I welcome the Minister to the House.
Broadcasting Authority (Amendment Bill, 1993: Second Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
A Chathaoirligh agus a Bhaill, tá áthas orm a bheith anseo chun an Bille seo a mholadh.
The Bill before the House today is but the first step in a comprehensive package of proposals on broadcasting legislation I have already indicated I am in the process of formulating. These will include proposals for the long term restructuring of Irish broadcasting. It is important, therefore, before I turn to the detail of this Bill to place it in a clear philosophical context and to share with you the shape of my thinking on my comprehensive review of broadcasting structures.
Senators will be aware of the ongoing revolution in the development of telecommunications technology which in the space of a few years has already changed the broadcasting map beyond recognition. Foreseeable technological developments will eliminate many of the current constraints in the use of the broadcasting frequency spectrum and enable the possibility of virtually unlimited programme choice.
In these times of rapid and fundamental change, it is all to easy to be swept away by the excitement of the technology itself as if it was neutral and accept readily and uncritically that because a particular feat is possible technically and can be made commercially viable it is automatically good and that there are no consequences to consider. This is to forget that broadcasting services — both radio and television — are already an integral part of our lives, our culture, the way we see ourselves and the world and the way we communicate with each other. Fundamental changes to broadcasting inevitably must mean changes to all these things; in short, changes to the way we live.
Many of the new broadcasting services which have become available to Irish viewers, particularly, though not exclusively, those that are international in nature and delivered via satellite feature a relatively new breed of broadcaster with roots in purely profit motivated businesses. We have recently had a very useful debate in this House on the unsavoury nature of some of these new services. The only objective of the operators of many of these services is to maximise their audience share — provided it is the "right" kind of audience. In this scenario the only way of determining the worth or success of a programme is the number of viewers it attracts. With the growing internationalisation of television services, audiences are being separated into segments to be chased and harried and exploited. I am sure many Senators have seen recent newspaper reports about a survey into the role of television in shaping the thinking of American children. One of the findings of the report was and I quote:
"For the first time in human history, most of the stories about people, life and values are told not by parents, schools, churches or others in the community with something to tell, but by a group of distant conglomerates that have something to sell.".
This is a frightening thought for the future of our civilisation and cultures. It is of particular interest to me, committed as I am to the pluralism of cultures. The reality is that international competition for Irish viewers is here to stay. It will not go away and there are no technical means at our disposal to prevent reception of these services. For these reasons we must attain the primary objective of the Programme for a Partnership Government on broadcasting which is that:
"Our policy will be to ensure that Irish TV and Radio Programming is of the highest quality and that it remains the preferred choice of a majority of Irish viewers."
In my view, the philosophy of public service broadcasting with its fundamental democratic values offers us the best model on which to base our long term strategy. We must ensure that Irish viewers and listeners can exercise the maximum amount of control and choice. We must also be able to ensure that the audience remains in control of its culture and its own development as a community and as a nation. As I have stated at international gatherings, every story has a right to be told.
Given that the framework of broadcasting in this country is based on legislation that is over thirty years old and which was drawn up at a time when extensive programme choice, particularly on television, was not technically feasible, I am sure Senators will agree that a fundamental review is now necessary to ensure, as the programme for Government states, that Irish television and radio remains the preferred choice of the majority of Irish viewers.
However, it must be recognised that this process of review of the existing structures will take time. My aim is for whatever revisions are made to stand the test of time and to be relevant into the next century. In the meantime I am satisfied that there are urgent issues to be addressed arising especially from our experience of almost three years operation of section 3 of the Broadcasting Act, 1990. With the immediate problems which the Bill addresses out of the way the regulatory structures for broadcasting in the longer term can be examined and considered calmly and completely in all their complexity.
The Bill before the House has essentially two elements. Firstly, it provides for the repeal of section 3 of the Broadcasting Act, 1990 and restores the situation with regard to broadcast advertisements on RTE services that obtained prior to the enactment of the Broadcasting Act, 1990, that is that the total daily times and the maximum time in any one hour for broadcast advertisements fixed by the Authority shall be subject to the approval of the Minister. In this connection it should be noted that it restores the situation to what it was when applicants for independent broadcasting contracts sought their franchises from the Independent Radio and Television Commission.
The second element of the Bill provides that RTE must make specific amounts available for programmes commissioned from the independent television production sector in each financial year. The independent production sector has already proven itself to be able to make programmes of the highest quality and capable of significant international success.
To return to the issue of advertising, section 3 of the Broadcasting Act, 1990, placed two restrictions on RTE in relation to advertising. The first was a limit on the revenue which RTE could earn from advertising and the second was a reduction of 25 per cent in the amount of airtime which RTE could make available for advertising.
This latter restriction was perhaps the most damaging for all the sectors associated with broadcast advertising. The intention was to divert advertising revenue from RTE to independent broadcasters, chiefly an independent national radio station which unfortunately closed down and a proposed national television service which never emerged. I have to say I never accepted that one sector of the media has to be artificially starved in order to promote another so it is no surprise to me that the capping provisions have failed manifestly to deliver any of the intended benefits. Tragically, the very inflexibility of the provisions has resulted only in serious and continuing damage to RTE, advertisers, advertising agencies and independent programme makers. I looked at all of their situations very closely in the preparation of this legislation. We were losing jobs, threatening jobs, and we had lost revenue.
The basic difficulty with the 1990 capping provisions is that they impose an artificial and arbitrary limit on the way RTE seeks to provide a truly national public broadcasting service. For the 1990 Act to work, if that is the right term, broadcasters would have to accept that their audience is simply a market to be broken up into segments and shares. In this scenario the creative process — the true heart of any worthwhile broadcasting service — is stymied and subverted by the all-consuming desire to maximise market share of the advertising cake and of audience. Nothing else matters. Citizens within a communicative order are regarded, instead, as market segments.
To my mind, this negates what I believe broadcasting to be about. This philosophy rejects the potential of broadcasting to release and express the creativity of the nation in all its constituent elements and fails to involve all our citizens in the ongoing development of our culture. The philosophy of the 1990 Act prevents citizens from taking charge of changes which affect their lives in the most fundamental way and insists that they be satisfied with the least objectionable rather than being able to demand the best. In my view, it is part of our job as legislators to ensure that Irish audiences continue to be informed and educated as well as entertained by our broadcasting services. Indeed this definition seems to me to be passive in intent and I would add another obligation that Irish audiences should have the facility through the broadcast media to communicate. I regard Irish people as citizens in a communicative order.
Since I took office I have consulted with all those with an interest in the fate of section 3 of the 1990 Act. Virtually all sectors directly affected by the 1990 Act have stressed to me the severe operational difficulties they have experienced with the legislation.
RTE have found it impossible to live within the provisions of section 3 of the 1990 Act unless they literally turn away business or employ some mechanism which would have distorted the advertising market to a devastating extent. As a result of the capping provisions many advertising production companies are now understood to be in severe financial difficulties. To continue with the provision would leave RTE faced with the prospect of letting go up to a possible 300 staff.
Advertisers' and advertising agencies' main concern has been the huge rise in the cost of advertising which resulted from the reduction in advertising minutage imposed by the 1990 Act. Industry sources estimate an increase of almost 55 per cent in the cost since the introduction of the 1990 Act. This alone is resulting in difficulties for small to medium-sized advertisers in marketing products and in developing/promoting new or small indigenous brand names on RTE television; diversion of advertising to other television stations — there are also indications that significant amounts are simply being withheld and of increasing amounts of non-media "below the line" expenditure; indications that bigger diversion to UK terrestrial and satellite channels will occur if the Act is not changed; and marketing control and/or the budgets of international companies reverting to head offices outside the country with negative consequences for advertising agencies, production houses and industry generally.
Not to bring in this legislation would be to ignore all these consequences which were repeatedly represented to me.
Independent television producers are seeking the removal of the cap on RTE advertising revenue as its imposition resulted in a reduction in the amount of independent programmes commissioned by the station. They also believe the continuation of the cap is preventing RTE from developing a constructive policy on commissioning independently produced programmes. Members of the House are aware that this proposal is part of a mosaic of proposals of mine to assist the film industry.
The national newspapers industry is virtually alone in its support of the Broadcasting Act, 1990. They contend that significant advertising would be diverted to them in the long run if the Act remains in force and that to revert to the pre-1990 situation would have serious implications for the financial viability of the newspaper industry.
There is little doubt that the newspaper industry has difficulties. They are faced with increasing competition from UK papers which can be produced more economically than Irish newspapers given the UK economies of scale. However, I have not seen any evidence to convince me that newspapers have benefited significantly from the 1990 Act or would in the future.
On the contrary, major advertisers have made it clear to me that their advertising budgets for media other than television — newspapers, both national and provincial, local broadcasting, etc. — have had to be curtailed in order to maintain their presence on television. Industry figures also show a catastrophic drop in the number of days spent shooting commercials in this country from 147 in 1989 to 75 in 1992 reflecting a huge loss of income to freelance film makers in Ireland.
The reduction in advertising time imposed by the Act and the resulting increase in advertising costs have clearly demonstrated that certain categories of advertisers are prepared to spend virtually any amount to maintain a presence on television. Smaller Irish companies have been forced off television altogether. There has been a reduction in the level of promotion for smaller brands and a reduction in the number of new television advertisements being made. It is vitally important to the economy that indigenous companies and companies promoting brands developed in Ireland have access to a domestic television advertising medium at a reasonable price, and that RTE does not have to rely on multinational companies to provide their advertising revenues.
I mentioned earlier the fact that television advertising spending is being diverted out of the Irish economy. I am very concerned that revenue should have to be diverted to foreign stations simply because of an artificial distortion of the Irish television advertising market. While there are differences of opinion as to the amount actually being diverted to non-Irish stations so far, there is no doubt that non-Irish stations are aggressively seeking advertising here and it must be accepted that the current situation allows the real possibility of significant diversion.
I believe that the majority of the concerns expressed to me are genuine and need immediate attention if the situation is not to get progressively worse and significant job losses throughout the economy are to be avoided. I am also anxious, to put it more positively, to create jobs and I regard this as an area for job creation. It is for these reasons that I am proposing the repeal of section 3 of the Broadcasting Act, 1990 as an immediate measure.
Turning to the independent television production sector, I believe the sector can sustain a dramatic growth in skilled jobs but to realise its full potential the sector must have a guaranteed domestic base through RTE services, as the national, and at present, only television broadcaster. More and more reliance is being placed by broadcasters in other countries on the output of their independent production sectors.
As part of my longer term proposals for the restructuring of Irish broadcasting, I plan to create a regulatory environment which will further foster the development of the sector. However, I feel that immediate statutory provisions, aimed at ensuring its short term survival and development are necessary. To this end, I am proposing a provision whereby RTE would be required to make available specific amounts of money each year for programmes commissioned from the independent sector. I should emphasise of course, that the money available for commissioning programmes cannot be confined to the Irish independent production sector, but I am confident that the Irish sector will be able to secure the maximum number of commissions consistent with the resources available to it.
I will now deal with the main provisions of the Bill.
Section 2 provides that the total daily times for advertising, and the maximum time for advertising in any hour, on RTE services fixed by the RTE Authority shall be subject to the approval of the Minister. This is, in effect, a restoration of the situation which obtained under the Broadcasting Authority Acts before the enactment of the Broadcasting Act, 1990.
Section 3 provides for the repeal of section 3 of the Broadcasting Act, 1990, with effect from 1 September 1992. RTE would have reached the limit on revenues imposed by that section after this date.
Section 4 provides that RTE must make specific amounts of money available in each financial year for programmes commissioned from the independent television production sector. The amount to be set aside for this purpose will be £5 million in 1994, rising in stages to £10 million in 1998 and to 20 per cent of television programme expenditure in 1999 and thereafter, or £12.5 million, whichever is the greater. The amount of £12.5 million will be adjusted annually in line with changes in the consumer price index.
Under this section, the RTE Authority will be required to keep a special account, termed the "independent television programmes account", into which the moneys to be made available under this section for programmes to be commissioned from the independent sector are to be paid. The funds in the account can only be used for this purpose except that RTE will be allowed to use up to 10 per cent of the annual amounts for programme support and development and to enable projects which they have not commissioned but which have encountered financial difficulty to be completed. In each financial year the amounts specified above must be paid into the account and all the funds in the account must be spent or contractually committed in that financial year, unless it is impracticable to do so.
The requirement to spend all the money in the independent programmes account is not, therefore, absolute. I believe that RTÉ must remain in control of their own schedules and must be responsible for determining the quality of the programmes which they transmit. I feel that an absolute requirement to spend a specific amount of money in each year or, indeed, a requirement to devote a particular quota of broadcasting hours to independently produced programmes could lead to a situation where money was being spent on independent commissions regardless of quality and I want to avoid that.
However, I should stress in the strongest terms possible, that I do not foresee any realistic prospect of any significant amount of money being left unspent at the end of any year because of lack of capability in the independent production sector to meet RTE requirements. I expect RTE to work closely with the sector so that independent film makers are commissioned to provide quality programmes across the whole range of RTE output.
Section 4 (5) provides that if any of the moneys in the independent television programmes account remain to be expanded after the end of the financial year in which they were paid in, the amount not spent must remain in the independent television programme account in addition to the following years' allocation unless I, as Minister, authorise RTE to withdraw the unspent portion.
Under section 6 RTE will have to make a special report to me on the operation of the independent television programme account each year, including its activities as respects the commissioning of programmes and any other matter which I may direct. It is my intention that this report shall contain a complete list of the programmes and programme makers commissioned in each financial year. The section also provides that the report shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. This will ensure that the independent programmes account is operated in a completely transparent manner.
Section 4 (7) allows for some flexibility in the annual amounts which RTE must set aside under this section for the commissioning of programmes from the independent sector. These amounts, particularly in the later years, are very substantial and could become too great a burden on RTE if there was an unexpected downturn in the fortunes of the station or if, for whatever reason, the independent sector are unable to fully grasp the opportunity which this Bill presents.
We have all learned about the dangers of inflexible provisions from the 1990 Act. Under this provision I, as Minister, will be enabled to review the operation of the section and to vary by order the annual amounts stipulated in the table to this section. In determining whether a variation is necessary I must have regard to the state of RTE finances; the effect of the operation of this section on employment in RTE and in the independent production sector; and the effect of the section on the ability of RTE to carry out its functions generally.
Senators will note that any order made under this section will not come into effect until a positive resolution approving the order has been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. This will ensure that any variations to the amounts specified in this section are effected again in the most transparent and democratic way. It is my intention to review the operation of this section before the end of 1995.
The Bill goes to considerable lengths in section 5 to define "independent television programme". The essence of the definition is that an independent television programme is a programme made by a person who has control of the participants, the persons involved in making the programme and the equipment and facilities used in making the programme and is neither a subsidiary nor a holding company of a broadcaster.
Senators will also be aware that in section 7, I have taken the opportunity in this Bill to ensure that from the appointment of the next RTE Authority, women will be adequately represented on the RTE Authority. This is a legislative first of which I am quite proud. I hope that as time goes by the need for such specific provisions will be obviated and that all citizens will be represented fairly on State boards. I am taking this step now because the crucial role that RTE plays in forming and reflecting our culture and value is of such importance that it must be informed by the views of women and the issue is simply too important to be left to the discretion of individual Ministers and Governments.
Before concluding, I would like to address the question of local and community radio. I am aware of concerns expressed by some local radio operators to the effect that while the 1990 cap imposed on RTE has had no identifiable beneficial effect on their sector, to restore the pre-1990 situation in the minds of many, without any further measures to assist the local radio sector will damage the growth of independent broadcasting. Fears have also been expressed that the restoration of the pre-1990 situation will allow RTE to unfairly use their dominant broadcasting position to undermine local radio stations. I wish to emphasise again that I am personally committed to the undertaking in the Programme for a Partnership Government to the effect that measures will be taken to ensure the continued viability of local radio. I will be looking, in particular, at what I consider to be the crucial role of community radio.
However, in general, I believe that there are few immediate measures that can be taken to meet the objectives of developing a strong independent radio sector. Such measures that might be taken are of a more long term nature and should be dealt with in the context of my proposals for the radical restructuring of the broadcasting sector as a whole. Since my appointment as Minister, I have established an ongoing consultation process between my office and representatives of the local radio sector. They have had many meetings and indeed I have met them myself in order to address the problems currently being experienced by the local radio stations and to explore possible solutions and I have put forward some proposals in that regard.
I want to reassure the House that I would be seriously concerned if, after the enactment of this legislation, RTE were found to be abusing their position in Irish broadcasting. RTE, as our national station, was established to provide a range of broadcasting services that is responsive to the needs and desires of the nation. It must recognise that the public demand alternative locally based radio services and that if this means some reduction in audience share and some reduction in advertising, so be it. RTE is not in existence to frustrate this public desire for choice.
After the enactment of this Bill the total daily times for broadcasting advertisements fixed by the Authority and the maximum period so fixed to be given to advertisements in any hour shall be subject to the consent of the Minister. I will be giving very careful consideration to RTE's proposals particularly in regard to radio advertising and I will be anxious to ensure that local radio does not run the risk of being made commercially unviable as a consequence of any proposal to which I might give my consent.
I regard the provision in the Bill as interim measures designed to address specific issues that are immediate and to give prompt effect to the commitments on broadcasting in the Programme for a Partnership Government. They are the necessary first steps to pave the way for an overhaul of broadcasting structures which will create an environment in which Irish broadcasters can meet the challenge of the late 20th century and to continue to be successful in fulfilling the needs of the Irish audience well into the 21st century.
Ba mhaith liom, a Chathaoirligh, mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leat as ucht na fáilte a chuir tú romham an tráthnóna seo. Táim ag súil le díospóireacht fhoirfe, dearfa sa Seanad ar an mBille seo. Arís, níl sa Bhille ach céimeanna tosaigh den leasú mór a bheidh ar siúl agam í gcúrsaí craolacháin. Tá mé féin an-bhuíoch go raibh seans agam bunphrionsabail na fealsúnachta a bhaineann le cúrsaí craolacháin a nochtadh sa Seanad. Molaim an Bille don Teach.
I welcome the Minister to the House with what is the first piece of major legislation he will be introducing. I am at a loss to know why this legislation, a broadcasting authority Bill, is under the auspices and direction of the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. Personally, I feel there is nobody better than the present Minister to introduce such a Bill in this House and no one could have more clearly explained the Government's intentions than the present Minister. However, the fact that it is the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht who is introducing a broadcasting Bill tells us a fair amount about the position of RTE and the regard which the Government has for RTE. Throughout the Minister's speech, here and in the Dail, there was a personal imprint and a personal philosophy about the state of our broadcasting and what it is going to look like in the future. I do not personally disagree with a great deal of what the Minister said, but I do find the principle of ministerial control, Government control and Government input into broadcasting a dangerous one. I also find it difficult to see how easily the philosophy the Minister explained to us today sits with the philosophy of Fianna Fáil, his comrades in Government, which is in direct contrast. That is not necessarily a bad thing. The Minister is in control at this stage but, in the future the powers he has given himself in this Bill may be exercised in a different way by someone with a different philosophy.
The first problem with this Bill is, in some ways, a credit to the Minister. He has got this Bill to the House in record time. He has managed to repeal section 3 of the Broadcasting Act, 1990, in record time and persuade his colleagues of the importance of this and of the second strand of the Bill, which is to hand over some of RTE's money to independent producers. That is a great credit to him but the problem with the Bill is that it is incomplete as it is presented to us today. As the Minister said, it has two important strands, but there are many aspects of broadcasting in this country about which we have had positive, but unclear, promises. It is difficult to approve this Bill without knowing where the other pieces will fit in.
I think the Minister knows exactly what I am talking about, because the Bill leaves many people in the Irish broadcasting industry in a limbo of uncertainty. I know from being lobbied by them that the Minister has seriously considered what they have had to say, and has met with them. He has not, I think given many of them any commitments of a rash nature. However, he has left certain elements worried about their future because it is not catered for in this Bill. There is also no indication from the Minister as to when that will be catered for.
I have no doubt of his integrity and intention to bring a far more comprehensive and, as he said, radical Bill before this House and the Dáil in the future. The problem here is that this Bill is piecemeal and not part of a set of general broadcasting proposals, which we would like to see at the same time. One cannot really assess what is proposed here without knowing the other side of the equation. We do not know that from what the Minister said.
To be more specific, the Minister has made certain people happy but other people and interest groups unhappy. He knows, and he acknowledged in his speech, that the local radio industry is deeply unhappy; not only with this Bill, but with its uncertain future and its continuing losses and haemorrhaging. He knows that while RTE is allowed end its advertising cap in this Bill, there is also a promise of further interference with and control of expenditure in RTE. He knows the national newspapers are extremely unhappy with this Bill because their future does not seem quite so bright as a result. Some of us strongly opposed the Broadcasting Act, 1990, for reasons which I will go into later. The Minister knows from the consumer's point of view, that there will be more advertising on RTE as a result of this Bill.
There is a large number of interest groups who are not only dissatisfied with the Bill but who remain in the dark. I accept completely the Government's, or part of the Government's, desire to repeal that part of the Broadcasting Act, 1990, which was so appalling and illmotivated — the introduction of a cap on RTE. Of course it would be impossible for the Minister to say openly in this House now, that the cap was motivated by a desire for revenge on RTE after an election in which Fianna Fáil felt that the Minister and the Government of the day had been treated in a partisan manner. That was the perception and the cap action was thought to be a revenge by the Minister of the day. For that reason alone, the capping should be repealed.
However, the ostensible reason for the capping has also, I am afraid, been exposed as inadequate and unworkable. It was supposed to divert advertising revenue to other areas of the media, in particular to Century Radio. It patently failed to do that despite the best efforts of the Fianna Fáil party at the time. The capping was to a large extent by-passed by RTE, but rejected advertising did not find its way to the station to which it was hoped it would go. The result, as everybody knows, was that Century Radio collapsed and went bankrupt.
The effect of the Broadcasting Act, 1990, was totally negative. It soured relations between the Government of the day and RTE, leaving RTE in a position where it felt it had to by-pass the Act and exceed its permitted income. Other elements of the media did not receive the sort of boost intended by the cap.
However, we have returned to the problem which RTE presents to successive Governments, with which the Minister is now struggling, but with which I do not believe any Government has properly grappled. That problem is the monopoly situation of RTE within our broadcasting service, particularly our television service. There is no rival in national television to allow people a choice. There is no prospect, as far as I know, of such a rival in the light of recent events. There is no rival in national radio either. I do not believe anything the Minister said today addresses that problem or points towards a solution of the Irish broadcasting monopoly problem.
We have not been able to square the circle whereby RTE receives both licensing money of over £50 million per annum and a huge chunk of the advertising revenue available to the media. The more we interfere the greater the mess we appear to make. The Minister today, while lifting the cap and to some extent deregulating RTE, is on the other hand, diverting its funds and deciding that expenditure should go in a certain direction of which he approves, which is his right.
However, there is a danger that the national broadcasting station, while retaining its monopoly for many years to come, I suspect, will continue to be a tool of whatever Government is in power. It will not be in the overt way of which we have been conscious in the past through blatant political interference because I think the present Minister is above that. However, it will take the form of Government dictating how RTE money is spent and how revenue is raised. That is a more subtle way of deciding the philosophy, programming and culture of RTE — an expression which the Minister quite rightly uses.
We must ask ourselves the fundamental question — what is public sector broadcasting and what is it for? Throughout the Minister's speech he spoke, as eloquently as ever about: "the future of our civilisation and cultures". I think he was talking about his culture. I would like to contrast that with the Programme for a Partnership Government and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. There is an extraordinary contradiction between the two requirements for RTE set out in the Fianna Fáil and Labour Programme for a Partnership Government 1993-1997. The programme states: “Our policy will be to ensure that Irish TV and radio programming is of the highest quality and that it remains the preferred choice of a majority of Irish viewers...”. These two aspects are not necessarily compatible. Whereas the culture which the Minister spoke of exists, and it is his wish that RTE should promote this culture, I am not sure it is the preferred choice of the masses.
There is a presumption among those with strong opinions on this issue that the masses want culture imposed upon them. I believe, however, that the last thing the masses seek is culture. I believe that the masses often want what the Minister referred to as the lowest common denominator. They want tabloid television which is spoken of in such a derisory manner by——
And tabloid newspapers.
In addition to tabloid newspapers. The masses buy them and they want them.
That is not true.
The Minister spoke of his wish that there should not be market-led television. The Minister is entitled to express those views but it is dangerous to equate what he wishes for television with what the masses must have. I accept that the Minister is seeking to strike a balance between——
They share his good taste.
——what is market-led and his own ideas as to what constitutes the culture of the nation which the people should have. However, there is an inherent contradiction in this which also exists in RTE.
The Government should consider spending the TV licence fee on those areas which the Minister describes as public sector broadcasting and spending the advertising revenue on what is termed more popular broadcasting. This is a division which would be difficult to make; it summarises the contradiction in the broadcasting service. To a large extent RTE is meant to be educational, to cater for minority programmes, to be managed in a non-commercial way in a reflection of what the Government believes the people ought to receive. However, at the same time it is endeavouring to compete in a popular way with other broadcasting stations throughout the world. It is a difficult if not impossible task because we are pursuing incompatible and contradictory objectives.
In speaking to the House of his philosophy, the Minister spoke eloquently of the "norms of creativity" and "critical capacity" and of his wish that there would not be any uncritical market-led ideology. He spoke of his desire that RTE should be an expression of our culture and aspirations. Indeed, in the Dáil he said he wanted it to take control of change.
The Minister desires, as is his entitlement, that RTE should give a philosophical lead to people. That is fair enough but it should be acknowledged that it reflects the belief and philosophy of a particular Government and Minister. While I share to a large extent with the Minister the philosophy behind these expressions, they are highly charged and they are open to subjective judgments. Presumably this philosophy will be reflected in any additional legislation which the Minister will introduce in this area.
While this Bill reverts to the pre-1990 position, it increases ministerial control of RTE in many respects. The 1990 legislation imposed a rigid cap which the then Opposition in this House voted against. Under this Bill, RTE must seek ministerial approval for its advertising times, ceiling and expenditure. There is a real danger that RTE could abuse its position in this respect, that it could chop and change prices in advertising, that it could alternate its times and abuse the monopoly position it has established over the years.
It would be difficult for any competitor to succeed against RTE in terms of advertising because of its dominant position. It could undercut advertising revenue from another source and it could engage in predatory pricing. The onus would be on the Minister to intervene in that situation. This would invest the Minister with too much power in the daily working of the national broadcasting station.
I had hoped for an indication from the Minister today that at some future time RTE would be released from political control. I had hoped to hear that perhaps the RTE Authority would no longer be appointed by the relevant Minister of the day. The fact that the RTE Authority is appointed by the Minister means there is political sympathy with the Government of the day at the highest level which permeates downwards in terms of appointments, philosophy and decision-making.
It would be a grand gesture if in the future, broadcasting was removed totally from the political arena. However, that is not being done today; rather it appears that matters are taking a step backwards.
There must be a balance to the Independents.
I thank the Senator for his intervention. If there is a national broadcasting authority it should not be under the control of a political party. If the Senator wishes to establish his own independent broascasting authority, he is entitled to peddle whatever political line he chooses.
It will not be sold to the Senator's authority.
Senator Ross, without interruption.
How much time have I left, a Chathaoirligh?
No time limit has been placed on this debate.
Regarding the independent sector, in the Bill there is a welcome and refreshing initiative in the desire of the Minister to assist this sector. It is an initiative aimed at assisting native Irish industry although I understand that under EC regulations this cannot be specified. It is likely that the money which the Minister is diverting from RTE to the independent sector will go to independent Irish producers. However, I do not like the idea that so much money should be directed to independent producers as a gift without strings.
In this Bill it is unclear how this money will be distributed, what sort of body will distribute it, and what criteria will be attached. There is an assumption in this Bill that this money will be distributed to people who produce what the Minister calls "quality productions". I am doubtful about that and I think RTE should be unhappy that it is once again being interfered with in a rigid manner. I do not know where these figures of £5 million in 1994, £6.5 million in 1995, £8.5 million in 1996, £10 million in 1997 and thereafter £12.5 million or 20 per cent, whichever is the larger, came from but they appear to be arbitrary. They are large in terms of RTE's expenditure and appear to be going to independent producers whether RTE makes a profit or a loss.
That may be subject, as a result of amendment, to ministerial direction, but I would have thought there must be a stipulation that sums as great as that could not possibly be paid out of RTE's coffers if the station is making a loss. Obviously, that is something the Minister would want to consider. It appears that the idea of independent producers receiving what it, after all, a direct subsidy when the national broadcasting station cannot afford it, has not been thought out. It is possible that this provision could be recalled with the permission of the Minister of the day, but the effect of this is to allow the Minister to put the screws on RTE, to permit him to play with millions of pounds of RTE's money and to decide that £10 million will go this year and £5 million next year depending on how they behave and whether they accede to his pressures. This is a matter I regret.
As the Minister knows, everybody in this House has been strongly lobbied by local radio groups who are unhappy about the state of Irish broadcasting and their position. They maintain they received no benefit from the cap on RTE and that advertising simply did not come in their direction. They also maintain that RTE will now be able to reduce its advertising charges because of the 45 per cent increase in time. The effect of this will be to continue the sort of losses they have already suffered. They claim they have had cumulative losses in their short existence of £6 million which, if added to Century Radio's losses, come to £10 million. Their lobbyists say that the future of local radio will be bleak — if it can exist at all — if the Minister does not come to their rescue shortly. They estimate that because of the Bill, several hundred jobs will be lost. They have seen the Minister on this issue about which he has said he is sympathetic.
State intervention, is that what the Senator wants now?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Ross without interruption please.
I am stating what the lobbyists say.
I read him and then I listen to him, and I cannot make sense of him.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator may not interrupt the speaker.
The Minister said he has given a commitment to what he calls "a viable commercial radio industry". He should have spelt out what he means by this in the Bill. I am not sure that, in the circumstances in which this Bill is being introduced, local radio is viable at all. That is something we have to face up to. Maybe local radio is not viable as long as RTE is in such an extraordinary dominant position.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I would like to remind the Senator that he has one minute left.
On a point of order——
We thought we had all day. I want to protest on the Senator's behalf.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
There are time limits of 30 minutes on the spokes-persons and 20 minutes thereafter, and I remind the House of that.
In view of the fact that that is in direct contradiction with what the Cathaoirleach said a few minutes ago, I imagine I could have a little leeway.
I support Senator Ross.
Thank you.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
In that case, Senator, I want to make a correction. There is a time limit, and I am sorry if you were informed otherwise earlier.
I was misled.
An Leas-Cathaoirleach
I am sorry Senator.
Let me finish with local radio. What they are asking the Minister to consider, and what they want, is funding from the licence fee of 6 per cent.
State intervention.
This is what they are saying; it is not what I am saying.
It is what the Senator wants.
They want a news service so that people do not switch from local to RTE and stay with that station. They want a transmission network and an end to the 3 per cent levy to the Independent Radio and Television Commission. They want to know whether the Minister believes local radio has a public service broadcasting role in the terms in which he spoke. The great advantage RTE has over any other broadcasting service or any other part of the media is that RTE cannot go bust. No Government will allow that area of the media to go bankrupt.
They can write it off.
That is an extraordinary advantage and an extraordinary base from which to compete. I appeal to the Minister to try to level the playing field further if it is possible, as his predecessors have not been able to, and to reduce Government interference in the national broadcasting service.
I welcome the Minister here to deal with his first major Bill. In 1990 when one of his predecessors brought the previous Bill before the House, I said amending legislation had been long awaited and I expected another Bill to follow within 18 months to two years. With the passing of time such amending legislation was badly needed. RTE has served the Irish people well over the last 70 years in radio and 32 years in television. They have brought us every important event in Irish life, be it sporting, political or religious. We remember only too well 30 years ago this week. In 1963, the visit of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, President of the United States. A special commemorative programme of that visit will be televised next Sunday night. It was a fantastic occasion and was captured magnificently by RTE, even though the station had only been established two years at that time. We also remember the worldwide interest in 1979 of the visit of His Holiness the Pope.
The Senator left out the Bishop of Galway.
What about Mother Teresa?
I also remember the visit to Ireland in recent weeks of Mother Teresa of Calcutta and how magnificently RTE covered that event.
RTE's expertise and quality of work was clearly displayed during the coverage of the Eurovision Song Contest in Millstreet, County Cork, a few weeks ago. I congratulate everyone associated with that occasion, including the Minister. It was the first time 25 countries were allowed to participate in the event. It was the largest song contest ever broadcast by a television company. The European Broadcasting Unit allowed the coverage to proceed because of RTE's experience at televising previous Eurovision Song Contests.
These great occasions increase our confidence in our national station. Therefore, we are here today to amend this legislation to help RTE in the future. I am involved in the music industry and I compliment RTE for the great encouragement it gives to Irish talent by broadcasting it on television and radio. I congratulate RTE television, in particular, for promoting new talent on the television screen. RTE has a 25 per cent commitment to broadcasting Irish talent on Radio 1 and 2FM. I would like more middle of the road Irish-style programming during peak listening daytime hours. I accept that RTE's policy is committed to 25 per cent Irish content at present.
We need the same interest and commitment from the independent commercial radio stations. It may be to the long term detriment of our local radio stations that they are not committed to broadcasting Irish recorded material. It is only natural that the initial broadcasting figures have declined, as can be seen in the new survey reports which were published recently, given that some local radio stations are broadcasting pop music from American and other cultures.
In this legislation the Minister has agreed to address RTE's financial difficulties while, at the same time, ensuring television output for the independent producers. I am aware of RTE's commitment to the use of independent productions. However, RTE is also concerned about maintaining the quality of these services. This is no mean achievement, given the fact that they provide 2,000 full-time jobs for talented people in this country. No one else could achieve this. Therefore, we should ensure that future prospects for RTE are protected.
We must enable RTE to fulfill its existing mandate and the extra obligations imposed under the legislation. In this regard, the licence fee has not been increased since 1986. Other industries have increased their products and their charges, yet the RTE licence fee has not been increased. Perhaps it could be index-linked to the rate of inflation. We must have one of the cheapest licence fees in Europe at present.
People are paying £10, £12 or £20 each month for Sky television, which seems to be a popular channel at present. RTE must keep a high standard to compete with these stations that are now broadcasting into our homes. We must be realistic and objective. No other television channel in Europe has the same problems as RTE. It broadcasts to 3.5 million people. It has four to 14 channels to contend with, depending on whether one lives in the multi-channel or the satellite dish area. All these channels broadcast in the English language. France, the UK or Germany do not have this number of native language channels beaming into their countries and competing for the same viewers. Perhaps the licence fee could be index-linked in the future so as to have a more realistic approach to the services and facilities which we will be able to obtain.
The local radio stations must meet the public's requirements. Everyone in the entertainment business knows that, as with television, radio listeners will not be retained unless suitable entertainment is provided. The programmes broadcast at present are not suitable for the available listenership. For example, there is no point playing pop music at 11 o'clock in the morning when young children and students are at school and the housewife or factory and office workers are the only people listening to the radio station. In this regard, the radio stations are not meeting consumer demand.
I had reservations when the independent radio licence were issued and the record will show that my reservations were correct. Too many licences were granted. On that occasion I said that four or five local radio licences were sufficient. I suggested that an opt in-opt out system be made available for areas looking for a radio licence. For example, there are 100,000 people in Tallaght, which is more than the combined population of Longford, Leitrim and Roscommon. It would not be a viable proposition for Tallaght to have its own full-time radio station. However, it could opt in-opt out in the same way that Cork local radio does on Radio 1. That station then broadcasts during the time it is not possible to broadcast from the Cork area.
Radio stations have been granted these licences but many of them should come together and form a co-operative. A licence should then be given for the south, the west, the midlands, Cork and Dublin. There are two stations in Dublin, although the Broadcasting Act, 1990 was introduced to give alternative radio listening. We were all told that alternative radio listening was being offered through the Independent Radio and Television Commission. It granted two pop stations for Dublin, but there was no alternative radio station. People from the age of 25 to 85 have no alternative radio station in the Dublin area. This is a shame and a scandal. One third of all money spent in Ireland on products is spent in the Dublin region. From that point of view, it made economic sense to have alternative radio stations in Dublin. A Leas-Chathaoirligh, you would be astounded if I told you that one of these two channels in Dublin plays only 2 per cent of Irish recorded material. It is a disgrace. These stations in Dublin are putting Irish musicians out of work. Since these new stations were established, over 1,000 jobs have been lost in the past three years among Irish musicians, record companies, publishers and songwriters. The other station in Dublin broadcasts only 4 per cent of Irish recorded material. The Minister is committed to the arts and I am glad to see him in this important portfolio, but he and Department officials must examine the abuse by 98 FM and FM 104 who were granted licences to broadcast an alternative service to listeners in the Dublin area and are not doing so.
The concern of Government now, as in 1987 and in 1989, is to create jobs. Broadcasting is a top service industry for the creation of jobs for young people. What is happening is that two separate radio stations are operating with nothing in mind but profit; they are not concerned with creating employment. Ireland has a wealth of talent in the fields of music and song. There is no greater ambassador for any nation than its music or song, or, as the Minister knows, its poems. We must examine, in context of the regulations governing those licences, the commitment of those who have taken the licence and how they have been used or, rather abused by some.
In fairness, RTE give an unwritten commitment to play 25 per cent of Irish recorded material on radio and that can be seen by looking back through their records. On Radio 1 from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m., which is peak listening time on any radio station since television takes over from that time, RTE still maintain the 25 per cent level between those times and later on in the evening.
As someone in the music industry who has made commitments to it in terms of investment and as a employer, I would say that the industry is in severe decline because it has no shop window, so to speak, to display its wares and without that the industry cannot sell its products. We all witnessed the concern over Digital in Galway and how tragic the loss of 800 jobs was for that city. The music industry has lost 1,000 jobs in the last two years and will lose another 2,000 jobs in the next two years. There are music groups and others in the music industry clinging on in the hope that something will happen, that this legislation will alleviate the plight of the live music industry. However, with the support of only 2 or 4 per cent air time from two new stations in the capital city, and one third of the total spending on advertising in this area, what chance do young people have of getting employment in the industry when their talents cannot be promoted or marketed?
On Committee Stage I will return to this issue, and I ask the Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare, Deputy Burton who is with us now, through her officials, to check the percentages relating to 98 FM and FM 104, and if I am proved wrong I will be amazed. One has to listen for hours to hear an Irish record played on those stations. The Minister of State will be aware of the importance of music. It is uplifting. People go out in the evenings to be entertained and music would be involved in 70 per cent of all entertainment. A music group is an attraction which draws people into the hotels and cabaret lounges, and generates extra employment in the services industry. Music is a main attraction for tourists. The Arts Council gets millions of pounds and the film board will get similar amounts. However, there is no music council or board. I ask the Minister to set up a music board to create jobs for our young people.
How important is it to have ten people employed in Castlepollard, County Westmeath in the music business? There are 53 people employed full time in Moate, County Westmeath in the music business. Those are good levels of employment in enterprises which are not getting one penny of assistance from the State and are not asking for State assistance. What do music groups get from the State? After saving for eight or nine months and spending £5,000 or £6,000 to make a record they go to radio stations with it where they do not even get an acknowledgment of the receipt of the record. That is a shame and a scandal.
Mr. Paudge Brennan, a distinguished former Member of the Oireachtas, told me once that it is never the wrong time to do the right thing. The Minister is committed to the arts and now is the time to make a start in acknowledging the expertise of all great Irish talent. Look at the track record of Irish artists, of U2, Chris de Burgh, Daniel O'Donnell and Foster and Allen. These artists have brought millions of pounds into the country. The success of Irish music artists has been far greater than that of any film made here or any play written by an Irish writer. There are few enough people with expertise in the industry and it is going to lose 2,000 jobs over the next two years. We have already lost 1,000 or 1,500 jobs because this scandal has been allowed to continue. We fought for 10 years to legalise local radio and it has left young people without a chance of getting employment. Local radio stations committed to the music industry in rural Ireland are the only ones keeping the music industry alive. They are the only ones who will survive because the people who go to see musical groups at venues at night, from 250 to 1,000 people, can identify with a radio station next morning if they hear that artist on the station. Stations are also at a great loss if they do not hear the artists to whom people are listening.
I feel strongly about this matter and I call on the Minister and his officials, before Committee Stage, to check the facts behind the serious allegations I have made. If they are true I want them addressed and corrected in this Bill. I want a provision in this Bill that all radio stations must play 25 per cent home produced recorded material. I am not talking about any particular type of music, rather about supporting the Irish music industry. Everywhere else in the world local music goes hand in hand with local radio stations because it makes commercial sense from the station's point of view. We cannot survive as an industry without a place to display our talents. In fairness RTE television excels in promoting Irish artists and musicians. It is a credit to those who are in charge of RTE and to the Oireachtas that set it up in the first place.
I want to congratulate the previous Minister on saying that one third of the members of the RTE Authority are women, and the Minister said in his statement today that he intends to increase that percentage. That is a step in the right direction. I welcome the Bill and I wish to be positive about it. The Minister has taken a personal interest in addressing the serious problem of repealing section 3 of the Broadcasting Act, 1990. I knew then it would not work. It did not work and when the Minister took office he addressed the matter immediately. I congratulate him on that.
In relation to independent film producers and independent film makers, this fine industry was growing and showed promise. I hope those with expertise in this area, who are still living in Ireland, will now get together. This is a magnificent opportunity for them to make home produced films which can be transmitted on RTE. The amount of money allocated is enormous. It may be too optimistic to hope for a growth of 20 per cent each year over the next number of years. RTE consider 10 per cent is achievable and the Minister hopes for 20 per cent, but I suggest that 15 per cent would probably be a more manageable figure. Approximately 500 to 1,000 jobs can be created almost immediately in the private sector with people making half hour television documentaries and half hour or one hour series. We are all in favour of anything that will create jobs and we should not allow anyone who will eliminate jobs stand in the way.
I thank the Minister for bringing the legislation before the House and I look forward to its speedy passage.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire agus cuirim fáilte chomh maith roimh an mBille seo. Dar liomsa is Bille an-mhaith é.
I have listened with great interest to the contributions of the Minister, Senator Ross and Senator Cassidy and I share many of the views expressed. There has been a great deal of creativity in the area of music and Senator Cassidy made a very cogent case for the establishment of a music board which would further foster the type of development he so eloquently summarised and outlined.
On the other hand I share some of Senator Ross's reservations at a philosophical level about some of the principles behind the Bill and the potential for abuse if the most maligned scenario that could be envisaged was to come to pass. We have to strike a balance between all the variables and the Bill strikes a sensible, positive and welcome balance. I cannot, unfortunately, pronounce with any authority on what the Irish people want in terms of television.
Senator Ross will tell the Senator.
I fear I lack Senator Ross's intimate familiarity with the mind of the masses and I am unable to accompany him on his daily pilgrimage to the soup kitchens. It seems to me that we simply discover it as we go along and the Minister has made a reasonable effort to strike a balance between the various desiderata.
Senator Ross said he thought it told us much about the Government that it is a Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht who is introducing this legislation. I hope it does. I would very much like to think that the rest of the Government shares the Minister's views and his commitment to the approach he has adopted I would feel happier with the Government if I honestly believed that everybody did share that view but I will not linger on that issue.
I welcome the repeal of that odious legislation, section 3 of the Braodcasting Act, 1990, which was not only one of the more vindictive but one of the more obtuse pieces of legislation passed in this State and that is saying something in terms of the competition for that position.
I warmly welcome the general thrust of this legislation. There are only two or three specific aspects upon which I wish to linger. I do not know the rights and wrongs of the arguments about local radio but many of the local radio stations are making a very positive contribution to fostering a sense of local pride and identity and I would not wish to see anything in this legislation that would damage their potential for continuing to do that. Cognisance should be taken of legitimate interest in that direction.
I also welcome the commitment to what we call gender balance in the composition of the board. I am not one who takes the view that there ought to be automatically and axiomatically a gender balance on a mathematical basis on all boards in all circumstances. I can envisage circumstances in which there ought to be a majority of one sex depending on the type of board. It is self-evident in television that there is a case for as mathematically even a balance as possible. I am delighted that the Minister is introducing it in this way.
The Minister stated:
I hope that as time goes by the need for such specific provisions will be obviated and that all citizens will be represented fairly on State boards.
That will never happen because there is no way all citizens will ever be represented fairly on State boards. This is an important step in the right direction but there is a whole range of other representational equities that have to be kept in mind.
There is the question of representation in terms of class relations, perception of class as presented on television, relative levels of education, geographic representation, status representation and town/country balances. There is a whole range of variables in addition to gender. I am assuming that the Minister is talking explicitly about gender in that instance. While striking a balance so that all citizens would be fairly represented incorporates gender balance it also transcends it. It poses questions which are less spectacular and of lower public profile than gender but which nevertheless deserve to be kept in mind when considering the composition of boards.
A question also arises regarding the phrase that the Minister used, that "RTE as our national station was established to provide a range of broadcasting services that is responsive to the needs and desires of the nation". In practice that is the needs and desires of the State, and not of the nation. Perhaps it was a slip on Senator Cassidy's part when he talked about RTE serving a market of 3.5 million people. In practice that is probably the case but in terms of values and culture and what it represents, it has to go beyond 3.5 million. Striking a balance between representing northern issues in the South and southern issues to whatever audience it has in the North ought to be kept in mind.
In terms of the composition of the board, serious attention should be given to whether there is a mechanism by which representation of both communities in Northern Ireland could be taken into account. I know that the Minister takes a capacious view of culture and that he would wish to incorporate Unionist culture as well as Nationalist culture in our national television station. I am not sufficiently familiar with the mechanisms to suggest how this could be implemented in practice but it ought to be kept in mind. We should be aware of the distinction between State and nation when we talk about them.
I warmly welcome the legislation. I know it is only a first step but it is an important first step and I hope the legislation the Minister intends building on this will be constructed on the same principles and values and that we can look forward to an early introduction in these Houses.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Burton, and if she is successful in her job, perhaps many more of our citizens can enjoy the arts and culture that the Minister, Deputy Higgins, is so anxious to improve. I was anxious to say to the Minister before he left that it is very refreshing to have a Minister in power who means what he says and does what he said in Opposition he would do, in this case to repeal the cap.
Before I deal in detail with the cap, I must turn to my friend and colleague, Senator Ross, who has the capacity to turn himself inside out and face both directions at the one time. In this House he advocates Government intervention and distortion of the market. In his column in the Sunday newspaper he castigates the Government for such intervention. He laughs at the status of Shannon in the context of Aer Lingus and sneers at Government intervention in State or private companies. At the same time he wishes to retain probably the most distorting legislation ever introduced which capped RTE's advertising revenue. Perhaps Trinity College produces graduates who can face in more directions than even Professor Lee.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I ask Senator Magner to address his remarks through the Chair.
It is difficult to listen to Senator Ross and then to read his columns. He writes very well and I am a faithful reader of his column every Sunday. The trouble is that I am also a faithful listener to Senator Ross in the Seanad and it is not the same Senator Ross in both cases.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I ask Senator Magner to confine his remarks to the Bill and not to Senator Ross's articles in Sunday newspapers.
I am discussing the attitude of Senator Ross's colleagues at the Sunday Independent who consider any State intervention a mortal sin and Senator Ross' belief that we should retain the legislation that imposes a cap on RTE. That is a contradictory position.
On a point of order,
I do not mind being interrupted; in fact I wish there was a system similar to that in the House of Commons that would allow me to give way——
On a point of order,
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Magner, I ask you to resume your seat for a moment. Senator Ross wishes to raise a point of order.
It appears that Senator Magner, in his eagerness, did not listen to what I said.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is not a point of order, Senator.
It is an important point of order because the only time I referred to State interference was when I repeated what other people had said.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is not a point of order. I ask you to resume your seat. Senator Magner, speak to the Bill.
Not alone does Senator Ross steal my ideas, he also steals my time.
You are short of things to say.
It is disgraceful.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Magner, please speak to the Bill.
There is an adage: "If the cap fits, wear it". It is manifestly true that this cap did not fit RTE and it would therefore be ridiculous to suggest that RTE should wear it. Where does the diverted revenue go? Century Radio was one possible beneficiary and there was the suggested establishment of an independent television company. Century Radio did not survive. There is no possibility now, and I do not believe there was then, of the establishment of an independent third television company to absorb this revenue.
As I said earlier, when I referred to my colleague who writes a column for a certain Sunday newspaper——
Would the Senator have anything to say if I did not write that column?
The reality is——
Would the Senator have anything to say?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Magner to speak on the Bill.
It is incredible that newspaper proprietors should believe in retaining the cap when there are no other media to absorb the revenue except perhaps, independent television in Ulster. Hence the revenue would be exported to the north with small amounts trickling through to other groups in the State. This is sensible legislation. I am not particularly——
Right.
——angry about what happened in the past. The Senator is hassling me and that is very unfair. I am not receiving any protection from the Chair.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is unfair. Senator Magner without interruption on the Broadcasting Bill.
The removal of the cap makes eminent sense. Everyone, except certain vested interests, understands that. The freedom of RTE to seek revenue from advertising is part of the free market. People who wish to advertise on RTE will not necessarily advertise in other media such as newspapers or television stations outside the State.
RTE, through the services it provides, is a magnificent public institution. I visited Millstreet for the Eurovision Song Contest. Although I had no great interest in the music, it was fantastic to see the technical brilliance with which the show was staged by our own professionals. I met and listened to a number of people from foreign broadcasting companies — companies with resources far in excess of what RTE could command — who were laudatory about the scale of the Millstreet project and the level of expertise demonstrated by RTE.
It is a pity that the national television company has not make a greater effort to televise programmes about life — apart from the bombings and violence — in Northern Ireland. It has not broadcast programmes about Northern Ireland in the same way as it broadcasts programmes about other areas of the country like, for example, Cork and Kerry. I would like to see programmes which bring the North of Ireland closer to us: programmes that go into people's homes similar to programmes made about people's lives in other parts of the country. If RTE has a role to play in bringing the two communities together more programmes should be made and broadcast about Northern Ireland. There is an appalling level of ignorance in the South about life in Northern Ireland. People are more familiar with the streets of New York and Boston than they are with the streets of Belfast and Derry.
The Bill has two main elements: the repeal of the cap on advertising revenue for RTE and the statutory requirement on RTE to make specific amounts of money available each year for programmes commissioned from the independent television production sector. The latter element is a good provision. Some of the best programmes I have seen were on Channel 4 television, the majority of whose programmes are, as far as I know, independently produced. They were excellent programmes.
An Irish person runs that channel.
I am not sure who runs the channel but their programmes have been among the most brilliant I have seen. I welcome the fact that the evident talent in private production companies in this country will be utilised and supported in a positive way. RTE programmes should not be in-house production always. The independent production sector should be encouraged. The Minister said that movies like My Left Foot and others have brought great credit and honour to this country and show the high level of talent available in directing, producing and acting. Senator Cassidy said that there were 54 people working in music production in Moate. To be honest, I did not think there were 54 people living in Moate.
That is why Senator Magner was not elected to the Seanad.
I was not up in Moate anyway.
That is even worse.
Nonetheless, many people are employed in radio, television and independent production. It is ironic that the only people who favour the 1990 Broadcasting Act are the newspaper owners. They believe the Act should not be changed and should be rigidly implemented although there is no Century Radio or independent television channel to absorb the advertising revenue.
There is no doubt that the newspaper industry is in difficulty. That difficulty is caused by newspapers imported from the UK which have an economy of scale and seem to provide sports coverage at an affordable price. I am appalled that these newspapers are popular in this country. They are usually anti-Irish and have different headlines to suit the British and Irish markets — it is absolutely disgraceful. They are establishing a bridgehead here, which I deplore, and I sympathise with our national and local newspapers in trying to cope with that sort of competition. I do not know what the answer is, but it is not State intervention or giving money to newspapers.
I am glad to hear it.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Magner on the Bill, without interruption.
It is strange for a member of the Fine Gael Party to interrupt in this House, but times change.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I suggest Senator Magner is inviting interruptions.
I am not going to accuse you of bias, a Leas-Chathaoirligh; it is the last thought in my head.
Advertising spent on newspapers and television is not necessarily interchangeable. If RTE kept turning away money for advertising, this does not mean it would go to newspapers instead because companies, especially small companies, do not necessarily need or want to advertise there. Furthermore, some products look better on film than on paper; some products cannot be advertised in newspapers. Therefore, advertising on television is essential for them. The only possible beneficiary in this case would have been Sky television or ITV. The cap on advertising forced smaller companies from advertising on RTE and it reduced the level of promotion for small indigenous brands and the number of new television advertisements being made. It also made an effect on the production companies making these advertisements. I am not an expert in this area, but I understand that making advertisements for the entertainment business, whether for television or music, is an important and integral part of their income——
A massive part.
——and that any reduction of that activity brings about other difficulties, including job losses. Indigenous companies developing their brands must have access to reasonably priced domestic television advertising and RTE should not have to rely on multinational companies to provide their advertising revenues in the future. This House may not have the power to instruct RTE to offer indigenous industries better rates — presumably it is prohibited under EC competition law — but there must be some way of doing this. RTE could give more economic packages or reduce their rates, depending on the size of the company, but I do not know if that is legally possible. Television is a powerful medium for product development but their advertising charges are prohibitive for many companies. In RTE radio, some of the demands made on advertisers were outlandish. The technical data required to produce a simple advertisement seemed to be to be extraordinary and was stopping smaller companies from using the service. It was much easier to approach private local radio stations because they were more flexible in accepting an advertisement than RTE, who had 25 restrictions on what one could do.
RTE operates in the most competitive broadcasting environment in Europe, it is in competition with the BBC, ITV, and an increasing number of English language satellite services, all of whom have enormously larger operating budgets. I understand that some of the satellites being sent up can now take 40 to 50 channels; yet, RTE is holding its own in this market. Advertisers still wished to come to them, even when the cap was in place, indicating that the ordinary Irish consumer was watching RTE, rather than Sky, ITV or others. They should be credited for maintaining their market share, considering the high level of competition brought about by technology. Indeed, some of the channels being transmitted are bad and extremely boring. How these stations keep going is beyond me; even a dog would fall asleep watching them, but someone must be viewing them.
In the establishment of the independent braodcasting sector, a debate has developed concerning the dual funded status of RTE. The independent broadcasting sectors argue that the licence fee is intended to finance public service braodcasting and obligates that the sector should have access to some of the licence fee revenue. The definition of "public service" was referred to by other speakers. I do not believe it should consist of wall-to-wall broadcasting. I may offend Senator Cassidy when I say that music played 24 hours a day irritates me, whether it is from an American pop star or Foster and Allen. My favourite radio programme is produced elsewhere because I like to listen to discussions on today's issues and do not like to be subject to continuous pop music. Senator Cassidy is correct in saying that Dublin is badly served in relation to informative, entertaining and alternative radio. When one switches to an alternative Dublin radio station, music is all that can be heard and in many cases, they are playing the same records. I am sure that was never envisaged when independent broadcasting facilities were being discussed.
I welcome the lifting of the advertising cap because it protects those employed in RTE. It was forecast that up to 300 jobs could have been lost there if this phoney embargo was kept in place and I am glad it has been removed. I am also glad to have had the opportunity to draw attention to the contradiction between the writings and utterings of Senator Ross on State intervention.
Are you stuck again, Senator Magner?
This legislation will effectively repeal the advertising cap on RTE, which was imposed by a previous Minister in the Broadcasting Act, 1990. The Bill will enable RTE to improve the quality and extent of its broadcasting and will also create the interesting precedent of requiring the RTE Authority to keep a special account of moneys to be made available to the independent television production sector.
This Bill will enrich RTE, which already receives substantial funds from broadcasting licence fees and independent television film makers. In effect, it fulfils two of the commitments in The Programme for a Partnership Government — I would refer the Minister to page 52 of the programme — at a huge cost to local radio. The Minister has now chosen to move on two of his broadcasting commitments and to stall on the third. The Programme for a Partnership Government states that measures will be provided to ensure that commercial local radio broadcasting remains viable. I believe the Minister is leaving local radio high and dry. This Bill abandons local radio, not even proposing a White Paper similar to that proposed in the Programme for a Partnership Government for the film industry.
This legislation will put intolerable pressure on local radio stations, many of which are already surviving against the odds. They deserve a proportion of the licence fee or a share of the surplus funding which is being directed to independent film making, because they will not be playing on a level pitch or operating in a climate of fair competition. This case has been made by the members of the Association of Independent Radio Stations. These independent radio stations were set up without public funding, and given the current economic climate that is an important factor. They have to absorb the considerable cost of providing and servicing a full national and international news service and a transmission network. On top of this they must pay on ongoing levy of 3 per cent to the Independent Radio and Television Commission.
This Bill will generate difficulties for local radio stations. How can the Minister justify this? Every Senator and every public representative, particularly those serving rural constituencies, are aware of the special role of the local community radio station in their areas. They do not play wall to wall music, they broadcast local news, sports coverage, political discussion and provide a platform for local music and drama. This legislation will silence and kill the valuable public service aspect of local radio.
The Minister is dealing with this issue in a ham-fisted manner. He must accept the need for a radical reappraisal of broadcasting at every level, particularly an assessment of the three year old independent radio industry. I am aware of the difficulties faced by local radio stations, having been a board member of Galway Bay FM. This station plays an important role in this area, a role which RTE could not fulfil. I ask the Minister to be fair in his dealings with local radio. He must state what provisions he intends to make for local community radio stations. Kind words and commendations are an inadequate response and will be seen for what they are, a long fingering device.
To sustain the future viability of the independent radio sector provision must be made for local radio stations. They need State funding to support their transmission networks. Stations broadcasting to a dispersed population are those with difficult transmission problems and the lowest economic base on which to rely. Top quality news and nuacht services cost money, as does the sustenance of community based radio.
Local stations could concede defeat and reduce programmes to an unending stream of middle of the road music, but this is not what the people want. The most up to date listening figures prove that the programmes broadcast by the independent sector are what people want.
The bank manager will tell the Senator that.
The people of County Galway are pleased with the progress of the local radio station which has become a viable proposition.
Local radio stations are out-performing RTE, the national broadcaster. More people are listening to local radio stations than to RTE. Yet, all the licence fees go directly to RTE, no funding is given to the popular stations. Where is the fairness in that? Does the Minister agree that the local stations are as deserving of funding as the national station, if not more so?
The Minister has already shown himself willing to appropriate a portion of the licence fee for redistribution to the independent television sector and has set up an accounting mechanism to facilitate this. I ask him why he cannot do the same for local radio stations and thereby guarantee their survival.
I cannot emphasise strongly enough how critical the situation is for local radio and how vital it is that he outline his proposals in this area. Will he produce a White Paper? That is the key issue. When will the heads of another Bill be ready? When will local radio be given practical representation on the board of the Independent Radio and Television Commission, the body whose rent is paid by these stations?
An increase in licence fees was suggested. This would be a retrograde step considering the current economic climate and the problem of unemployment. Such action should not be taken at this time or in the near future.
I would like to pay tribute to the Minister for the removal of the cap on advertising revenue for RTE. Members have welcomed this proposal and have long since come to the conclusion that this experiment was illjudged and a failure. I welcome the availability of funding for programmes commissioned by the independent television sector, which is capable of making programmes of the highest quality. The Progressive Democrats support both proposals.
Given the debate surrounding the Broadcasting Act, 1990, it is disappointing that the Minister, in his first legislative initiative, has presented a limited set of proposals. The Minister said this was the first step in a comprehensive package of proposals on broadcasting legislation. He indicated that he is in the process of formulating proposals for the long term restructuring of broadcasting. The measures introduced will impact on other sectors in this area. Signals received by other sectors are a cause for concern.
Perhaps the Minister should have waited until the proposals for long term restructuring were finalised before introducing these proposals. These measures could have been introduced together. The Bill fails to deal with fundamental questions which have arisen in this area. The Minister has failed to put forward a comprehensive structure for the development of all sections of the media. Concentrating on certain aspects has left other areas concerned and confused about the intentions of the Government and I think this is a pity.
In the area of broadcasting until very recently we have had State monopoly in radio and television through the medium of RTE. The competition from local radio stations has been of great benefit. It has given people in local communities a greater range of programming and has enabled a range of local community issues to be broadcast and debated. This would have been impossible for a single national radio station like RTE. It has also given broadcasters an opportunity to become involved in local radio. We have seen a host of broadcasters coming to the fore who would not have had the chance to do so but for local radio. The outcome has been a healthier industry. The extent of the listenership of local radio stations shows the vast majority of people support this development.
As previous speakers have said, there are a large number of people employed by these stations. Over 400 people work full-time in local radio and a large number are employed part-time. We have to acknowledge that local radio has been a success. There are 21 local radio stations operating at present. Local radio has been able to provide something different for its listeners, something which is community based and locally centered, a service RTE has been unable to provide until now. All of us, particularly those of us living in rural areas, accept that local radio provides a vital public service function. Until recently it was felt that only RTE could do this. Local radio was compelled by the Government to provide a certain amount of international and local news and they have succeeded in doing so. They have provided information, debate on local issues and educational programmes.
It is difficult for people who live outside large centres to realise the huge energising effect local radio has had in rural areas. It has given people a sense of community and a great sense of self-awareness and self-confidence. It is promoting the kind of initiatives and enterprise in local areas which we in this House, are constantly saying need to be generated. We have a Minister of State with responsibility for rural development and he and a majority in this House are trying to encourage enterprise and initiative in local areas. Local radio has played a huge part in such encouragement and this should be acknowledged.
As Senator McDonagh said, local radio stations are facing huge difficulties. They face the financial implications of providing international, national and local news and the cost of the transmitter network. These costs are a huge drain on their resources. Nothing in what the Minister is proposing indicates that he is going to help these stations. He said he is aware of their difficulties but does not think there are any immediate measures which can be taken. The local radio stations, when lobbying the Minister, suggested measures which he could take. He acknowledged that he is going to divert certain sums of money, up to a limit of £10 million per year, to the independent producers sectors. This is welcome but he could also allocate a certain amount to help the local radio stations maintain viability. As he said, this is one of the aims of the Government. I would like to see him give a greater commitment to this aim.
We are aware of the attempts of previous Ministers for Communications to deal with some of these questions. The monopoly of RTE and the fact that it received funding from both television and a large proportion of the advertising revenue posed problems for other sectors. The approach taken by a previous Minister in imposing the infamous cap on RTE's advertising revenue and the associated proposal to deflect some of the licence fee to the alternative national broadcasting radio and television stations was not successful.
I accept and appreciate what the Minister is proposing but he should look to the local radio sector and local newspapers. He acknowledged that there is little doubt that the newspaper industry faces difficulties; this applies particularly to provincial newspapers. In my area we have five such newspapers and they are finding it extremely difficult to maintain viability. In his speech the Minister said that major advertisers have made it clear to him that "their advertising budgets for media other than television — newspapers both national and provincial, local broadcasting, etc. — have had to be curtailed in order to maintain their presence on television". Local newspapers have felt the effect of this. The Minister should make a statement of his intent to support them. There are 50 provincial newspapers in the country. They have to cope with the imposition of VAT and the increased competition they believe they will face as a result of the lifting of the cap. The Minister has to provide a supportive framework within which they can operate. I ask him to consider this in the light of the factors we are discussing today which I believe hinder progress in this area.
I turn to the proposal in the Bill to provide annually a specific level of funding to the independent producers sector. This stems from the monopoly position that was enjoyed by RTE and is a recognition of one of the unsatisfactory consequences of this monopoly, namely, the existence of an independent non-RTE film and programme making sector which is almost totally reliant on RTÉ for its survival and livelihood. I welcome the provision the Minister is making because a huge pool of talent exists and the Minister's commitment of funds from RTE would be a huge boost to this talent. In fairness to RTE they have consistently commissioned programmes from the independent film making sector although their capacity to do so was constrained by the cap, but its removal will improve the situation.
The Progressive Democrats have no objection to making provision for independent programme makers and we very much welcome this proposal. However, the Minister has failed to give any guidelines as to how this money is to be spent. Many of the independent film and programme makers find this situation unsatisfactory. I wish to see the Minister outline how he proposes this money should be spent.
My only disagreement with this Bill is not with the two measures it proposes to introduce but the fundmental one that it is too narrow in focus and only deals with a very small segment of the broadcasting spectrum. I ask the Minister to frame a much more comprehensive Bill. I know he has promised this but we have to look at public sector broadcasting and the relationship that ought to exist between the public and private sectors.
I welcome the Minister of State to the Seanad and also my constituency colleague, the Minister, who was here earlier. I welcome this Bill but immediately concur with previous speakers by saying that it falls far short of the requirements of broadcasting at present. While I accept that the Minister stated this is only a first step he could have provided for further developments in the broadcasting industry.
It is particularly welcome that the Minister has provided a significant amount of money for the independent programme and film making industry. This move is indicative of his vision and I say this having observed him in the constituency of Galway west for a number of years. It is a significant step forward and I support it. This move will release much energy in film and programme making in Ireland.
The money provided as a result of this legislation will not alone help the industry to develop but also provide important extra job opportunities and ensure economic growth in the sector. In recent years we have seen the talent in film and programme making. This extra money and RTE's wish to give air time to quality Irish produced material is a major boost for the industry and will provide good possibilities for economic growth.
Having said that, it is disappointing the Minister and the Government did not see fit to include in this legislation a provision for local radio. That sector has had considerable success in Ireland but without State financial support the true benefits of local radio are not being achieved. The success of local radio stations and programmes is based on good production, good presentation and, above all, good content of local material. "On a Clare Day", made by Caiman Jones for Radio Clare, is one of the best radio programmes anywhere.
People and money are required to produce such programmes and local radio cannot affort to employ those people. That is indicative of the current difficulties faced by local radio. It will not be able to provide the public service the community desires and deserves unless and until the Government provides financial support. A number of proposals should be in this legislation. I ask the Minister and the Government to consider them as a matter of urgency in order to assist local radio.
When the cap on RTE revenue is lifted, approximately 6 per cent of the licence fee should be diverted to the Independent Radio and Television Commission or another statutory body. This should be used to fund public ownership of local radio transmission facilities. The Independent Radio and Television Commission should then lease the transmitters and compensate stations for their maintenance.
A central service should also be established using the licence fee money to provide national and international news and nuacht for the local stations, which could act as paid regional bureaux for the central service. Current affairs, Irish, educational, historical, cultural, local arts, heritage and special interest programmes should be commissioned for broadcast on local radio stations and all such programmes should have to comply with defined public service broadcasting criteria.
Training programmes and grants should be available for radio programme makers and presenters, general development and support of the local radio sector and the training and management of community radio projects. The Independent Radio and Television Commission should be reformed to give greater emphasis to its role as a developmental body. Local radio stations should be given representation on the commission. The 3 per cent levy currently payable by stations to the Independent Radio and Television Commission should be discontinued. The Independent Radio and Television Commission should be maintained from the television licence fee.
The overall cost of those proposals would be about £3 million. It would be money well spent providing local radio with the kind of support that is urgently needed to give it the strength to provide the service we all wish to see for local communities.
The Minister should define in legislation the criteria under which public service broadcasting would qualify for funding from the licence fee. He should legislate for mandatory minimum fees for those who participate in, are involved in or place advertising with or accept advertising from illegal unlicenced broadcasters. The effectiveness of measures dealing with pirate radio should be immediately reviewed in conjunction with the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications with a view to setting up a task force to deal with this ongoing problem. The Minister should encourage greater spending by Departments on advertising campaigns on local radio. Those proposals or proposals of this nature should be included in the Bill. Before long I hope we see further legislation which will provide support for local radio.
Unfortunately, up to now we have not seen the main benefits of this service from many local stations largely due to commercial demands. Many of the stations provide a diet of music and a limited news and current affairs service. Good local radio should be the voice of development and progress and should tackle the problems in local communities. For £3 million this Government and the Irish people could get an extremely valuable, good and commercial service. I urge the Minister to examine the possibility of showing the same vision to local radio operators that he showed to the film makers in providing for a contribution from the licence fee.
I believed the imposition of the cap on RTE was a bad decision. I made efforts to stop the Government proceeding with those proposals. Who developed these ideas? I may be wrong, but since I became a Member of the Oireachtas the Departments responsible for communications have developed ideas which have been difficult to accept — the decisions on CB radio, MMDS and more recently the advertising cap. I assume there was departmental input into these decisions. Questions must be asked of those who put forward those proposals.
I find it difficult to accept much of the logic coming from the Department of Transport and Communications on these issues. I fail to accept the reasoning on the MMDS or CB issues where we were told repeatedly by the Department of Cummunications, as it was at the time, that it was impossible to licence people who wanted to use CB radios. We were and are being told the same about the deflector system. I cannot see why this system cannot be legalised. We are told it is not possible for reasons of copyright and the ownership of signals by the BBC, but nobody, it seems to me, has actually tested this system. I do not accept the reasons given by the Department on those issues.
The cap on advertising imposed on RTE was very hard to understand at the time, and it is now shown to have been a ridiculous proposal. I am pleased it is to be discontinued. The only people still complaining are the newspapers and as the Minister pointed out, there is no evidence to suggest that the newspaper industry fared any better as a result of the cap being in place. The newspaper industry has faced severe difficulties in recent years and action needs to be taken to improve the commercial climate for that industry, but I do not accept that any such action will be adversely affected by lifting the cap on advertising.
The Minister spoke of the philosophical aspect of broadcasting. He talked about the significant changes which are taking place in telecommunications technology at present. I urge him and his Department to embrace the changes in broadcasting which will inevitably take place because of those technological changes. I hope he will provide a further explanation of what he means by "further steps in broadcasting legislation", which we all accept will take time, but which should now be a matter for public discussion. People should be informed of the potential that exists in the area of broadcasting.
While I have been urging support for local radio stations, I must admit that over the years RTE has done a splendid job despite many constraints in radio and television. I am satisfied that there is plenty of room for RTE as a national radio station, and for the two national television stations and this need not be affected by the development of local radio stations. It is clear that there is different audiences at different times of the day for national and local radio. Local radio can enhance RTE as a national radio station, and in that respect the effectiveness of the morning programmes such as the "Gay Byrne Hour" and the "Pat Kenny Hour", shows that RTE can respond successfully to the competition for listeners provided by local radio. Programmes such as the Marian Finucane programme show that national radio can still be the most effective form of communication in terms of current affairs.
I welcome the Bill as far as it goes, but I urge the Minister to come back to the Oireachtas as quickly as possible with further proposals to support local radio in the same way that he is supportive of the film and programme making industry.
I remember speaking in this House when the cap was put on RTE advertising revenue some years ago and there was concern about possible job losses. I made one point very clearly: I said I was proud of "Glenroe", a programme which is produced in Ireland and to make up the shortfall RTE should sell "Glenroe" to other European countries. Now that the cap is removed, the pressures are coming on other areas.
The entire country is proud of what RTE achieved in Millstreet. It was a magnificent performance. Many tourists will be attracted to Ireland by the show RTE provided. It was the best £2.5 million we ever spent. Various shots of Ireland were shown to one million people right across Europe. I compliment RTE.
My only concern is that when the cap is removed RTE could take on a different role, creating a monopoly through low cost advertising. Since programmes like the "Gay Byrne Show" attract an enormous number of listeners no one can say the local stations will interfere with RTE. From a rural point of view, something will have to be done to maintain local radio programmes. People listen to local stations during the day, but they listen to the national station for specific programmes. I ask the Minister to see if part of the licence fee could be made available to help the local stations.
I will not delay the passage of the legislation unduly, except to avail of this opportunity to congratulate the Minister, Deputy Higgins, who has already made a significant mark in this area. It is time this legislation was put in place. However, the absence of specific financial commitments to independent production is a gap which should be filled without delay. While I welcome this Bill and compliment the Minister on it, I would like to see the further provisions he mentioned implemented soon, especially in relation to the financing of local radio. The Bill is long overdue; I presume the legislation in place is over 30 years old and it is important to legislate to account for the widespread technological changes taking place internationally.
Not only is it important for legislation to keep abreast with technological changes, but training of personnel in telecommunications is equally important and finance is required for this. It is vital for the development of broadcasting that training be given more attention. Some colleges and other educational institutions are organising special media courses. It is important to pay attention to the specific skills and expertise needed in this evolving area as well as to changes in technology. It is, therefore, important to acknowledge the necessity for highly skilled training and professionalism.
I welcome the provision in the Bill setting aside a specific amount for the provision of quality programmes. A number of years ago I said that if a situation developed in television when most of our programming consisted of canned products from various countries it would be bad for this country. I still believe that; it is more important now than ever before that in the provision of material for television we should endeavour to have as much Irish produced material as possible. We should not rely on imported canned material to form the basis of our programming.
I was never enamoured of the decision to cap the advertising revenue.
We did not hear too much from the Senator at the time
I do not favour a cap on the revenue the RTE Authority, or any other Authority, can earn from advertising as long as their broadcasting units are not turned into advertising agencies. Within reason, I am not enamoured of the idea of a cap on advertising revenue. I welcome the proposal in this legislation to change that.
I want to acknowledge the contribution made by Radio Telefís Éireann to both radio and television nationally. Another Senator mentioned Marion Finucane's radio programme. She has created a greater awareness of issues affecting women than any other broadcaster in the last 20 years. The same may be said of Gay Byrne. Although some may not like him and some may wish to put him in prison, Gay Byrne has made an enormous contribution to national broadcasting. There are exceptional occasional broadcasts we may be critical of, but overall the thrust of television broadcasting has been very good. The quality of stations, programming and personnel could hold their own with any station in the world.
It is vitally important not to forget the regions. There is criticism in my region of the lack of coverage by the national Authority of many important events. RTE should re-examine its coverage of major cultural events in the mid-west region.
The success of the Clare team.
Of course, I could not let the opportunity pass without paying tribute to the work of the local radio station, Clare FM. Senator Fahey already mentioned Kevin Jones's programme. Overall, Clare FM has made a major contribution to the cultural and social activities of the country.
The Senator should be reminded we are discussing the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill.
Another vicious attack by Senator O'Toole.
Senator Daly, without interruption.
It is important to get this Bill through as speedily as possible and I do not wish to delay it further. I congratulate the Minister, Deputy M. Higgins, a fellow Clareman who has already made a valuable contribution to broadcasting in his short time in office. I wish him well and hope he continues the good work.
It amazes me the flexibility of members of the Fianna Fáil Party in adapting to reversals in policy.
Acting Chairman
Speak to the Bill, Senator.
I never expected to hear a member of Fianna Fáil deal with a situation as the previous speaker did. When the earlier flawed Act was before the House some of us pointed out the problems with it and argued for the provisions in the Bill before us today. I welcome the introduction of this Bill. This Minister has consistently opposed the negative approach to the competitiveness of RTE. It is extraordinary that when the internal synergy in RTE has been used to maximise competitiveness it has always been less than attractive to Fianna Fáil. When the previous Act was being introduced it seemed Fianna Fáil was going to sell Radio 2 before the Bill had even been passed.
The Senator was part of the family once.
That would put a little extra in the kitty and sort out the crowd in Donnybrook. They were going to set up Century Radio as a Fianna Fáil outlet. It did not happen and I am glad they have seen the error of their ways.
Senator O'Toole, I ask you not to encourage dissent on the other side of the House and to continue with your contribution, please. I ask you to address your remarks to the Chair and also to the debate in hand.
——and both of us have this in common——
Acting Chairman
I am not talking about both of us; I am talking about you, Senator.
——we are both very supportive of RTE and when those of us who have been consistently supportive of RTE——
Supported by.
Acting Chairman
I also ask Senator Cassidy not to encourage Senator O'Toole.
My name is Cassidy; his name is Ross.
The legislation we are amending today was brought before the House around the same time that Aer Lingus was being deprived of routes and when much negative pressure was being put on semi-State industry. I have always taken the view that RTE should have been allowed to compete in the marketplace and that it should have been part of the Broadcasting Authority. The licence fee which was paid to RTE should be set off against the requirements of public broadcasting, of minority programming and the requirements of educating, informing and entertaining which are the three objectives outlined in the statute establishing RTE. It has done it, and done it magnificently, and it is appropriate that RTE be sustained and supported. The attack on RTE in an attempt to cut back on revenue in an artificial way by depriving it of advertising income was always doomed to failure and it was more certain to be doomed to failure coming as it did from a Government which was in favour of market forces and the rules of the marketplace while, at the same time, going overboard to stop RTE from competing.
I welcome this movement forward. It has been long awaited and, without being patronising, I wish to congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this legislation. It was badly needed and will at least allow one semi-State body to work in the marketplace and to do what is required of it in order to ensure that it retains its peak positions in Irish life.
The requirements that money be made available to support independent production has been needed for a long time. It is an area I have discussed regularly with people in RTE who, as we are aware, resisted this approach in the earlier days, although there has been somewhat of a metamorphosis on that issue also. I have now heard much support in RTE for this move forward. In this country there is a strong indigenous industry in the area of independent programming which has not had an outlet and which will now get sustenance from this proposal. This is the best way for a semi-State company to be controlled by the State. In other words, it is given a direction to support the private sector where it can.
I have a particular interest in this element of support for the independent programme makers because, as I have said regularly in this House, the lack of educational broadcasting at primary level has been a source of constant irritation to me for that past 15 years and I see this as one of the opportunities for moving forward. There is now an opportunity for independent programmers to put together broadcasting material or a series of programmes tied in with the curriculum at primary, post primary and third level. This will, in effect, allow the introduction of educational broadcasting through the side door if not the back door. I would prefer if the Minister were to take a firmer approach in this area and I ask him to look at it at some stage. I have had talks with some people in the independent sector over the past number of months with a view to getting movement in that direction.
We need to point out to a sceptical public the reason for advertising revenue and licence revenue. Recently I had discussions with the representatives of the Association of Independent Radio Stations where they were putting forward the view that in order to increase their news coverage some of this money should have been made available to them. I think it would have been wrong to make the money available to them. That is not to say that I object to support for the independent radio stations who, despite what I said to the Senator from Clare, I acknowledged they are doing a superb job. However part of their remit was 20 per cent news broadcasting and, having put in that requirement, I do not think we should support the other suggestion.
In light of the need for transparency and accountability which is demanded of all of us what is needed is a breakdown of where the license money goes. Anybody who listens to RTE radio from 7 o'clock in the evening until closing down will know there are a series of programmes, some of which are aimed at a minority audience, for example, the arts programmes, and which appeal to a small audience. RTE is not taking the line of other stations which are simply maximising their audience in order to attract advertising revenue. I do no think that RTE has any advertising on radio between 7 p.m. and midnight, or at least they have very little. This is where the licence revenue comes into it. They have done magnificent programming in responding to minority needs and this is what is required on us. RTE has done substantial work in the areas of drama, arts and culture. This is an area where we get a response to our licence fee and there is also the benefit created in those areas in RTE. There is a strong need to explain to the public how the money is being invested. It is being said, very often in the print media, the RTE receives two different revenues inputs, that somehow it is being paid twice for doing the same job. That has never been the case.
There has been little discussion about the money which was earned above the cap during the period of the cap restruction. I would like to hear how we explain that money in legal terms in the context of the legislation which now exists. What was supposed to happen to the revenue when the amount of money coming into RTE was more than what it was allowed to take in? My grandfather always told me that the first tenet of business was never to refuse money.
A wise man.
Even if one was not getting the whole amount, it was important to capture whatever was there. RTE took that approach and it took in that money. What was it supposed to have done with it? Was it supposed to send it back, was it not supposed to take it in or was it supposed to give it away? We are legislators and this is a question that needs to be asked. RTE handled itself correctly but I would like to know how it is explained under the terms of the current legislation. I was worried at one stage during the RTE industrial action in the early spring of last year when one senior executive was quoted as saying — or should I say had attributed to him because he denied it afterwards — that he had an £8 million "war chest" with which to fight those lefty-types who were causing problems in his station. I was worried about money being channelled in the wrong direction. I ask the Minister to clarify this matter for us.
The legislation will be welcomed by people in broadcasting generally. The stations live off each other. RTE give sustenance to the local stations. We have now reached the situation where peak audience levels are being attained by all stations. There are local stations who have managed to achieve the magical 51 per cent audience in areas such as Kerry, Clare, Louth, Meath and the mid-west. There is also a great improvement in the Cork and Limerick areas where stations are close to coming near their maximum audience. They have proved one thing which is important, that the stations that began as music stations outside the Dublin area are the stations that have lost out. The stations which went far beyond the 20 per cent information and news, which was supposed to be unachievable, have proved to be more successful. The stations which I mentioned, all have a one or two hour news and current affairs programme in the morning, which is of top quality.
The legislation allows RTE to compete and to have money to invest in projects such as the Eurovision Song Contest where the question of costs becomes a huge issue. No other organisation would take on projects such as the Eurovision Song Contest which do not break even. Such projects benefit the State, providing a boost to the tourist industry and to local investment. The money was spent by RTE but the network itself will not necessarily benefit. When considering the role of RTE we should acknowledge the service which we are receiving as a State and the value the consumer is receiving for the licence fee.
If we are to make demands of RTE, we should realise that those demands must be paid for through the licence fee. The licence fee payment should be broken down so that people will know the value they are receiving in terms of minority programmes, cultural programmes, overseas listeners, specific music interests and so on. Advertising revenue should sustain both independent programming and programming within RTE.
I think a superb job is being done here and I welcome the legislation. I regret it has been necessary to bring it in to repeal an abominable piece of cap legislation, which was supported so enthusiastically by Fianna Fáil Senators. I congratulate the Minister on convincing the majority partner in Government of the need for this legislation.
I would like to welcome the Minister to the House. I also want to welcome the removal of the capping which came into existence in 1990 because it meant that many small advertising firms suffered a loss of business. I hope they will be able to recover that business. Many international firms have sophisticated broadcasting facilities, and if they were to use their own advertisements on stations which are received here, it would be very detrimental to the Irish independent production sector. We are also bombarded with UK and satellite programmes. If we lose out on advertising to those it will have a severe effect on staff in RTE and on the advertising industry. I think this Bill is most welcome.
In the course of his address the Minister spoke about local radio. As far as we are concerned in Cork south-west, the country wide service which is provided by County Sound is second to none. It has developed an excellent broadcasting service, and sometimes the day time service is split in two with one service for Cork city and the other for north and west Cork. It is of tremendous interest to the local people and great work is being done.
In a rural community, such as mine, local radio can run into physical and financial difficulties. I will speak about the physical difficulties first. In areas such as west Cork, where there are many hills and mountains, it is quite difficult to transmit a signal to the scattered population, and often extra booster stations must be put up at great cost. On the financial side, in a scattered rural area there are few commercial groupings which can afford advertising. The money is not there to be spent.
Sometimes, local radio or national radio provides a type of social service in an area which is important for peripheral areas such as west Cork. I want to compliment again the local radio station which is doing tremendous work. In parts of west Cork we can also receive Kerry Radio, which is welcome in that area.
We need co-ordination of programmes because there is no point in having programmes of a similar nature on at the same time on two stations. We need to ensure that local programmes do not coincide with programmes on the national network. From 7 p.m. until 11 p.m. there is often a wide variety of programmes available which are of great interest locally. Sometimes, there are similar programmes on RTE Radio 1, County Sound in west Cork and Kerry Radio. We need a programming policy which avoids such collisions; co-ordination would be of benefit to all concerned and to the national network.
I also wish to discuss the need for a policy on community television in the constituency. For a number of years a deflector system has been in operation in our area. Alongside that, there was the MMDS service in the Cork area. We had only two channels for many years in the west Cork area. We are happy now to have alternative viewing to which west Cork is as entitled as any other part of the country. The deflector service is being——
Acting Chairman
I am sorry to interrupt the Senator. I am interested to see what direction his contribution will take but it continues to stray away from the content of the legislation.
I will be very brief as I already indicated to you. This service was there for some years——
Acting Chairman
The time is not the problem, it is the content.
That is fair. I am looking for a policy on community television. I think that would solve many of the problems. People in west Cork are left with masts on their chimney as relics. I would like a community television policy and a co-ordinated policy for local radio.
Acting Chairman
I would be the last to prevent the Senator from referring to any matters concerning west Cork.
Ar an gcéad dul síos, ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na Seanadóirí go léir a ghlac páirt sa díospóireacht seo. Bhí an díospóireacht ar ard-chaighdeán agus tá brón orm arís go raibh mé as láthair ar feadh tamaill toisc go raibh sé de dhualgas orm féin freastal ar chruinniú Rialtais. Tá mé buíoch de na daoine a sheas isteach dom.
I want to thank all of the Senators for their thoughtful contributions which reflect the great national interest in matters cultural, specifically matters of broadcasting. I took notes before I had to leave for the Cabinet meeting. Notes were also taken by the Minister of State who stood in for me, for which I am very grateful. The contributions were practical and stimulating and I would like to take up some of the points to indicate to Senators the shape of any such further legislation I will be making.
I must repeat that I stated at the outset that this Bill was a first, practical and urgent step towards creating an environment in which all our broadcasting structures could be looked at critically and calmly. It will ensure that changes which take place will put the broadcasting services into a shape that will carry them into the next century.
A Minister who introduces policy is often accused of having ideas whereas a Minister introducing no policy is accused of having no ideas. I have no difficulty with carrying the burden of ideas. It was suggested that my recent appearance on RTE reading poetry, an engagement that had been arranged before I became a Minister, was an act of gratitude on the part of RTE because of the removal of the cap on advertising and an abuse of my position as Minister in an attempt to sell my poetry books. The reference is scurrilous, however it is part of the world we live in and reflects the low standards prevailing in certain parts of the printed news media.
The current legislative regime is based on legislation that was enacted over 30 years ago at a time when international competition, particularly in television, was virtually non-existent except in areas where overspill of signals was possible. There have been dramatic changes in recent years.
As a philosophical indication of my thinking, technological change cannot be opposed but an effort can be made at understanding such change. In this respect I have spoken elsewhere of my indebtedness to ideas expressed by people such as the great philosopher of communications, Raymond Williams, who titled one of his last papers "Be the arrow, not the target". It was about the peoples of the world, in a communicative order, exercising direction rather than being passive. There is a difference between activity within an active participation in a culture that has a communicative order to it and being a passive member of a market segment. I have decided to address these issues, making my views on broadcasting fit within such a theory of a communicative order and a democratic theory of culture. That is an indication of the fundamental legislation I will be introducing.
International competition is a reality and it is useful to reassess our situation and establish the structures that are now necessary to ensure that Irish broadcasting services remain the preferred choice of Irish viewers and listeners. The issue I am addressing here is the retention of the capacity for standards. I am not in a monopoly position myself and for most of my life I have been in a minority on many issues that have later become majority issues. There is no suggestion that in my conscious attempt to ensure standards I am making any impositions, I am in favour of a pluralism of editorial communication and in the communicative order throughout, whether it be the print media or radio and television. If a narrowness of choice emerges in any part of the media the Government might address this issue.
I thank Senator Ross for his kind remarks and his belief in the views I have proposed. However, I must take exception to his suggestion that the provisions of the Bill give the Minister many new powers of interference in the daily affairs of RTE. The removal of the cap restores the position in relation to advertising to its precise position immediately before the enactment of the 1990 legislation.
A dilemma arises in that on the one hand I am asked not to have powers and, on the other, I am asked to have powers to prevent distortion of the market-place in relation to local radio. I have no problem with this dilemma in that I am happy with the powers at my disposal. I have no statutory power to interfere in the charges RTE may levy for advertising. However, that does not prevent me from expressing concern that RTE could be tempted to abuse its dominant position and engage in the cut price selling of advertising on radio to the detriment of the independent local sector.
It surprises me that Senator Ross should detect the sinister process of interference in the daily affairs of RTE in my proposals in relation to the independent television production sector. There is no power in the legislation before the House that gives the Minister any say in how the money allocated to the independent sector in RTE is to be spent. RTE retains total control of this money and the programmes on which it is spent. The Minister's only function arises if and when RTE fails to spend all this money. The Minister may then allow RTE to spend some or all of such unspent money on general broadcasting purposes and even then it would be a matter for RTE to dispose of this money itself.
Any change of substance in regard to the amounts of money to be devoted to independent production must come before both Houses of the Oireachtas and the draft of a statutory order proposing change must be approved by both Houses. I ask Members to note my commitment to the Oireachtas in this regard. I have asked that these orders require Oireachtas approval which is a positive recognition of the role of both Houses. I am confident, therefore, that Senators will accept that none of the provisions is sinister in intent whereby I, as Minister, could interfere in the day to day activities of RTE.
Senator Cassidy complimented RTE on the excellence of its productions since its inception. On behalf of the Government I would like to be associated with such compliments to RTE. Those of us who are old enough will remember the excellent coverage of the visit by President Kennedy and, more recently, other distinguished visitors. There has also been spectacular coverage of the Eurovision Song Contest.
Two aspects of the recent Eurovision Song Contest deserve comment. First was the manner in which technology was moved to a new setting and the way the staff of RTE excelled themselves when faced with the great challenge. Secondly, I was delighted when visiting the the technical division to observe that for the first time the contest was directed by a woman, assisted in technical tasks by five other women. I wish a film could have been made of this so that every girl in the country could see that not only were there jobs as presenters in the audio visual area, but that there is no task, however technical, that cannot be provided by a person irrespective of gender. The achievement of Anita Notaro in this respect was noted by me publicly.
Senator Cassidy referred to the level of the TV licence fee which has been static since 1986. The Senator will appreciate that there is no necessity to increase the fee if RTE can comply with its statutory obligations and meet its other obligations on a budget derived from the fee as set at present plus commercial revenue. The RTE Authority has not sought an increase in the fee; however I take his point that it needs to be reviewed
Regarding Senator Cassidy's remarks on the number of independent stations and their commitment to Irish artists, such issues fall within the remit of the Independent Radio and Television Commission. The statutory responsibility for deciding on the number of stations rests with the Independent Radio and Television Commission. It is also a matter for the Independent Radio and Television Commission to satisfy itself that the conditions of the contracts between the stations and the commission are complied with. If the stations to which the Senator has referred are not complying with the conditions of their contracts with the commission, it is for the commission to secure enforcement.
The Bill before the House relates solely to the RTE Authority. It would have been inappropriate to include any provisions that relate to the independent broadcasting sector. However, it is my intention to address these issues, including a review of the 1988 Act when I make a fundamental review of broadcasting. I intend to conduct a comprehensive review of all the structures, and I said at the outset I will take all the remarks and valuable suggestions made here into account. The role of Irish artists in the programme schedules of the independent sector is something which concerns me. However, I have to say I have a philosophical problem with quotas of anything in relation to broadcasting. I have to take account of European Community legislation as well that prohibits giving preferential treatment to nationals of one member state over another. I am committed to this; I think in the end the specificity and attractiveness of products in the television and film area is assured by their excellence and I have great confidence in our capacity in this regard.
I would like to be associated with Senator Lee's compliments to certain local radio stations. From the outset, some stations set out to be public service-oriented; while others had different ideas in the beginning, the demands of their listeners brought about a change. It is significant that many of the more successful stations are deeply involved in the community. In fact, it has encouraged me enormously to see how valuable the term "community" has been. I have had several meetings with different interests involved and my staff have had several meetings with for example, AIRS. These meeting are ones in which I have not just been making a commitment to what is in the Programme for a Partnership Government to put them on a viable basis, but I have sought to extract details and profiles of costs so that I can see how they can best be assisted. That is my approach; calmly and systematically to look at the dozen different areas of major cost and to see how many of these can be addressed because the stations told me themselves that the last thing they wanted was for me to fire money indiscriminately at stations good, bad and indifferent.
The lesson is interesting; it is that rather than the Irish radio public wanting tabloid radio, they voted with their ears in favour of news, current affairs and documentaries. The stations that set out from the beginning on that path are those that have done best, and others later converted. I take the point that they have an important role, as local and national newspapers do, in being part of the social service of communities. They serve and enable communities to communciate with themselves and break down barriers. That really is telling us something else too. That our story-telling and narrative propensity in our tradition of broadcasting is not as easily knocked out as people think. People have brought to radio a different set of requirements in terms of demand than they have for example, to newspapers when they have been swamped.
I can confirm for Senator Magner that RTE cannot give preferential rates to Irish advertisers. However, I would expect that advertising rates, particularly on television, should fall as a result of the extra time that will become available as a consequence of the repeal of section 3 of the 1990 Act. Senator McDonagh referred to the position of the independent radio sector and, along with Senator Ross, referred to the submission made by AIRS. I could say, and leave it at that, but I will not, that the independent radio stations were established without any promise of State subsidy for any element of their programming under a regime that they knew in 1988. They knew the playing pitch, but I am not ending it at that. I know now that they are in difficulty and I am looking at ways in which I can assist them, but on the basis of a thoroughgoing examining of costs, circumstances, development and standards. The structures that will govern them, will be reviewed on my overall review of legislation. Frankly, I think the sections on development in the 1988 legislation might have been better, more forcefully, and energetically used.
Any changes in the regime represents a fundamental change in the way in which our broadcasting services operates. I am convinced that such changes in relation to the independent radio sector must be considered in the context of the total review of my broadcasting legislation and I intend to proceed quickly with the development of such proposals for the restructuring of broadcasting. I do not think that Members of the Seanad could accuse me of being dilatory about bringing forward change. It will be carried out with the same speed, and, I hope with the same enthusiastic response.
A number of Senators refered to the alleged monopoly position of RTE. I would like to point out that while RTE may have had a monopoly on the business of broadcasting in the State until recently, RTE operates in perhaps the most competitive broadcasting environment in Europe, particularly through the widespread availability of foreign broadcasting services through cable and MMDS systems.
Current legislation allows for the establishment of a national independent radio and television station and it is a matter for the Independent Radio and Television Commission to invoke these powers if they consider that such services would be financially viable. May I also say that RTE — perhaps from competition with the BBC which has a very high standard — itself achieved high standards, it had a good standard with which to compare itself. In that sense, that is why you have had such continuous, high quality work over such a long period.
A number of Senators referred to the demands of their particular local stations and I am glad Senators are enjoying such a warm relationship with them all.
It is called survival, Minister.
Senator Fahey referred specifically to the need for training and development support for the sector. In the list of ways in which I can help I have noted all the different submissions that have been made by way of news, contributions, the cost of an authority, and other ways such as training. These are matters in which I have a very open mind. I have always been of the view that the flexibility of the 1988 Act was not full explained.
A number of Senators, including Senator Fahey, said that independent production should be funded from the licence fee. RTE is required to allocate a specific sum of money to the commissioning of programmes for its own purposes and nothing is being diverted away from RTE per se. I would like to thank Senator O'Toole for the number of points he made. He correctly paid tribute to excellence, and we should not be afraid to do that even if it is repetition. Let us pay tribute each day to excellence, if necessary.
Senator O'Toole also spoke about excess revenue which I found fascinating. As you know, in the Programme for a Partnership Government, such sums as were accumulated under the cap are stated as being available for bringing on air Teilifís na Gaeilge. The Cabinet has approved a sum of £4.5 million for such needs as I have this year in that regard. Technically, RTE would have begun to get into difficulties if amending legislation had not been in place by next September but, in fact, this legislation redresses the situation.
I am grateful to Senators from all sides who have welcomed the changes I have made in relation to the independent film sector. I am completely convinced of the strength and creativity of the Irish independent film sector, and I saw it as a launching pad towards the development of a viable sector. It should be taken in conjunction with what I have been doing in co-operation with my colleague, the Minister for Finance, under section 35 for financing film, my re-establishment and re-funding of the Film Board, other proposals in relation to film training, and a series of other matters including co-production arrangements.
I am convinced there is an exciting time ahead in film and I appreciate Senators' support for that. It is important that we create an environment in RTE and outside RTE that celebrates creativity. As I mentioned at the outset, I hope I will not have to legislate in future for an equality of representation on the RTE Authority, because of the involvement of people, men and women, in equal proportion in Irish society. I thought that women's experience is so important in Irish society that I took the opportunity in this legislation to make sure that women would comprise half the members of the RTE Authority. I am glad I did that. It goes beyond what was asked of me by the Commission on the Status of Women, it exceeds the Government's commitment. What it means is that you will have that experience involved in decision making. No one should worry about the fundamental question of the relationship of the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht with broadcasting institutions, including RTE. My view is that RTE is an authority that is supported by statute, It exercises its views and releases the creativity which exists. I am happy about this. However, I must deal with the shape of future broadcasting.
Senator Calnan raised a specific point and I discussed it in relation to local radio. My responsibility in relation to community television is for broadcasting rather than transmission. However, when I review broadcasting I will look at the community's place in the media, both aural and visual. I will consider ways in which to address issues such as these.
It is important that we regard this area as a sensitive one. It is part of our cultural identity and the things which form our attitude of mind. We are not talking about neutral products. I express my gratitude to the Senators for the effort they have shown in this debate and for the quality of their contributions.
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 30; Níl, 16.
Tá
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calnan, Michael.
- Cashin, Bill.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Crowley, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Gallagher, Ann.
- Henry, Mary.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lee, Joe.
- McGennis, Marian.
- Magner, Pat.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Norris, David.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Roche, Dick.
- Wall, Jack.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Belton, Louis J.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cotter, Bill.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Dardis, John.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Honan, Cathy.
- Howard, Michael.
- McDonagh, Jarlath.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Mullooly and Magner; Níl, Senators Cosgrave and Neville.
Question declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 24 June.