Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Nov 1991

Vol. 130 No. 5

Broadcasting Legislation: Motion.

Dr. Upton

I move:

That Seanad Éireann condemns the failure of the Government to complete a review of broadcasting legislation; and calls on the Government to publish a White Paper outlining a high quality range of options to preserve and develop public service broadcasting in Ireland.

I welcome the Minister to the House and thank him for talking the trouble to be with us this evening when I am sure he has many other things on his mind. The events mentioned in the 6 o'clock news will have given him all he can do to avoid being distracted. I appreciate his being here.

It is now just over a year since the Broadcasting Act, 1990, came into force. It has been an abysmal failure. The Minister's remarks to the effect that he is considering reforming the legislation, when those remarks have been coded, are a clear admission of that reality. There is no doubt but that the Broadcasting Act, 1990, has been an unmitigated disaster. At the time it was uncalled for, everybody advised against it. The motive for its introduction had nothing to do with broadcasting or the welfare of the broadcasting community. The motives for its introduction I believe were derived from the philosophy and principles of GUBU. Thy were the overwhelming factors and reasons which gave rise to its introduction. What has happened since is consistent with the principles of GUBU.

RTE are now faced with the reality that they have more advertising than they are allowed to take. They are in a dilemma if they do not turn away advertising revenue between now and Christmas they will find themselves seriously in hock next year in relation to what revenue they will be allowed to generate. Advertising rates in RTE have been artificially increased by the legislation. Small Irish companies are no longer able to advertise on RTE or with RTE because of the effects of this Act.

The introduction of capping, which was part and parcel to the central feature of the 1990 Act, has seriously damaged RTE. It has also seriously damaged the private television and film industry. Two hundred jobs have been lost in RTE at a time of very serious unemployment. There have also been serious job losses in the private sector. In addition, one of the effects of this Act has been to halt many very important developments which should be taking place in RTE. There have been no developments in RTE in relational to regional programmes. There have been no developments in relation to education programmes. Schools' television does not now exist in RTE although there is a great need for it. As far as the Open University or any Irish form is concerned, that simply has not happened. We are now totally dependent on the British Open University to provide that facility for Irish people. I have no doubt but that there is a considerable demand for such a system. It is a great pity that RTE have not been able to meet that demand or, at least, to put Irish options and Irish modules on the screen and to devise and integrate them into some of the UK systems.

The drama department in RTE has been very seriously damaged by what has happened. RTE drama production is now effectively confined to two "soaps". They have been unable to produce drama which would give a platform for our Irish authors. They have been unable to produce anything of significance this year in relation to the centenary of the death of Charles Stewart Parnell. We have been dependent on the BBC for those types of productions. We have had to buy in material from the BBC which, while it is in many ways very worthwhile, is not Irish. It has not got the Irish slant on things, it does not give the Irish view, and that is a pity.

In relation to the changes which have arisen from the capping, which was part and parcel of the Broadcasting Act, 1990, the real gains have been for Ulster Television and for some of the British television networks, particularly Sky Television. In effect, what has happened is that money which would go to RTE and which would work its way back into the Irish economy to provide jobs and employment in the independent film sector, has gone overseas.

It is a great pity that it has taken this time for the Minister to come around to the idea that reformation of the legislation is now desirable. The year and a month in which this Act has been in force has certainly created great difficulties. Late as it is, it is welcome that there are some moves to reform the legislation.

It can also be said that the Act failed in its main objective, which was to allow TV3 to be set up. Not only is TV3 now blown out of the water but as a result of the Act, Windmill Lane Studios are left in a very difficult position. They had to take appropriate measures to protect themselves from——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair would like to remind the speaker it is inappropriate to mention names, more especially when the matter is sub judice. I hope the Senator will respect the practice in the House.

Dr. Upton

I will. The reality is that television stations such as TV3 or a third television network in this country can only be established at the expense, or cost, of effectively destroying RTE. I do not believe there is enough advertising there to support a third channel. It is also well worth pointing out that the capping proposals contained in the Broadcasting Act did not help TV3. It simply damaged RTE without producing any worthwhile benefit to TV3. As I said already, they have created a considerable degree of difficulty.

I am very disappointed that over the recent years no White Paper has been produced on broadcasting. That is a great pity. Indeed, I would go so far as to say there is no Government policy on broadcasting at present. There is now a great need for the production of a White Paper. There is a need to consider what public service broadcasting is. There is need to consider who should define public service broadcasting. It is very important that that should be debated. All the issues should be examined in a White Paper.

One person's concept of public service broadcasting, public service radio or public service television can be another person's extremely boring programme. It is very important that the issues involved would be fully discussed. We must debate the resources. We must have a clear idea of the resources which are needed for public service broadcasting and it is important that we would work out where those resources would come from. It is very important that we should have a clear idea of the cost of the television licence and the use to which the revenue it generates should be put.

We must consider in great detail the role of the independent broadcasting sector. I, for one, believe that the independent broadcasting sector — the radio and television sectors — have an important role to play. It is important that we clearly work out their functions, their obligations, their duties, their size, and the restrictions and terms under which they would be allowed to work. There are almost unlimited options in relation to broadcasting now. I am concerned that those options would be discussed and debated, and that they would be debated in a structured manner. For those reasons, it is very important that a White Paper should be produced. It is also very important that a White Paper should be produced because of the developments which are taking place in Europe in relation to television. The developments which are taking place in relation to cable television have very considerable potential. It is important that a White Paper should be produced which can consider the role and function of the proposed television service, which will be an entirely Irish language one and which will be primarily aimed at the Gaeltacht and the Irish speaking community.

In relation to the proposals for a television service specifically designed for the Gaeltacht and for the Irish speaking community, it is very important that the money would be spent and considered in the context of the role of the Irish language, the Gaeltacht and the preservation of Irish culture. I do not believe that money spent on an Irish television channel — in other words, a television channel in the Irish language — can be justified unless that money, which is of the order of £30 million, is spent to enhance the Gaeltacht and develop the Irish language.

All the issues should be considered and debated in a structured manner. It is important that consideration should be given to the possibility of the production of a comprehensive news service, which is different to the RTE news service, which is separate from it. The development of at least an adequate comprehensive news service seems impossible. I would like to see the issues involved being discussed.

In relation to RTE itself, I would be very much in favour of a change in the composition of the Authority, in other words, I would be in favour of a change in the manner in which the Authority is compiled. I do not think it is desirable or good that all members of the authority should be nominated by the Government. I would like to see Government nominees on the Authority, perhaps, confined to maybe two members. I would also like to see various interest groups, who have a role to play and a contribution to make in broadcasting, being represented on the RTE Authority. Of course, I would also be very anxious that the people who work in RTE would be represented on the Authority.

Mr. Mooney

They are. What about Gay Byrne?

Dr. Upton

They are not. They are nominated by the Government and not by the people in RTE. I would like to see the workers in RTE elected by the people who work in the station. That is the point I am anxious to make.

I would like to see RTE opened up to a far greater extent to the private film and current affairs production element. There is an important role for that segment of the broadcasting industry. I would like to see that structured and defined over a relatively short to medium term, in other words, that slots of RTE time would, as it were, be contracted out on a structured basis to elements and sources in the broadcasting and television world who are indpendent from RTE. It is important that we have diversity of views in broadcasting.

I do not think that, at this stage, anyone would say that the introduction of the local stations has been anything but a success and a desirable development. I am fully aware that there are great difficulties being experienced in many of these stations, but I think that the better ones are providing a very useful service for the communities they serve. For example, stations like Clare FM provide a wonderful service for the community they serve. Some of the Dublin stations also provide a very valuable service. Certainly the choice of music, and so on, some of them play is very appropriate, and there is a definite audience for it. They are meeting a clear demand.

In relation to the question of State money being provided for these stations I would not have any particular hangup about that principle. I would have very clear ideas in relation to the purposes that money would be used for. I would have very clear ideas as well in relation to the restrictions which would be placed on what that money could be used for. I certainly would not have any principled objection to money being used in those stations for a public service broadcasting function, if it was essential that that money should be given to some of those stations to allow them to continue to serve the community they now serve. I would like to see that issue fully debated. I would certainly like to see the whole thing very carefully structured. I would be firmly and vigorously opposed to the idea of State money going into the pockets of people simply to make them rich. There is a case to be made for supporting a public service broadcasting function being provided by some of those stations.

I believe it is absolutely imperative that RTE should not be dominated by any political party, whether that party are in Government or out of Government. I also believe it is absolutely imperative that nobody is left in any doubt that that is the reality.

Mr. Costello

I second the motion and wish to follow the line and sentiments expressed by Senator Upton. The last thing I would like to see — and I hope that sentiment is reflected on the other side of the House — is that we would have a public service broadcasting that would be controlled by a single party. From that point of view there is a need to ensure that there are democratic structures in relation to the authority of RTE and to its control at all times. It is a shame we have to be here again today debating this issue which we debated only a year ago in this House. At that time we very clearly stated that the proposals by the then Minister for Communications, Deputy Burke, were totally unacceptable to the Labour Party and, indeed, would not result in achieving what he wished. He stated he wished to have a level playing field but the level playing field has not resulted in the establishment of a third independent station. If anything, it has virtually brought about the downfall of Windmill Lane who have just called in the examiner. It has been very detrimental in that sense. The previous Minister for Communications owes Windmill Lane an apology.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator should not mention the name of Windmill Lane. If the Senator persists in doing so I will ask him to resume his seat. The matter, I am told, is sub judice and it must be respected as such. We would appreciate if companies were not mentioned.

Mr. Costello

I am referring to the implications of the Broadcasting Act, 1990 and that was one of the effects of the Act. It was a shame that Act was introduced, as I said, to establish a level playing field. The level playing field was effectively to cap RTE advertising so that public service funding could be diverted for the purposes of establishing independent private stations. I do not think that is a basic principle we can accept in relation to any consortium or development in this country, or in relation to any business enterprise. It is not our job to provide or to divert funding from another public service into the pockets of a consortium or any proposed or potential development. I would be very much opposed to that principle. We have seen that it has not been successful in achieving what Deputy Burke sought to achieve.

I would also question the motives of Deputy Burke at the time. There seemed to be, from many of the remarks made, an inbuilt hostility to RTE. RTE was presented as having an attitude towards Fianna Fáil and the Government as one of opposition to it. Certainly, from a number of the remarks and the whole ethos of the discussion that took place at that time it was seen as the Government getting their own back on RTE by establishing a competitor, rather than looking for sound financial and economic progress or development.

It is ironic in the context of the tradition of Fianna Fáil, who have had a very fine tradition of public service, public enterprise and State involvement in that sector, that there should be a move away from recognition of RTE as the public service broadcasting station and diverting public money and control of the airwaves to an independent sector. The proposal was badly thought out in the first place. There is no room for a third television station. There is room for two stations and there are two stations there at the present time. They are providing a broad range of services. There is enormous competition from abroad, from across the Border and from Britain. There is not really room for three stations.

The proposed cost of setting up an independent station is in the region of £40 to £50 million. It is very difficult to see how that can be justified or how advertising is going to enable any consortium to get their money back. Obviously what the Minister was considering — and maybe the present Minister is considering again — was allocating a section of the revenue from the licence fee. There seems to be a shift from capping advertising to diverting a section of the revenue from the RTE licence fee into subsidising a third independent station. That would be a bad idea and it should be scrapped before it goes any further. I would hate to see the Minister coming into this House with such proposals I do not think they would be successful. We would find ourselves debating another measure a year from now to try to undo the mess.

Neither would I like to see the Minister propose that we privatise our second station, Network 2. I do not think that is the way to go about it either. I would hate the Minister to be tempted to do something along those lines, seeing that TV3 has not been awarded a licence. The Minister should rethink the entire matter. That is why we are proposing a White Paper. The review should be thorough. The Minister has been involved to some degree in a review but I do not know what stage he has reached in it. It must be comprehensive. It must look again at the market that exists here and at the utter failure — the dismal failure — of amending what was supposed to be the problem this time last year. He should look again at the value of having RTE as the public service broadcasting, but with a variety of roles.

RTE should be allowed to operate without a cap on advertising. There should be no monopoly. RTE should operate competitively in the market, whether here, Northern Ireland or elsewhere. There should be no proposal to divert the licence fee. There should be a requirement that RTE commission the production of domestic, native-based programmes that would be used both in the station and sold abroad. There is a precedent in the context of the building up of the Australian network which eventually expanded into the film industry and has proved one of the great international success stories in terms of videos and later films. That would be the way to go about it. There should be the requirement on RTE to ensure that they have another function, a broader function, to commission various programmes from independent operators. These could be shown domestically.

I would certainly be extremely opposed to the handing over from a State body of funds which would act to subsidise a private operation. If we provided such funds the newspapers could then say they were providing a public media service covering news items. They could look for some subsidisation from the State as well and might say there is considerable pressure on the print media at the present time. I do not think we should allow that principle to be established.

We should go back to the original proposals of the Labour Party in relation to community-based radio rather than independent radio stations. In fact, the only independent stations that have been established and have proved successful have been those which have responded to local and regional needs. They have not tried to compete with any of the national stations. Century has not been a success. Part of the previous legislation attempted to bail out Century. There would be a lot to be said for that type of approach for locally based stations but they must also be locally controlled.

I would like to emphasise what my colleague, Senator Upton, has said, that, it is of the utmost importance to ensure that public broadcasting is publicly accountable and controlled. In other words, the RTE Authority in terms of selection and appointment should be broadened. We must ensure that we do not have members appointed by the Minister or by the Government, but that the majority of the members are appointed by selection by recognised nominating bodies — bodies that would be recognised by this House and the other House of the Oireachtas. That would be a good day's work for public broadcasting.

Mr. Cassidy

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

"supports the action of the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications in completing his review of Broadcasting policy; is confident that the Government will take appropriate decisions on the Minister's review and looks forward to the early introduction of amending legislation which will have the effect of improving the quality and quantity of Irish originated broadcasting available to the Irish public."

This is the first opportunity I have had to welcome the new Minister for Communications, Deputy Brennan, to the House. I know he is very approachable and that he has vast experience of communications. Not only that but his great talent and ability as a communicator is widely acknowledged.

This Government's broadcasting record is one of immense achievement during the last four years. Unlike the two previous speakers from Fine Gael and the Labour Party, I sat here as spokes-person for Fianna Fáil in Opposition from 1983 to 1987 and asked on more than 25 different occasions on the Order of Business when we were going to have legislation to legalise the unlicensed stations in operation at that time. We all know the reason for their existence was a conflict of policies and philosophy between the two parties in Government.

The pirate radio problem has been effectively dealt with since we took office four years ago. Legislation enacted in 1988 established the independent radio and telecommunications facility and introduced independent broadcasting. The Independent Radio and Television Commission was set up in 1988 and three years later we have 22 local radio stations and one independent national station. Having vast experience in this particular area, I can see a problem on two fronts: first, areas of listenership are too small. I and other Senators experienced in the broadcasting business have related experiences we had in America, Canada, Australia and the UK where we researched the feasibility and long term prospects of radio stations. The finding was that a minimum of 1.5 million listeners was required to ensure commercial viability. Many stations are now amalgamating and I welcome that move because it ensures their survival. That was a big worry for me over the last 12 months. Secondly entertainment value is essential in radio and T.V. programmes and the word "entertainment" is seldom seen in legislation.

I see a major problem in Dublin city at present. Five stations are playing wall to wall pop music, young people are away at school seven and a half to eight months of the year from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m., and these people wonder why they cannot attract listeners. They are not relating to those available to listen. Their success can be measured by the amount of advertising they get because advertisers are no fools and look for value in the marketplace. A heavy campaign can be orchestrated for the first six months of any operation, but if results do not come from the campaigns, advertisers will not be slow to leave. On that front we are failing miserably as legislators; 80 per cent of the music played across the nation is directed at a small core group of people from 12 years to 22 or 23 years and 80 per cent of possible listeners — the As and the Bs in the marketing world, with money to spend — are not targeted. There is a large gap in the market and a great opportunity for anyone who wants to make a financial and commercial success of local radio, and why no one is going for it is beyond me. I say this from experience. I could not make what would buy my breakfast if I went down the musical road these people are taking.

People with long track records in this area and who have been entrusted with a great national resource, the airwaves, allowed themselves to be dictated to by people with no broadcasting experience. Which Irish acts feature in the current British charts? Irish acts cannot get a play on a national radio station. Daniel O'Donnell and Foster and Allen are number 7 and number 28. They do not sell records by the hundreds, they sell them by the tonne.

Mr. Cosgrave

And they axed Val Joyce.

Mr. Cassidy

Forty foot containers of records of these Irish artists were shipped out last week. This is commercialism. I have always spoken with the highest regard of RTE television. They give great opportunities to Irish artists and support the Irish music industry. All over the world the music industry needs and receives the support of local radio or television stations, but not in this country. We have a national radio station — 2FM at present — and from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., with the exception of the specialised programmes, we might think we were listening to a Los Angeles radio station. This would not be tolerated in any other country. I have aired this view on many television programmes. Too little air time is given to people who do not have records in the charts but who have recorded material. Look at all the people radio stations are missing out on. There is an enormous market there that could be tapped.

Something will have to be done about capping of advertising and I hope the Minister will have some news about it. In the UK advertising is down 10 per cent on most of the regional and national television marketing channels while our neighbour, UTV, at present enjoys an increase of 10 per cent. That speaks for itself.

I welcome local radio. Over 700 people are employed there, the majority of them full-time. The independent radio sector provides a considerable stimulus to the economy as a whole. The Government's achievements in broadcasting over the last four years contrast starkly with the years of the previous Coalition Government. The success of the independent sector should be a source of pride to all of us. I was particularly pleased with the most recent three month JNLR-MRBI audience survey which showed in listenership terms that independent stations exceed both RTE services in combined listenership. The objective of the 1990 Broadcasting Act is to create a fair broadcasting environment for all participants. This is commendable.

In my opening address on the Second Stage of the Broadcasting (Amendment) Act, 1990, I said that we would be back within a short time to amend the legislation before us. In all countries which brought in a broadcasting Bill to open up the airwaves we only have to remember that the UK Government in 1964 fell on such an issue — it was necessary to amend the Bill during the following three or four years.

Mr. Mooney

I formally second the amendment and welcome the Minister for Communications to the House. I understand it is his first visit in this capacity. I know from public utterances in recent weeks that it will not be his last as we all await with great interest the outcome of his Department's review of the Broadcasting Act and the proposals that I hope he will soon bring before this House. It might be helpful to the House if the Minister in his reply gave an indication of when he hopes to do so.

The nub of this debate is that the capping legislation is the single greatest obstacle to the development of normal relations between RTE and this Government. I invite the Minister to confirm that he intends scrapping this unfair, inhibiting and restrictive section of the Act when he brings forward proposals for the review of the Broadcasting Act.

I have been working in broadcasting and until recently working in broadcasting in this country meant working for RTE. I have been with RTE since 1975 and in all that time no single piece of broadcasting legislation has generated so much unhappiness and bitterness among staff in RTE as this present Act. Staff in production, technical staff and front of house presenters like myself have all been affected. Ill feeling has permeated the atmosphere in Montrose to such an extent that this Government have suffered politically, which is unfair. There is, in Montrose a perception that this Government are attempting to get at RTE. I remember arguing when the Broadcasting Bill came before the House that there was a need for an alternative to what then on offer from RTE — despite my loyalty to RTE and I have been with them for a long time, albeit in a freelance capacity — if broadcasting in this country was to develop in an orderly way. I believe that the Government were motivated by that particular aspiration when an alternative service was provided for; an alternative news service, sports services and, in short, an alternative national radio station which would give people choice. I believe those elements of the Broadcasting Act worked well. Speaking from inside RTE I can testify that RTE concentrated their minds on their target market more assiduously than heretofore and I am sure all sides of the House will recognise the high standards of excellence provided by RTE programming, especially over the last 12 to 18 months.

As a result of the Government's initiative in bringing forward this legislation, after waiting many years for previous Administrations to bring forward suitable legislation, local radio and a national radio station were legally established. That alternative service concentrated the minds of programme-makers, planners and other involved in RTE broadcasting, particularly in radio, to the extent that the most recent JMNR report Senator Cassidy referred to shows that RTE Radio 1 and 2FM nationally still hold substantial audiences far in excess of even Century Radio. I do not say that in order to gloat; I am disappointed that Century Radio has not been more successful.

I support Senator Cassidy's opinion that the main reason for Century Radio's lack of commercial success has been their poor format. Their news service is excellent but their daily music and programme formats are designed to attract a target audience already being adequately served by 2FM and they ignore completely up to 80 per cent of a listening audience who want to hear middle of the road easy listening music.

My colleagues, particularly on the left, will argue for public service broadcasting and say that people like talking to each other and that the emphasis in public service broadcasting should be on programming that is topical and intellectual. Yet, throughout the developed world 60 to 70 per cent of radio output is music based. That reality has not been brought home to the Century executives; they have provided a music base for most of their daily programming but have gone after the wrong market. Perhaps remarks being made in this House this evening might help to concentrate the minds of Century Radio executives. I say this to be helpful because it is vital for fair broadcasting that we have an adequate commercially viable alternative to RTE.

The Minister in his review will be looking at the areas that have been at the forefront of the debate over the last 12 to 18 months. In the context of the criticisms levelled by the proposers of the motion who are seeking a white paper — the proposition being that debate has been inadequate and that the Minister is obliged to bring forward a White Paper for further debate — it seems that over the last 12 to 18 months, particularly with the publication of the Broadcasting Act, 1990, creative energies have been unleashed concentrating people's minds on the future of Irish broadcasting to a far greater extent than heretofore.

The broadcasting debate has widened over the last 18 months to such a degree that there is now before the Minister a substantial body of informed opinion that can help him and his Department to bring forward enhanced proposals. There are, however, specific areas that are going to cause difficulty to the Minister and in the present spirit of helpfulness pervading both sides of the House, I suggest that the Minister remove the cap on advertising.

The transfer of a levy has been suggested as an alternative to the existing proposals for an increase in the four and a half minutes per hour restriction on RTE's advertising. The original proportion of advertising to programmes was seven and a half minutes per hour. I am sure the Minister will be able to find a balance acceptable to RTE because there are few countries in the European Community with broadcasting in state hands where some form of restriction does not apply. That restriction is not sought as a handicap but as a help to non-State sectors of broadcasting. It is in that context that I compliment the Minister for being the first Minister for Communications to go to the front line, as he did last week on RTE television, when he met with those concerned for Irish broadcasting and expounded his views, restricted as he was by the fact that his legislative proposals have not yet been published.

I suggest that the Minister take on board the strong representations that have been made to him by representatives of the local radio sector. Local radio people are seriously concerned about reported suggestions that the Minister will transfer the licence fee, or a portion of it, from RTE to the IRTC and, in turn, disperse moneys to local radio and national radio to fund news and current affairs programme. I suggest that his officials might consider that much of the success of local radio has been based on an ability to identify with the ethos of a region and with the area in which they broadcast. The most popular programming in the more successful stations is based on what is going on in the community.

Ireland is extremely well served by national news programmes. RTE's news service is second to none; Century Radio's news service is exemplary. In the age of satellite TV, we have 24 hour international news at the touch of a button. Increasing numbers of people are turning to local radio to listen not just to acceptable middle of the road music but to local news, to hear what communities are saying about each other. In the transfer of the levy the Minister should give serious consideration to subsidising the local news section of local radio programming, rather than giving a once-off payment for capital equipment or transmission. I am sure the Minister has already got a copy of a document I have here which sets out in detail the views and objectives of local radio.

I am sorry not to have time to emphaise the importance of the independent sector and I am sure other speakers will pick up on this. There is one way in which the Minister could satisfy the important newspaper lobby in this country and that is by removing the VAT on newspapers.

Mr. Cosgrave

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this timely motion put down by my Labour colleagues. Fine Gael are happy to support it. I asked last week for an update from the Minister on the present situation in broadcasting in the light of TV3's licence being withdrawn. Broadcasting and communications in this country should be reviewed given that legislation was rushed through last year. There are many different viewpoints on this subject and the previous two speakers have a personal knowledge of broadcasting that I cannot claim.

I agree with Senators Cassidy and Mooney regarding the diversity of music played on RTE. At times pop and rock music seem to dominate the airwaves leaving a large percentage of listeners not catered for. Variety in programming must be looked at; do we have too many current affairs programmes? Competition begins daily with "Morning Ireland" after which we move to Gay Byrne who has a slightly different programme to Pat Kenny. I was disappointed to see Val Joyce's Saturday programme axed. Having heard the new programme I think Val Joyce or Senator Mooney could have presented it even if the Senator is biased towards Leitrim footballers.

It is important that we have a full discussion on broadcasting; I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about its future. Certain myths have been debunked, one being that local stations were a licence to print money. There is only a certain limited advertising market available and despite certain stations starting off in a blaze of glory, market reasearch soon reveals the response to advertising and underlying trends of the market.

Competition with RTE should be looked at and it would be worth examining Network 2 to establish what percentage of programmes are home based. Where are licence fees collected? I would be interested to hear from the Minister if progress has been made regarding the collection of licence fees. We steps being taken in relation to social welfare payments abuse and it should be possible for more licence money to be collected with improved methods and detectors. A licence at £62 is good value but, like road tax and insurance, it should be spread across the board with no opting out.

It is important that RTE as the national broadcasting station do not go unchecked; it is alleged that certain individuals or parties can make a phone call and book a key slot on certain programmes. To be fair, I am not referring to Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael. Impartiality is important for public confidence and in relation to calls for a press council there should be independent monitoring of programmes and of complaints about abuses of power. From time to time all political parties feel they may be getting a bad run and that either their members or their Front Bench are being hounded. A complaints procedure is necessary. The Minister would uphold and support such a move.

Regarding the proliferation of local radio stations and extra TV stations we must remember we have a population of only 3.5 million; England with a population of 50 million does not have many more stations. There is no bottomless reservoir of money available for advertising and broadcasting.

Fine Gael would support a full discussion on broadcasting. White Papers conjure up memories of reports being left on shelves but the Minister should tell us if there is going to be a review. We must look at capping and the role of Network 2. Competition must be encouraged. People talk about levelling the playing pitch and moving the goal posts but the danger is that the playing pitch may be getting smaller. It is important for broadcasting that monitoring procedures be established and that a certain amount of the licence fee goes to promote home-based programmes. RTE's position is special; they have a certain monopoly but with that monopoly come rights, responsibilities and duties. It is in all our interests that we work towards achieving certain aims. I hope a review will take place involving an exchange of ideas between the experts in this area, taking in various other connected interests so that we get the best national broadcasting service possible. We have a good broadcasting service now but it could be better.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McDonald)

Because of the time constraint of one and a half hours on this motion I should call the Minister now because the Chair must call Senator Upton to reply at 7.50 p.m.; if Senator McGowan would like two minutes, the Minister might facilitate him.

Mr. McGowan

I thank the Minister for agreeing to give me a few minutes. I am very interested in this Bill. I want to join with other Senators in welcoming the Minister to this House. I compliment him on his performance last week when he appeared on a programme with people who held views different from his. He did an excellent job. Everybody who watched it was very pleased with the way he handled the programme. He was fair and allowed everybody a point of view. He was very positive. I compliment him on his fairness and firmness in this very difficult area. RTE is a very substantial organisation with a vested interest. They have been doing an excellent job but as a monopoly they strongly resented the establishment of community stations. While RTE have been an excellent broadcasting media, they should not have opposed the establishment of community stations. I come from a part of the country that found it very useful to have a community station. I am pleased that in County Donegal we have the No. 1 community station, Highland Radio, covering an area from Ballygawley to Burtonport, from Coleraine to the Curlew Mountains, an area RTE did not cover. There was justification for establishing community radio and RTE should have adopted a more helpful approach. They threw many obstacles in the way of private stations being established. Since those private radio stations have been established, RTE have turned up the power above what is permissible under international control. I would welcome any check or assessment the Minister and his Department can carry out.

I have very little complaint to make about RTE. RTE have an excellent current affairs programme but somebody promoting a book from outside the country finds it easy to ring RTE; they can set the trend of the interview and, at the end, introduce their book. That is not a good development or an acceptable trend. I would ask the Minister to look at the input into current affairs programming in RTE.

I believe RTE have improved but for a long time, it was a closed shop where a certain political organisation controlled who worked for RTE and, to a great extent, controlled who was invited on their current affairs programmes. That attitude defeated itself and RTE found it wise to discontinue such a practice. There is now a more balanced approach in RTE, which I strongly welcome.

On the distribution of funds, where he will have discretion, I would strongly urge the Minister to recognise that community broadcasting stations need financial help. What the Minister intends to give those small stations is very little compared to the financial support given to RTE. Fair play must be seen. There is no point in granting licences to rural community stations if financial support is only available to one or two major stations which already have many advantages. It is scaremongering to speak about losing 200 jobs and advertising going outside the country, I do not believe it. RTE will lose nothing, I would ask the Minister to encourage more cooperation between RTE and community stations. There is room for both and there are many areas into which RTE find it difficult to extend their signal, whether radio or television.

Small radio stations have done an excellent job. I compliment the Minister and the Government for taking the initiative in the face of stiff professional opposition. The people are the best judge. Whether on Aran Island or in Dublin 4 they can assess the situation coolly and calmly. It is recognised that the way the Minister has handled this matter is excellent and I wish him good luck.

Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications (Mr. S. Brennan)

I offer my sincere thanks to Senators on all sides of the House who have spoken in the debate. I listened very carefully and I want to assure the House that it will prove extremely useful to me as I progress with my proposals. I have taken extremely careful note of Senators' contributions. I am also grateful for the opportunity of having some moments here this evening to lay before you some thoughts in regard to the future of broadcasting.

Before we start is it important to reflect on the chaos which existed in 1987. Something in the order of 70 illegal radio stations were operating at that time in flagrant breach of the law of the land and of the international treaties in the frequency management area. Action was taken and, as a result we now have a fledgling independent broadcasting sector. A multiplicity of Irish generated broadcasting choice and plurality in sources of news and current affairs are central to the Government's approach to broadcasting policy.

It is essential to balance the plethora of external broadcasting services with good quality home produced broadcasting services. Other central elements of Government broadcasting policy are to ensure that Irish broadcasting becomes a growth industry in line with the growth of broadcasting seen in all other European countries; to ensure so far as possible that Irish broadcasting remains the mainstream Irish viewers' and listeners' choice; to bring new investment and higher productivity into Irish broadcasting; to create new secure employment in the sector and to provide a seed bed for the growth of an independent audio-visual industrial business in the country.

RTE have had a monopoly in Irish broadcasting since they were established. The process of transition which has been going on from monopoly to a competitive environment has not been painless. New regulations were needed to allow ordered entry into the sector and to create a fair competitive environment. The Radio and Television Act, 1988 and the Broadcasting Act, 1990 both set out to give us this competitive environment.

Independent radio has been a substantial success in economic and social terms. Most recent surveys by JNLR/MRBI show that, overall, independent services have established themselves in their markets and, in many instances, are passing out, for instance, 2FM, their perceived competitor in "yesterday listenership" and market share. Independent radio is moving closer overall to Radio 1 according to the surveys. Four local stations, Donegal Highland Radio, Mid West Radio, Kerry Radio and Clare FM exceed both Radio 1 and 2FM in market share in respective franchise areas. Highland Radio is neck and neck with combined market share of RTE's stations in its franchise area.

RTE have responded magnificently to competition and Radio 1 is still Ireland's most popular radio service, but the real winner in all of this is the Irish public which now has real choice for the first time in terms of access to Irish broadcasting services. The Government's actions, my own actions and my predecessor's actions in the broadcasting area have perhaps occasionally been wrongly portrayed as not being very much in favour of RTE, in fact, on many occasions, as being anti-RTE. That is not the situation. The complaint should rather have been that action was not taken earlier against the pirates who at that time, illegally fragmented RTE's domain.

The 1988 Act created arrangements for entry into the broadcasting sector. It opened up the business and allowed fresh players in and the Act which followed it in 1990 sought to establish a fair, competitive environment in the Irish broadcasting sector. This limited RTE's advertising capacity and its advertising-generated revenue. It affected both the minutes which you could have on television and also put a cap on the overall amount of advertising which RTE could take. The objective was to have an independent sector which would have an opportunity to compete for that advertising market so as to develop its services.

The public service broadcasting obligations of the independent services were similar to those of RTE but, unlike RTE the independents had only one source of income. However, it should be recalled that applicants for independent contracts made their applications on this clear understanding. RTE remain the country's primary broadcaster. The future of RTE is, therefore, central to the future of Irish broadcasting but the future of Irish broadcasting is not necessarily synonymous just with the future of RTE. The future of Irish broadcasting now includes the independent sector as well as RTE and the IRTC. The independent sector is here to stay and I intend to ensure that it remains.

The 1990 Act was designed to divert advertising revenue from RTE to the independent sector, particularly the independent television sector. Expectations at the time were of an early start-up for independent television as an advertising alternative to RTE. The absence of the emergence of a strong alternative to RTE television, coupled with the effects of section 3 of the 1990 Act, that is the cap, has pushed the cost of advertising on RTE up dramatically. There have been negative consequences for the advertising industry, for independent film makers, the marketing of Irish goods and services and the economy generally. There is also evidence of an outflow of advertising spent. It appears to me, at this stage, that there is a real need to bring forward some fresh proposals in this area, which I intend to do. I signalled this last June in the Dáil and on many occasions since then.

There has been much uncertainty surrounding the prospect of a third channel. We have been taking that into account in our review. My review of broadcasting has been going on for many months and has been exhaustive. I have met all sectional interests, personally and with my officials, and we have fully briefed ourselves on all of the very complex issues. My reasons and the objectives of the review were to ensure that Irish advertisers had adequate space in the Irish broadcasting media, to prevent the leakage of Irish advertising to the UK stations, to protect and enhance the employment in the Irish advertising industry and to ensure the continued strength and competitiveness of RTE, the national broadcasting organisation, in the increasingly competitive broadcasting environment both nationally and internationally. The objectives were also to create and maintain an environment conducive to the successful establishment of an independent television service and to meet as far as possible the legitimate concerns of others involved in the advertising and programming business and involved in the advertising of the broadcasting generally and to promote the development of a strong, Irish independent audio-visual sector.

The views presented to me were extremely diverse and were expressed very strongly and very trenchantly. RTE sought changes in the Act to enable them to meet advertising demands. They sought a removal of the advertising cap and other changes. The Association of Advertisers in Ireland, the Institute of Advertising Practitioners in Ireland and the Confederation of Irish Industry also sought changes which would allow more access to advertising time and a reduction in cost.

The independent radio interests sought access to the licence for income, to assist in funding the cost of news and current affairs programmes. These views were expressed here again this evening. The promoters of the then TV3 were opposed to any changes which would put an independent TV station in a worse position, in terms of return to investors, than under the 1990 Act. The independent programme makers sought a lifting of the advertising income restrictions on RTE and they sought a commitment of a substantial part of the extra advertising income to the commissioning of programmes for the independent production sector.

The National Newspapers of Ireland, with whom I have had many meetings, were opposed to any changes in the 1990 Act as evidenced also by their recent editorials on the subject. The Independent Radio and Television Commission want a degree of licence fee diversion and some additional powers in relation to the performance of its functions. The views expressed were diverse and, in many cases, contradictory.

My review is now complete and is before the Cabinet. Any comment on it therefore would be premature, other than to say that I have four policy objectives in the broadcasting area and these objectives encapsulate what I am trying to achieve. First, I want to ensure that I maintain a strong RTE because this has to compete internationally and I want to create an environment for a strong privately owned, independent broadcasting sector alongside a strong RTE. I do not believe these objectives are incompatible. Thirdly, I want to bring about and encourage growth in the independent programme-making sector because, in that sector there are extremely talented people all over the country whose talents deserve further outlets. There is great scope for employment in that sector. I would like to ensure that more work goes into the independent programme-making and film making sector. I have also met those people and was very impressed by their determination to play a part in the future of Irish broadcasting.

It is important for the country that we maintain a flourishing newspaper industry. The newspaper industry here has to compete with imports from across the water, which are sometimes not of the same quality as our own products and are often cheaper. It is my intention to ensure that those four objectives are met in any proposals which I bring forward. None of the Senators here this evening, Senators Upton, Cassidy, Costello, Mooney, Cosgrave and McGowan underestimated the complexity of trying to achieve those four objectives and I appreciate that. They sometimes seem impossible to reconcile.

I have been asked for a White Paper and I have given that serious consideration. However, I do not believe it is the thing to do at this time. We have been debating broadcasting for three years. I do not know of any other subject that has received more air time and newspaper space than broadcasting in Ireland. Everytime I mention it, it gets a half a page and no doubt that will go on, from time to time.

Mr. Norris

The leadership of Fianna Fáil got more.

Mr. S. Brennan

I am very aware of the complexity of this area and the need for any changes to be brought about in a sensible manner. I intend to be extremely flexible in accepting amendments and in listening to all sides of the House, so that we get a media policy we can stand over. I want to stress that I am seeking a balanced media policy which will see us into the next decade of Irish broadcasting and the development of the Irish media industry. I thank Senators for giving me such a good hearing. I do appreciate it.

Dr. Upton

If it is agreeable to the Cathaoirleach and to the House I would like to share my time with Senator Norris. I would like to have five minutes of my ten minutes.

An Cathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Norris

I would like, first to thank Senator Upton for affording me this opportunity. I want to make some general comments because this is not the time, as the Minister has indicated, to go into great detail. The amending legislation is not before the House but I welcome the fact that there is a strong indication that there will be amending legislation.

It would be unfair to describe the present Minister as a repentant sinner because he did not actually introduce this Bill, which was not widely welcomed. We could be in the position of saying "I told you so" to this Government because, as Senator Cassidy indicated, he said at that time that the Government would be back and would have to amend the legislation. It was very useful that the Fianna Fáil side acknowledged this. To me, as an Independent, it certainly looked as if this was vindictive, spiteful legislation not motivated by the high ideals the Minister expressed tonight. It looked like an attempt to limit and damage RTE and to spancel them — they were trying to hobble RTE. It is astonishing to me that a party committed to free market economics would not allow the play of free market economics in terms of a very successful radio station that is generating substantial revenue. The response of the Government was simply to spancel it, to cap the advertising. I was very pleased that the Minister decided to highlight this aspect which has been very noxious, unwelcome and damaging to RTE.

My friend and colleague, if I may call him so, Senator McGowan made this point for me when he came out with this odious claptrap about a political conspiracy within RTE, that RTE was in the pocket of a political party. This has been said before. It is a small party that Senator McGowan had in mind, if I recollect his previous remark, and to imagine that the national broadcasting station is in the pocket of a small unrepresentative clique simply does not wash. That is a conspiracy theory and, I am sorry to say that Fianna Fáil appear to feel historically threatened by an independent broadcasting service. Because there were bad feelings they set out to spancel it. That was a vindictive act.

Introducing this legislation the Minister said he was looking for a level playing field. This Minister referred again to the newspaper industry and so on. Of course we want a thriving independent newspaper industry but if the Minister chooses to look at the Official Report of the Seanad he will see that I stated certain facts about that level playing field. For example, there are areas where newspapers can generate income but the broadcasting services cannot and I gave a list of them. There were planning applications, various kinds of advertising revenue, etc., and I gave facts and figures. If there is a level playing field such inconsistencies should be borne in mind. There has never been a level playing field. Sometimes it worked to the advantage of RTE, sometimes it worked to the advantage of the newspapers. I am glad the Minister has said he has a balanced view, that he does not want one to overtake the other. Since we want to have a thriving newspaper industry, perhaps the Minister will share my disquiet at a recent article by the Most Rev. Dr. Brendan Comiskey in the Irish Catholic where he took a savage swipe at the Irish Press newspaper because of one rather unfortunate remark. He actually appealed to people to stop their subscriptions to that newspaper, to stop buying it. That is lamentable where there are jobs at risk in this fine newspaper. It is appalling and I hope Members across this House will share my concern.

The Minister indicated that he is interested in a good quality home produced broadcasting service, a growth industry. How is that met by capping the advertising revenue of RTE? Many people in this House, not just myself, warned that the impact of this legislation would be to create a net outflow, in advertising terms, from the State. In other words, not alone was it a vindictive piece of legislation——

An Cathaoirleach

You have exhausted your five minutes.

Mr. Norris

May I finish this sentence? It was clearly against the national interest and in purely party political terms. I am very glad the Minister has indicated that he will introduce a measure of reform. I welcome the penitence of his Government.

Dr. Upton

I want to respond to one or two points made during the debate. The first is the figure given by Senator Cassidy, when he stated that you need an audience of one and a half million listeners to make a small local station viable. I am reluctant to disagree with Senator Cassidy because of his expertise in these matters, but I would be very concerned if he were correct, and I sincerely hope he is wrong. I am not saying that to be offensive.

In relation to Senator Mooney's remarks about public service broadcasting being intellectual and ephemeral, I suppose there is a degree of truth in that sort of generalisation. I do not see public service broadcasting in that light. I would hate to think that it would be confined to the notions and to the aura of Senator Mooney's remarks. It has been said that the debates on broadcasting have been worthwhile, have made a valuable contribution and that we do not need a White Paper on broadcasting. The debate on broadcasting has been rancorous, contentious and not very enlightened. It has been difficult, and people on both sides of the argument have been seeking to score points and defend positions. I hoped that a White Paper would have taken a more abstract, balanced and even view, where both sides of the argument could be put in a calm, easy manner.

Mr. O'Keeffe

It is extraordinary that when Labour were in power the Government failed to take on this issue. The Government could not reach agreement and now we have pontification from the Labour Party.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Upton, to continue.

Dr. Upton

I should not respond to Senator O'Keeffe but invariably I tend to take his bait——

An Cathaoirleach

You do not have time.

Dr. Upton

In relation to the 200 jobs lost in RTE, that is a fact. In relation to money leaving the country which Senator McGowan does not believe, that is in the Minister's script and can be confirmed in many other ways.

In relation to the independent broadcasting sector, some stations have been a resounding success. There are stations that are struggling——

Mrs. Honan

Is the Senator referring to Clare FM?

Dr. Upton

I certainly am not. Perhaps Senator Honan and myself can have a little chat on Clare FM. I am sure they would make the time available to us. I welcome the Minister's statement that he is not anti-RTE. I also agree he says that the future of RTE is very important but the future of RTE and the future of broadcasting are not synonymous. I welcome his anxiety and his wish for a strong RTE. I particularly welcome his commitment that, during the debate on the forthcoming legislation, he will be flexible. That is very welcome and desirable. It is bound to be good for broadcasting and the media generally. However, I regret the Minister will not accede to our request that there should be a White Paper on broadcasting.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 16.

Tá

• Bennett, Olga.
• Bohan, Eddie.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Dardis, John.
• Fallon, Sean.
• Farrell, Willie.
• Finneran, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Tom.
• Foley, Denis.
• Haughey, Seán F.
• Honan, Tras.
• Keogh, Helen.
• Kiely, Rory.
• Lanigan, Michael.
• Byrne, Sean.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Conroy, Richard.
• Lydon, Don.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McGowan, Paddy.
• McKenna, Tony.
• Mooney, Paschal.
• Mullooly, Brian.
• O'Brien, Francis.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Donovan, Denis A.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• Ormonde, Donal.
• Wright, G.V.

Níl

• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Joe.
• Hourigan, Richard V.
• Howard, Michael.
• Jackman, Mary.
• Kennedy, Patrick.
• McDonald, Charlie.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Neville, Daniel.
• Norris, David.
• O'Reilly, Joe.
• Raftery, Tom.
• Ross, Shane P. N.
• Ryan, John.
• Staunton, Myles.
• Upton, Pat.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Wright and Fitzgerald; Níl, Senators Upton and Costello.

Amendment declared carried.

Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."

The Seanad divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 16.

Tá

• Bennett, Olga.
• Bohan, Eddie.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Byrne, Sean.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Conroy, Richard.
• Dardis, John.
• Fallon, Sean.
• Farrell, Willie.
• Finneran, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Tom.
• Foley, Denis.
• Haughey, Seán F.
• Honan, Tras.
• Keogh, Helen.
• Kiely, Rory.
• Lanigan, Michael.
• Lydon, Don.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McGowan, Paddy.
• McKenna, Tony.
• Mooney, Paschal.
• Mullooly, Brian.
• O'Brien, Francis.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Donovan, Denis A.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• Ormonde, Donal.
• Wright, G. V.

Níl

• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Joe.
• Hourigan, Richard V.
• Howard, Michael.
• Jackman, Mary.
• Kennedy, Patrick.
• McDonald, Charlie.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Neville, Daniel.
• Norris, David.
• O'Reilly, Joe.
• Raftery, Tom.
• Ross, Shane P. N.
• Ryan, John.
• Staunton, Myles.
• Upton, Pat.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Wright and Fitzgerald; Níl, Senators Upton and Costello.

Question declared carried.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Fallon

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.