I would like to ask the Minister about section 1 (2) —"the Authority has incurred a legal obligation to pay at least 25 per cent of the cost of its making." I do not know where that figure came from. I would have thought that the commissioning of such a production would have entailed 100 per cent payment by RTE. It is slightly ambiguous. Does this mean a down payment of 25 per cent, or a legal obligation in the end? If that is the case, what steps are envisaged to ensure the other 75 per cent is paid? Is it envisaging a joint venture with another company?
Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill, 1993: Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
Subsection (2) makes it clear, as Senator Ross has pointed out, that RTE must have committed at least 25 per cent of the cost of making the programme before production work commences. One of the difficulties for a programme maker — perhaps for any business — was to get sufficient funding to get a project off the ground. Once the initial finance is committed, other funding is less difficult to obtain.
When I spoke yesterday, the Senators will have noted that I stressed the editorial integrity of RTE — which I am protecting — in relation to the quality of what is transmitted. At the same time, those approaching RTE will make their own arrangements for the viability of a programme. I had consultations with the different interests involved and there was general agreement to a 25 per cent provision; that is from where the figure came. I then realised that — and I have approached it with a great deal of flexibility from the beginning — while in later years I had made provision for commissioning and had specified sums rising from £5 million to £12.5 million, or 20 per cent of commissioning, there were many people who had projects where the investor had withdrawn and these programmes could have been finished if they had a little extra finance. To test the viability of a proposal, a person needs a small amount of seed capital. The reason I put back a 10 per cent provision was to deal with those two exigencies. The specific figure of 25 per cent came from my consultations with the industry and from looking at the procedures for commissioning and for fund raising.
Judging by the wording of the subsection, this is obviously not a down payment by RTE but a commitment, a legal obligation to pay at some stage. Does the Minister envisage that there is a possibility that some of these independent producers might get into financial difficulties because, although there is a legal obligation that they will get a down payment of 25 per cent, they might not have any commitment for the 75 per cent to pay for the film? I think RTE should look for some sort of comfort that this 75 per cent will definitely be paid because there might be uncompleted projects as a result of this requirement. Is there a cast iron guarantee that all these projects will be completed or will RTE's 25 per cent be wasted?
I am pleased that I have been involved in making documentaries — not in the financing side — but it would be totally unreasonable to suggest to this, or any, House that one would have a 100 per cent success rate in projects suggested for film making; this is not the nature of the industry. What we must do is balance three things that are very important. First, what the public see must be of excellent quality and second, the RTE Authority, which has an integrity of its own, has equal responsibilities as to standard. Then we come to the third dimension. I wanted to allow flexibility. I am certain that looking at the commissioning procedures within RTE, while some seed capital may be provided most people will have negotiated a package.
As I said yesterday, this is only one part of an overall approach I have towards tele-visual and film production. We currently enjoy an existing film co-production agreement with Canada and I hope to sign more of these co-production agreements in the short term, probably with Australia, France and Germany. I am also aware of the way television commissioning works. The world has changed in relation to purchasing. It is now more difficult to sell into the European market and the trend is towards selling a series rather than a single documentary film.
Film making is a highly sophisticated business. What will happen is this. People will get commitments for sales and production costs. All this will be on paper for evaluation by RTE when it comes to commissioning. I also wanted to allow flexibility. I want the national station and the creativity I am allowing within it and within the commissioning fund to be made available to develop ideas. That may take time.
There are many good film makers — of both genders, which is exciting — and they say that if one waited for every penny to be in place one would never produce anything. I wanted to include some guarantees and, at the same time, ensure flexibility.
I made provision for not only a personal review of this legislation but for the compilation of an annual report with every commissioned product stated. This will provide both Houses with an opportunity to examine developments. If a series of shaky proposals were presented, the Authority would have to justify them to me and I would justify them to the Oireachtas. However, I do not see this happening.
I am impressed by the manner in which the Minister is examining this industry. Over the years I said the film industry has a major role to play in relation to entertainment and tourism. This industry must be examined and reappraised. I am inspired by the Minister's knowledge, enthusiasm and attitude which will remove many barriers.
Those involved in the film industry are aware that it is a high risk industry. It is many times more difficult to achieve success in the film industry than the record industry. Those of us who have attended the Cannes film festival on many occasions in an effort to obtain business, know that the Americans, who control over 75 per cent of the film industry, and the Europeans require test runs to examine proposals submitted.
We have seen the impact of the television series "Dallas" on the city of Dallas. Tourism in that city increased fivefold. Likewise, the series "Hawaii Five O" generated an elevenfold increase in tourism in Hawaii. I suggested a number of years ago that if we produced a successful television series we should call it "Ireland". Such a series showing our countryside and depicting life in modern Ireland would benefit our tourism industry. Some 25 per cent of funding must be allocated for test runs.
Young people are full of enthusiasm and ideas. However, they lack capital and financial institutions are reluctant to fund their proposals. Therefore, it is important that the national station support their creativity. I welcome the proposals regarding the accountability of the Authority.
In recent years those involved in commercial film-making have given this country a good name because of the quality and content of their work. Commercial production for cinema requires substantial funding. We have a core of young talented independent film makers who are restricted in their work. The measures contained in this subsection will benefit these people. I ask the Minister how these measures will affect in-house development and programming in RTE?
Senator Sherlock asked a question which I may not have adequately answered. I do not see creativity being moved outside RTE. In my discussions with RTE I have said, and I believe they support this suggestion, that I would like to see an equal development section in RTE to allow young people in the station come forward with new ideas for programmes and that this would merge with the creative process which will exist in the independent film-making community. Therefore, creativity is neither inside nor outside and structures that match and merge with each other may evolve.
We must keep our nerve in this regard. I have taken a risk by staking so much on my belief for the future of the film industry. This section provides seed money but I am happy to release the capacity of film makers. This product is creative, cerebral and with low transport costs. It eliminates the problem of peripherality which affects the Irish economy and turns disadvantages into advantages. Some of the most exciting film concepts are coming from peripheral parts of Europe and elsewhere. I intend to move a considerable amount of this activity into a European framework and build and support it in terms of training. Young film makers need a launching pad.
As a former Member of this House I was aware of the limited information available to Senators. Therefore, I will answer any questions which Senators ask. I have attended meetings of the Council of Culture Ministers and I realise the kind of view I am developing is consistent with developments elsewhere. I also realise that culture was neglected in the founding treaties of Europe and was barely acknowledged in the Maastricht Treaty, although it has come to be recognised now. When we look at televisual activity, approximately 80 per cent of hardware is sourced in Japan, while approximately 70 per cent of software — the "Soaps"— is sourced in North America. There are great opportunities and challenges for Europe in this regard. The European cultural space must be diverse and culturally pluralist. I hope the assistance I am giving to the film making community both inside and outside will enable Ireland to be vigorous in making a real contribution to the new European cultural area.
The Minister has been helpful in allowing us to elicit facts from him and this is consistent with his own attitude when he was a Member of this House. He was adept at extracting information from Ministers.
I wish to comment on an issue raised by Senator Sherlock. The Minister has told us what he hopes to do and I accept that he is sincere about this matter. However, I am concerned about how the commissioning of these productions will work. I fully understand what he wants when he talks about creativity and independent film production. I am slightly worried that the Bill says the Authority shall have a commissioning role. It looks as though the Authority is commissioning in the independent sector and, obviously, internally as it has authority in both areas. There is not necessarily a conflict of interest but there might be. The Authority itself is not going to commission the persons who are making these productions. Could the Minister tell us if there is going to be a layer, a subcommittee or independent committee below the Authority to decide which independent producers will benefit from this money and what the method and basis of their appointment will be? I would feel uneasy if the Authority itself, or even any individuals or committee delegated this power by the Authority, made decisions both internally and externally. Could the Minister tell us to whom the making of such decisions will be delegated by the Authority?
I deal with some of these issues in section 5. There were a number of norms which I wanted to address. As I said already, I wanted to ensure excellence and respect basic legislation and the integrity of RTE. I have to respect RTE's editorial function. The second thing in which I was very interested was the definition of "independent producer." I define it in the Bill and took very great care in doing so. People feel this definition has gone quite far when compared with corresponding European legislation.
In addition, I have introduced a legal requirement which obliges the Authority to publish the effects of its decisions. Not only must it produce a report every year but I have imposed a time limit by which it must be published. I will not rubber-stamp this report but will bring it before both Houses of the Oireachtas.
Beyond that I have stated that I am going to review the procedures and how they work. If the Authority were not working with appropriate distance or if questions were asked about a preponderance of theme, these issues would surface in the very first year and it would be open to any Member of the Oireachtas to raise these matters and they would have an opportunity every year to do so. Also, when I undertake the review, they will be entitled to ask me about them.
It is important, when one is making the kind of changes I am making, to have trust. I do have trust; the RTE Authority, the Independent Radio and Television Commission, the independent sector and I will have to trust each other. When I come to the major legislative changes they may direct more than trust at me in the initial stages. I am willing to trust the Authority to initiate the procedures for commissioning and I am not going to interfere at the beginning. Let us see how it will work within the framework I have given it. I take the point the Senator is making and I assure the House that if the procedures are not working I will put more formal procedures in place to deal with any deficiency in the short term.
I accept the Minister's point but think he should note that there is a danger that the prejudices of the Authority will be felt on both sides of the divide, on the independent and internal sides. That is a danger which we will have to watch for in the future.
Does the Minister see any implications for jobs within RTE? He stated that in the area of programming there would be liaison between RTE and the independent sector. How will this come about? Section 1 (2) imposes a legal obligation on RTE to pay at least 25 per cent of the cost of the making of any independent television programme commissioned by it. There is a danger that RTE will become a transmitting and commissioning agency because another sector is now guaranteed funding. I therefore ask the Minister if he sees any implications for jobs within RTE?
We are anticipating matters a little. When I met the RTE trade unions, and other people prior to that, I considered the question of jobs. When we come to look at it the Senator will see that in section 4 (7) (a) I went so far as to say that part of my review would be occasioned by a consideration of what was happening in relation to jobs. When we come to that section he will find that his concern has been not only implicitly but explicitly recognised.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I would like the Minister's views on the amount of daily time that should be fixed by the Authority for advertisements. I feel slighly uneasy, as I made clear in my speech on Second Stage, about the powers over RTE given to Ministers in general. We have two authorities in the area of advertising time, one is the Authority itself and the second is the Minister who has to approve the time. As the Minister knows, the Authority is a politically appointed one. The Minister is also a political person. I feel slightly uneasy that something as important as the advertising and broadcasting times should be decided by politicians or people appointed by them. Advertising is a very important aspect of RTE's income and administration. If politicians can control the amount of time that RTE devotes to advertisements and can, therefore, also control its income, it gives not only the Authority but also the Minister, who can give his approval or disapproval to it, an extraordinary power over the workings of RTE. In the case of this Minister I would not find it in the least difficult but in the case of some of his predecessors I would have found the principle a little difficult to accept.
All that section 2 does is to restore the pre-1990 situation. Again I remind the House that what I have done here is to create an atmosphere of calm in which we can move back to the previous position and then assess what is appropriate for the general review legislation. That is all I have done, no more and no less. When I come to the general review of the legislation I intend to look at the most appropriate structures and I am looking at structures.
It is too often said that politicians have an inclination to interfere in broadcasting. I wish to make it clear that is not my inclination. I know the Senator would wish to disassociate himself from the scurrilous suggestion in a recent newspaper that I had abused my position as Minister with responsibility for broadcasting. I certainly do not think like that and members of the political community, by and large, do not think like that. All I have done is to restore the pre-1990 situation.
Yesterday the Senator asked me to make sure RTE did not abuse its monopoly position in relation to advertising, this being the basic framework of his thinking. The Senator should bear in mind that I need ministerial power to make sure that RTE's powers are not abused. As legislators we must give a lead. If we place our trust in democracy we erode it by imagining that elected people are necessarily morally weaker than other members of the public. Elected representatives are accountable to these Houses and to the public. The people who have abused power in Irish society, by and large, have been accountable to neither. Those who influence the media but who are not accountable to the public have a power more sinister than any I might have as Minister. This modest section simply restores the pre-1990 conditions to establish an atmosphere for the most thorough review possible.
If after this Bill RTE returns to pre-1990 times for advertising, it will be broadcasting 50 per cent only of the EC permitted limit. That is responsible action compared to the amount of advertising broadcast on other channels seen in this island. RTE radio advertising if restored to pre-1990 rates will take up only 50 per cent of the time granted to independent radio. Returning to the previous arrangements will give an extremely modest amount of time to advertising. RTE is a high quality station because it does not interrupt its programmes every five to seven minutes as happens on some of the channels paid for monthly.
The pre-1990 position is being continually cited but that does not mean it was necessarily utopian or right. I accept the Minister's promise to examine those arrangements also. Because the 1990 Act was so appalling we might fall into the trap of reverting to the prior system and assuming everything would then be fine. The pre-1990 position was not acceptable. However, I accept the Minister's assurance that he will look at the entire broadcasting sector so I am happy with the section.
I will clarify that point and I am grateful to the Senator for raising it. When I say I am returning to the pre-1990 arrangements I am talking about powers but not necessarily the same regime of hourly proportions of advertising. I will watch and review that and take reservations expressed in both Houses into consideration.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Does the Minister or his Department have any estimate of the extra income RTE will receive as a result of removing the cap on advertising revenue?
Section 3 is the core element of the Bill. I expect RTE will acquire some additional income. I must not interfere in an autonomous body. From my experience of the commercial, economic and financial worlds, although it is not as sophisticated as the Senator's——
The Minister does not have my poor experience either.
I would expect advertising rates to drop making it possible for more people to advertise.
One point distressed me in the 1990 Bill. Many projects such as the Vanburgh String Quartet and the Chamber Choir had to be quickly dropped by RTE because they could no longer be sustained. It is to the great credit of RTE that in anticipation of this legislation these projects have been revived. That is centrally important to broadcasting. Therefore the Bill will not only create a better environment for RTE but may also enable it to restore some of the ancillary activities it had to end because of section 3 of the 1990 Act. It will also allow RTE to foster a process of renewal and creativity in the station.
I think the total of extra money involved will be quite small. Advertising rates will go down so the only way for the income to significantly increase is if the volume rises. However, the volume of advertising that can be carried is restricted. I believe the Bill will create a real rather than a distorted environment.
There are always rumours about broadcasting. I place great confidence in RTE in a number of ways. It plays an important role while I prepare to put my proposals for Teilifís na Gaeilge into operation. If RTE is to be able to cooperate in new worthwhile extended ventures it must be economically healthy. However I do not see RTE receiving a windfall as a result of the removal of the cap. Logically, rates will drop so additional income could be modest.
As we heard yesterday the imposition of the cap affected small businesses more than any other sector. This was the experience of many people I know. It would be welcome to hear of a rates system suitable for small manufacturing companies especially who should be enabled to compete with multinational companies producing similar products. I welcome this provision and I hope the extra advertising space will be taken up by smaller home-based producers. It is vital RTE give them the opportunity to market their wares and perhaps create extra employment.
One must look at the effect of the section. Repealing section 3 of the 1990 Act means the advertising revenue cap imposed will be lifted. The cap limited RTE's annual revenue from advertising to an amount equivalent to funds received from the licence fee or something to that effect. At that time RTE increased its advertising charges. It can now reduce them which will obviously affect advertising on local radio. Does the Minister see implications for local stations who benefited from increased advertising rates in RTE? Has consideration been given to this?
This is an appropriate time for Senator Sherlock to mention local radio. It is possible that rates will go down as the Minister has said. Perhaps he could give solutions to the problems this will present for local radio. He knows these problems will only be compounded if RTE's advertising rates are reduced because local stations in order to compete will have to reduce their rates and their losses will therefore be greater. I know the Minister is conscious of this problem and intends to address it. Could he give some idea of his commitment, if any, to local radio and what he intends doing about the immediate commercial difficulties such stations are likely to encounter because of the fall in advertising rates in RTE?
It is possible that rates will not be reduced. A huge amount of possible advertising could not be included for broadcast by RTE during the period of the cap. Rates may remain the same; the issue is an imponderable. If rates do go down, has the Minister immediate plans for local radio or will that sector have to await the next Bill?
There are two points. First, let us be clear how the problem arose. I ask Senators to draw a distinction between television and radio. Sometimes an assumption is made, which I warned about in 1990, which goes as follows: people assume there is an automatic, easy migration from advertising in the print media to radio and television. They are distinct and separate. The idea that it is to the advantage of newspapers to limit the amount of time available for advertisements on television has proved to be nonsense. What happened when the advertising cap was imposed on RTE was that as the cost of television advertising increased people had less left in their advertising budget for print advertising. A body that could hardly be called subversive, radical or revolutionary, IBEC, clearly makes this point. If less time is available, and the rate card system, where time is auctioned to the highest bidder, is in use, this drives rates up, and drives certain companies out of the market altogether. Changes in the amount of time allotted to advertising will have some effect on the rates paid.
I have given repeated assurances about local radio. One of the reasons I am retaining the bar is, I have said, that I am not automatically returning to the pre-1990 regime in relation to rates and times on radio. I will examine the situation as it develops, and I will not allow predatory activity that would damage local radio. I wanted to explain clearly the effect of the Bill on local radio. Perhaps it will end at this stage.
Perhaps it is thought I am not sensitive enough to the issues of local radio. I met with representatives of local radio for over two hours, which was the longest meeting I have had with any group on this issue, followed by several technical meetings between them and nominated people from my staff. We were not simply responding to their demands. I made proposals to them. I identified many of the major cost areas. I know the cost areas and have worked on proposals about how it might be helped.
Some representatives of local radio said that all their problems would end if they had a share of the licence fee. Others asked me whether I intended giving a share of the licence fee to local radio stations, irrespective of their standard of broadcasting. Gradually we began to assemble information. I had meetings with the Independent Radio and Television Commission. I wish the development part of the 1988 legislation had been used more, as stations that were given licences would have been given better support.
Local radio stations fall into different categories. A small group are breaking even. Another group are in difficulties and seeking merger. A third group are in difficulties and resisting merger. This issue can only be resolved by taking into account the profile of costs and the stations, their capital investment, and the competition they face. The highest costs are those incurred in relation to transmission, news gathering and training, among others. I am open to discussion on each of these areas, but when I seem to be making progress, discussions seem to stop and the megaphone tactics start again. I am again asked whether I am prepared to give a share of the licence fee to local radio stations. I have been very calm about it so far. The word "community" has become very important but the community fared worst under the 1988 legislation. I will examine that too.
These people wanted me to address all of their issues. To do that I had to assemble information, and it was not easy. To help somebody who is in difficulties, it is necessary to know what are the difficulties. I am trying to get it right once and for all, and this is the way to do it. I will address this problem in a review of legislation. I may look, for example, at the appropriate authority to look after local and community radio, but that does not mean that I am not working on other aspects of the problem. I have listed these aspects this morning. I have listed the meetings, the topics, the proposals, and so on.
I know people are in difficulties financially. If I were a different kind of Minister I would adopt the attitude of people in other parties, that of caveat emptor, that I did not drive anyone into local radio, that they went in knowing the legislation and conditions in place at the time. I could have washed my hands of the situation but I am not doing that. Many stations which began with one conception of local radio, performing a very valuable community service, carrying news, have been pushed by their listeners in the direction of the old concept of public service broadcasting. I want to help them, as much as I also regard local newspapers as part of the local communicative order.
Another issue on which I hope Deputies and Senators will support me when we come to it, is that if conditions of employment are satisfactory in local newspapers, must I not look at the conditions of employment and the procedures in local radio as well? That is how I am approaching this issue, searching for ways to be of assistance, and using the talks and discussions I have with representatives to identify the most effective ways of coming to their assistance.
A Leas-Chathaoirligh——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We have discussed the section at length. I ask the Senator to be brief.
I understand the Leas-Chathaoirleach's haste but we have not yet touched on section 3 (2). I accept what the Minister says about local radio. It is a serious difficulty for everybody, I do not know the answer to this problem, and it is the fundamental problem in our attitude to public sector broadcasting. It begs the question whether stations have a public sector broadcasting element at all, whether we should have public sector broadcasting at all in this country. I understand the Minister's difficulty. I was simply asking for some indication of his thinking on this vital issue. I do not know the answer, I do not know what I would do in the Minister's position and I sympathise with him on his difficulties on this issue. There are ideological and there are also tangible difficulties here.
Subsection (2) is obviously a retrospective piece of legislation, I presume this is to do with the fact that RTE exceeded the amount of revenue it was allowed on 1 September 1992. I presume the money is being taken into the coffers of the Exchequer. Is that correct?
Perhaps if I give succinct information immediately it will make our progress easier. The reason for this subsection is that had section 3 of the Act of 1990 not been repealed, RTE would have exceeded the cap for the second year and would then be breaking the law. That is why the date mentioned is 1 September. The figure accumulated was £17.9 million. Again, I am anticipating discussion. If Members were in that business, I do not think they would have turned the business away and sent the customers, the accounts and the advertising, with the jobs attached to both, out of Ireland altogether. The £17.9 million is there and there is an explicit reference to one usage for it in the Programme for a Partnership Government. The joint programme states that the initial costs of Teilifís na Gaeilge will be met out of the accumulated surpluses under the cap.
The inter-party agreement which is the basis of the present Government transcends me and other Ministers and Departments, including the Department of Finance. The Programme for a Partnership Government is democratic and agreed and parties to it are accountable. The explicit commitment given in it is sacrosanct. How much could and should the Minister with responsibility, in this case myself, use of that money in the current year? In discussions the Department of Finance and others have suggested that I use £4.5 million this year, should I need it.
That £4.5 million is available for the current year's needs for Teilifís na Gaeilge and the balance has been paid into the Exchequer. I would point out that the Programme for a Partnership Government involves a Government commitment, transcending my views and anyone else's, that the balance will be available for the further needs of Teilifís na Gaeilge.
Obviously, our public administration works within one financial year at a time. Those of us who are fortunate, or unfortunate, enough to stand before the public for election are required to have political visions that extend for longer. I have a function to defend the Government programme and will do so. If my needs for Teilifís na Gaeilge are £4.5 million in the current year I will spend that amount — as far as I can see it is sufficient. I will obviously come back and draw down the balance of money which has been paid into the Exchequer should I need it next year.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, subsection 2 (b), lines 22 and 23, to delete "unless it is impracticable to do so" and substitute "provided the preceding year's annual accounts are not in deficit."
I am startled by the large sums to be allocated on a progressive basis to independent producers. These are substantial even in terms of RTE's current profits: £5 million next year; £6.5 million the year after; £7.5 million in 1996; £8.5 million in 1997; £10 million in 1998; and £12.5 million or 20 per cent of RTE's expenditure in the following years.
This is an extremely long term commitment which should be subject to serious review. It is such a large amount of money there is a danger that compelling RTE to pay these sums in all circumstances would be wrong.
No, that is not true.
I am coming to what the Bill says. Section 4 (2) (b) reads and I quote "unless it is impracticable to do so" in the financial year. That is inexact and imprecise. It does not say who is going to define "impracticable" or who will decide what is impracticable or how it relates to the financial state of RTE. If RTE were unable to write a cheque for that amount it would be impracticable, but that is unthinkable. If RTE is not in profit one year but expects to be the next can it thereby afford to pay the amount? Will RTE be pressured to do so by the Minister of 1998 in spite of the state of its balance sheet?
I would like to see a simple commitment in this Bill that these extremely large payments — and we are talking about £12.5 million or more in the years from 1999 onwards — will not be paid if RTE cannot afford to pay them. There is only one possible rule one can make in legislation to cover RTE's not being able to pay and that is not to compel payment when it is in deficit and has made a loss in the preceding year.
"Impracticable" means absolutely nothing and is a form of blanket statement which will lead to serious difficulties in the years to come when somebody, be they the Minister, the Authority or the RTE director of finance, has to decide whether it is impracticable to pay the amount. There could be a collision between the director of finance's opinion that it was impracticable and the Authority's and the Minister's claims that it was practicable. It would then be paid even though RTE might not be making enough money to pay these vast sums.
I put down this amendment because, I believe it would be irresponsible for RTE to pay this money if it has to get into financial difficulties to do so.
Let me point out again that the purpose of section 4 was simply to introduce a regime of opportunity for independent producers. We can get matters askew if we did not follow them through to the logical end. I am not taking money from RTE for something else; that would be like going into a shop that sells seed potatoes and insisting on buying millinery. This is not the case as RTE will be spending money on programmes in any event. We are simply saying that for certain good reasons there will be a balance in the expenditure on programmes.
RTE will have no difficulty paying £5 million. I will not damage RTE by giving detailed figures, but from my discussions with RTE I believe even its most conservative people would say it is already spending over £3 million on independently produced programmes. There are others, myself included, who believe it is spending more than £4 million. In any event, spending £5 million will not create any trauma for RTE.
When considering the figure of £12.5 million or 20 per cent of RTE's expenditure it was necessary for me to look at how such a large demand might impact on the station itself. That is why I included the requirements, including the review, which address the matter raised earlier by Senator Sherlock, the potential employment effect on RTE itself.
The word "impracticable", is I believe, after consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, the best word one could find. One could throw veils of casuistry around it by saying wholly and totally impracticable but one would end up with a litany. The point is simply that if the entire procedure is going wrong RTE have an opportunity to tell me. I will be relying on the wisdom of my peers in the Oireachtas when my review comes out each year — and I am putting the obligation on myself to review the matter not later than a certain date.
The point had been reached when the number of shoots in any month for new products had dropped. Activity in one of the most creative and wonderful areas of job creation, film making in Ireland in the independent sector, had first frozen and was then beginning to drop. This was happening at a time when we were providing courses on film making in our colleges and people were winning prizes. As an example of the value of the independent sector, a young man, Mr. Charlton, entered his documentary, "Blood on the Canvas", at a festival in Houston recently. There were 4,200 entries and his entry won the gold medal. That film was made and finished at Telegael near Spiddal. The opportunity is being provided to allow this creative capacity a small platform from which to launch and create even more jobs through a realisation of that potential.
There is general agreement on this, even if some Members voted against the Bill at different times. That, I believe, is a good thing, but how to make it happen? The review handles that. I will consider submissions. The Bill imposes obligations and creates responsibilities. The Bill clearly establishes the responsibilities of the Minister and the Houses of the Oireachtas.
The Minister is to be complimented on introducing this Bill so soon after his appointment.
I welcome the opportunity afforded in this legislation to the independent programme makers and programme producers. As the Minister confirmed, their numbers were decimated following the 1990 Act and the industry was set back many years. The figures provided illustrate the decline. For example, the number of television commercials made in Ireland fell from 147 in 1991 to 75 in 1992.
The legislation will create competition among the employees of RTE and will provide an extra incentive to improve the already high standard of their own programme making. The opportunity is now afforded to former RTE employees who took redundancy to use their expertise to co-operate in the production of quality programmes. An outstanding example was the recent Eurovision Song Contest.
The Minister's reply is difficult to accept. I find the language in section 4 (2) (b), "... unless it is impracticable to do so, ..." too subjective, vague and open to interpretation.
A situation could arise at some future date where there is a serious dispute about what this legislation means, with differing interpretations from the Minister of the day, the RTE Authority and other people in RTE. If the legislation is specific about amounts of money, then it is wrong that we should be vague as to the state RTE's finances should be.
I do not accept that this legislation takes that into account. A situation could arise where RTE's balance sheet and a profit and loss account were in difficulties, and yet the company was obliged to pay these large amounts of money. It is not acceptable to counter this with the words "unless it is impracticable to do so" as that could be open to differing interpretations in the future.
May I engage in a straightforward manner with the language issue raised by Senator Ross? His amendment would not achieve what he described today.
In his amendment the Senator suggests deleting "unless it is impracticable to do so". I have outlined the reasons for the use of these words and I have specified them in the legislation. I have offered a review and have said I am open to changes and will involve Members of the Oireachtas. Yet this is what the Senator proposes to abolish, replacing it with "provided the preceding year's annual accounts are not in deficit". The Senator is requesting me to forsake the accountability I have given to the House, the review and the specified conditions for a review, for an accountancy procedure.
In my early days I had a brief relationship with the accountancy profession. With respect to the profession, I am not satisfied that, first, the amendment will achieve what the Senator wants; secondly, it would have a damaging effect on what I have just described by way of a genuine and proper review; and, thirdly, it would remove accountability and not just from the Minister and RTE. The proposed amendment would frustrate the intention of section 4, including the proposals on film making and so on. All of this could be wiped out by the simple expedient of putting the accounts into deficit. The Minister would then be faced with the possibility of having to challenge the accounts in court. This is an impracticable amendment which I must oppose.
Question proposed: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 12.
Tá
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cashin, Bill.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Gallagher, Ann.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- McGennis, Marian.
- Maloney, Sean.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Norris, David.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Townsend, Jim.
- Wall, Jack.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Belton, Louis J.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Dardis, John.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Honan, Cathy.
- Howard, Michael.
- McDonagh, Jarlath.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Mullooly and Wall; Níl, Senators Cosgrave and Belton.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
I support the principle of fostering independent programming by the sector. I am concerned that the provisions of the Bill are rigid and inflexible with regard to the amount of money to be provided as far as RTE's obligations are concerned. I voted against the amendment which was put forward because it is better to say "impracticable" than to say "not in deficit". A fund need not necessarily be in deficit, but it could be marginal. In these circumstances it would be reasonable to have flexibility. I am satisfied with the flexibility that is provided.
I would like to ask the Minister what he means by independent television programmes. I know there is a definition in the Bill but it is intended that this money should go to Irish television programmes and Irish productions. However, the Minister cannot do this because of EC regulations. The intention and the rules are in conflict. Perhaps the Minister could tell us how the authorities will make a decision to grant this money to Irish producers, without infringing EC rules. In other words, will we advertise for tenders in the local newspapers? How will we ensure that this money stays in the country and that it benefits Irish producers and programmes?
Difficulties will exist because Irish producers and programmes must stand on their own merit and face competition from programmes and producers from abroad. How will the people who decide who will benefit from the commissions the Minister is talking about ensure that the commissions stay in this country, because they are awarding these commissions on merit? Will they have to award several of these programmes to overseas film producers?
I can be explicit in my reply. First, the Bill is careful not to breach European law. The European Community Directive No. 89/552/EC on television broadcasting activities is the directive which applies. That point is correctly adverted to by Senator Ross and by myself and it is acknowledged in the Bill.
One is not talking about the production of a commodity which is general or homogenous. We are not talking about putting proportions or quotas into intervention. We are talking about a television product which must aim for excellence when the editorial decision is made by the Authority. Therefore, it is only reasonable to expect that the people who are working in that world of symbols and creativity which is in that local community will be more sensitive to the nature of the product and will, therefore, have some advantages. What they cannot be given are unfair competitive advantages. I give an example of a Dutch film crew coming to Ireland to make a programme which would be appropriate for Irish editorial use.
There is no intention in this Bill to break European law or the directive I mentioned earlier. It is only fair to expect that there will be real advantages for the native industry but we will have an opportunity to review this. That is the great advantage of publishing the annual list of commissions. There is nothing in this Bill which breaches European law or which would put RTE's practices into conflict. The environment in which these initiatives are being taken will allow the Irish industry to take advantage of new opportunities.
Senator Ross should look at the three reports which have been published on the structure of the film industry; for example, the Coopers and Lybrand report and the working group on film which reported to the Taoiseach at the end of last year. This group's report was sent to me in January and I recently published it. These indicate there is scope for the Irish industry to take advantage of these new and exciting opportunities which are being provided.
I worry when I see references to "the account". Will the Minister tell us what procedures there will be for monitoring expenditure on auditing the accounts? Will there be accountability to this House in respect of the account? I am concerned about this matter because of the cases of non-accountability in the semi-State sector; Aer Lingus is a recent example. There are great difficulties in that company and millions of pounds have not been accounted for. I would not like a similar situation to arise in RTE and I ask the Minister to give us details as to how that will be closely monitored. The motivation behind this section is good. It is commendable that three would be independent, talented people who, although not in RTE, will have the opportunity to make programmes and have them broadcast on RTE. However, I would like to know how the Department intends to take care of the accountability aspect.
The answers to the Senator's questions are explicitly set out in section 6 of the Bill. The suggestion, for example, to open a separate account for independent commissioned productions was mine. I specified that so as to identify it within the totality of the accounting system of RTE. I went further and specified the procedures in section 6 and I required the publication of such within three months of the end of a financial year. That is explicit. These particular provisions I am making within general accounting procedures in RTE will fall within the normal auditing by the RTE authorities of their accounts. In other words, section 25 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960 regarding the auditing function also applies, so there is both a general and an additional specific set of mechanisms which are specified in section 6.
I appreciate what the Minister says and we have legislation for other semi-State organisations that also deals specifically with annual reports. As the Minister says we are talking about quarterly reports in this case. I want a more detailed explanation as to what impact the Department will have in perusing the accounts directly and what accountability there will be to the Oireachtas.
Section 6 deals with that but I will add that one must remember that — and I am surprised that Senator Taylor-Quinn has not adverted to it — that an annual report on all matters has been commissioned and not only regarding independent commissioning. I have taken the unusual, but proper step of deciding that changes will be made by orders that are laid before both Houses and that is additional to normal practice. That condition of transparency is specified in the Bill.
Perhaps the Minister does not appreciate what I mean. I am concerned because with other semi-State bodies there is great difficulty at present with regard to their accountability. My concern springs from the difficulties that have arisen with other bodies. I appreciate what the Minister is doing but I am concerned about accountability in the semi-State sector. I will depend on the Minister to ensure the same situation will not arise in RTE.
The Senator should not have to depend on me; she may depend on my legislation where requirements for accountability are specifically laid out and I understand her concern with maximum accountability. There are other innovations in the Bill. For example, I have taken a lead in specifying the gender equality requirement of the RTE Authority when I could have waited. I have expressed this wish to every board for which I have responsibility. I have exceeded the gender equality requirement and the gender ratio that is specified in the Programme for a Partnership Government. The Film Board which I will be addressing later today at its first meeting has seven people on its board, four of whom are women. In this Bill, with regard to the RTE Authority, where the authority is composed of seven people, three should be men and three should be women and where it is composed of nine people there should be four men and four women. I tried to put as much into the Bill by way of information on the implementation of gender equality as I could.
I would like to ask the Minister on what basis the figures for expenditure are worked out. I am referring to the £5 million increasing to £12.5 million over the years. I understand it is a fairly logical progression although it goes up steeply. I assume the base of £5 million for 1994 is based on the projected expenditure on total television programmes and that the Minister is working upward from that base figure. These are large figures, a point we have already debated. I would like it confirmed that £5 million, which is the base figure, is based on 20 per cent total television programme expenditure as projected for next year on RTE. Is that correct?
The Senator is good at this and I appreciate his great attention to detail on this Bill. The 20 per cent comes into effect after 1998. The base figure from which we depart to achieve this significant contribution was arrived at on the basis of consultations regarding what I knew RTE was spending already and what I knew of products that might come on offer, and I arrived at that figure which is not perceived as an unreasonable imposition by RTE. There is a progressive rise from that figure towards £12.5 million or 20 per cent. In the interim I will review it as I have specified, not later than three months after the end of the financial year. The base figure came from existing practice and consultations. The Senator is correct about the progression. It is reasonable but in the interim, for example, as we come to the latter years if anything is going wrong not only I, but the Houses, have an opportunity to review it.
I hope the industry will grow fast enough to be able to pay the 20 per cent. The Minister is specifying 20 per cent to give the industry a target to achieve and if they do not achieve it then the review clause is there. It is wise and shows the Minister's knowledge of the industry. If I had to put a percentage on it I would say the industry would definitely supply 15 per cent at present, but I think the 20 per cent target encourages the industry to grow over the five year period so as to achieve the 20 per cent.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I am not quite clear, and there is no reason why the Minister should have this information at his fingertips, whether £5 million represents 20 per cent of total television expenditure next year. I want to know whether these figures anticipate a substantial growth in this expenditure by the year 1999. In other words is a larger proportion of RTE's television programme expenditure going to be paid in 1999 than is being paid next year and, therefore, is the Minister anticipating a large growth in this area?
The figure of £5 million, which is the base figure, is about 10 per cent of production at present. Therefore, we are looking at a growth from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. That is the structure.
A significant increase.
Yes it is.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
I strongly support this section of the Bill and I compliment the Minister for including the gender balance requirement for the Authority which is long overdue, desirable and essential. I hope when it comes into full practice the benefit of that balanced membership will become apparent in the overall operation of RTE.
I too am very pleased that the Minister is hoping to increase the gender balance to 50 per cent. The RTE Authority has a high gender balance at present — one-third of its members are women. I hope people will not be appointed to the Authority for the sake of gender balance because people with expertise, whether male or female, should be appointed on merit. While balance is being addressed, the quality and expertise of the particular individual, whether male or female, should be the most important factor. I welcome the aspiration for 50 per cent representation for women.
I am very grateful to the Members for their welcome for this section and I thank Senator Taylor-Quinn and Senator Cassidy. As the section is acceptable and welcomed, I need not elaborate on it. The choice facing me was to wait for general legislation in relation to gender equality or to go ahead and introduce it if the opportunity arose, and that is what I decided to do. I take the points raised and when I come to appoint the Authority I will be looking for one that will be representative and able to handle the new régime of broadcasting which I hope to have in place at that time.
I am delighted that women's experience will be taken into account. I am very impressed by the number of technical grades in RTE which are now being filled by women. In Millstreet the first woman to direct the Eurovision Song Contest was Anita Notaro and she was assisted by five other women. Perhaps a video should have been made to show to every girl in this country that there is no skill at any level in this industry that cannot be performed with excellence by a woman. Women's experience has been excluded too much in Irish society and in administrative decision making. I wanted it to be there in the Authority. When I look at other bodies for which I have responsibility — such as the Independent Radio and Television Commission to which I have appointed a woman to fill a vacancy created by the resignation of a woman — I will follow the same principles.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
Sitting suspended at 12.25 p.m. and resumed at 1.30 p.m.