doing what they are paid to do on an ongoing basis, it is a good test of them and of the broadcasting service. If an enterprising person in the public or private sector does what is required in this area, he or she will find that it has great potential. This is a sovereign Parliament. Not all parliaments are sovereign — some of them are subservient to greater parliaments. Modern and advanced forms of broadcasting technology should be used to highlight and recognise the work of sovereign parliaments in democracies.
We will leave that subject for now. We will consider it in our report in the context of the submissions which have already been made. We have spent enough time on it for now. Deputy Durkan would like to ask Mr. Pat McKenna from the Irish Hard of Hearing Association a number of questions about the codes and rules in relation to sensory disability under the Equal Status Act.
It is obvious that people with sensory disabilities, such as hearing problems, are at a disadvantage if they cannot have equal access to television, or equal enjoyment of it. Perhaps such people could be helped to avail of subtitling at an earlier stage. Such services should be developed in a way that gives them a reasonable level of enjoyment of television. It seems that it has already been done quite effectively in some other jurisdictions. Those involved in broadcasting in this country should examine that possibility. One of my many parliamentary questions in 2006 related to this matter.
Deputy Durkan has asked the highest number of parliamentary questions in the western world.
I also have the highest number of refusals. This matter was the subject of more than one refusal on the basis that the Minister had no responsibility for it.
How many questions did the Deputy submit? I think it was over 2,500.
This is another one. It is in the public interest that this issue be addressed. It is a question of equality and fairness.
Does the Deputy have any further questions in that regard?
I have.
We will let Mr. McKenna answer all the questions after they have been asked. Perhaps Mr. Maguire will also have some views on the matter. We will take them all because I am conscious of time. We have yet to start the section of the meeting relating to advertisements and sponsorship. Deputies Eamon Ryan and Broughan will ask some questions during that section.
How often should the code of conduct and the rules be reviewed? Should they be reviewed on an annual basis, on a five-yearly basis or on a ten-yearly basis? Does Mr. McKenna have views on that? When will it be realistic to attain a 100% level of subtitling on all public service broadcasting? How does Mr. McKenna envisage that it will develop? To what extent will costs be involved? I ask that because I am concerned that while costs are involved, they may be exaggerated. Given that the quality of life of people with sensory disabilities can depend hugely on the work of the broadcasting sector, should more attention be given to the provision of such services for them? It is often necessary for people with sensory disabilities to avail of services through the broadcasting sector to a much greater degree than more fortunate people who do not have such disabilities. It is simply a question of bringing them up to speed, within reason, to give them a reasonable quality of life.
I wish to add an addendum. When we examined this matter previously, it appeared that RTE was being made to carry the can on this issue. Considerable progress had been made on RTE 1 and steps were being taken to increase the level of subtitling and other forms of accessibility for people with disabilities on the other RTE channels. Why should the commercial sector, TV3 and many radio stations, not play their part given that the law of the land outside broadcasting, the Equal Status Act, Disability Act and so forth, require accessibility for people with disabilities? Why does the commercial sector not get on with it and make all radio and television broadcasting accessible to all our citizens? That is the law.
Would Mr. McKenna, president of the Irish Hard of Hearing Association, like to share his views on this matter? He has appeared before the joint committee on several occasions and acknowledged that significant progress has been made, particularly by RTE. I also acknowledge the work done by RTE in subtitling. How much progress has been made and how much more is needed?
Mr. Pat McKenna
Considerable progress has been made. For example, all the main news programmes on RTE are subtitled and I understand it is intended to subtitle the late news on RTE 2. "Prime Time" and "Questions and Answers", two current affairs programmes, are also subtitled. People with a hearing loss have the greatest need to have these types of programmes subtitled and this has been done. A good balance of films and less serious programmes such as "The Late Late Show" and an afternoon programme, "Seoige and O'Shea", are also subtitled. Live programmes such as these are the most difficult to subtitle.
Progress has been also made with the sound and vision fund. I understand 76 television programmes have been grant aided under the fund, which means they must be subtitled. Under the second round of applications, a number of broadcasters applied for and succeeded in securing a grant for programming, which means the programmes in question must be subtitled. I am delighted City Channel, a community channel, qualified for a grant as it will enable the channel to subtitle a programme. This would otherwise have been beyond its reach. Considerable progress has been made in this regard.
Our vision of subtitling is that all programmes will eventually be subtitled, thus giving us a parity with hearing people. The path we recommend towards achieving this vision is to set long-term and interim targets. The Broadcasting Commission of Ireland has set long-term targets for the four terrestrial channels. The target for subtitling on RTE 1 is 100% over ten years, while slightly lower targets have been set for RTE 2, TV3 and TG4. The targets apply only to the period between 7 a.m. and 1 a.m. and, as such, do not seek to achieve 100% subtitling over ten years. The timeframe is much too long and needs to be significantly reduced.
In the United Kingdom, it is a statutory obligation that public service broadcasters, ITV and Channel 4 subtitle up to 90% of programmes. Separately, the BBC aims to achieve 100% subtitling by 2008. Ofcom, the independent regulator in the UK, recently published a quarter report showing that ITV and Channel 4 have exceeded their targets of 80% and the BBC is on course to achieve 100% by 2008. Whereas the trend among public service broadcasters in European Union member states is to aim for 100% subtitling, progress here falls short.
I thank Mr. McKenna for that important information. I invite Mr. O'Keeffe to fill us in on what the BCI is doing having regard to what Mr. McKenna said. We will then hear comments from Mr. Feeney and Mr. McMunn. We will wrap up this aspect of the meeting and move on to the issue of sponsorship.
Mr. O’Keeffe
We introduced the access rules in March 2005 and this year they will be two years in place. We have added requirements for some of the newer channels such as Setanta and City Channel, and Channel 6 will be included this year.
We set ten-year targets. As Mr. McKenna will recall, we had a very wide ranging consultation which was independently chaired prior to the introduction of the rules. Ideally, we would have achieved 100% from day one but we had to take a range of factors into account. These related to the cost of the service, technical matters and the availability of trained personnel. While it is a ten-year timeframe we have committed to a review after year three. Depending on how these factors have developed over that three-year period we may look at reviewing the percentages held by each of the services. It is an ongoing process and we are conscious of moving as quickly as possible to provide subtitling and access for all persons.
Mr. Feeney
We are in regular consultation with Mr. McKenna and the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland. We feel we are making good process. As members can imagine, it is costly but we are committed to reaching the percentages laid down in the BCI codes on target.
Mr. McMunn
I can endorse what Mr. O'Keeffe has said. We have targets which we meet. We exceed them year-on-year. As members may be aware, both RTE and the commercial channels have to compete for advertising revenue in this jurisdiction with the UK channels which are opt-outs. It has been stated that the UK has high quotas on its services regulated by Ofcom. That is correct with one exception, namely, services targeted at countries other than the UK have a zero level of subtitling or any other access service. Commercial channels and RTE are competing with UK opt-outs which have no meaningful requirement.
Setting up any broadcast entity is extremely expensive in the first few years. The approach of the BCI is appropriate in that it allows new broadcasters to bed in before it imposes regulation. Otherwise there would be no independent sector. This is important for smaller channels such as Channel 6 and Setanta.
Mr. McMunn may not be surprised to hear that in Australia the public service broadcaster provides services in 44 different languages and offers subtitles in a number of languages.
Mr. McMunn
I am not au fait with the Australian situation but the German equivalent of RTE, ARD, not alone provides subtitles for nearly all of its output, it also audio-describes for the blind. The reason I mention this is because ARD receives in excess of €4.5 billion per year. I am sure Mr. Feeney would be more than happy to meet the same requirements if he got that level of funding.
Does Mr. Dooley think there should be any further debate on the codes and rules, including debate with media professionals? We touched briefly on this area earlier.
There has been an absence of debate within the industry with practitioners in particular. It is very easy to draw up codes but they are often ignored. It would be preferable to have a more participative approach to drawing up codes. A shorter more realistic code would be preferable to what is prescribed in the Bill. The absence of discussion, particularly among practitioners, has been a feature. I would like more discussion.
Journalists must be accountable and I share some of the views expressed in this regard. Frequently there is a general rant on this issue on the part of the media and public representatives but there has never been a discussion on what the code actually means and on the sanctions that apply if it is breached. Frequently what passes for a code is pious aspiration.
Should that point on codes and rules for broadcasters be part of the legislation?
A code is precisely a code and the requirements for balance and impartiality, which are currently part of the Broadcasting Act, will clearly form part of the new legislation.
Mr. O’Keeffe
It is the intention of the BCI to introduce a consultation process on the introduction of a code covering fairness, impartiality and balance. We will certainly consult-----
Commercial broadcasters.
Mr. O’Keeffe
Commercial broadcasters, yes.