Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Feb 1996

Vol. 146 No. 10

Televising of Sporting Events: Motion.

Mr. Mooney

I move:

That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government as a matter of urgency to formulate a policy to counteract the growing trends where satellite television channels demand exclusive rights for sporting events, some of which are staged in Ireland, which in view of the development of paid TV could lead to individual payment being demanded for events such as the All Ireland Finals or Soccer Internationals.

There is a sense of déjà vu about the Minister being in the House. He has been here twice in succeeding weeks to discuss matters of mutual interest and I again welcome him. This motion is timely and, like all on this side of the House, I will be interested in the Minister's response.

It is an indication of the rapid advance of television technology that five years ago this issue would not have been discussed. The British Broadcasting Act, 1990, makes no mention of subscriber television, although it includes a section protecting sporting or other events of national interest from what is known as pay per view television, which was at the time perceived as a threat to terrestrial or land based TV.

The merging of Sky television and British satellite broadcasting in the mid-1990s accelerated the advance of satellite TV. Today Mr. Rupert Murdoch's BSkyB satellite station is on the threshold of achieving a near monopoly of major sporting events in western Europe, especially on these islands. This development poses a serious challenge to Irish broadcasting.

A new system of television delivery is less than two years away with the advent of digital TV. A report in The Observer of 19 November 1995 stated:

At the touch of a button you will soon be able to control how you see live sporting events. Imagine being able to follow your favourite golfer around a course, to watch any football game being played that day, or even to view a grand prix from inside one of the leading cars. . . all during live broadcasts. This is all going to be possible thanks to digital television.

Live sport on television as we know it today will become as outdated as the old gramophone records. Sky television has signed digital satellite contracts for enough capacity to broadcast more than 100 channels. Some 500 channels will become available after satellites earmarked for digital transmission are launched this summer.

Currently most sporting events purchased by Sky television are subscriber based but this new technology will allow the system known as pay per view to be established on these islands. This arrangements is where viewers pay to watch a specific event as opposed to subscribing to the entire channel's output, as is currently the case with the Sky Sports package. Pay per view TV is already a proven success in the United States which pioneered the concept. It dominates world championship boxing matches and generates massive profits for companies such as Home Box Office. This is mainly due to the high access cost which in America is on average about £15 per sporting event. However, with the arrival of digital television and the resultant large number of channels available, viewers in this country are likely to pay as little as £1 to £1.50 to watch a football match. The problem which will face RTE, and TV3 when it comes on air, is how they will be able to compete in the market with the massive resources available to Sky television.

We have been well served by RTE television in its coverage of major sporting events. However, due to its dominant position, RTE, like its sister stations in Britain — BBC and ITV — has been getting sporting events cheaply. It was this consideration that motivated the English football Premier League and the cricket authorities to negotiate substantial financial contracts with Sky television. The deal cost Sky £250 million at 1992 prices and will be renegotiated in 1997. Rumour has it that Rupert Murdoch will have more than £600 million available for football rights in 1997. As a source in BSkyB put it, "It is an open chequebook".

A recent example was the decision last year by Sky TV to compete with the European Broadcasting Union, of which RTE is a member, for the rights to transmit the Olympic games in Atlanta this summer. As a result of Sky's arrival at the bargaining table the EBU significantly increased its original financial offer, although the final decision to award the final contract to the EBU was taken as a matter of policy rather than on financial considerations. The Olympic movement believed the greatest possible number of people should have TV access to the greatest sporting event in the world, and I am sure we concur with that view.

We propose that the Government introduces legislation to protect a specific number of sporting or other events of national interest from satellite TV, that is, subscriber or pay-per-view channels. These events would include all the GAA national finals, rugby and athletic finals and other national sporting events or events of national interest which the Minister of the day would deem suitable for inclusion on a scheme of listed events.

I am under no illusion about the difficulties the Minister will face in framing legislation preventing sporting organisations in this country from entering into lucrative financial deals with satellite television. It has been argued plausibly that the massive sums of money made available to British football and cricket has resulted in an impressive improvement in sporting structures. It has been argued also that more money is available for the development of sport than heretofore.

Successive Governments have hardly fallen over themselves to provide the necessary resources for the development of sport. It has rarely been on the list of priorities when allocating budgets. The pilfering — I use the term advisedly — of the national lottery funds originally earmarked for sport and diverted to other things has not gone down well with sporting bodies. One can hardly blame our sporting organisations if they find the prospect of massive injections of funds in return for TV rights an attractive option. It is a powerful argument and one which, as a lover of sport, I find persuasive.

However, we must address the question of whether we are prepared to deny the majority access to major sporting events and other events of national interest. Despite the huge financial advantages that will accrue to the relevant sporting organisations, it would be detrimental to the long-term development of sport. I have no wish to deny major sporting organisations, such as the GAA, the freedom to negotiate TV rights, which will form a significant proportion of their annual income in years to come, irrespective of what TV station negotiates those rights. My colleague, Senator Wall, will concur that within the GAA there is a growing body of opinion which would be attracted to a significant financial inducement from a TV company. Whether that body of opinion would be in the majority or the minority is a question for another day.

I am concerned about permitting the continuance of an environment in which terrestrial Irish based TV channels, such as RTE and TV3, will not have the resources to compete with the huge sums available to satellite television. The removal of major sporting events from our local station will reduce viewing audiences and, given that sport has always held and will continue to hold the anchor role in devising TV schedules, this would have serious implications for the viability of stations, particularly RTE, which will rely increasingly on the Government to give it the necessary financial resources to compete effectively. If the viewers are denied access to major sporting events on the national public broadcasting service they will seek their television viewing elsewhere. The resulting drop in audiences and advertising revenue will put an intolerable burden on the Exchequer to bail out RTE.

These are the challenges posed. I do not have a monopoly of wisdom in this matter. Now is the time to address the problems, rather than wait for developments to come on stream more rapidly than might be envisaged, in order to protect the vast majority who have no wish to buy a satellite dish or pay extra money to subscription TV channels and who certainly have no wish to pay each time they wish to watch a sporting event. The Minister should address their concerns and, considering his track record, I have every confidence he will have the wisdom of Solomon and produce a solution acceptable to all.

Mr. Farrell

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire agus ba mhaith liom freisin cuidiú leis an rún. Senator Mooney has outlined clearly the problems that television technology will present. It will be a sad day if people who are not in a position to travel to a GAA All Ireland final or some other sporting event, cannot watch it on local television. If we do not take action RTE will become redundant, because there will be little need for it if we allow monopolies such as Sky TV to take over our sports programming. Sports programmes are central to schedules and if we do not have the coverage we may as well not have a local television station.

I am sure other European countries will agree with Ireland that there is a need to preserve their national identities and national sports and show them on their local television stations. If Sky can buy out the GAA or Irish soccer, RTE will not be able to compete in the market. A law must be introduced whereby RTE will have a right to show sports, as it has done since it came on air and as radio did beforehand. When Micheál O'Hehir came on the radio it was the first time the excitement of GAA and the All Ireland finals was brought to many rural parishes. Only a very few could afford to go to Dublin for the games. It would be a great pity if generations to come were to be denied that excitement.

The issue is a minefield and it may well take the wisdom of Solomon to cross it. The satellite companies have to have a base in the country and we may thus have a way of controlling them and ensuring RTE can continue to give good coverage of sport. If we are to have a pay as you view system, people will not pay the television licence. Why should they if they cannot see the sports or other programmes they have always watched? I ask the Minister to look at this situation and to ensure that RTE will be able to compete with other stations. We do not want one organisation to have a monopoly in this area.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 1:

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

"while recognising the prerogative of the owners of broadcasting rights in major sporting events to negotiate with whomsoever they wish, notes with concern the growing international trend whereby exclusive rights to national and international sporting events of major public interest are being successfully negotiated by the operators of subscription and pay per view broadcasting services, notes that similar concerns are being voiced by other member states of the European Union, recognises that any solution to this problem can only be achieved in an international context, urges that all possible steps be taken to seek to ensure that such events, particularly the All Ireland Finals, Soccer and Rugby internationals, continue to be available here to the widest possible audience at no extra cost."

This debate is timely and useful. There is a growing trend among television companies, particularly the Sky television network, to buy the rights to screen big events. It is difficult to compete with that. Some sporting organisations have seen the benefits of this. The Minister must examine what can be done in this regard. It would be a tragedy if events such as the All-Ireland finals, soccer or rugby internationals or the Grand National were not available to people. There is no doubt that money talks.

Senator Mooney said we should introduce legislation. However, I do not know if that would work in these days of free trade. We should appeal to organisations not to allow these television companies to buy the rights to screen their events because that will prevent many people from watching them. Many publicans now have Sky Sports. A soccer match was due to be shown on RTE this evening, but that has now been cancelled due to interference from another company.

It has been suggested that £200 million has been offered to screen the Five Nations rugby championship. If Sky buys those rights, I do not know what will happen to Fred Cogley or Jim Sherwin. If Sky does the same in the racing world, what will happen to the likes of Tony O'Hehir? Introducing legislation will not solve this problem. RTE will not be at the races in terms of bidding for some of these events. People are concerned that television stations will have exclusive rights to big matches. I would not like to see Sky screening the All-Ireland finals or other big contests here.

Some organisations may sell the rights to big events if they get more money than RTE could afford. They should, therefore, use that money to help develop and improve the game. It is sad to see people togging out along the side of the road and having to go home after a match without taking a shower. I ask the Minister to respond as positively as he can, although I appreciate the difficulties involved. Senator Mooney did not provide any solutions to this problem. The amendment notes our concerns in this regard.

We do not want a situation where people will not be able to see some of our best events. Some people subscribe to Sky Sports, but many cannot afford to do so. I do not know how many people in this House have subscribed to it. I commend RTE for its good sports coverage. It has some of the best commentators, covering a wide range of sports.

We need a general debate to outline the problems. Few people do not watch World Cup matches or soccer or rugby internationals. There is nothing to stop a sporting organisation from being approached or approaching a television network to sell the rights to an event. If the money is right we could be on sticky wickets. We must ensure that our big events are screened on national television.

Professor Lee

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. I will be brief because I am not an authority on this matter. I welcome this timely motion. The sooner we begin to think seriously about the implications of this matter, the better.

I am not clear why an amendment was tabled, because I thought a discussion was what was needed at this stage rather than a confrontation or adversariality. I inquire about the meaning of one phrase in the amendment. What does the phrase "continue to be available here to the widest possible audience at no extra cost" mean? Extra cost to whom — the viewer, RTE or the Government? Can anybody enlighten me?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister will make his contribution and I am sure he will reply to the Senator's query then.

Professor Lee

It would have been helpful to know what I was going to argue against. I congratulate the drafters of the amendment on the skill with which they concealed the meaning of the amendment at the end.

Although we are joking about it, it is quite a serious issue and it will become more serious because sport is becoming ever more central to our way of life — which is a natural result of growing affluence and will continue to be the case — for males and females. It could be argued that it is also increasingly central to our idea of who we are; many would argue that our other marks of distinctiveness are declining to some extent. Sport arouses the greatest sense of identity with something called "Ireland" in the minds and hearts of many people; whether it is GAA in Ireland or following the fortunes of the soccer team, in particular — it would be the rugby team if it had fortunes to follow — Olympic athletes and so on. Sport is very serious but, at the same time, we all want to enjoy it.

It is highly appropriate for this motion to be tabled at this stage. I accept entirely that it is a very serious and difficult issue to which there is no easy solution. However, I was disturbed by the hint of defeatism — although that may be an unfair term — when Senator Cosgrave asked what one could do in this age of free trade and wider access. No doubt, they limit the potential of what one could do but one should not throw up one's hands. On the contrary, if the pressures are in that direction, it behoves the Government to think all the more carefully about what its role can be. I do not envy the Minister or anybody else who will contribute to that thinking.

Senator Mooney said that one would need the wisdom of Solomon. However, one would be more likely to need the contents of King Solomon's mines to compete effectively in what is perhaps the best example of pure capitalism in the world, apart from some stock exchanges. Such capitalism leads, as does much raw capitalism, to something verging on monopoly. Although it may begin by introducing competition, the control which television organisations acquire over the sport subordinates the sport to the television spectacle. In due course, we find that, although money was injected initially — but one might wonder whether it is wisely used when one looks at the current state of English cricket — schedules, programmes, dates and the priorities of the games themselves are increasingly subordinated to the need of the television presenters. In that way, the issue is not just the television channels on which people watch a sporting event.

I take the points which were ably made by the proposers of the motion about the implications for sport and the knock-on effects for RTE. From every point of view, there are a series of issues lurking in this, some of which are technical, but also fundamental value issues about the type of country we want. It is one of the more important challenges confronting the way we think about organising matters in the coming decades. I have no solution to offer at this stage but I welcome its appearance on the agenda. The Minister is engaged in many important activities in terms of defining our future self image. In many respects, this is by no means among the least important of them. I hope the Minister finds the time to devote the attention to this issue which its intrinsic importance deserves.

Mr. Wall

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. As an active member of the GAA, the biggest sporting organisation in the country, it is an issue close to my heart. Sport is an essential indicator of the well being of our community. It contributes to the physical and psychological development of our children. It adds to the spirit of community life, both at a national and local level. We all remember the sense of pride we felt in the feats of the national soccer team over the last decade. Dubliners will also remember the sense of joy brought to that county when it finally ended its 12 year wait for an All-Ireland win last September. There is no need to explain to the House the joy of the people of Clare when they won their first all Ireland final in 81 years.

Sport contributes enormously to our cultural life. Fortunately, we in Ireland have experienced few of the drawbacks associated with sport in Britain. Hooliganism is a rare occurrence, for example. Rivalry tends, on the whole, to be keen but friendly although there are, of course, some exceptions. It is important to place the debate in this context. Sport is an integral part of our community life. In that context, I support the spirit of the motion which refers specifically to two sporting events — the All-Ireland finals and international soccer games — but it could go further. Golf, rugby, cycling and so on could also be added to it.

I wish there was a simple solution to the problem we are facing. However, it must be recognised that we have a series of competing rights — the right of the widest number of the public to view important sporting events and the right of the organisations involved to get the best possible revenue for their sporting organisations. Unfortunately, this is not a simple matter. Were it an issue of profit versus the common good it would be clearer, but it is not. Money received by sporting organisations is used to further develop those sports.

This is not a hypothetical issue as it is already happening. In Britain, for example, the increased revenue from pay as you view television has enabled football clubs to comply with the recommendations of the Taylor report. Given the horrific incident which occurred in the Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield some years ago, who could question that this money is both needed and well spent? No doubt, when framing this motion the Members opposite drew on the experience of Britain where an increasing number of sporting events are screened only on subscription channels. Unquestionably, viewers are being denied access to events they once watched, such as the cricket world cup and the Ryder Cup. About 16 million people watched the Ryder Cup in 1993 when it was last covered by terrestrial television channels; that figure declined to 2 million in 1995 when the event was available only on satellite television channels.

Our capacity to deal with this development is limited. First, many of the sports in question take place outside the Government's jurisdiction, thereby limiting our ability to do anything about it. Second, unlike in Britain where Parliament is absolute, we are faced with constitutional difficulties in imposing obligations on the property rights of organisations. Thus — and I would like clarification on this point — the option pursued by the British in their 1990 Act on broadcasting is not open to us. That is unfortunate because there is much to commend the British approach and there are unquestionable parallels between their and our experience.

The All-Ireland finals, for example, are arguably more than sporting events and are part and parcel of our heritage. In this regard, I do not envy the Minister his task. I know he is aware of the problem as he stated as much in this House during our recent debate on broadcasting. I look forward to hearing what he has to say this evening.

However, the obligation should rest not only with the Minister. Sporting organisations also have an obligation, which many British organisations recognise. The Royal and Ancient Golf Club, for example, runs the British Open Golf Championship which is widely recognised as the most important golf tournament in the world. It has taken the position that this event should receive the widest audience possible. The British Turf Club also recognised that its sport requires the widest possible audience in order to thrive, and there are similar examples on a wider scale. The International Olympics Committee recently decided to grant the broadcasting rights for the forthcoming Olympics to the European Broadcasting Union, despite a large monetary offer from Sky television. The International Olympic Committee justified its decision by referring to the aim in its original charter of promoting the Olympic Games.

The GAA's strength derives from its place in our community and the people who organise its activities on a day to day basis. It would be wrong and ultimately self-defeating if that organisation, for a cash consideration, did not consider the widest possible audience access to its showpiece events. Without this exposure the GAA's position as a dominant sporting organisation could be undermined.

There is merit in the argument that some competition in the buying up of sporting broadcasting rights is important. One argument in Britain is that the commercial value of some sporting events was never properly recognised by the BBC and that in effect the BBC and ITV operated a cartel to control the market for those products. In Ireland until recently, the only potential buyer of these sporting events was RTE. I am glad the situation is changing. With the advent of TV3 and UTV's developing interest in sport, it should be possible to introduce some competition into the buying of broadcasting rights.

As a GAA member I would like to see the organisation get the best price possible for the televising of its respected events. I see the worthwhile use this money is put to in the clubs. I wish more people could attend the All-Ireland finals, but despite the recent improvements the capacity of Croke Park is nowhere near sufficient to cater for all those who would like to attend the games and regrettably some are excluded. It would be worse still if we were unable to watch the matches on television.

Mr. Wright

I first became interested in the subject of this motion in 1990. I was intrigued that a Conservative Prime Minister, who had pursued a policy of privatisation of water, heat, transport, etc., was not willing to allow his national sporting heritage to be privatised. The issue affected our country last year, when the Ryder Cup was taken over by the satellite broadcaster, Sky. It was a great success for Europe, Ireland and my own area, because Mr. Philip Walton is a neighbour's child, so to speak. However, the next day people expressed great regret that they were unable to see this success. That brought home the meaning of this motion. In his reply to a Dáil Question No. 61 on 28 November last, the Minister said it would not be in the public interest for this phenomenon to continue and gave a commitment to legislation. However, the Minister has not followed through either on that commitment or the Green Paper.

I agree with Senator Lee that the amendment to tonight's motion sends all the wrong signals. It suggests the Minister is washing his hands of the problem in that it states: "any solution to this problem can only be achieved in an international context". He must follow the lead taken in the UK Broadcasting Act, 1990, which endeavoured by regulation to ringfence certain national events. Our motion has mentioned similar Irish events which he, as the custodian of those events and as the Minister responsible, should ensure are not exclusively taken over by a satellite or pay per view channel.

It was Mr. David Mellor MP, in his then capacity as Secretary of State for National Heritage, who introduced the regulations in 1990. At a recent House of Commons Select Committee meeting, he said those regulations had not gone far enough. That is a recognition by a former Conservative Minister. Lord Howell's words in the recent House of Lords debate on the new UK Broadcasting Bill should be dear to the Minister's heart:

To deny the millions of elderly who supported their sport in better days the opportunity to do so now, in old age or difficult circumstances, is not acceptable. It is anti-social.

Since this issue has gained public prominence, that is the view taken by punters who attend sporting events or watch them on television but who, for whatever reason, cannot afford Sky, or — more importantly in Ireland — those to whom it is unavailable. We have now seen the recent development whereby one pays not only a subscription to Sky Sports but an extra £9.95 to watch a particular fight. Fianna Fáil put this motion down in November last because we had formed the view that this was the coming trend. But little did we think it would happen so quickly, that within four months of putting down the motion, the Irish public would be faced with it.

Senator Cosgrave mentioned that RTE understood it had a contract with Sky to show an important FA Cup replay tonight but at the last minute the rug had been pulled — perhaps the Minister may find out the reason at a later stage. In the last week in England the BBC thought it had an understanding with Sky to show World Cup cricket, England's national sport, but now it cannot even show highlights of events. I accept the Minister does not believe that is how national sporting events should be handled. However, on the basis of his reply to the Parliamentary Question last November, the Government amendment to tonight's motion does not send the right signal to the public.

It is in the Minister's hands to ensure a legislative programme is brought forward. The amendment suggests there may be constitutional problems, as there may be in the UK. I admire much of what Sky has achieved for sport but not its exclusive rights to many national sporting events. The Minister does not want to be the person associated with handing over our national sporting heritage to the likes of Mr. Don King, but that is what will happen. As he says, this may well be an international problem; but we must start with a national policy and from there consider it at an EU level. However, this should not be left to the goodwill of our national sporting organisations. I have no doubt they will ensure fairness; but, ultimately, the best way to secure our sporting events is through introducing legislative proposals to deal with the problem. In his reply to the Dáil Question on satellite and pay per view broadcasting mentioned earlier, the Minister stated:

The Question raised by [Deputy Nealon] is one which I will address as I develop firm proposals for legislative change.

Our policy document last week stated that when we return to office, a Fianna Fáil Administration would bring forward legislative proposals to ensure that what everybody, possibly including the Minister, wants is protected. The Minister can do that by producing a list system to prevent Sky or other satellite television channels from taking over these sporting events, as they have done elsewhere, and giving them the signal that these sporting events are in our national interest and are sacrosanct.

Mr. Magner

I welcome the Minister to the House. This is a matter of immense importance to thousands of people. It is a pity, given that Fianna Fáil was correct in raising this issue, that Senator Wright then proceeded to spoil it all by indulging in fantasy such as pretending that the Constitution, of which Fianna Fáil has always seemed to take ownership, does not exist.

Mr. Cassidy

I am coming after the Senator.

Mr. Magner

It is also a pity that Senator Wright used emotive terms, such as the Minister not throwing away this opportunity. Senator Wright knows as well as I that if the Minister adopted the procedures he requested, he would be in the High Court and the Supreme Court for the rest of his term of Government. It is a pity to spoil what is essentially an important matter, properly raised by the Opposition, with a complete disregard for the situation.

The House is ad idem in its view that the multinational aspect of control and domination of television should not be allowed. However, as Senator Lee said, we still face the problem of rank and rampant capitalism, a system to which the majority of the House have always subscribed. We are now beginning to reap the whirlwind, because this is about chequebooks and nothing else. Television is a window on the world. Somebody is about to buy the venetian blind and turn it off, not on those people who can afford to watch it but the thousands who are not economically able to pay, such as the poor and the sick.

Television is a daily companion to thousands of our people. Billy George, an excellent sports commentator in the Cork Examiner, points out that the punter has been asked to pay three times in this case — first, for the television licence; second, for the cable; and, third, for the pay per view. It is anticipated that the price for watching the Bruno-Tyson fight will be £9.25 per household.

Mr. Cassidy

That is Labour Party policy.

Mr. Magner

Senator Cassidy should engage me in argument if he wants to do so, but he should not make these ridiculous throwaway remarks. I am surprised at him; he has an interest in broadcasting.

Mr. Cassidy

He is agreeing with me.

Mr. Magner

I will not be deflected by Senator Cassidy.

Billy George also said that if one fifth of Sky subscribers decided to pay £9.25 for the Bruno-Tyson fight, Sky will collect £10 million.

For decades — certainly since we joined the EU — we have been told that business is about competition, the open market and ending monopolies. What is this but a monopoly? I cannot understand how the EU in particular, with its open market and its demand for competition laws, would allow this situation to obtain. It seems to be against both the spirit, and in many cases, the letter of European Union competition laws. What is being encouraged here, especially with television companies like Sky, is a monopoly situation.

There was a recent attempt by Sky to buy up the television rights to the Olympic games for the next few decades and it involved billions of pounds. I was delighted the International Olympic Committee decided to offer its product to the European Broadcasting Union, which ensures the vast majority of European citizens can see those games at the normal rates being paid at the moment.

Senator Wright referred to the British example of ringfencing. I read David Mellor's contribution in the House of Lords; he introduced the Bill as heritage Minister. It is not a problem in England because it does not have a written Constitution; its Parliament decides on the matter. In this country, since many actions on decisions taken in this House have been challenged in other places, Senator Wright knows that his suggestion of stopping satellite channels from tampering with any of our major sporting events would not leave the floor of this House. That is not to say we are helpless or should consider ourselves to be so, because we are not. Every provision of our Constitution has a section which says it is subject — no rights are absolute — to public order and morality. Therefore, we as citizens and legislators must realise we are dealing with a Constitution that hardly envisaged the airplane, never mind satellites.

I hope one of the side benefits of dealing with issues like this is that we will have, as soon as possible, an opportunity to look at our Constitution and bring it into line with modern needs and requirements. We are constrained by it and it is not possible to put forward the quick fix solution Senator Wright proposed. What is possible is that a debate on the rights of citizens against monopolies must take place and be hardened and focused within the context of the European Union. That is the only way that countries can tackle what is essentially a new problem, a problem that is less than a decade old. While the laws in our Constitution protect the rights of ownership, no law is absolute. When it conflicts with the overall good of the citizen, we should obviously take steps to change it and I am sure the Minister will address that in his speech.

It is acknowledged that the present Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht has shown enormous skill, imagination and flair in dealing with the world of film and technology. I know of the Minister's commitment to public service broadcasting, which was shared by the proposer of this motion, Senator Mooney, at a debate in this House last week. He was joined by Senator Cassidy, who is also interested in that area. I have no doubt that within the laws of the land as presently constituted, nobody will fight the battle better or more effectively than the present incumbent. I am also confident that, given all party support, we can make inroads into changing not only the laws as they apply to this country but also in formulating new laws in the EU.

Fianna Fáil rightly put this matter on the agenda and it has been openly debated. The matter under discussion would be better served by Fianna Fáil not moving its motion and the Government not pressing its amendment. It has now been brought into the arena. We will hear the Minister's response and, for the moment, sufficient work has been done. It would be in everybody's interest if Fianna Fáil decided not to move the motion and the Government decided not to move its amendment.

Mr. D. Kiely

May I share my time with Senator Cassidy?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. D. Kiely

I welcome the opportunity to debate this matter. I compliment the Minister on the way he is pursuing TV3 for which he will be supported on this side of the House.

With regard to the motion before the House, a new situation has arisen and it is much different to that which prevailed when RTE began broadcasting in 1960. I want to speak about the pressures placed on emigrants. I ask the Minister to find out who is holding the public to ransom. How come emigrants are being asked to pay phenomenal sums to watch their national sports? At one time, fees were involved only for the All-Ireland football and hurling finals but our sporting activities have expanded now into the worlds of soccer, boxing, rugby etc. As a person who lived in the USA for a number of years and used to watch the All-Ireland football and hurling finals, I am speaking specifically about emigrants in the USA. These matches were transmitted by RTE to the GAA in the USA for a fee and people went to the local cinema and paid their contribution. Technology has advanced since then and a new monopoly seems to have set in since the introduction of satellite television, Sky television, etc. To date, publicans, restaurant owners etc. in the USA were asked to pay an annual fee for the right to receive the sports coverage. That has now changed.

In the last 12 months, RTE programmes, such as the All-Ireland football final, rugby matches and soccer matches, are being transmitted to the USA by satellite from Ireland via Canada. The proprietors of these premises are no longer being asked to pay an annual fee of £2,000 or £3,000 as had previously been the case and which they were prepared to pay. On the day of an All-Ireland football final, for instance, they would charge at the door to offset the charge for the entire year. In that way, they gave emigrants 364 days of free viewing and would only charge for one day. Now our emigrants are being asked to pay for everything. These people now control entry to every pub, restaurant and cinema across the USA and nobody can give a responsible reply as to who is in control, who is at the head of the gravy chain and who is getting the millions. They are charging $20 per head per event 365 days a year. There is something wrong with that.

As the Minister in charge of broadcasting, Deputy Higgins should be able to get a reply. While proprietors of these premises want to provide a free service to their customers, they are now being compelled to take $20 from each person at the door in order to have the event transmitted. This now involves not only GAA matches but also rugby, soccer, boxing and every major event.

If RTE wants to make money, let it transmit to people in the USA who are prepared to get involved on a commercial basis and pay it. They are willing to pay huge sums of money to make these sports events available to our emigrants. This is my main concern and I ask the Minister to address it.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator has three minutes.

Mr. Cassidy

I concur with Senator Magner when he said there was a constitutional problem. The current Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht was the only Minister at the Council of Ministers when he went there first who was in favour of public service broadcasting whereas four or five Ministers of member states are in favour of it now.

Sky television's monopoly is contrary to how we were led to believe the free market would develop. The Minister has a great opportunity to address the matter at EU level since television is a conversation piece for those at home: the sick, the poor and the lonely, and its educational and entertainment value is important.

The GAA can benefit enormously from the revenue which can be made from Sky television. We must ensure RTE or TV3 can transmit sports events but if Sky television wants to transmit them to the rest of Europe, where they are not being transmitted there at present, surely the GAA could benefit enormously and reinvest the proceeds in grounds, facilities etc. I would not be totally opposed to the GAA, in particular, having a non-exclusive deal.

I would like to put another idea to the Minister. Surely Sky television could get involved in minority sports — basketball, swimming and cycling — because these sports could benefit from the revenue which it would generate.

We all know that 70 per cent of the penetration of advertising is through television. This is why many millions of pounds are involved in Sky Sports' proposition. For example, the Sky Sport magazine which is released in Europe every month sells six million units per month. It would be reasonable to expect to sell anything from 20,000 to 100,000 units as a result of advertising in that magazine — I know that from my own line of business. Satellite television has become the norm. It is a big attraction and I would not rule it out altogether but it must be considered as a nonexclusive franchise as happens in other countries.

Protect Ireland but if we can make money for our sporting associations, in particular, let us do so. Then the sporting organisations and clubs could have the revenue to reinvest in sport. Sport is an outlet in which everyone encourages the youth to participate. A healthy body means a healthy mind and a person who is fit, will not go too far wrong.

Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht (Mr. M. Higgins)

Ar an gcéad dul síos, ba mhaith liom a rá go gcuireann sé áthas orm a bheith ar ais sa Seanad chun cursaí crealacháin a phlé don tarna uair taobh istigh de seachtain. It is, indeed, timely to be discussing the motion before the House this evening. I have just learned that RTE has had to cancel its planned live coverage tonight of an FA Cup match between Liverpool and Charlton football clubs. I understand the reason for the cancellation relates to an exclusive deal regarding the broadcasting rights to the FA Cup competition between the English FA, BSKYB and the BBC. I believe this unfortunate development demonstrates the international context of the issue before the House and underlines the appropriateness of the wording of the amendment. The match which RTE planned to cover is not an Irish event. It is a match between two English soccer clubs in an English competition organised by the English FA. However, it is a competition of significant interest to Irish television viewers.

Senators will agree that it is futile to think of addressing such an issue in the context of national broadcasting legislation alone. I welcome the tone of this debate and the emerging consensus in support of public service broadcasting. All of the issues raised in the discussion are at the core of the Green Paper, which raises the question whether we, as consumers and citizens, want broadcasting to be a cultural product or commodity. We will not be able to run away from these realities. It is not a case of adopting a position on an issue like this evening's. It is a matter of where does one stand on broadcasting.

The motion before the House addresses a symptom of the fundamental changes that are taking place in broadcasting services throughout the world. Senators will be aware that just last week we had the opportunity in this House of hearing statements on the challenges facing us in regard to broadcasting in the future. The coverage of significant sporting events, while it has always been an important part of television schedules, is just one of a number of concerns which face us as we move towards the next century. The concern underlying this motion is not confined to sport. The reality is that the same thing is happening in other areas, with the exclusive acquisition of film libraries and programme archives by the owners and operators of subscription and pay per view services.

In the profusion of new technologies and new combination of technologies which are being developed, it is easy even for the most able participants to become confused and uncertain about the future of broadcasting. Digital compression, fibre optics, video on demand, pay per view will mean that for the viewer, broadcasting will change in the most fundamental way, and not always for the better. As I said in the House last week, the new technologies represent both a promise and a threat. Our task is to maximise the promise and minimise the threat.

I want to deal with a number of the points raised by Senators. I will take them as they occur. I was very interested in the very positive tone of the contributions this evening.

As the capacity for delivering different broadcasting services becomes almost infinite by today's terms and as the capital cost of providing that capacity is reduced, the competition for programme material of mass appeal is set to become more and more intense. Many of those competing for audience share are entirely commercial operations without any shred of public service ethos. I emphasise again however the need which exists for a fundamental resolution as to what is meant by broadcasting. There is no easy alliance between commodity and cultural product. One must make one's mind up in that regard.

I appreciate what Senator Cassidy said about what is happening in Europe. A few years ago when I first became Minister, I was the only Minister going to the Council who was in favour of public service broadcasting. Others have converted by the consequences of their own actions in relation to pursuing market place ideology in extremes. They are trying to row back from the consequences of an absolutely unbridled market philosophy which saw broadcasting services simply as product served into a market place.

Sport has always been an integral part of a public service broadcasters schedules. It is a prime example of popular public service broadcasting. The coverage of hurling and football matches is for many a part of our broadcasting heritage. The vast majority of viewers and listeners in this country would feel an incalculable loss if they did not have access through our national broadcasting services to live coverage of the All-Ireland finals on television and radio. The whole country has taken part in the ten year adventure of the Irish international soccer team as they qualified for and took part in two World Cups and a European Championship. Without coverage on television channels charged with the universal access remit associated with public service broadcasting, many if not most of us could not have felt part of such important events.

Irish participants at international events, in athletics, horse racing, motor racing, show jumping, cycling, and many of the other Olympic Games disciplines have traditionally been brought to us by such television services. We all want to share in the success of our sportsmen and sportswomen at the highest level. Supporting a national team is a shared experience and is part of our shared symbolic world.

In this regard, we must base even our legitimate expectations on reality. With the ever increasing number of international satellite delivered television channels and with the importance of sports events in particular in attracting audiences of sufficient size to interest advertisers, sporting organisations promoting such events now find themselves in the position of being in a seller's market in which public service broadcasters with constrained financial resources can be regularly outbid for the rights to cover them. For many it would be unthinkable if coverage of such events were not available freely — or more accurately for the price of a television licence — on our national broadcasting services.

Even when traditional broadcasters retain broadcasting rights to such events the costs of such rights is increasing considerably. Is it realistic to continue to expect the same level of coverage as heretofore at the cost of a licence fee which has not changed for ten years?

Mr. Mooney

Is the Minister going to give the increase?

Mr. M. Higgins

As I said last week in the House during statements on broadcasting, we may have to ensure that public service broadcasters have sufficient support to compete with the transnational services who would seek to corner the market on popular programming.

Senators will conclude from my contribution to this debate so far that I have considerable sympathy with the motion put before the House. It is difficult, if not impossible, to see any good that might come from the migration of the All-Ireland finals or soccer or rugby internationals from RTE to subscription or pay per view channels. It would be more expensive for viewers and damage RTE's ability to provide a complete public service. However, the wording of the motion is such that it suggests that this is a relatively simple matter which can be addressed in isolation by the Government. This is not the case. It is a complex and difficult area involving the rights of sporting organisations, issues of unfair competition, rights of broadcasters and the public interest.

Many of the events which are of interest are organised abroad by international bodies. Many of the new broadcasting organisations are commercial international companies obliged to generate maximum profits for their shareholders and not bound by national legislation. Ireland is not the only country where concerns such as those expressed in the motion and in the contribution of Senators to the debate have been raised. This is why I would urge this House to accept the amendment which, while in sympathy with the motion, recognises the complexity and the international aspects of the issues involved.

We have to be clear about one central issue. The freedom to sell broadcasting rights to sporting events generally belongs to sports bodies concerned with organising such events. There is no point in pretending otherwise. Any measure we might consider taking would have to respect this fundamental right. However, such a right and freedom must be exercised within the more basic parameters of the public good and that is where we will be challenged in relation to such proposals as I may make. We have to recognise that the sporting bodies themselves will have to examine their attitude to exclusive coverage deals and balance the monetary gains which might be made against the long term effects of such deals on the accessibility and development of their respective sports.

In Ireland, I would hope that many, if not all, of our sporting organisations continue to recognise that they have a social and cultural role that transcends pure commercial considerations. However, some sporting organisations argue that the funds derived from exclusive deals with subscription television services have been put back into the sport to the benefit of players and spectators. The English Premier League clubs argue that the exclusive deal which they have entered into with BSKYB has allowed them to expand and improve their stadiums to provide increased all seating capacity which enhances safety and comfort. This is only one argument. Other sporting organisations which have concluded exclusive contracts claim it allows them invest more money in training and coaching in their sports at grassroots levels.

On the other hand, some sporting organisations recognise the value of traditional terrestrial broadcasters in reaching the widest possible audience with coverage of their events. Recently the International Olympic Committee has chosen the European Broadcasting Union, of which RTE is a member, as the primary broadcaster until 2008. It is interesting to note that the EBU bid for the right to coverage of the Games was not the largest. I will look for the support of both Houses when I come to make choices between the philosophy of the EBU and the philosophy of the marketplace. If I go down the road of the EBU, I would like to think there would be consensus on that.

In Holland, I understand that recently the Royal Dutch Football Association, the Dutch equivalent of the FAI, joined a consortium which plans to establish a dedicated sports channel for Dutch cable networks with exclusive rights to first and second division soccer matches, including international matches. This move has caused considerable concern in Holland where the local football association seems to be under pressure to leave the consortium. However, the cable channel may go ahead in any case.

Exclusive sports deals and the activities of broadcasters who conclude such arrangements also raise issues of competitiveness and fair trading. I agree with Senators who say that some monopolists arrive in the name of competition, only to change their nature into monopolies very shortly. Such arrangements are under investigation from this point of view in the UK and in Holland. While the EU Commission does not appear to be taking any formal action, it is keeping a watching brief on the situation. I understand from my colleague, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, that no formal complaint of anti-competitive trading has been made to him regarding broadcast sports coverage here. Apart from exclusive live coverage of particular events, questions regarding the availability of edited highlights and news reporting of such events also arise. We should remember that at this stage RTE has not lost the broadcasting rights to any Irish events of most concern to the Senators.

My approach is not based within the rules of competition. I argue within a philosophy of cultural exception and of its importance in a general sense. I am as concerned as the Senators that cheque book power would be abused to the point of dislodging best broadcasting practice, and I will do my best to stop that.

From what I have said already, Senators will be aware of the complexities of this area. In the context of developing legislative proposals arising from the Green Paper on the future of broadcasting I will, of course, be addressing this issue in a national context and I will be consulting with my colleagues, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment and the Minister of State with responsibility for sport, and with broadcasters and sporting organisations.

However, the issue of coverage of major sporting events must be seen in the context of the many challenges facing us with regard to developments in broadcasting today. When I first began to attend meetings in Europe as Minister with responsibility for broadcasting, I was a lone voice in expressing concerns at the effects of so-called deregulation of broadcasting in other countries. Those who argued for deregulation and market hegemony in everything have now seen the consequences of their actions in more than the continent of Europe. We need to have a context in which we would develop our proposals.

I have continually stressed the need to support the tradition of public service in broadcasting in the interests of viewers and listeners, in the interest of preserving the diversity of our cultures that is Europe, of preserving our national identities, and in the interests of democracy which sees citizens as important rather than consumers. You will not be able to have it both ways. You will have to desert the excesses of the marketplace if you are going to have cultural diversity within a flowering democracy.

I have argued that the public service model of broadcasting has served Europe well down the years, and I repeat that the issues arising from the new regime cannot be addressed solely from the viewpoint of the internal market and competition. While much of what I was saying originally appeared to fall on stony ground, I now find, thankfully, that other EU Ministers with similar responsibilities to my own are beginning to express concern at the effects of so called deregulation on public broadcasters in their own countries. There is, therefore, an important international aspect to this issue which I will be pursuing in an EU context and in other international fora as the opportunities arise.

I would like to reply to some of the specific points raised by Senators. Senator Lee asked what was meant by the phrase "at no extra cost" in the amendment. By that I meant at no extra cost to the viewer in terms of pay for view subscription. The United Kingdom's 1990 Broadcasting Act did indeed protect listed events from pay for view services, but it did not prevent exclusive deals on subscription services such as Sky Sports. The House of Lords is addressing this very issue. Senator Lee also spoke trenchantly about the effects of what called "unbridled capitalism" on our society. He rightly said that value issues are at stake.

As the Minister with responsibility for broadcasting, I thank Senators and I appreciate the consensus from elected public representatives in support of cultural diversity, public service broadcasting, and of putting significant blocks in the way of the commercialisation of the important product that broadcasting is.

I share Senator Mooney's point that this problem will become more intense as the impact of technology becomes more acute. I appreciated the Senator's reference to the European Broadcasting Union, whose history was built on the very principle that everybody could share what was broadcast. However, that principle has been under threat from market ideologues who simply do not care and add broadcasting services to the menu of commodities, as they saw them, to be exchanged for profit. Broadcasting and film are more than commodities; they are cultural products. For that reason one must look at a regime other than a strictly competitive one to adequately frame legislative proposals and international arrangements.

Senator Farrell spoke about the particular position of a person in the regions who would either have to attend or be excluded if one could not pay. Senator Cosgrave spoke of the difficulties that arise in relation to the Constitution, but I would not be as pessimistic as him on that point. Our Constitution is not there to defend private rights exclusively, but only within the context of the public good.

Senator Wall spoke about the importance of sporting organisations striking a balance between the income they might legitimately expect to have from competition from broadcasters and, at the same time, their obligations to their supporters.

Senator Wright commented on the British experience in this regard, and I would only differ with him on a matter of language. I prefer the word "citizen" to "everyday punter" because the issues raised here go beyond sport. They are issues of citizenship and I will try to address them as such. There is nothing sinister in the preparation of the legislation on broadcasting, which is a complex area. I hope the broadcasting legislation I will introduce later this year will bring us past the end of this century and into the next one. The legislation will deal with technology that is located and sourced outside our jurisdiction. A complex set of issues have to be addressed, but I will address them.

Senator Magner correctly raised an important point. In so far as I am asked in the motion to formulate a policy, my orientation is to come down in favour of society rather than the marketplace, and in favour of cultural product rather than commodity. I will try to address that line of policy feeding into the preparation of the legislation. My own view is that the listing as it is applied in Britain might only be a partial solution. The abuse of a relationship of exclusivity in relation to rights is the fundamental broadcasting issue. I am not addressing one point to defeat the other; I am setting the context in which one might best examine it.

Senator Magner spoke of the rights of citizens. At the root of this issue there is a fundamental philosophical problem as to whether technology will be delivered into a democratic model in our society or used to abuse us as sections of a marketplace.

I accept Senator Kiely's point about the position of emigrants and I will investigate his point concerning the possible abuse of rights in relation to venues in the United States. I will communicate with the Senator. I was interested to hear Senator Cassidy's point about accepting that we are not in the same constitutional position as Britain. At the same time, however, I appreciate that there is in this House widespread support for the diversity of broadcasting which we are trying to sustain.

I have listened with great interest to what has been said and I welcome the consensus on this issue. I will try to address it however complex it may be, although I am not instancing its complexity as an excuse for inaction. We must pursue it at an international level with the European Union where more and more people share our concerns.

In so far as I have been asked by the Seanad for an indication of Government policy, it is firmly within the ethos of public service broadcasting in the new international context in which we find ourselves. I will be guided by the principles I enunciated in my speech to the House.

Mr. Mooney

As always I have no difficulty with the Minister's commitment to the concept of cultural diversity in broadcasting. I have admiration for the trenchant defence he expounded tonight and at national and European level. However, much of what he said seems to be a case of on the one hand this and on the other hand that, although he may believe I am being unfair.

Because of the philosophy which obviously drives the Minister in his brief in broadcasting and when he refers to phrases like "cultural exception" and "cultural product", I would like to ask him who decides what is for the greater good. If the Minister decides, will he say after a decision has been taken in a legislative context, that he does not care if only one person watches or listens to a programme because it is for the common good and it is making a contribution to cultural diversity? I do not believe the phrase "cultural diversity" means anything if 99 per cent of the population switches off their radio or television.

A challenge for the Minister in his legislation will be to create a balance between the evils of the marketplace and the protection of our cultural identity and the provision of cultural diversity in broadcasting. I say this as somebody who works in a State organisation which has a monopoly in broadcasting. I have been trenchant in my criticism of programme decisions. While somebody may think a programme is of value, as a broadcaster, I know nobody is listening to it.

There is no point introducing legislation which would place broadcasters in a straitjacket. I am probably being unfair to the Minister because he has not yet unveiled his legislative programme. I am making these points because when the time comes, he might keep in mind that the marketplace is not all or always evil. The Minister correctly trumpeted the fact that when he went to Europe it was ignoring the concept of public broadcasting which seemed to be in full flow towards deregulation and that now it must suffer the consequences. I agree with him in that regard and I am delighted that it was an Irish Minister for Arts and Culture who pointed this out to Europe because it is a continuum of a long tradition of this country pointing out to dark Europe exactly where it should stand on cultural matters. That is nothing new. I applaud the Minister for doing so.

The Minister referred to the licence fees and the question of international events and he cited the example on RTE television tonight. We are only looking at national events and we believe the Minister not only has an obligation but a legislative right to decide what national events can be exposed to the evils of the marketplace. That is our primary concern. The Minister referred to the flaws in the 1990 Broadcasting Act. In my opening remarks I said the Act was flawed because of a lack of comprehension in relation to the rapid advances in technology which have taken place since 1990.

David Mellor, who was responsible for steering broadcasting legislation through the House of Commons, admitted that it was flawed and that it should have included subscriber channels as well as pay per view. It was not pay per view which grew but subscriber channels. This requires a simple amendment to the Broadcasting Act. I do not see why the Minister cannot do that in advance of his grand legislative plan for broadcasting which he indicated will come before us by the end of the year.

The Minister referred to the cable television which the Dutch were attempting to set up. This is happening closer to home. Manchester United, one of the most successful football clubs in Britain, has already indicated — it has not stated this unequivocally — that following the end of the Sky television contract in 1997 it will negotiate independently to set up its own cable television which will place further restrictions on those who wish to see Manchester United games and that it will sell on. As the Minister correctly identified, we are looking at very complex area.

I agree with the Minister's criticisms of the European Commission yet, at the same time, there is a certain irony in the fact that he referred to it as the engine room of change — I hope the Minister is right. I have no doubt he will constantly remind it of its duties and obligations in this regard. Despite all that has taken place and what the Minister said — I agree with much of it — I cannot understand why, in the light of the importance of this issue, he cannot agree to the possibility of introducing a simple amendment to the Broadcasting Act. The Minister said that he will not do this without further consultation with sporting bodies, broadcasters and sports people. They will probably say to him "hands off" and that they want the right to negotiate. However, that is where the Minister's responsibility starts and their responsibility ends. I wish him well.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 19.

Tá

• Belton, Louis J.
• Burke, Paddy.
• Calnan, Michael.
• Cashin, Bill.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Cotter, Bill.
• Cregan, Denis (Dino).
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Doyle, Joe.
• O'Sullivan, Jan.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Ross, Shane P.N.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Hayes, Brian.
• Kelly, Mary.
• McAughtry, Sam.
• Magner, Pat.
• Maloney, Seán.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Neville, Daniel.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
• Townsend, Jim.
• Wall, Jack.

Níl

• Bohan, Eddie.
• Byrne, Seán.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Dardis, John.
• Farrell, Willie.
• Finneran, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Tom.
• Kiely, Dan.
• Kiely, Rory.
• Lydon, Don.
• McGennis, Marian.
• Mooney, Paschal.
• Mullooly, Brian.
• O'Brien, Francis.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• Ormonde, Ann.
• Roche, Dick.
• Wright, G.V.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Cosgrave and Magner; Níl, Senators Fitzgerald and Ormonde.

Amendment declared carried.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Manning

Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.