Vol. 143 No. 7
The Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Bruton, has asked me to apologise for his late arrival. A serious matter has arisen but he will be here soon. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Higgins, for remaining for the beginning of the debate.
The time limit is 12 minutes per speaker but there will be flexibility. With the agreement of the House the debate will conclude at 8.15 p.m. rather than 8 p.m. as ordered by the House earlier.
Is that agreed? Agreed. As Senator Mooney has a constraint on his time I ask him to speak first.
This debate on the state of the Irish newspaper industry is timely. It is not an overstatement to say the industry is in crisis. Leader writers have been speaking of doom and gloom for so long that the reaction of the public is similar to that in Aesop's fable when the child continually cried wolf. However, if we in Ireland are to continue to enjoy a free press uncluttered by economic pitfalls on one hand and litigious citizens on the other it is time for someone to act and the body which should act is the Government. In facing that claim the Government's response will be that whenever people have a problem they want the Government to bail them out. However there is a responsibility on a Government of whatever hue to take whatever steps are necessary to protect a free press in this democratic society.
We are concerned here with the continued existence and viability of the printed media. The Irish Press Group is in severe financial difficulties; The Sunday Tribune is being propped up by one of its major competitors and The Irish Times finds it difficult to continue to publish viably and economically because of harsh VAT rates and the libel laws.
I must state a vested interest; I have been a member of the National Union of Journalists for 20 years and continue to earn my living outside this House as a journalist in the broadcasting and print media. My comments are obviously tempered with a bias in favour of the media, particularly the newspaper industry. I cut my teeth in journalism on the local newspaper, The Leitrim Observer. My late father was a stringer for the local and national media from the mid-1940s until his death. I grew up in a house where a typewriter and a telephone were as common——
Drumshanbo was rarely out of the news in his time.
I take that as a compliment.
It is.
The telephone and the typewriter were as common in my house in the 1950s as televisions and tape recorders today. I will not say I was born with ink in my veins, but I have had a lifelong love of reading. My daily reading diet would be predominantly the newspapers of the day and, like many of my colleagues, I would spend many hours at the weekends perusing the Sunday newspapers.
I want to convey the sense of shock and horror felt in the newspaper industry at recent events. The speed of change is so great that much of what is happening to our newspapers is lost on the general public. The information superhighway is upon us. There is a general decline in the readership of newspapers around the world. Newspaper proprietors are selling out increasingly to large conglomerates.
In Ireland we have been shielded to an extent from much that has been happening, particularly in America, Australia, the Middle East and the UK, where the name Murdoch stalks the land. We might say that in Ireland O'Reilly stalks the land, but I do not wish to indulge in a witchhunt against anybody. I admire Tony O'Reilly, or as his newspapers prefer to call him, Dr. A. J.F. O'Reilly. He has been a successful entrepreneur and a proud ambassador for this country in his chosen field. However, I am concerned at the growing power structure of the newspapers under his control. At present he is propping up The Sunday Tribune; his company has also invested money in the Irish Press Group and the suggestion is that this group would not last without it. The political editor of The Sunday Business Post, Emily O'Reilly, a former employee of the Irish Press, wrote in her column last Sunday:
The Press titles represent a failed commercial and editorial enterprise. Anyone with a huge commercial investment in another national newspaper group [the Independent Group] is unlikely ever to rebuild that enterprise to the point where it would seriously compete with the ‘parent' group.
She went on to say:
The case of The Sunday Tribune is an instructive example. Had it chosen to, the Independent could have brought its commendable commercial and other skills to The Sunday Tribune. It obviously chose not to, and the Tribune continues to limp along, offering no significant threat to the Sunday Independent's dominance but neatly blocking off the ‘upmarket’ threat posed by The Sunday Times— something of considerable commercial importance to O'Reilly. The scenario for the Press group would hardly be any different.... The fundamental principle of media success — that people will read newspapers that interest and entertain them — obviously escaped the Press management, but it is the ‘philosophy’ that underpins the Independent Group. One might hate the Sunday Independent brand of vitriolic, polemical and at times repellent journalism, but the bottom line is that it produces an editorial package that is commercially successful and Tony O'Reilly does not have to put a gun to anyone's head to buy it.
She continued, and this is the nub of the issue:
...if politicians want truly diverse media, if they want a successful mass market newspaper or newspapers that challenge the Sunday Independent style and ideology by providing a viable commercial alternative, then the Minister has a duty to challenge the Independent's grasp on the Press and create an environment where an alternative publication might flourish.
This message seems to come across in all comment about the current state of the Press Group and the newspaper industry: there is a need for the Minister to intervene in some way. The lobby group which represents the provincial newspapers, which has carried out a letter writing campaign to members of the Oireachtas, quotes elements of the Colin McIver study on the Irish print and paper industry launched in 1994. It makes the point that the survey revealed that newspaper profits fell on average by just over 50 per cent between 1987 and 1992 and that the trend is consistent across the industry; that profits have fallen so low in some areas that the ability of firms to re-equip is threatened; that cable TV monopolies and concerns are moving quickly to have advertising placed on satellite television channels which they distribute.
The two matters that seem to concentrate the minds of newspaper proprietors are the high level of VAT and the obstructive nature of our libel laws. I am sure the Minister will address these issues. I want to convey a sense of urgency that something has to be done to protect us in a free democratic society.
I am perhaps treading on political eggshells, but I have often felt the existence in broadcasting of a monopoly such as RTÉ has not been as conducive to free debate in a democratic society as might ideally be the case. If we had but one newspaper with one editorial policy, one message being propagated on a daily and weekly basis, and considering the influence that newspaper would have, the Government would quickly take action. In broadcasting that had been the case until 12 to 18 months ago. There is now an alternative news network in operation, albeit in an embryonic state. The Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht is examining the issue of news and news dispersal through the broadcast media in the Green Paper on Broadcasting.
I cite the example of RTÉ as a State monopoly at national level to illustrate my point. While it has been accepted and has been seen to be fair and impartial in its news dispersal, primarily because it was set up by an Act of the Oireachtas, there are no controls in the commercial sector for the printed media. It would be a serious development if any one individual or group was to control totally the newspaper industry.
I am not offering the solutions to the problems that exist. Unless the Government takes action in the areas identified by the printed media, I fear for the future of the media. It would not be dramatic to suggest that in the next year or two we could have two or three titles but just one owner.
I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this issue. It is of enormous importance in a democratic society that we have a viable and vibrant newspaper industry. As many people as possible should participate in the current debate on the newspaper industry.
The last 20 years has been a period in which we have seen a gradual fall off in the sales of daily newspapers. The contrast within the different sectors is startling. The sales of daily newspapers are still growing — they grew by 16 per cent in the last 20 years — but by contrast sales of Sunday newspapers have fallen by 23 per cent and the sales of evening newspapers have fallen by almost half. The big new factor of growth in the daily sales has been the growth of tabloids, and they have been predominantly British. Looking at the contrast between British and Irish sales, we see a situation where British sales have grown in the 20 year period by about 40 per cent and sales of Irish titles have fallen by about 20 per cent. The British sales seem to be driven by taste, if you like, on one side where there has been a big expansion in the sales of daily tabloids accompanied by a big expansion in the sales of Sunday quality papers. These are the areas where British titles have increased. In other areas they have not shown any significant deviation from the overall market trends.
The other feature that has been driving these patterns is the cost factor. Having taken account of inflation, the real price of an Irish newspaper has almost doubled in the last 20 years. There is no doubt but that has affected sales. That real price increase has been double the rate of British newspapers, so not only are British newspapers entering the market at a lower price but they have also increasingly been getting cost advantage in the marketplace over a long period.
Within Irish sales there have also been significant changes occurring in the last 20 years. The Irish Independent Group has increased its share of Irish newspaper titles from 45 per cent to 55 per cent. The Irish Times has also increased its share from 8 to 13.5 per cent. The Cork Examiner has largely been stable, but the big casualty has been the Irish Press, which suffered a huge decline in its market share. The share held by the Irish Press has halved, from 35 per cent of the market 20 years ago to 17 per cent today.
These broad facts give a sense of background to what is happening in the industry. These trends have given rise to a number of concerns about fairness of competition in the industry. They have been the subject of the study by the Competition Authority, and I will come back to its conclusions. The key issues they were asked, and have examined, are: was there unfair price competition from British sales, involving them in predatory pricing; were there unfair alliances between large players in the market and new companies, or unfair competitive practices and dominance? These were the issues the Competition Authority investigated against the background of those changes that have been occurring.
Everyone knows and recognises the special role of the newspaper industry. It is not like the market for cans of beans. It has a special significance. It plays a vital role in covering issues important to democratic debate, and we can all agree on what we want. We can agree we want to provide stable employment, diversity of choice to the consumer, allow expression for the various points of view that make up a plural society, preserve quality and cultural expression and balance the right of privacy with the right of the public to know. However, the much more difficult question is to decide what is the appropriate role for the State in achieving all of these desirable features we would like to see in our newspaper industry. Important questions arise, particularly in the context of the special nature of the industry, like can there be diversity with single or heavily concentrated ownership.
On a point of order, a Chathaoirligh, is it possible to get a copy of the Minister's speech as a matter of urgency?
A script will be provided. It is on its way over. I am not speaking absolutely religiously from a script. I am mixing and matching.
It is a refreshing change.
Thank you. There are issues of concentration of ownership and also indigenous ownership. Does preserving social and cultural identity mean we must keep out non-national entrants into the newspaper industry? Does that sit with our obligations undertaken under EU and other treaties as to freedom of establishment? These are important questions that have to be assessed.
What do we mean by diversity and plurality in the media? Some of the debates in the last number of weeks since this debate has started have concentrated on the quality of what is provided to readers. It suggests a sort of public health argument, that perhaps the Government should have a role in ensuring the public reads only good, healthy, wholesome things in the newspapers. That clearly begs the question as to whether the State can ever have that sort of role. In the past, there is no doubt that censorship was a powerful instrument used by the State to regulate the newspaper industry. I do not think anyone wants us to turn the clock hack to a situation where the State tries to decides what constitutes good journalism, the quality of debate or the coverage of important issues. There are issues that need to be assessed. How does the promotion of quality sit with freedom of the press and has the State a role in this area at all?
The other aspect, of course, is purely a competition one. Is what the consumer pays for the only issue that should govern what happens in the marketplace, or are there wider issues? Allied to that is the question of whether the competition law, which deals with plurality and diversity in a certain way — in the market sense it deals with issues of concentration and merger and takeover — is adequate to deal with the issues that arise in a newspaper industry, which we all recognise is different. Are the tools of competition analysis and the policy instruments of competition adequate to deal with the newspaper industry and its future development?
I would like to say a few words about the competitive challenges the industry faces. Senator Mooney mentioned the FÁS Mclvor study and it is timely to look at some of the findings of that study. They put forward the challenges facing the industry in a stark way. One of their key methods was to take a ten year perspective, looking ahead at what is going to happen in the newspaper industry according as the industry would adopt different strategies. I took note of some of these. A strategy of stagnation would produce a 34 per cent decline in employment. A strategy of continuing on the way we are going would produce a 24 per cent decline in employment; and even a radical strategy, a reformist and progressive strategy, would see a 13 per cent decline in employment.
In any scenario, this is an industry that is facing serious pressures. The significant thing in that study was the difference between facing up to that challenge with a radical and progressive strategy, or stagnation, waiting for it to burst upon us, amounted to 21 per cent of employment in the sector, or 900 jobs if it was put in terms of jobs. In the challenge of gearing up to the competitiveness difficulties in this industry the stakes are large and there are huge problems there that we must adjust to. Not least of these is the simple cost competitiveness of our industry; but there are also many other issues, including the increasing erosion from crossmedia competition, which Senator Mooney referred to. Newspapers are no longer working in a vacuum. They are impacted upon by the growth of the broadcasting media, the increasing use of electronic media as a way of conveying and accessing information and many people are now experimenting with a sort of situation where there will be no copy at all. People will draw down stories onto their PCs.
It is instructive, in looking at the debate we are conducting on concentration of ownership, to examine similar debates that are raging in the US and other countries about concentration of ownership. The situation in the USA is quite significant. From a situation where there was diversity and many newspapers, now there are few US cities with more than one morning and evening paper and most of them have only one publisher in each city. There is a growing concentration of chains across the US and this is giving rise to considerable concern about concentration of ownership. I suppose in one sense these US cities are far larger in population than the whole of Ireland, but on the other hand we are a nation state. The issue we must face up to is: are these trends of concentration inevitable or desirable and what can we do about them? The other critical issue for the industry is cost competitiveness. Many people will recognise that the printing and publishing of newspapers can now be done much more cheaply elsewhere. We face significant disadvantages in the cost of newspaper production and that is certainly a challenge for us.
I am throwing out some of the questions we must pose. There is an ongoing debate about the sort of legislation we need to ensure fair competition. The control of mergers and takeovers is an important issue. The questions which must be asked are: what are the proper bounds of control and by whom and how should they be exercised? One view of competition is the need to create national champions with the capacity and sheer strength to stride the globe. The other view is that concentration of ownership and market agreements in Ireland mean that huge economic rents are extracted from consumers and this is holding back economic progress. There is no doubt that historically this country has a weak track record in competition and the pursuance of an effective competition policy. This is put into sharp focus by the minority report which points out strongly that failure to initiate proceedings and tackle the Independent group's position in relation to the Irish Press would seriously undermine the effectiveness and credibility of the Competition Act. That is another point of view we have to assess.
The decision of the Competition Authority is at the forefront of our discussions. It decided on two important issues. On the issue of predatory pricing, it said quite unequivocally that in its view predatory pricing was not being practised by British newspapers in the Irish market. While they may have been engaged in keen competition, it was not predatory pricing within the strict definition of that word. The other finding was that the purchase by Independent Newspapers of a 24.9 per cent share in the Irish Press and the issuing of a loan of £2 million to the Irish Press was contrary to section 5 of the Competition Act which deals with abuse of a dominant position and section 4 which deals with anti-competitive agreements. It went on to say that it was of the opinion that I, as Minister, should take action in the courts to deal with this issue.
That is the background to the debate and I hope those comments will help. Since I received the Competition Authority's report, I have tried to have discussions with the key newspaper interests. Last week I held a forum attended by experts in the field. Opposition spokesmen, the newspaper industry and the journalists and many of the issues were addressed successfully. I intend to take a decision in early June. As Senator Mooney pointed out, there is a slight irony about the current debate on newspaper and television. On one side there is growing concern that, as the television monopolies break up with the arrival of private industry, standards will decline. On the other side concentration in the newspaper industry is cause for concern. The strange dilemma in what we want to achieve in these different media was pointed out at the forum by Colm Kenny.
I welcome this debate and I look forward to the contributions from many Senators who will have studied the issue. I am sure I will benefit from their deliberations.
I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the report. It would be impossible to do it justice in the time available. It will certainly be a catalyst for important discussion on this issue and it furnishes us with the facts. Few of us have not offered a comment on this debate over the last number of months. The more I have looked into it, the less I seem to know about it. I wish to make some general comments rather than homing in on the specifics.
I have certain concerns. I am well aware of the reason the sales of evening newspapers have dropped. They have dropped because of some changes in television programming but also because a newspaper such as the London daily The Independent is exactly the same price as the Evening Herald or Evening Press. People make a choice in the late evening depending on whether they want value for money or something to read and there is certainly a problem in this area.
VAT does not seem to have been dealt with in the final recommendations and conclusions of the report and I regret that. I note the proposal of The Sunday Tribune and related proposals from the NUJ that there should be a clear approach to the costing of newspapers. I do not fully agree with their proposal that newspapers should be sold at the same cover price as in the UK and I do not think it would make a huge difference either way. I do not understand the point they make in that area but the 12.5 per cent VAT difference as well as the technological, production and publication processes are tied in with economies of scale in the larger newspapers in the UK and this certainly makes it difficult for the Irish newspaper publishers to compete with them.
In the history of this State, and indeed of this country, newspapers have always been used to influence. In this century alone, the Freeman's Journal and Scéala Éireann/Irish Press have had particular influences on Irish life. They responded to particular needs and were really propaganda organs for many people. I do not say that in any derogatory way; they were tools of their time. I do not wish to home in on the O'Reillys and others because it does not really matter whether we talk about the O'Reillys or the Murdochs. If a newspaper was to be owned by one group to reflect the editorial policy of one group or respond to the whims of one group, it would be doing a disservice to the nation. That is one point on which we can all agree but breaking away from that is difficult.
I cannot go into the difference between dominance and influence but I can see its impact on journalism. In recent days I heard a story — it may be untrue — that one Irish daily newspaper is considering reducing the starting salary of journalists to £7,000 or £8,000. There are people who would say that reflects market forces. However, if the bottom falls out of the wages and salaries being paid to people who are to provide the quality of the content of these publications, we will suffer every bit as much as we would if one dominant force influenced all editorial policy. We need to look at it from both sides. That point was not developed in the NUJ presentation but it certainly concerns readers of the newspaper.
We have a long tradition in this country of journalists of high quality and standards, many of whom have in their own way become institutions. They have replaced the Victorian essay writers and brought influence to bear on discussion. This is very important and needs to be continued. This is evident from the current debate on this area.
It does not matter whether one agrees with the comments made by Vincent Browne and John Waters; they have raised issues and their columns have served as catalysts for discussion. They have raised worrying issues particularly those points in which they, and particularly Vincent Browne, try to make a connection between dominance and influence in one Sunday newspaper. How can we control that? I do not know that it can ever be controlled satisfactorily without resorting to what will be seen as censorship by people who believe that free market forces mean that there should be organs of free expression. The problem of how to reconcile the two is impossible for me to comprehend. I do not see how it can be done.
What if it reached the nightmare scenario and there was only one dominant newspaper group? One commentator said that he would prefer to see the Irish Press Group of newspapers go to the wall rather than see it in the control of a particular person. Let us suppose that happened. What would be the next step? People would become dissatisfied with that single editorial view, influence and commentary and another newspaper or organ would be founded in opposition to it. That is the theoretical approach. Obviously, it would be irresponsible of a Government and of the Minister to stand back and let that nightmare scenario develop and hope that the phoenix of a new newspaper would rise from the ashes. That means there must be a hands-on approach. I believe the Minister must take the line he has indicated. He must take an interest in who owns what portions of what newspapers. Controls must be implemented and the reader must be assured of that.
We must work our way through the hysteria that has developed around certain personalities who own newspapers. I have criticised the Murdochs and the O'Reillys of this world many times. I do not consider them to be great employers or entrepreneurs. They have mainly exploited people as they progressed. I would not like to see either of them own Irish Sunday newspapers. However, take them out and we must admit that the same worry would remain regardless of the person who would replace them.
If that is not what we want, how do we control it? The only way is through the competition laws. The interventionist policy being indicated by the Minister must be the only approach. It will be difficult. I would find it difficult as a Minister to make a decision in that area. I would consider it to be interference, perhaps, with editorial control which is a response to people indicating their newspaper preferences by buying those newspapers. If people buy certain newspapers they are indicating what they want. If that is all that is left to the rest of us, obviously that monopolistic control and single voice is not answerable, accountable or competitive and therefore we will need to create some form of competition. It is better to do that now rather than when newspapers go to the wall.
The recent proposal to have one print facility in the Dublin area with a staff of 50 people which would print every daily, evening and Sunday newspaper is an extraordinary vision of where the newspaper industry is going. That, at a stroke, would create close to 2,000 redundancies. I understand that up to 500 people are working in the print area in one newspaper group alone. The idea that new technology can now print every newspaper with 50 staff demonstrates how things will inevitably and inexorably go. We must bear that in mind also.
There are three pressures involved: editorial control, the need to retain competition for the sake of choice and the fact that technology will take over one way or another. As far as I know we do not have newspapers published in Ireland by remote. However, many newspapers including The European and the American newspaper, The Herald Tribune, are published by remote, that is, they are put together in one part of the world and published in another. I understand that the Financial Times is published in the same way. It is only a matter of time before something similar is done here. We will lose many staff to those industries over the coming years. That will happen with or without our intervention.
An interventionist policy becomes essential. It is the Minister's responsibility to ensure that there is choice, that there is editorial diversity and variety of access to different editorial and personal views and that there is a place where all views will receive a response. This is a growth area in the United States. I read recently that the fastest growing newspaper on the east coast of the US has all the modern technology and can compile and publish each issue very quickly with low numbers of staff.
There is also a development in some European and American newspapers where they attempt to cover all news stories. One of the problems people have seen in Irish newspapers in recent times is that all news stories are not covered. Stories are cut out and there is more comment than news. There is not enough space for news and that is a cause of concern for many groups, particularly small groups who have a point of view to put forward and who can add to a debate on general issues. It is important that there is space for such groups. However, the "Drop the Dead Donkey" syndrome of certain stories and people not being sufficiently important and being edited out means that a diversity of views is not coming through in normal news coverage. Many changes must take place. There is also a challenge to journalists and newspaper owners to meet and deal with the challenge of new technology.
I congratulate the Minister for making the report available. I hope it will be a catalyst for discussion. I also thank the Minister for raising the issue in this House.
I welcome the Minister to the House. I also thank him for responding so readily to the invitation to come to the Seanad to hear the House discuss a matter of public interest in which a major decision must be taken. In taking that decision, the Minister will need the wisdom of Solomon and more — probably some sort of divine efficacy — to achieve a solution which will please all those who are seeking something from him on this issue.
The problem the Minister faces was summed up by a journalist who spoke at the Minister's forum. He said that there was an enormous problem, that he did not have the answer to it and that it was the Minister's job to find the answer and to make it work. To a certain extent, that theme has run as a subtext through all the speeches this evening — and I will not be an exception — in the sense that people recognise the nature of not just one problem but a series of problems.
There has been an interesting debate over the past couple of weeks. None of us is directly involved in the newspaper industry and, from the sidelines, we see a debate littered with many hidden agendas. We see an enormous number of vested interests — some, but not all, of which are declared — and the debate has not been as open as people in the newspapers might expect of us if we were holding such a debate here. We have also seen a fair amount of settling of old journalistic scores as old battles are fought again under the guise of seeking a solution to the problem. We have seen all these elements in what has been for this society a useful and timely debate.
The Minister has been given a poisoned chalice. No matter what decision he makes he cannot win. It is that kind of debate and the Minister will have to be brave, as I know he will. He has handled the issue very well to date. He has consulted widely, has remained calm, open and objective and has done everything he can to make the right decision. However, when he announces a decision it will not be seen in this way by many of those involved.
All of us considering this subject begin with certain agreed principles. We all agree that we want a strong, healthy press and we all sincerely believe that it is vital for any democracy. It is no accident that when freedom and democracy are threatened the first targets of any potential dictator will be the press, the trade unions and the free organs of expression.
We want a press which, in the first instance, gives us the news. We do not wish to be too pompous about this. The first job of a newspaper is to give us as wide an objective coverage of news as possible. We want newspapers which will reflect and mirror our society, which will investigate within the bounds of fairness and which will be a conduit for new ideas and new ways of looking at society. We want a press which should not exclude sections of the population from having its views expressed or interests covered. It does not matter if the press has strong views; as long as they are fair and there are rights of reply, the stronger the viewpoints the better.
We also want diversity, and on this we need to know from where the newspapers are coming. Have they a specific viewpoint? We had no difficulty in this respect 35 years ago. Everybody knew that The Irish Times represented a Protestant, liberal, urban viewpoint; the Irish Independent was middle Ireland — Catholic, middle, rural, business and farming; the Irish Press was Fianna Fáil — and unashamedly so — and a radical newspaper and The Cork Examiner was Cork — is any place more important? As it was, you paid your money and you knew what you were getting and where the newspapers were coming from. There is often a degree of healthiness in knowing where a paper stands on certain issues and that it is not changing from week to week on a whim or, perhaps more important, that it is not buffeted by hidden commercial agendas.
With regard to principles, I have a strong preference, which may be unfashionable in these days of the EU and international multi-media, that, as far as possible, Irish newspapers should be controlled by Irish people. This is not absolute nor is it chauvinistic; however it reflects a view which is strongly held in many other countries. There is nothing in that preference to be ashamed of. It does not make me any less European or afraid of the wider world; I like to believe that my newspapers are owned and controlled by people who have a genuine stake in this country, who do not see it as a satellite to a major power or as simply a handy location where the circulation of newspapers can be topped up to make them more attractive to the advertising interests. In this I am referring to the UK, because French and German papers will not have a wide circulation in this country.
I would be worried about a situation where the people who own and run my newspapers are not answerable. They are not people one will meet, who are accountable or about whom we will know something — where they are coming from, where we can get at them. I make little apology for having a strong preference, if at all possible, for Irish ownership. This does not mean that there cannot be foreign investment and some foreign newspapers, but I would like to see the market as predominantly Irish owned. On this, I speak as one who unashamedly loves newspapers and who made my first honest money, a princely sum of ten shillings, as the Bagenalstown correspondent for the Carlow Nationalist.
Did the Senator make dishonest money before he made honest money?
I was ten years of age at the time, and the answer to the Senator's question is yes.
There are some newspapers which we do not like. For example, there are some Sunday newspapers I will not buy because I do not like to get annoyed on a Sunday; I have better things to do with my Sunday than paying £1 to be annoyed. It is a right which I, as a consumer, have and to buy or not to buy a newspaper is one of the most fundamental rights we all have. Nobody is forcing us to buy newspapers. However, I believe we all value the richness, diversity and excitement which comes with our newspapers, including the variety of comment and also — we should not be too pompous about this — the sports coverage, the crosswords and the other parts that make up a newspaper. There is a danger of thinking of newspapers solely in terms of politics, of ourselves, but there are a variety of other aspects to newspapers which commend them to people.
When speaking of diversity I am referring to diversity of ownership, and this brings me to the nub of why we are here this evening, the immediate problem in the Irish Press Group. We have before us the report of the Competition Authority. The Minister can do a number of things. He can accept the report of the authority in full, as he has been urged to do by a number of people, especially Deputy O'Malley. However, speaking not as an expert, the immediate consequence of the implementation of the report — which would mean that the Irish Independent would have to withdraw from the Irish Press completely and the loan would have to be repaid — would be the end of the Irish Press as we know it. The 600 jobs will be gone and the three titles may not survive.
The Irish Press will be dead within weeks if the report of the Competition Authority is strictly implemented. The Irish Independent has put the Irish Press on a life sustaining machine. We do not have to look for motives — they are probably good and are made out of self-interest — but without the injection of money from the Irish Independent, the Irish Press would be dead in the water today. There is no point fooling ourselves about this: it is an important fact in this debate and if the plug is pulled there will be little hope for the Irish Press as we know it. If this happens, what follows?
There are three possibilities. First, nothing happens. If the Irish Independent is forced to pull out, the Irish Press dies. The view could be taken by hard headed accountants that there is no future, financial or commercial, for the titles of Irish Press Limited and they have no niche and no position. This, sadly, is a possibility and it is one which faces any business which goes to the wall. Let us not fool ourselves that it is not a very real possibility in the present debate.
The second possibility is that some local consortium will try to take over the titles cheaply and restart the Irish Press or, more likely, organisations headed by Mr. Rupert Murdoch or Mr. Conrad Black will move in and buy up the existing titles. Either way, the Irish Press as we know it is gone. Under a native consortium or one headed by the Murdoch/Black people, the title will be bought cheaply, the staff will be hand picked, most of them will probably be let go and most of the remainder will be on contract. It is also likely, although not necessary, that standards will drop. In the case of Murdoch and Black, their track record is not great in this respect. Neither lives here, neither cares anything about this country and each of them sees it simply as a top up to the circulation of their British newspapers. I do not see any great commitment, but I could be proved wrong; they could give us papers of the highest quality.
However, the knock on effects of that on our existing newspapers will be huge. I cannot spell them out but I am told by people in the industry that the effect on the three existing major national newspaper groups will be huge and they may find themselves, largely because of economies of scale, competing with multi-conglomerates, whereas they are small operations in a small country with all the advantages of lack of critical mass. They may well find themselves greatly reduced in quantity, quality, staff and so on in order to compete at the same level and at the same price as other papers.
The third possibility has been discussed in the industry. It is one with which Independent Newspapers Limited would certainly run and to which — and I am speaking from what I hear —The Irish Times would not be opposed. It is that a consortium of Irish newspaper groups, all with a share of under 25 per cent, would take over the Irish Press, give it breathing space, appoint a new management and allow the operation to be restructured. They would do this to protect their own interests, and to see if the Irish Press, under different management and restructured, could survive. The group could perhaps establish a trust under a very distinguished person who would guarantee its integrity and independence.
I want to make one further point about the issue raised by The Irish Times and knocked by the Sunday Independent. We need some overall national consideration of the newspaper/media industry. The Irish Times raised this issue on Saturday and Monday. The Sunday Independent knocked it on Sunday. On the basis of the argument so far, I would put the Sunday Independent high on rhetoric, not great on reason and The Irish Times dull, but perhaps more reasonable. However, I am not correcting essays. The basic issue is that there may be a need for a national media policy. National policy does not mean Government or State control. National policy means that there should be a clear public policy on certain key issues. We have stumbled into a situation where there are a range of issues about the media world which need to be dealt with. Some of them are being tackled in a piecemeal way. There is the question of defamation. That needs to be tackled, not once and for all, but the laws need to be modernised. Clear definitions must be established in that area.
There is the question of the principle of diversity. Perhaps a public definition is needed of what is meant by diversity of ownership, principles to which we can all subscribe and which make it clear commercially what people can or cannot do. There is the question of standards. It is extraordinary that people who are forever urging standards on us, standards of openness, accountability etc., themselves live in a world which is largely self-regulated. There is no authority, apart from the laws of libel, to which we can go if we feel that we have been wrongly treated by a newspaper, other than recourse to the courts. There is the question of subvention and the role of the State, which was mentioned by other speakers. A number of calls were made by trade union leaders in particular that the State should get involved. I would not like to move in that direction, but the State does subvent a paper at the present time. Anois is perhaps one of the most heavily subsidised papers in the western world because we believe the Irish language should have an outlet through the media. There may be circumstances in which properly determined public policy will dictate that certain subvention or changes in VAT regimes etc. are possible.
Finally, there is the question of whether or not we want certain principles of national ownership. Whatever the outcome of the present issue the Minister must face — I wish him well in that — there is a strong case to be made for some form of commission to consider the state of the industry in Ireland, to lay down principles which we, as democrats, can agree upon and to ensure that problems are resolved in a reasonably orderly fashion.
I welcome the Minister. I wish him well with the task he faces and agree with Senator Manning that it is an extremely difficult one. I compliment Senator Manning on his contribution. It is as good a contribution as I have heard in 13 years in the Oireachtas. He has stated succinctly what the problems are and what is required. I agree with much of what he said, but not all of it.
There is a need for a policy on the media and the newspapers. It should be part of the overall media policy involving radio and television. It does not exist. I do not think that any party could claim to have a clear-cut policy at present. Perhaps that is part of the reason we are in this dilemma. The Government should not get involved in the industry other than to lay down the guidelines. The industry should be independent and should remain so. In that context the most important start that the Government, the Minister and all of us must make is to level the playing pitch. At present many of the newspaper industry's problems are due to the fact that we do not have a level playing pitch. Despite what the Minister and the Competition Authority have said, British imports, which are low-priced because of the massive economies of scale they have, are involved in predatory pricing in Ireland. They are involved in predatory pricing for the simple reason that their economies of scale and the technological developments which have taken place mean that British newspapers are being produced for a fraction of the cost of their Irish counterparts.
A very important point which the Minister must keep in mind is that the production of newspapers in Ireland can never and will never be the same as the production of newspapers in Britain. We need only look to other small European countries to make comparisons. Production costs in Ireland are similar to those in other countries of similar size and population. We can never hope to compete with British tabloids which are being dumped on the Irish market. The Minister must beware of this fact.
The question of VAT is one which leaves the most uphill playing pitch from the point of view of newspapers. We must recognise that the level of VAT on newspapers is a major factor in the difficulties they are undergoing. The dominance of RTE is the third major factor which makes the newspapers uncompetitive. This debate must include the situation with regard to RTÉ, a monopoly which has a major contribution from the State in terms of the licensing fee and has major advantages in terms of advertising revenue. It is only when the overall picture is considered — the newspaper industry and RTÉ — and we make a level playing pitch for all that we will begin to address, as a Government and as politicians, the difficulties which the industry is experiencing.
I will move on to the question of what the Minister should do in the immediate future. Fianna Fáil has consulted widely. Our spokesperson for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy O'Rourke, and the party leader have had 14 meetings with various interest groups. The Fianna Fáil front bench will be considering the various options in the near future. I would like to make a personal comment on what I see as being the desired progress in the future. I agree with Senator Manning that we must ensure that Irish newspapers remain under Irish ownership. It would be a disaster if the Irish Press Group fell into the hands of people like Rupert Murdoch or Conrad Black. The main difficulty which would arise from this, as Senator Manning pointed out, would be that the economies of scale that would be introduced, the reduction in costs and the number of jobs lost would put major pressure on the other newspaper groups, the Irish Independent, The Irish Times and The Cork Examiner. We would have a situation where the quality of our newspapers would drop and the bottom line would be the most important factor for them to fight against.
From that point of view I support Independent Newspapers' acquisition of the 24.9 shareholding in the Irish Press and the provision of the loan. I agree with Senator Manning that this is the best of a number of bad options. The Irish Press will otherwise go out of business. The opportunities which would then exist would be very confined and lead to further trouble for the industry in general. The Minister should be supportive. I certainly do not speak for the Independent Group — I find much to be dissatisfied with — but they have shown the way forward in this country, not alone in the newspaper industry but in industry generally. We can see this from the way in which they have made their titles, particularly the Irish Independent, very popular and successful, the way in which they have followed an acquisition trail, both nationally and internationally, and the way in which they are now able to generate significant profits. At the end of the day, it is all about competition and the best survivor. While I agree with the desire not to see one particular company or person having a dominant position, we must face up to reality. If the Independent Group has been better in that respect than anybody else, then I say good luck to it.
The suggestion made by Senator Manning that perhaps an arrangement could be arrived at so that if the Independent Group's attempt to buy the Irish Press titles was allowed, and I believe it should, a consortium of Irish interests could be involved in a takeover of the Irish Press which would leave it with an independent voice that would not be part of any one dominant group.
The possibility of the British newspapers getting a stronger stranglehold in this country would bring about a reduced level of quality in our newspapers. Whatever else, we are extremely lucky that we have an exceptionally high quality of newspapers across the board, from the Irish Independent to The Irish Times and The Sunday Tribune to The Sunday Business Post. Producing an excellent newspaper, living with the competition and staying in business is extremely difficult. I was a great fan of The Sunday Tribune when Vincent Browne was its editor. It is an excellent newspaper, but it simply could not continue to hold its place with its competition because of its cost of production. If we give any foothold to English newspapers we will find further examples of that happening to other Irish newspapers, such as The Cork Examiner or The Irish Times.
Consequently, I would first urge the Minister to ensure that we retain Irish ownership of Irish newspapers; second, that we would bring about a fair playing pitch through the reduction of VAT and the acceptance that there is predatory pricing on our market by British newspapers because of their economies of scale and cost of production; and, third, and possibly most importantly — in this respect I would agree with Senator Manning — that we need a policy for the media operating across the spectrum involving the newspapers and RTÉ.
Suggestions have been made about putting newspapers on a fairer competitive level with RTÉ. It is past time that this was done and that part of RTÉ was privatised. The suggestion was made that Network 2 should be privatised. It is long past time that we break up the RTÉ monopoly. It is answerable to nobody and does what it wants in terms of the massive amount of money going to it from the licence fee and the serious competitive advantage it has in regard to advertising. If a forum could be put together — I agree with the point that we do not want a commission that may sit for up to 12 months — comprising of the Irish media industry, the politicians and the public servants to look at the immediate requirements of that industry, we could come up with interesting solutions that will continue to give us the high quality of journalism that we have in this country and also ensure that we get a balanced view, which in fairness we do get at the moment, from our newspapers.
I welcome the Minister to the House. I also welcome this debate, which is particularly topical and timely in light of the fact that it is very much a live issue at the moment and that the Minister has indicated that he will have to make a decision in the near future on the specific aspects related in this interim report. It is good that the Seanad is very much part of this debate. I hope that we will be of some assistance to the Minister in his deliberations, although I am not sure that we have any conclusive solutions to offer.
I have been interested in the contributions of other Senators, particularly the concept introduced by Senator Manning, in that there is a need for a public debate and stand on the newspaper industry. It also ties in with the public debate in broadcasting — I note that the Minister has his copy of the Green Paper on Broadcasting with him. All of these issues are interconnected.
The barrage of information that comes at people is part of the problem. It is indicated by the fact that fewer people are buying newspapers, because they can get information from many other sources. When I was growing up there was only one television channel and a number of radio programmes. We did not have anything like the amount of information available now. We did not have computer networks to sift, cipher and pick out what amount, level or type of information our brains could hold or wanted to receive. It is a whole new world out there. The fact that the newspaper industry is in this kind of trouble is an indication of the dramatic changes in the area of information in recent years. It is almost inevitable that there is a crisis in the newspaper industry. Indeed, such crises have already broken out, as has been referred to, in the newspaper industries in America and Britain.
I would not like to see us going the way of America and Britain in this regard. The American experience is particularly alarming, because a much smaller number of people are influencing public debate there. Deregulation has brought all sorts of problems with it. I was listening to a media programme on RTÉ a few weeks ago which specifically related to broadcasting, but apparently there is a growing number of small radio stations in the south of the United States which can advocate all sorts of things, like the use of firearms and so on, which is a totally alarming situation. We are trying to find some sort of balance between people's freedom to express themselves and public responsibility. The libel laws and the laws that allow people to protect their good name also come into this, as does the legislation that is referred to in this document.
The Green Paper on Broadcasting deals with the broad debate. It raises the question of "What is the optimum balance of power we should strive for in the multiple relationships between technologies, regulators, providers and users?", which is the basic question for the newspaper industry as well as that of broadcasting.
The paper goes on to say—
In the tradition of western European democratic theory and practice, modes of public communication are situated at the heart of the democratic process. The public interest is to broaden and deepen democracy by providing each citizen with opportunities for equal and affordable access to mediated public debate and to the fully diverse sources of information needed for participation in social life. Policy should, therefore, be built on an assessment of the needs of citizens in an emerging information society such as Ireland is today, and be focused on providing the appropriate mix of technologies and organisational resources available in a mixed economy which will meet those needs. What policies promote citizenship rather than passive consumerism?
That is the broad question that we are trying to address.
The power of the press is enormous — Senator O'Toole touched on it in his contribution. Any régime trying to control people and how they think will inevitably first take over the press. Senator O'Toole also made the point that newspapers have been used throughout history to promote particular ideas and to be subversive. In some cases they have had direct roles in, for example, getting rid of colonial powers and in bringing about huge changes in society and its structures. While they do have a huge influence, they also have a responsibility that goes with that. What is the Government's role in all of this? That is the question that the Minister will have to answer.
The question in the interim report is very specific. It relates to the role of British newspapers in Ireland and to the Independent newspapers question, which is clearly the focus of most of the debate tonight. It draws the conclusion that the activities of the Independent Newspapers Group are in contravention of this legislation. The report states that Independent Newspapers is clearly capable of inflicting considerable harm on most of its rivals and could force them out of the market altogether. That fear must be addressed.
The various options that Senator Manning referred to are interesting. There is a real fear that the Irish Press could go out of business if something is not done to save it; if the recommendations of this report are immediately put into practice there is a danger that the Irish Press could go out of business. I am very concerned at Independent Newspapers getting any more control of the market than they have already. It is clear in this report that the Independent Newspapers Group is very strong in the market. It has a wide range, wide diversity; it has worldwide interests. It also has what they call upstream and downstream interests in both printing and distribution and therefore it is considered to have a dominant position. I am very concerned at that dominant position being increased by Independent Newspapers taking control of the Irish Press.
I strongly favour the third option suggested by Senator Manning, that of the various interests in the Irish media somehow coming together to rescue the Irish Press so that none would have a dominant position, allowing a balance of interests from various aspects of the media. I do not know how practical this option is, but if it was possible, it would be the best option. The main problem is in the area of cost. I am not sure what can be done about that. We have a very small market here and if we want diversity, that market will be divided among a number of interests and viewpoints. I would like to see the situation remaining very much as it is, where there is a balance and a number of newspapers to choose from. I would not like that choice to be limited by one company having too much control over editorial policy.
We all have our differences with editorial policy in various newspapers — I have my differences with the editorial policy of the Independent Group, that is obvious, as a member of my political party — but I do not want to muzzle them or to exercise censorship. However, the public has a right to know where a newspaper is coming from. I would welcome an independent study of the various utterances of the Sunday Independent in particular over the last few years to see whether political bias is evident. The public has the right to know what the political viewpoint of a newspaper is, and the Independent is clearly not in favour of the Labour Party. I can say that for sure.
They are equally awful to everybody.
I do not know, I think the Independent is worse to the Labour Party than it is to anybody else. Newspapers have a right to say what they want as long as it is within the law and as long as it is presenting fact as opposed to fiction. However, I do not think the Independent had the right to do what they did in sending that letter that was supposed to be from an unmarried mother to a number of people. At the same time, if there is not an even distribution of opinion, there is a dominant position in the market and that is not good.
Senator O'Toole said that we have a fine tradition of Irish journalism, a fine tradition of individual columnists putting forward strongly expressed but well reasoned viewpoints, balanced by other, equally strongly expressed points of view. We would lose that fine tradition at our peril and I hope we can maintain it. I am concerned to maintain jobs; everybody is concerned to maintain jobs. It is very difficult and I know it is also the primary concern of the NUJ. I do not know what we can do to fight against technology, but on his record, maintenance of jobs will be the primary concern of the Minister for Enterprise and Employment as well.
I wish to speak about provincial newspapers. They have not yet been mentioned during this debate because they are outside the scope of this report to some extent. We also have a fine record of provincial journalism. I must express my interest in this, as Senator Mooney expressed his. My father was a provincial journalist most of his working life, so I was reared on newspapers. Like other Members, I am a passionate reader of newspapers. Unfortunately, the majority of the Irish public are not. Perhaps that is the problem. Provincial newspapers are also concerned with the whole problem of costs and with the competition they encounter from local radio stations, a recent problem for them. I know that they are also lobbying in this debate. I would not like to see provincial newspapers in trouble because of the competition from local radio. That is an ongoing debate; maybe it is for a different forum but the level playing field is important in this area also.
This debate is broader than the specific context of the interim report. It will be broader again when the full report comes out, because the brief of that body is much broader than the specific issues of the competition from British newspapers and the Independent Newspapers issue. This broader debate, which is just beginning, is necessary and must go in tandem with the debate on broadcasting. I share the view of Senator Fahey and Senator Manning that there should be Irish control of Irish newspapers and the Irish media. I would hate to see the Murdochs of this world having any more control than they already have. The sale of British tabloids more than any other newspapers seems to be on the increase here. To that extent they have some control over the Irish mind.
I would like to see the thrust of this report implemented. I would not like to see Independent Newspapers gaining any more control within the Irish media than they have already, but I also realise the immediate problem for the Irish Press and I do not want to see it going under. As I said earlier, if it were possible I would favour the suggested third option that a consortium representing a much broader range of interests than Independent Newspapers, although it could include Independent Newspapers, would take the Irish Press Group out of its present problems. The debate should continue to go on and whatever we as legislators and the Minister responsible can do to support a strong and vibrant Irish newspaper industry should be done.
I have a few disconnected random thoughts on this very important subject. We can be proud of the media in Ireland, in particular of the print media. I will refer a little later on to what the Minister has said in his speech. He drew some interesting comparisons with the American newspaper industry. I feel there is a baleful warning there. I go quite often to America and the Minister is quite right. There has been a tendency to concentrate ownership in very large cities, running to millions of inhabitants, in the hands of one newspaper proprietor with one title being published. They are very often of extremely poor quality, with very little really incisive political analysis or any form of cultural journalism. Many of these newspapers are basically pap and I would not want to see the Irish newspapers degenerating to this level. I do not believe they will. All the titles mentioned are honourable titles. I am a news addict. I read five newspapers a day, all of them Irish. I read four newspapers on a Sunday, all of them Irish. I used to read the English newspapers until the appalling Rupert Murdoch got his grubby little hands on the throat of the English newspaper industry. Although I am not xenophobic, I am inclined to recall the remarks of Arthur Cleary around 1912, when he said that a nation which takes a British newspaper for its Sunday breakfast may one day find a change in its Friday menu. He had a type of Catholic siege mentality.
I am appalled by the number of Irish people who buy rubbishy, dangerous, badly written, evil newspapers like The Sun. It is an immoral newspaper and represents, as the great playwright Denis Potter said, a corruption of our political discourse. That is why newspapers are so important. I was at a dinner last night in Trinity College and we spoke about things we had studied 30 years ago, including Milton's Aereopagitica, about the freedom of the press. It is intensely important for political and intellectual discourse that we have good organs of information in the State.
I am horrified that people would buy newspapers like The Sun which specialise in libel. A Member referred to libel laws. It selects its targets and lies about them, as it did in the case of Elton John, for example. I am glad he took The Sun for £2 million, but it did not worry the proprietors of that newspaper because the resulting sensational coverage of the case helped its circulation to spiral upwards again. Lying can actually be profitable for unscrupulous newspaper proprietors.
I disdain Rupert Murdoch. I remember Denis Potter, who towards the end of his life, glared into the camera and said that he could not understand how people could work for The Sun and go home to their families in the evening without a deep burning sense of shame in their gut. I echo that. It is a narrow newspaper with an anti-Irish bias, which is demonstrated time and time again. Every group which is perceived as weak or a minority is a target for The Sun. I would not welcome the introduction of a Murdoch style operation in this country.
I have never met Dr. A.J.F. O'Reilly, although I heard him once or twice on the radio. I imagine his jokes are quite good the first time one hears them, although I understand he tends to repeat them at rugby dinners. Not having met the man, I have a great admiration for him. If it came to a choice between Rupert Murdoch and Dr. A.J. F. O'Reilly, I know who I would chose. I believe Dr. O'Reilly is an Irish hero. He was a sporting star and has done fine academic research; and I understand his doctorate, unlike some of the other barons of Irish industry, was actually won and achieved. He has been a spectacular success in business in the United States without any whiff of scandal, corruption or mean dealing attached to him. I have no objection to him personally, but I believe we should be careful about the concentration of power in the hands of anyone, including somebody who I accept is a decent person.
As regards the penetration of the British tabloids, we cannot control people's desire to buy what they want because we are dealing with a market economy. I have spoken to friends and colleagues in the gymnasium where I go to do a few exercises——
Is this before or after dinner in Trinity?
——who buy the tabloids, as do a lot of people, for the sports results which are clearly displayed and they ignore a lot of the comment. That is one area in which some of the Irish newspapers may not have done their marketing research.
A lot has been said about the Independent Newspapers Group. I believe that is a stable with a number of different inhabitants. The daily Irish Independent is a good newspaper, but I do not care for the Sunday Independent, although I read it. It is a mixed bag, like the curate's egg — good in spots. What worries me about the Sunday Independent is the uniformity of opinion which it sometimes displays. Some weeks ago there was a nasty episode when it decided to take on another heroic figure in Irish public life, the President, Mary Robinson. She is not immune to criticism, and nobody would suggest that. But when a newspaper decides on a head on attack and every single columnist from the sporting column to the social column — even the bloody weather forecast — seems to take a smack at Mary Robinson, it is unbalanced and the people do not like it.
I do not care for the tone of the Sunday Independent. It has, however, researched its market and it knows exactly what sells and it gives it to the people in spade loads. If we have quarrel I do not believe it should be entirely with the Sunday Independent, which is clearly a commercial exercise. We should ask why Irish people have a taste for secondhand and second rate gossip about minor figures in Irish royalty, a lot of which is inaccurate, and scurrilous and prurient material about alcoholic ex-journalists and all the rest of it. It seems to me to be dull and boring, but there is an appetite for it.
As regard the Irish Press, I am sorry for the catastrophic decline which is clearly illustrated in the tables in this report. Sales of the Evening Press have fallen by 65 per cent in the past couple of decades — a catastrophic decline, which I regret. I did not always share the political slant of the Irish Press when it had one, because it was clearly committed to a Fianna Fáil Party line. However, having that party line clearly enunciated by a fine newspaper was a good thing. I have had good friendships with many journalists in the Irish Press Group. I would regret if anything happened to that newspaper.
The Minister said that most US cities have only one newspaper publisher, that in more than 170 American cities a single publisher produces both the morning and evening paper and that in other cities a single evening paper is published. He said that fewer than 30 cities have competing papers with different ownership and that most daily papers have a monopoly in their cities and surrounding metropolitan areas. So much for competition, which is one of the ideas invoked in this. There is no competition when one gets into a monopoly situation like that. We can find Murdoch's hand in a lot of that in America. He is an extraordinarily dangerous man.
In an article in The Irish Times, Fintan O'Toole looked at the way the media can actually create reality. He gave the example of Dan Quayle and a television soap opera where he complained about a single mother having a baby. The next episode showed that character watching Dan Quayle who then presented a teddy bear to the fictional child. That is a simple example. In the Sunday Independent it was purported that an interview had taken place with Bishop Casey. That is a dangerous manipulation of fact and reality which in other circumstances could be very damaging.
The Minister asked if that type of US development was desirable or inevitable in a small nation state. The answer is no. He asked if Irish newspapers were competitive enough and what did they need to do to become more so. Obviously, they are not competitive enough, although I was interested to see that both ends of the spectrum have managed to maintain their share of the market, that is, The Star, which is at the lower end of the market, and The Irish Times, which is a quality newspaper and has made a remarkable comeback. We should ask why? What are the management procedures and the structures in The Irish Times? What is the editorial policy? Why is it that a newspaper which is so expensive — I remember when it cost 3p, now it costs 85p——
Three old pennies.
That was when the penny was worth something. How can this quality newspaper sustain its market level despite the fact that it is intellectually challenging, well written, by and large, finely produced and expensive? Perhaps we could learn from our enemies, that is, the appalling Rupert Murdoch. I recall it was Rupert Murdoch who developed a vast printing works at Wapping and completely revolutionised newspaper technology. Perhaps there is a possibility for co-operation among Irish newspapers where they could share technology, a print run, machinery and distribution. I do not know if that breaches competition, but the sharing of technology, plant, equipment and knowledge might be one way to assist Irish newspapers because there is competition from English newspapers.
The report says this does not represent predatory competition. The difference caused by the high rate of VAT charged to Irish newspapers as against a nil rate of VAT in Great Britain should be looked at.
The report states:
Since 1975 Irish newspaper prices have increased at a much faster rate than the general rate of inflation and at a faster rate than that of UK newspapers. A remarkable similarity was found in the timing and amount of price increases for most Irish newspapers over a long period.
This is the type of coy language one gets in these reports, but it seems they are close to suggesting that there is something approaching a cartel already operating in the Irish newspaper business. I am sorry to have used up my time, but I got carried away with the fascination of the Irish press.
I would like to share my time with Senator Cosgrave.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I wish the Minister well as he faces difficult problems in the newspaper industry and the media. However, these are not home-grown; they extend beyond our borders to Great Britain. The Minister has seen the figures which have been circulated. The Sunday Independent is the largest seller in this country and between July to December 1994 258,291 copies were sold; the News of the World sold 205,000 papers in the Republic and 124,000 in Northern Ireland, a total of 329,000 copies; the Sunday Press is the next biggest seller with 154,000 copies; the Irish Independent sells 145,450 copies, while The Sun sells 78,000 copies in the Republic and 104,000 in Northern Ireland, a total of 182,000 copies.
We need to be careful about where we are going. Mr. Rupert Murdoch owns a group of newspapers, including The Times, The Sun and the News of the World and the Sky television channels. People must make decisions about whether we should limit further growth in the Independent Newspapers Group which has increased its profits. The Sunday Independent and the Evening Herald are now ahead of the Sunday Press and the Evening Press as regards sales. We should be careful about holding up the growth of the Independent Newspapers Group which has invested a lot of its profits in newspapers in Britain and throughout the world. It is of benefit to Ireland to be able to spearhead development and it is good to have a strong growth rate at home for further development overseas.
Some articles in the Independent newspapers are distasteful. Journalists have the right of free speech, provided they do not breach libel laws or use bad language. I congratulate the newspapers in this country because they have successfully highlighted many difficult issues. The Irish Press, the Irish Independent, The Sunday Tribune and The Sunday Business Post have, on different occasions, shown courage by exposing many stories which required research. State institutions have been well served by these publications.
I am disappointed at the State television broadcasting system's lack of research and coverage of current affairs. Many people, including myself, were proud of the investigative journalism "Today Tonight" did in the past. I do not know if it is editorial policy not to break stories, but I regret — I am not pointing the finger at anyone — that other television stations have been able to do so. We need a more independent broadcasting system.
We can be proud of The Irish Times because it has published difficult stories at various times as have The Sunday Tribune and the Sunday Independent. We need to be careful about restricting the growth of some of our newspapers and I know the Minister will give careful consideration to this matter.
I am almost in injury time, but, perhaps. Senator Dardis will allow me a few minutes to speak because this is a useful debate.
This is a difficult decision for the Minister; if he takes one course of action he could create a number of jobs but if he takes another many jobs could be lost. There is no simple solution to this problem. This country has been well served by the media, although we may not always agree with what they write.
This issue must be looked at in relation to costs and as Senator O'Toole mentioned, employing people at slave rates. Banks and supermarkets employ temporary trainees but I hope the newspapers will not do so. We must consider the technology aspect of this issue. It was interesting to hear the figures given by the previous speaker for the sales of certain newspapers. Some of the papers imported and sold here are produced at a far lower cost than newspapers printed here. We must consider whether there can be a combining of technology so that the lot of the consumer can be improved. I would like to see the Irish Press Group survive. Its daily paper may have outlived its usefulness in relation to modern needs but the Sunday Press and the Evening Press certainly still have a role to play. There may be also be a role for the group in targeting possible provincial areas, like The Sunday Tribune did in different areas of Dublin.
Many aspects of this issue must be considered and the Minister is faced with a difficult choice. We support the action taken by the Minister so far on consultation. It is not a case of slamming any individual. Dr. O'Reilly has done a great deal of good work. We do not always agree with what is in his papers but he had a role to play. The Irish Times has played a pivotal and central role and has rebounded from difficulties over the last ten years. There are many positive aspects at which we can look. There is an immediate issue to be faced by the Minister but there is also a wider and broader question in relation to the media, including possibly RTE, and advertising.
I thank Senator Dardis as I have probably taken a minute or two of his time. The debate has been useful and I hope we can discuss this issue again.
The Minister is coming to the House at 8.10 p.m. Senator Henry wishes to speak for one minute and I am sure Senator Dardis will facilitate her.
Certainly. I was beginning to get concerned that all the talk about diversity of views in newspapers was not being reflected in the Seanad.
The Senators over there get a good run.
I am relieved to hear this and would be very happy to share my time with Senator Henry. We are confronted with some very complex issues. I am pleased the Minister adopted the approach of asking questions. It is a reasonable criticism of our record in the Oireachtas over several years that we have not given careful and close examination to the issues which confront us. It is possibly one of the good things coming out of the present crisis in the newspaper industry that we will have to address in a coherent form what national policy should be and what the relationship of the State to the press should be.
The question of a free press is central to democracy. It is one of the pillars on which democracy rests. It was people working in underground caverns in places like the former East Germany and Poland who maintained the survival of democracy and probably helped to contribute to the eventual downfall of the regimes there. It is characteristic of all regimes which wish to impose their views unilaterally on society that the first place they do it is through the press. Thus, the question of diversity is extremely important and one which I, as a member of a liberal party, espouse as a central plank of policy.
I do not want to delay the House by discussing some of the principles and the philosophy of this matter; I would if I had more time. The Minister made a statement which is fundamental and worth repeating. He said that "consumers vote with their cash and choose which newspaper they wish to purchase". This is a central truth. For over 20 years I worked for a newspaper, albeit a technical one. I am aware that on a very regular basis the newspaper surveyed its readers and, on the basis of their responses about what they required of the paper, it adapted its editorial policy. It tended to write about things which were popular with readers and not about things which were unpopular.
This is a reality of life. Any newspaper which defies that economic reality will find itself in trouble, and I suspect that is one of the reasons the Irish Press is in trouble. Perhaps to a degree it defied, or attempted to defy, some of those realities. If those realities are defied, the point is reached where the State must support the industry if it is to continue to provide the diversity of view which is central to a liberal and democratic society.
It is regrettable that newspapers are increasingly dominated by accountants and that people like Mr. Smyllie and other great editors do not seem to be evident anymore. It is faceless men with calculators who seem to set the agenda. I believe the Competition Authority's report is right about the Irish Press and that undue dominance is not desirable. I take Senator Manning's point about how the Irish Press can continue while taking on board the issue of dominance.
There are models at which we can look. The Farmers' Journal was a model. Many years ago, when there was an attempt by British barons to take it over, it became a trust. Some people made an immense contribution to the country by foregoing huge financial gain to ensure the paper stayed in Irish hands and represented an Irish ethos. There are models and we should not deceive ourselves into thinking there are no alternatives.
We have a tiny market and there is predatory pricing but the Minister is aware of the significance of the Single Market. If it were apparent there was dumping of British newspapers as a result of below cost selling, would that be grounds for intervening at European level or elsewhere to control the market? The pace of technology is such that perhaps some of the things we are discussing will be irrelevant.
I want to reinforce the point made by Senator O'Sullivan about the central importance of the provincial press, its contribution to small societies, the essential need to ensure it is allowed to flourish and continue and that nothing is done, through the broadcasting media or otherwise, to prevent it from flourishing and competing on an equal footing with other media.
I thank Senator Dardis for sharing his time with me. When I first became a Member of the House I asked Senator Norris's advice on what I was supposed to do and say here. He said my main function was to say "hear! hear!" after everything he said. The main part of my contribution is to say "hear! hear!" to what he said during this debate because it was most apt.
I applaud what Senator Dardis and Senator O'Sullivan said, particularly about the provincial press. A great deal has been said about the O'Reilly group. I know Dr. O'Reilly. He is a most intelligent and affable man and has done a great deal for this country but I am not always totally enamoured of what his papers do. Around Christmas the Sunday Independent stereotyped the single mother by sending out begging letters to people all over the country. As President of Cherish I found this regrettable but these sort of lapses happen everywhere.
With regard to Mr. Murdoch's bids for papers here, we would be well advised to remember what Private Eye had on its front page when he bought The Times. I will use medical terminology because I do not know if the terminology of Private Eye is suitable for this House. It said that a breast and buttocks person snapped up The Times. It would be well for us to remember this. It is enough to have papers under his control selling heavily here without the enormous influence he could have on our press. I would very much regret if the monopoly he has created in America happened here and I hope the Minister will take all we have said on this into account when he is making a decision.
I will certainly take what has been said into account in reaching a decision. However, I am not sure that everything which has been said can be formulated into a simple line of advice because there seems to be many different strands. I suppose people are looking for micro-surgery to be conducted with pretty unsophisticated instruments that might be available under the competition legislation. That does pose dilemmas because in the course of the debate issues like Irish ownership were raised. Of course, Irish competition law does not recognise the difference between Irish and non-Irish ownership. It is not part of its brief.
Senator Dardis raised the issue of dumping; competition law does not regard marginal cost pricing or below cost selling as generally anti-competitive. As in the British case with which the authority dealt, you would have to prove dominance in the first instance, as well as having to prove predation — that the intention is designed to kill off a competitor — which is an extremely difficult concept to deal with.
We have a competition law whose framework sets limitations on what I can do as Minister. There seems to be a general consensus, arising from the debate, in favour of a need to step back from the industry and look at a broader range of issues including VAT. Irish ownership and editorial diversity. The latter is a different issue from concentration in the marketplace; they are different concepts.
Senator Manning raised the interesting idea of the trust as a concept, but the key question that must be asked is whether any trust can be made to conform to Irish competition law. People must be aware that Irish competition law sets out that agreements between undertakings which have as their object or effect the prevention of competition are illegal. It then sets tight grounds under which a licence could be granted to such an agreement. These have to be connected with improving the production or distribution of goods, the provision of services or the promotion of technical or economic progress while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit.
As well as reflecting the general view of what is good for producing quality newspapers, this debate also has to be informed by what is existing law. There is clearly a difficult balancing act in dealing with these issues.
Part of the debate suggested a more depressed tone than is necessary concerning the state of the Irish newspaper industry. We are a country of very high readership; 5.5 million titles are purchased every week, which is more than six per household. Although the British titles have a significant share in the tabloid market, they have not penetrated the quality dailies. Some 93 per cent of quality dailies purchased are Irish, and 84 per cent of quality Sundays purchased are Irish. The competition has hit the tabloid area and while there is some reassurance in that on the one hand, on the other, it contains the seeds of difficulties for the future.
I do not propose to draw conclusions from the debate which I found very useful. While it has pointed up some of the dilemmas rather than resolving them, some useful ideas have been put forward which I will take into account as I consider the future decision in relation to the Competition Authority's report.
I thank the Minister for his contribution. The debate reminded me of an old programme on the BBC in which it was said that so and so looked into the sound archives and came to no very general conclusions. I am afraid that the debate did not give the Minister any very general conclusions but it has pointed up the complexity of the issues. We wish the Minister well in coming to a conclusion that, at least, will be in the best interests of the largest number of people in the industry.
