Television Sports Broadcasting: Motion.

Mr. Norris

I move:

That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to ensure the maximum equality of access to viewers throughout Ireland for television programming. In pursuance of this, Seanad Éireann also requests the Government to take appropriate action to ensure that exclusive rights to major Irish sporting events are not exercised by broadcasters in such a way as to deprive any sizeable proportion of the Irish public of the possibility of viewing such events live on television; and also that the Government develop a just and coherent response to the situation currently obtaining regarding MMDS relay television transmission.

When I realised that the Independent Group's Private Members' time had come up once more I was undecided between a number of different areas of interest. I have already on several occasions raised the question of the Luas and the need to ensure that provision is made for the central section of this system to be placed underground in the city of Dublin. There was also the question of the licensing laws and their application, especially in this city. However, the Leader of the House, Senator Manning, has graciously indicated that it is his intention to take these two items in the form of a special debate.

This leaves me free to select another subject which I consider of equal importance, although on first glance it may appear that I am uncharacteristically paying court to the popular imagination. This is the question of the need for the Government to guarantee access to television entertainment, especially sports broadcasts, to all citizens on an equal basis. A subsidiary but related matter is the question of the conflict between local communities, especially in the west, who have employed deflectors to relay the signals of British state and commercial television stations in areas where these signals are not normally received on the one hand and the commercial owners of MMDS licences on the other. Underlying these propositions is a very important principle—that of the right of access to information, including information of a recreational nature, of all citizens and the fact that this right is increasingly coming under pressure, especially from multinational media groups such as the Sky empire of Mr. Rupert Murdoch.

The significance of this can be illustrated by simple reference to the growth of television set ownership in the State. By 1995 a comparative survey of household facilities showed that 88 per cent of households had a vacuum cleaner, 85.6 per cent had a dishwasher, 99 per cent had piped could water, 96 per cent had a bath or shower, 97.2 per cent had an internal toilet and 99.8 per cent had electricity. These may all be seen as household necessities. However, with regard to television sets which were once regarded as luxuries, 88.2 per cent owned a colour television set, 6.7 per cent rented a colour television set, 3.8 per cent owned a monochrome set and 0.2 per cent rented a monochrome set. Adding these figures together, 98.9 per cent of Irish households possessed television receiving apparatus. This compares with a mere 51.1 per cent in possession of motorcars. In other words, television has become virtually a universal medium of communication in the country over a comparatively short period of time. Whoever controls that medium is in an exceedingly powerful position, for he or she controls the context within which ideas are formed and values created which colours our every decision.

Sport may appear to be at the lighter end of this spectrum but it is a very significant element for a number of reasons. The first, of course, is the immense popularity of sport—a phenomenon which is of universal and not of particularly Irish significance. Sport has always been popular, both for participants and spectators. However, although the capacity for participation in team events has some natural limitations, there seems to be no limit to the capacity for expansion in terms of a national and international viewing audience due to the rapid development of technology. As a document issued this month by the European Commission indicates:

The Broadcasting Sector has undergone profound changes over the last decade, due in large part to technology driven development. Cable and satellite channels have multiplied. The advent of digital transmission technology and, in particular, the emergence of multi channel digital packages transmitted by satellite is producing a dramatic increase in the number of channels available. These developments have brought a new transnational dimension to the practice of buying and selling sports rights.

This clearly has a significant commercial aspect and the undisciplined and unmonitored operation of market forces in this area should give rise to grave concern.

We have already begun to see the malignant impact of the intervention of groups such as Mr. Murdoch's BSkyB television on European and Irish sport. Just as the Murdoch group acquired and corrupted a great deal of the British print media by appealing to the lowest instincts of the reader and applying the lowest journalistic standards and has spread its tentacles into this country, undercutting Irish newspapers and winning a sizeable market share on the back of the popularity and economic pay off of its sports pages, we are now feeling the thin end of Mr. Murdoch's televisual wedge through the attempts of his empire to gain exclusive rights over major sporting events in Britain and Ireland.

In this context I found it astonishing to hear the President of the GAA, Mr. Boothman, having claimed for his organisation the status of a religion, demand also absolute freedom to deal with the reality of market forces in the best financial interests of the GAA. This was in the context of being asked about possible negotiations with Murdoch's Sky Television. Having heard this my last illusion of Irish innocence is gone. For the organisation that once penalised its members not merely for playing but for attending "foreign games" to contemplate selling exclusive rights to its major sporting events to an Australian-British-American baron of the gutter press beggars belief. It is as if the self-styled keeper of the national ethos had decided to feed the noble hound of Banba to a mongrel fox.

We are already receiving the incidental backwash of these developments. For example, "Live Line" on RTÉ Radio has been full of vociferous complaints against the growing commercialisation of sport, the appropriation of sizeable blocks of tickets to corporate sponsors and the adverse impact of monopoly tactics in broadcasting in general on the recreational outlets available to ordinary citizens. Recent debates have included a very lively session in which the overwhelming majority of callers objected vehemently to any suggestion of a monopoly sale to Murdoch of any of the GAA's sporting events. Listeners also heard some representative stories of the impact on an individual basis of the commercial policies of these communications empires. For example, one man telephoned to say that he had bought a ticket for his 14 year old son to see his favourite league side play a soccer match in England. The ticket and airline tickets were purchased six months in advance and hotel accommodation was arranged. Come the day of the match, however, they discovered that they were to be disappointed as there had been an unannounced rescheduling of the match in order to fit in with the programming requirements of commercial television. Such inconvenience to the public is but the tip of the iceberg. Indeed my response to these events makes me feel somewhat reactionary. I remember reading with scorn many years ago the words of a contemporary of James Joyce, one Arthur Clery, a fellow student of the writer's at UCD. In an essay, Clery wrote that "a nation that takes a British newspaper for its Sunday breakfast may one day wake to find a change in its Friday menu". I remember at the time superciliously dismissing such provincial chauvinism. Now, however, in middle age I am inclined to say "Hear, hear".

I have never been especially adept at decoding acronyms and I am not even sure what BSkyB stands for, although I suspect that it may be Big Sky Brother. In any case, I have no doubt whatever that the ultimate goal of Mr. Murdoch is to create a Big Brother in the sky. Of late we have seen an enormous concentration of resources in the world of media into the hands of a dangerously small number of people of whom the most prominent have been Mr. Rupert Murdoch and Mr. Robert Maxwell, who played Tweedledum to Mr. Murdoch's Tweedledee.

Murdoch's empire includes an enormous number of newspapers, television stations and satellite broadcast facilities. Individual stations have in the past shown themselves weak in the face of multinational industrial conglomerates. It is time that a warning signal was needed in this country about the impact of similar enterprises in the information field.

Europe has already awoken to the danger, as indicated by a resolution on the role of public service television in a multi-media society which was passed by the European Parliament on 19 September 1995. Having recited various high sounding formulae concerning the right of access to information, this resolution continues by making the important point that the citizen has a right to be regarded not just as a passive financial target.

Paragraph I of the resolution says:

Whereas a genuine quality public-service channel must aim to put the viewer in the position of a citizen and actor in relation to modern information and not simply in the position of a viewer or consumer.

It warns against precisely the kind of monopoly process I have already described in paragraph K, which states:

Whereas the rapid processes of concentration under way are leading to the emergence of highly powerful private transnational groups, with the result that public service broadcasting may be reduced to a marginal role, especially in the smaller countries.

With regard to sport it says:

Whereas EU competition rules should not produce a harmful fragmentation of European public service television when it is facing global competition, particularly where the acquisition of sport rights is concerned.

The resolution at paragraph 21 calls on the Commission to encourage the granting of transmission rights for major sports events to free-to-air television channels. Paragraph 22 considers inadmissible—including from the point of view of the correct application of the rules on competition— the improper granting of exclusive rights to broadcast sporting events and scientific and technical shows or events, which should be broadcast by all information media for the widest audience.

In paragraph 46 the resolution calls "on member states to regulate for the free-to-air transmission of major sporting events and entetainment or scientific events of particular value or interest". Paragraph 47 "calls on member states to regulate so that when other sporting events and entertainment or scientific events of particular value or interest are shown exclusively on paid television, comprehensive highlights must be available on free-to-air television".

I have edited severely the contents of this important document, but I think I have cut to the heart of the matter. It remains to ask what has Ireland done in response to this? The answer seems to be, sadly, little to date, although I see the Minister shaking his head. Therefore, I call this evening on the Government to act energetically in the manner already undertaken by other European Governments.

I thank you, a Chathaoirligh, for your flexibility in allowing me to finish my comments. I have some more points to add, but I believe I will have time to do so at the end of the debate.

Mr. Quinn

I congratulate Senator Norris on raising such a topical subject which will deservedly attract attention. I put my name down to second the motion only because it does not call for legislation to control the televising of national sports events. We have had such calls in the past and, as Senator Norris described, there are moves afoot to take that approach in other European countries. In this country market forces combined with common sense will work hand in hand to get the correct result in most cases.

Suppose, for instance, that Sky Television offered the GAA a king's ransom for the exclusive rights to show the All-Ireland football and hurling finals on pay TV. The GAA would undoubtedly be tempted by the money, but I am quite convinced it would not yield to that temptation. The GAA knows that if it did so, it would be cutting its audience to a fraction of what it would otherwise be. It would at one stroke lose a large part of its stature as a national sporting body.

The same is true of rugby. If next Saturday's international could only be seen by a small number of people, rugby would have taken a giant step towards marginalising itself. I cannot see any sport, particularly rugby football, wanting to do that. Nor can I see it happening here with any sport that is big enough to create a truly national occasion. Few sports would be willing to risk losing that status but it is happening in other countries. For instance, the recent soccer international between England and Italy was seen live on satellite television only, which greatly reduced its potential audience. It remains to be seen whether those who run football in England will continue to think such a situation is good for the future of the game they love so much.

No sporting organisation in Ireland would cut its own throat in that way. I am talking only about national sporting occasions. It is inevitable that the rest of sport will increasingly go onto pay TV because much of sport is now either convertly or overtly professional. It is part of the entertainment business.

I had the opportunity of visiting the Olympic Games in Atlanta last year, as I did in Barcelona four years earlier, and it was interesting to see the impact of commercialisation on the games. There was absolutely no sign of commercial sponsorship inside the arena because it was not permitted by the organisers. Going back 100 years to 1896, the founder of the modern Olympics. Baron Pierre de Coubertin, spoke about his aims and objectives, which included amateurism. He did not perceive, however, the sort of commercialisation that would come about in the games. In 1976 Montreal hosted the Olympics and that city is still paying for them. It was not until the Los Angeles games in 1984 that they discovered the formula of making the Olympics pay for themselves. That formula, which has been used very worthily and competently since then, involved charging television stations around the world for the right to televise such a popular international sporting event.

Most importantly of all, sport is expensive today and performers are increasingly highly paid. The venues they perform in represent massive investments. Big money needs to be spent on them to ensure the safety and comfort of spectators. The money must come from somewhere and it cannot all come from gate receipts.

That is the thrust behind the trend towards pay TV. We might not like it, but it is unrealistic to seek to have it both ways. Someone must pay for sport and it seems only fair that it should be those who enjoy watching it. Sports would not attract necessary investment without having the opportunity to gain income from television. It is an open market situation that we should be very slow to interfere with, just because it might be popular to do so.

In the particular circumstances of this country common sense combined with market forces usually tend to work together. Too often we tend to suffer from the malady of thinking that Government should do everything for us and as a result the energy of Government is spread too thinly. There is plenty of work for the Government to do in the area of sport without getting distracted by this issue.

When I played rugby at school I remember the trainer, Fr. Hegarty, talking about the attacking team and the defending team. I asked him which one was the attacking team and if that depended on where the ball was on the field? He thought for a moment and replied: "No, Quinn, it doesn't. The attacking team is the one in possession of the ball, even if it is on their own line".

Large Irish sporting organisations now have the ball in their hands. Even if they are on their own line I do not believe they will lose the opportunity to make what they can of that ball, which is the power to retain their standing and stature. I am delighted Senator Norris raised this topic, but it is one that should be used to convince our major sporting organisations to recognise their importance and make sure they do not lose it.

Mr. Naughten

Ireland has had a long and proud sporting tradition which is deeply rooted in the richness of our culture. The national games have played a major role in building local community structures for sport and in fostering a sense of pride and spirited rivalry on a parish, county and provincial basis. National games and international sport provide great occasions for celebrating excellence and achievement. They promote a sense of pride in being Irish. Successful sports people provide excellent role models and sport creates a spirit of respectful co-operation between the people of this island. It would be a great tragedy if our major national sporting events were not televised on terrestrial television.

BSkyB is on the verge of achieving a near monopoly of major sporting events in western Europe, especially in these islands. This poses a serious challenge to terrestrial broadcasting both here and in Britain. Last year the five nations rugby championship, in existence for over 100 years, nearly ceased to exist due to rivalry between BSkyB and terrestrial channels for viewing rights.

The problem which faces RTÉ and other terrestrial channels is how to compete in the market with Sky television and the massive resources available to it. Due to the dominant position of RTÉ and the British channels — BBC and ITV — up to now, they have been getting sporting events cheaply. A number of years ago this prompted the FA to negotiate substantial financial contracts with Sky television. BSkyB finances allow it go with an open cheque book to any sporting organisation and hammer out an exclusive rights deal to broadcast major sporting events. One can hardly blame sporting organisations for not refusing such large financial offers which allow them to further develop. However, these contracts can be a double-edged sword. The contract between BSkyB and the rugby unions of the southern hemisphere led to the professionalisation of the game.

The Olympic movement was aware of this development when it refused to give Sky television exclusive rights to the Atlanta Olympic Games last summer. It decided to give the contract to the European Broadcasting Union on a matter of policy rather than financial consideration. It believed that the greatest possible number of people should be provided with an opportunity of viewing the centennial games and be encouraged to become involved in sport and the Olympic movement.

Next Wednesday the House will debate the strategic plan for sport which plans the development of sport between 1997 and 2006. This will be a futile exercise if we have pay-per-view television. The purpose of the sports strategy is to provide a clear blueprint for the development of Irish sport. The strategy seeks to bring all elements of sport together in a cohesive manner for the benefit of participants, coaches, leaders and administrators. One of the main goals of the plan is to involve more young people in all levels of sport and encourage them to develop a life long interest in playing and enjoying sport.

We saw the effect of Ireland's participation and performance in the soccer world cup. This encouraged young people to take up the game. It is vital to the development of sport that terrestrial television covers all major sporting events in order to get young people involved.

Sport provides great satisfaction and enjoyment for people of all ages and from backgrounds. Sporting talent is an important part of the human potential and everyone should have the opportunity to make the most of their talents. These benefits combine to form a potent and positive force in society.

The strategic plan also envisages promotion campaigns aimed at increasing participation in recreational sport. This will be linked to promoting the health aspects of becoming involved in sport. However, what is the point of this campaign if live sport is not available on television?

Sports related activity generates more than 11,000 full-time and part-time jobs, representing more than 8,000 equivalent full-time jobs. When sports spending on media, travel and tourism is included, the figure increases to 18,200 equivalent full-time jobs. It is estimated that sport contributes over £66 million to the Exchequer through PAYE and PRSI levies. Therefore, the development of sport is of major economic interest to the country.

In rural areas there are major problems with the MMDS system. Transmission of these signals is limited by geography with hills and trees capable of blocking the transmission signal. Most rural areas have a successful deflector system in place but these have now been deemed illegal by the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications. Many rural areas have only the three Irish channels. The new MMDS system is also more expensive and they now have a monopoly in the market. Where does this leave the European ideal of competition?

The old deflector system from the transmitter in Enniskillen cost approximately £25 per household. The MMDS system costs £90 for the first television and £50 for every subsequent television. It is more expensive for public houses. Under the old system the price was £25 regardaless of where the television was located.

The MMDS system is unsatisfactory due to the cost and its poor coverage area. The marketplace should be opened to allow deflector systems transmit to local communities. I ask the Minister to introduce legislation to protect specific sporting events and to open the transmission market to further competition.

Acting Chairman

I congratulate Senator Naughten on his maiden speech.

Mr. Mooney

I endorse the Chair's congratulations. As they would say in our part of the country, your daddy would be proud of you.

It would be churlish of me not to recognise Senator Norris who first brought this initiative before the House over 12 months ago when I and my colleagues initiated this debate. I welcome the fact that this composite motion is being discussed at a time when there is controversy over the MMDS deflector system as opposed to other deflector systems in rural areas and because of the encroaching power of the Murdoch organisation in the media. Where does the Government stand on these matters?

It is too late for this debate; the game is over in terms of putting in place controls to stop this onward rush. My opinions diverge from those of Senator Quinn with whom I nearly always agree when he speaks of market forces. In a media context it is a monster gobbling up a national and transnational radio, television and newspaper environment. It is answerable to only one god, namely, the mighty dollar. Senator Naughten is correct in referring to moves taken by international organisations to stem the flow, the IOC being one such movement.

Senator Quinn referred to the fact that there were no commercials in the Olympic stadium. However, there was such a proliferation of commercial activity outside the stadium that the IOC has rewritten its rules to ensure that there will not be such a glaring exhibition of commercialism at the next Olympic Games. We are aware of the split that has happened in the five nations championship due to television rights and filthy lucre.

British MPs now acknowledge that the 1990 broadcasting legislation failed to take account of the massive expansion in satellite television when it created the listed events category. Many of us have been pressing the Minister to introduce a similar list here to protect games such as all-Ireland finals, soccer internationals and other sporting events of a national and international nature. The Minister has indicated that he is planning to do this but I am beginning to wonder if he is too late. Perhaps the horse has bolted. The GAA has come out publicly, although ambiguously, with its response to whether it would seek to grant television rights to BSkyB or any other satellite provider. I do not blame it; it is national sporting organisation and it is in the business of trying to promote its games in a competitive environment. If it is offered several million pounds for the international transmission of Gaelic games, money which can be ploughed into the development of the games at local, regional and national level in Ireland, who would blame it for considering it? Who is to blame any sporting organisation which finds itself unable to fund its activities from its own resources, who are forced to rely on the vagaries of the Government of the day and whether the Minister of the day happens to be in sympathy with them. He or she, depending on which gender is in charge of sport and the allocation of money, may not sympathise. Why should sporting organisations not chase after this pot of gold that has been dangled in front of their eyes?

The British MPs who said they failed to acknowledge the expansion of satellite television because the Broadcasting Bill at that time was specific to pay-per-view might have been more farsighted than they have been given credit for. Pay-per-view is now with us and I believe and suggest to this House that it will become the norm in terms of sporting events in the coming years. The limited exercise that has been indulged in over the past couple of years, with the transmission of boxing matches from America, has proven to be a great financial success. Transmitted at 4 a.m., people are prepared to pay £10 over and above what they are already paying for the Sky subscription to see these events. Why should Sky not opt for the pay-per-view system? This is going to happen when the 200 digital channels come on stream over the next 18 months because these channels have to be filled. It is already happening in Italy and it is undoubtedly going to happen with English premier football matches when digital television is instituted. The more wealthy individual football clubs are already beginning to look at cable television as a means of transmitting their games. Manchester United is a case in point.

In the short time available to me I would like to ask the Minister how State broadcasting providers such as RTÉ will survive in this new environment? What proposals does the Minister have to blunt the sharp edge of this international invasion? Where does the European Union stand on the development of the black box decoder by the Murdoch empire, which, I understand, is now in alliance with the BBC? If the pay-per-view system is allowed to proceed unhindered, I suggest that the future of State public service broadcasting will effectively be over. The era will have finished. I appreciate the Minister's difficulty in all of this. He is standing four-square as the only bulwark against the mighty rise of commercial television. If State broadcasting is to survive in this country and if RTÉ is to survive as the provider of that public service, the only recourse the Minister has is to legislation. How will the Minister frame such legislation in order that it will have effect? Will the legislation be sufficient to prevent the dictatorship of market forces to which Senator Quinn referred? Will it prevent national sporting organisations such as the GAA, FAI and others from going out and doing their own deals unilaterally? What effect will it have if all the major sporting events of this country are removed literally overnight from the screens of RTÉ or TV3, if it is introduced? The only way people will have access to televised major sporting events will be if they pay through the nose for them. That is the dilemma which faces the Minister. The debate has not really begun in this country, this issue has not really been discussed in public and perhaps this is as good a time as any to discuss it. Perhaps Senator Norris, in his wisdom, has seen something which the rest of us have not. The Minister now has the opportunity to put on public record his current thinking on what is a fast moving environment. We are not talking about years here, we are talking about months. In that context I welcome the opportunity this debate has provided but I believe it raises many more questions than it provides answers. My sympathies lie with the Minister.

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

Faoi mar a dúirt me cheana, is breá liom go bhfuil an deis faighte agam ar ócáidí éagsúla ó ceapadh mé mar Aire Ealaíon, Cultúir agus Gaeltachta, le freagracht i ndáil le polasaí craolacháin, teacht isteach sa Teach seo chun páirt a ghlacadh i ndíospóireachtaí faoi na cúrsaí áirithe sin. Ar ndóigh, níhaon eisceacht í an ócáid seo nuair atá rún á phlé faoi rochtain an phobail ar chláracha teilifíse agus, go háirithe, ar mhórimeachtaí spóirt anseo in Éirinn.

I am encouraged by what has been said so far in this debate. I want to address some of the issues which have been raised by Senators Norris, Naughten and Mooney and I congratulate Senator Naughten on his speech. It is very interesting to hear what is provoked by this question here today. I addressed some of these issues in the eighth Raymond Williams memorial lecture which I gave in Wales a few months go. Those who read that lecture will see that I offered a somewhat pessimistic view, rather like Senator Mooney's, because so much had already been lost. I will make a few remarks by way of preface to my speech.

These are the neglected debates. In the academy, as well as among the public, the neglected debate has been about the relationship between science, technology and society. In this respect, the major changes which have taken place in the last 20 years have been because of the convergence of technologies—telephonic, televisual, cable, fiber optic or whatever. There has been concentration of ownership because of this, including cross ownership, and now there is a multiplicity of forms of delivery of new services. The issue that was provoked by those developments is a very stark one. It is whether what takes place in the media is the commercially driven delivery of what is technologically possible. Another option is that citizens would take their moral right to communicate and find it facilitated by the means of communication, including recent developments in technology. Without being crude about it, one is quickly led to a choice between a model of being a consumer of entertainment services facilitated by the visual media or of being a citizen using the new technology to communicate with one's fellow citizens in a way never envisaged before. This is the same debate as might be derived from Williams's discussion, in The Long Revolution, of the impact of the printing press. If we find a different argument in relation to television than the print media it is precisely because of the changed nature of the technology and the changed nature of ownerships. It will not be possible to unscramble concentrations of ownership. I am deliberately listing these issues, even if they are not raised, as issues which can no longer be neglected.

Senator Mooney is very close to the truth when he says people are waking up too late to the nightmarish prospects of what is now likely to happen. It may well be, if one takes the example of Great Britain, that independent television channels, instead of combining to secure an alternative presence on satellite to Mr. Murdoch's presence, have decided to individually seek to occupy the back end of Mr. Murdoch's system. The gate is therefore already stacked with a large "M" on it. Is there an individual gatekeeper and is it possible, if the technological access is so dominated, to ever again open the gate? With respect to Senator Quinn, we will have a choice but it will be a choice between "M" and "M" and "M" and "M".

There is another issue, not just confined to sport, about what happens to the viewer. If one pays for televised sport, one will in time inevitably pay for one's history in the form of archival material. This completely changes the nature of the viewer. The Reithian tradition of whether one was on the right, in the middle or on the left as regards the purpose and functions of broadcasting was one kind of philosophy. It stated that there was a requirement on those who were the national broadcaster to have balanced programming, be it in terms of music or current affairs. Intrinsic to such a philosophy was that one must not only entertain but educate and illuminate.

Mr. Mooney

That was abused.

Mr. M. Higgins

If the viewer's possibilities are changed to a series of pay-per-view options, that philosophy is eliminated. Many who worry about this are people who, as far back as 1934 in the United States, deregulated television and then, nearly 60 years later, unsuccessfully sought to claw back from that to protect children.

I was certainly not in a majority in Europe in the beginning and, although I have more support now, I doubt if I am yet in a majority when I said that I saw the televisual product, no more than the film product, as more than a simple commodity which could not be totally regulated by competition or market thinking. It is a cultural expression and, therefore, if it is limited in supply, cultural diversity shrinks. It is interesting to note that all parties in both Houses of the Oireachtas see this issue as important. However, one has a sense at the same time of people feeling a sense of powerlessness at the inexorable drift towards greater concentrations of ownership.

The history of accountability of the print media, for example, was always about State and society being to some extent coterminous with nation. Many broadcasters are now international and, in exactly the same way as capital knows no home, these people operate outside the sovereignty of any one state. As one cannot issue millions of blindfolds and tell people to protest by not watching nor knock satellites out of the sky, how is one to deal with this?

This motion does not fall neatly into the statutory remit of one particular Minister but it raises issues of broadcasting policy which I will address as I have statutory responsibility for them. Radio frequency management policy is the statutory responsibility of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications.

Successive Governments have operated an open skies policy with regard to the reception of television broadcasts. The Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960, established RTÉ to operate a national service in the public service broadcasting mould to be funded from the licence fee and a mix of other incomes. For many years these policies resulted in Irish viewers having the benefits of a national public service television station and, to some extent, reception of UK broadcasters with the same public service tradition offering what were and are still regarded by many as the best television programmes in the world. For many years reception of UK transmissions was relatively limited and was available through a fortuitous overspill from transmitters not designed to serve this part of Ireland or through cable television systems. However, advance in cable television technology and the introduction of MMDS have meant fairly widespread availability of UK services.

There is another issue involved there. What is the relationship between broadcaster and viewer? Is it one of passivity? What informs this relationship? Is it one of activity or interactivity? What assumptions are made about both sides, the broadcaster and the viewer? If those who receive the image are potential consumers, the question is answered. If it is a citizen to whom the service is delivered, that is another answer. Whatever we do, we end up with a mixed model.

The method of delivery of services is a matter for the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications. However, viewers throughout Ireland have had access to programming provided by a range of broadcasters operating in the public service mould. I described that tradition as bringing a diversity of quality programming catering for both minority and mainstream tastes, seeking to inform and educate as well as entertain, and having roots in the community and a sense of history.

In the 1980s there emerged the possibility of broadcasting facilities by satellites, initially for delivery to cable systems, and, quickly afterwards, broadcasting directly to homes via satellite dishes. Countries moved to deregulate broadcasting as the capacity provided by satellites lifted the constraints on the radio frequency spectrum in relation to the establishment of terrestrial broadcasting. It is unfortunate that most satellite broadcasting services are now purely commercial with no other motive than to maximise returns to investors. We are now faced with a potential explosion of services through the application of digital compression techniques.

Here again, I return to the question I posed about the connection between science, technology and society. It is as if we, as broadcasters and viewers, are determined by an increasingly rapid technical evolution. There is a debate about the speed of programming, technological introduction and regulation.

We cannot ignore technological progress, but we should bear in mind when we read reports of the imminent introduction of 200 to 500 channel services that the channel in this context does not mean the availability of 200 RTÉ 1s or BBCs. We are talking about 200 opportunities to invite the general public to pay more. We are talking about five or six so-called channels being devoted to a single football match depending on how much one decides to pay, or a host of niche channels offering little in terms of diversity of services, such as shopping channels, which hardly fit into the concept of a television programme as understood by most people. Those who are very interested in sport could pay for several different channels and recompose their own soccer match by selecting different views.

Mr. Mooney

Virtual reality.

Mr. M. Higgins

It is hard to say that this is a television programme in the sense we know; it is more like a service. I have yet to be convinced that the increased capacity brought about by satellites or by the promised explosion of channels through digital compression will improve access to or increase the quality or diversity of programmes available to Irish viewers. On the contrary, there will be more choice to see more of the same. The Independent on Sunday recently stated:

There is another point which emerges when you talk to the people who will be running the channel explosion of the next few years. Without exception all of them are obsessed with the technology, with buying rights and cutting the costs of programmes. None of them talk about their passion for making great television. It is all about market share, not the product, and that is an ethic which is likely to become more and more common.

If we are to ensure maximum equality of access to viewers to quality television programming, we shall have to find, and support, those with a passion for making great television. It is my great conviction that this passion and the creativity and dynamism that goes with it can only be supported and nurtured if public service broadcasters continue to play an important role in the future. I instance the debate that led to, and forwarded, the contribution of the late Dennis Potter as regards the future of television.

Commercial services are here to stay. Their task is to deliver the highest audience for the lowest price. They have no concerns about equality of access. That is a democratic issue and not necessarily a market one. They offer one choice, —to pay or not to pay. One of the fundamental principles of the public service broadcasting ethos is universal access to transmissions. It is through the retaining of this and other values that we can ensure equality of access to quality and diversity of programming.

When I initiated the debate on the future of broadcasting through the publication of the Green Paper, I always made it clear that I see it as a fundamental principle that public service broadcasting must be supported and strengthened. I have recently brought my proposals for fresh broadcasting legislation to Government and I hope to be in a position to publish them shortly. When I first started to attend meetings of EU Council of Ministers with responsibility for broadcasting policy, I was virtually a lone voice in my support of the concept of public service broadcasting. Literally everyone on the council had moved away from it. Over the intervening years, many of my ministerial colleagues in other countries have expressed grave concern at the effect of the so called "deregulation" of broadcasting on their public service broadcasters and the quality and diversity of television programming. They have not changed ideologically and politically but they are witnessing the consequences of a bad policy and its effect on television. At a meeting of Ministers which I chaired in Galway last September, there was considerable and strong support for the maintenance of the concept of public service broadcasting. There was also a clear message that public service broadcasters must continue to have access to major popular programmes comprising, in particular, sports events and that pure commercialism cannot be the criterion.

The coverage of significant sporting events, while it has always been an important part of television schedules, is just one of a number of broadcasting policy concerns which face us as we move towards the next century. The concern underlying this motion is, of course, 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 operators of subscription and pay-per-view services. For example, the Asian Film Bank has been purchased so a film made in the last ten years cannot be shown without going through a monopolised company. This makes its own statement. Is that the marketplace? We are talking about a monopolised means of abusing consumers internationally who were previously citizens.

As I said, when I last had the opportunity to discuss this topic in this House, 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 intense. The technology in the trade is referred to in almost insulting terms of "hard" and "soft". It is as if one creates the capacity first and then sets about purchasing exclusive rights to fill all the slots that are available for an insatiable public. I intend to address this in the legislation I will introduce.

Many of those competing for audience share are entirely commercial operations without any shred of public service ethos. Popular programming is seen by such organisations as something to be bought, protected and sold at a premium. Sport always has been an integral part of public service broadcasting schedules. It is a prime example of public service broadcasting. The coverage of hurling and football matches is, for many, a part of our broadcasting heritage. I want to add another provocative sentence to my massive run of indiscretion.

Mr. Norris

The Minister is welcome.

Professor Lee

That is so out of character.

Mr. M. Higgins

If a sporting organisation decided what took place on the field was something which could easily be described as a commodity, and if they distanced it from the concept of heritage, it would raise questions as to whether they should be seeking funding under a heritage category.

Mr. Norris

Absolutely.

Mr. Mooney

Murdoch's millions will pale into insignificance compared to what a Government can give a sporting organisation.

Mr. M. Higgins

There is also a question as to whether the person looking at a sporting event is watching as a passive viewer versus a commercialised activity or whether it is a form of interaction based on a knowledge or interest in the sport which is shared by the person on the sporting field and the person watching, be it in terms of memory, anticipation or education. It is a very different thing as those who watch hurling and football matches will know. They are not simply consumers of the national final or whatever.

While one may argue that the concept of a right to sell is similar to private property rights, it is an abstraction in comparison with the power of the activity when it is looked at differently. There are also important international competitions where the exploits of the national teams and individuals representing Ireland have been shared by the substantial numbers of those watching live coverage on national television. 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.

Mr. Mooney

It has already happened in Britain.

Mr. M. Higgins

When I last spoke on this issue in this House, Senators will recall that I made the point that it was futile to think in terms of preserving the access of individuals to live television coverage of important sporting events through national legislation alone. Senator Mooney is right about some of developments in Britain. Even the most conservative in Britain have raised the issues on which debate is about to begin here —issues of concentration, not only in ownership of one form of the media, but concentration of cross-ownership, which a backbench committee of the Tory Party has decided is not acceptable. We should debate those issues here and let it be said that it is irrelevant who owns the media, the distance between ownership and editing is so great that it need never be a matter of debate. What if a person owned a greater share of one medium, but then went on to concentrate that ownership through cross-ownership? Perhaps behind the question which is excited by the absence of sport through a free-to-air channel, there are bigger issues to which we have unfortunately delayed giving our attention.

In my proposals for fresh broadcasting legislation, I have proposed measures which will, hopefully, go some way to address this issue on a national basis. In response to Senator Norris, separately through the amendment to the Television without Frontiers Directive agreed unanimously by the European Parliament on the question of the exercise by broadcasters of exclusive rights to broadcast coverage of major sporting events and through my introduction of this topic to the Council of Ministers with responsibility for broadcasting policy at our meeting in Galway last September, the issue is being addressed urgently and comprehensively at European level. If, for example, particular events are designated at a national level as being of such importance that it must be possible for viewers to follow them via live coverage on unencrypted, universally available television services, such designations must be recognised and reciprocated by broadcasters and national authorities in other member states.

Without international co-operation it would be possible, regardless of national regulations, for a broadcaster operating outside this jurisdiction to simply ignore such regulations. The objective of the amendment agreed by the European Parliament was to ensure that the viewing public would continue to have access to major sporting events live on universally accessible television services. The Council of Ministers, which took place last December during Ireland's Presidency, endorsed the objectives of the amendment in principle. Work is now continuing at Council working group level to devise an acceptable wording which will effectively meet the objectives of the Parliament.

I have instructed my officials to urge that the strongest line possible is taken at these discussions. The European Commission met on 5 February 1997 and adopted a position which focuses on the exercise rather than the acquisition of exclusive rights with a view to safeguarding the public's right of access to the transmission of events of major importance for society. The Commission will promote this approach in negotiations with the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. I make no excuses for the fact that this approach rests on the exercise rather than the acquisition of exclusive rights. The major issues to which I earlier referred involve the acquisition principle.

Senators will be aware that the revision of the Television without Frontiers Directive is subject to the co-decision procedure. It will be necessary for both the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers to agree on the nature of any revision to the directive. It seems at this stage that all parties are agreed on the objective and I hope the conciliation procedure will lead to a successful revision of the directive on this topic in particular.

I apologise for taking so much time but I wanted to reply to some of the points raised because this is an important issue.

Mr. Norris

It is greatly appreciated by the House.

Mr. M. Higgins

Senators will, I hope, conclude from my contribution that I have considerable sympathy for the motion before the House. However, one should not pretend, as Senator Mooney incorrectly stated, that this is a simple matter. There are complex issues involving ownership, rights of sporting organisations — which are not absolute—and competitors, competition, rights of broadcasters and the rights of the viewing public as citizens rather than consumers. I hope I have been able to reassure the House that the issue is being addressed in a practical and urgent manner and that I will be seeking to balance the rights of citizens with other rights in the outcome.

With regard to the final part of the motion, Senators will appreciate that I have no statutory function for issues related to the provision of multi-channel television services by way of MMDS or otherwise. That is a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, and I have every confidence that he will deal with it properly.

Professor Lee

Cuirim fáilte roimh an rún agus déanaim comhghairdeas leis an Seanadóir Norris as ucht é a chur ar an gclár.

I too will begin by congratulating Senator Naughten. I do not know whether it was his maiden contribution but we listened to it with great pleasure. I thank the Minister for mentioning Raymond Williams because he promised me a copy of the Raymond Williams lecture he delivered and for which I am still waiting. Having reminded him, however, I am sure I will have no further complaints on that score. I congratulate him on being invited to deliver the Raymond Williams lecture which is a tribute to Irish culture generally and the Minister specifically.

I welcome Senator Norris to membership of a circle from which he has been hitherto excluded — or excluded himself — namely, the committee of provincial chauvinists of which I have long been a member. This is an auspicious occasion in terms of matters of that nature.

As the Minister emphasised, the speed of change in this area is so rapid that one must race madly to keep up. This motion is timely because there is much catching up to do and we must do it quickly. Approximately 18 months ago I spoke at another forum and I touched gingerly on these issues. I remember thinking I was very avant garde but, in light of the speed with which change has occurred, what I stated at that time has been quickly overtaken by events. People in Ireland are peculiarly exposed and vulnerable to these pressures for obvious linguistic and cultural reasons. This is a timely debate and the issues should be grappled with as quickly as possible. I support the general thrust of the Minister's response to the motion which deserves widespread public support.

I will now deal with a number of points raised by the Minister. I hope the fragmentation of responsibility between the two Departments will not inhibit effective policy making. Fragmentation is the curse of decision makers in Government because serious problems do not fall neatly into departmental pigeon holes. Therefore, the effectiveness of the co-operation between Departments is crucial in ensuring the optimum response to challenges of this type. I am sure the Minister will take that point on board but there is no harm in stressing it.

I will not linger on the wider issues raised by the Minister about the implications of technological change for Irish society. However, I agree with his statement that "One of the fundamental principles of the public service broadcasting ethos is universal access to transmissions. It is through the retaining of this and other values that we can ensure equality of access to quality and diversity of programming." That seems to be a central cultural value. Diversity, and the degree to which we wish to tolerate or encourage it, glides into the concept of a pluralistic society and is essential toward indicating the type of people we will be in the future. In that context, I plead with the Minister to try to elevate the importance of media education in the education system.

It is crucial that, when young people or potential citizens are learning a wide range of thinking and other skills, we help them to develop the capacity, for critical detachment in evaluating the torrent of information and indoctrination issuing from the media. To date, we have neglected to do this. The media, particularly television, is the greatest single source of information and ideas to which most people are exposed on a daily basis. It is extraordinary that the education system does not address the issue of media education more explicitly and consistently or include it as an integral part of citizenship education. We cannot assume that a capacity for critical thinking will emerge residually or evolve from the teaching of disparate subjects. Officials in the relevant Department should take this on board because we must constructively consider how media education can be integrated into the mainstream education system at all levels.

It is amazing that many third level graduates have never received direction about how to step back from this inundation in televisual images and impressions in order to preserve some degree of critical detachment. Despite the fact that I agree with the Minister in respect of consumerism v citizenship, etc., the future is on the side of the big battalions unless a conscious, deliberate, systematic and sustained attempt is made to ensure a capacity for critical detachment. Even then the future may be on their side but without that capacity it certainly will be.

I am delighted about the impact the Minister has made on European thinking on this matter. It seems that, in retrospect, when one comes to view Ireland's contribution to the European ideal and the EU, this will count as one of our most significant contributions. The Minister is aware that I disagree with him on a number of matters but, were he not in office, this would not have happened.

Sport, even though it is not the only issue, is becoming increasingly important. In a leisure society, it will become more central to the lives of young people and adults. Events in this regard will be very significant in determining public responses in various ways. Senator Naughten's statement about the place of sport in society is valid and must be taken on board. Ultimately, this debate involves those who have a country and a culture and those whose only culture is the market. The market is global at one level while at another that means nothing. It may be that the future belongs to those who have no country. I hope if that day comes, it will be over our dead bodies.

Mr. Sherlock

This is an important motion. I congratulate Senator Naughten on his maiden speech and was delighted to hear him refer to community television. Senator Norris made a good speech which contained a power of information. He said that in a sense the question of deflector systems and MMDS is comparatively unimportant. However, it does reach to the same underlying principle, that of the right of access for all citizens to information. I accept it might appear unimportant in some respects but the motion states.

"That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to ensure the maximum equality of access to viewers throughout Ireland for television programming."

I will confine my remarks to South Coast Community Television, which is a community led company. There is some misconception about that fact. It started in 1985 in the Fermoy area of north Cork. It grew and extended into south and west Cork and provides a first class service to the people in that region. At no time was there any evidence of interference by the South Coast Community Television "rebeaming" system with any other system and no complaints were made. The people involved applied for a licence and were refused as an exclusive order was granted to Prince Holdings. Later a judgment was handed down in the High Court which gave anyone the right to apply for the licence. The licence application was already with the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications.

The issue goes on and presently a report is being made available to South Coast Community Television. It is a community led organisation carrying out business in a very professional way, has the tremendous backing of the community and gives a first class service. From 1992 to 1994 I was very much involved. The Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications at the time, Deputy Cowen, wrote to me and the secretary of Cork County Council. The council gave its wholehearted support to the motion before it at the time requesting that a licence be granted to South Coast Community Television. The Minister's letter stated:

In order to understand why the deflector system cannot be licensed, one must appreciate the limitations of Ireland's frequency spectrum allocation. Under the terms of the Stockholm Treaty, 1961, Ireland was allocated sufficient ultra high frequency (UHF) spectrum for broadcasting to accommodate the equivalent of four national networks. The illegal deflector system operates in part of this broadcasting band and the physical facts are that there are insufficient frequencies available within this band to facilitate the national television channels and a nationwide deflector system. The present use of, and future plans for, Ireland's UHF spectrum allocations encompass the two national television channels, the proposed Teilfís na Gaeilge channel and the possibility of a third independent television channel.

No progress has been made on the third independent channel and that is sufficient reason for consideration to be given to the licensing of South Coast Community Television. I am delighted to have had the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this important issue.

Mr. Cassidy

I congratulate Senator Naughten on his maiden speech as one who comes from a neighbouring county and who was a great friend of his father's down through the years. It bodes well for the future of politics among up and coming generations that they have a representative of Senator Naughten's stature in the House. I hope he goes on to greater things and wish him well.

I support the motion. I refer to Senator Sherlock's contribution. His party has been in Government for two years and I am sure anything in which he wanted to have an input in that regard should have been done by now, but it was not. Everyone is kicking to touch because there is a general election on the way.

Mr. Sherlock

The harm was done when Fianna Fáil granted an exclusive licence.

Mr. Cassidy

The power of communications is greater than anyone ever realised, particularly through the medium of television. There is 70 per cent penetration on television, 20 per cent on radio and 10 per cent in newspapers. This shows where money is spent and where the commercial world places its money.

MMDS technology will be outdated within three to five years as new technology overtakes it. I was in America last week and there are 82 channels in the Cleveland area. What are we talking about? There were two channels in some rural areas until they got community licences. The fuss being made about this is not worth it.

The Minister is 100 per cent behind the protection of our major national sporting events. Sport plays an important part in modern day life as people have more leisure time, and it is healthy to be involved in sport. As a result sport will be the single most attractive product on television for most people.

The all-Ireland hurling final is the greatest spectator sport in the world. Anyone who has seen this sport, whether in Japan, America or Australia, is enthusiastic about it. I would not object if Sky or CBS paid the GAA a fee to broadcast this sporting event in countries where RTÉ does not show it. That money could be used to build dressing rooms and to develop sports facilities in urban and rural areas. Many professional sports, such as golf, boxing, rugby and soccer, are broadcast on television.

I support Teilifís na Gaeilge and I am proud the Minister brought it to fruition. As Senator Sherlock said, it was part of Fianna Fáil's manifesto for a number of years. I would like Teilifís na Gaeilge to become more involved at community level. County finals of Scór and hurling and football county finals could be broadcast on it. It would then be as successful as local radio stations. The young and enthusiastic staff of Teilifís na Gaeilge could look for local stories to broadcast.

Perhaps it is a blessing in disguise that many people are now receiving its signal. The bad lightning in the midlands last Monday week blacked out all the television stations. When they were retuned, people who could not get Teilifís na Gaeilge were able to receive it. I would be delighted to discuss proposals with the executives of Teilifís na Gaeilge or with the Minister on how to make it more popular.

Mr. Enright

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this motion. Senators Naughten, Sherlock and Cassidy spoke about the television deflector issue, which is discussed regularly in my area. From 1980 to 1993 a top quality and reliable deflector system serviced the town of Birr and the areas of Clara, Mountbolas, Tullamore, Moneygall, Shinrone and south Laoighis. The small fee was paid on an annual basis. This system ceased to operate in 1993 due to threatened legal action by Horizon TV, now called Irish Multichannel.

The service now provided by MMDS is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. A 41 per cent increase in charges since 1993 means it is too expensive. Inflation rose by 7 per cent during that period, so such an increase is exorbitant. The coverage is unpredictable and some people cannot receive the service. It is user unfriendly because a second television requires a second decoder which costs an extra £40 per year. The company charges a punitive late payment fee and a premium of £40 annually to people who cannot afford to pay the upfront annual fee of £176 and who opt instead to pay monthly. The 12 monthly payments cost £216, which is £18 per month. I hope the Minister understands the reasons that many of my constituents are unhappy with the quality and price of the service they now receive, although this matter is more appropriate to the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications.

One of the most common queries I receive is the licensing of television deflectors. Over the past few months the local deflector system restarted its operation in a confined area, but there is widespread demand for its coverage to be extended. The satisfactory resolution of this issue is important for many people in my constituency and throughout the country.

The report by the three EBU experts is now available. The Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Dukes, mentioned it recently on television and I believe he is sending it to South Coast Community Television for its examination. I hope this report, which is with the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, will be published. Perhaps a copy could be placed in the Library so that Members could read it. If this report is favourable to the community deflector systems in Cork, I ask the Minister to give a commitment in principle to the licensing of all such operations, subject to the normal technical considerations.

I have no objection to MMDS providing a service, but in the interests of fair play and equity the local community should be allowed to compete in this area. Europe is all about competition. Semi-State bodies, with which I deal on a regular basis, face competition; so why should private enterprise, such as MMDS, not have to compete with other interests? We are talking about community involvement. People are prepared to comply with the law in every respect and they should be given the opportunity to provide a community television.

Some areas of my constituency are unable to receive Teilifís na Gaeilge. Some people have been critical of the provision of this innovative service. If it is supported and encouraged it will enable us to have a better understanding of our language.

The cost of television is a serious matter. Customers are being charged too much. Ireland cannot tackle this problem alone. The EU has a major role to play in ensuring that customers are charged a reasonable fee. At the moment they are being exploited by a few individuals and action should be taken to stop this.

Dr. Henry

I would like to share my time with Senator O'Toole.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Dr. Henry

I congratulate Senator Norris on this motion and I am heartened by the Minister's response. It is interesting that Senators on both sides of the House have expressed concern on this subject.

Ninety nine per cent of households have a television set. Television is more than a consumer commodity, it is a cultural expression. It is essential that as many people as possible have access to it and feel that they can contribute to the ownership of television stations. The concentration of ownership of the media in a few hands has been regrettable and I am glad that Senator Norris spoke so strongly on this point. This concentration takes place in all sectors of the media.

We are in an invidious position if we speak about the rights of expression, liberty and freedom when fewer people have a choice about what they can view on an important cultural occasion without paying increasing amounts of money. This turns the event into something which is for an elite audience.

I was in the US with my children about 15 years ago and one of them noted that there were 40 channels with nothing on any of them. There is now a song called "54 Channels and Nothing on Any of Them". The Minister has rightly said that, unless we are careful, we could end up with 200 channels and nothing on any of them.

I am delighted that the EU is taking this problem seriously. Italy is experiencing dreadful trouble as a result of television being in the hands of a single individual. I agree with the Minister that Europe needs to take note of what has happened in the US and ensure that the same does not happen here. Public service channels in the US now have to interrupt their programmes to appeal for money.

Mr. O'Toole

I thank Senator Henry for sharing her time and compliment the Minister on his progressive and adventurous approach to broadcasting. He has made his mark on Irish broadcasting by taking important decisions.

I am delighted that Senator Norris tabled this motion and I agree with his proposals. However, I disagree with his minor criticisms of the GAA and I thoroughly disagree with Senator Quinn on this matter.

Broadcasting requires regulation. Market forces will not work in this sector and there is plenty of evidence of this. There has to be regulation but this does not mean oppressive control. Such regulation is required for reasons which are embedded in personal liberty and intellectual property rights.

Whether we like it or not, television is at the heart of the home. It has taken the place of the fireside, the seanchaí and the neighbour. Television is central to our culture in a transmissive and transformative way. Television directs and creates discussion and impacts on our thinking.

The biggest mistake made in broadcasting in the last ten years was the introduction of the MMDS system. A system which creates a less efficient service, in a less effective way at additional cost should have been doubted from the outset. In addition, there are questions regarding MMDS's impact on people's health. There is no reason for its introduction. I do not know the Minister's view on this but I recall that there was a campaign in Galway against the introduction of this system. Some of that opposition was scaremongering but there are good reasons for us to look at this system again.

It is not beyond human imagination to develop a system of regulation and licensing of deflector systems. The intellectual rights of people whose work is broadcast must be regulated but we could still achieve this using the deflector system. Both systems should work hand in hand.

We will shortly see far more channels being broadcast by satellite and we must have policies in place before technology overtakes us. For the last three mornings I have been entertained by Virgin Radio UK 105.3 FM. This should not be allowed within one month of the launch of a national commercial radio station. I have much sympathy for pirate stations and they should have a frequency, but the Virgin signal would not reach Dublin without being rebroadcast by one of the satellite stations here. We need action on this.

I support this motion. The cultural centrality of the all-Ireland and other sporting events must be protected from the Rupert Murdochs of this world who would destroy anything cultural in order to gain an additional dollar, pound or yen.

Mr. Lanigan

I welcome this motion. All Senators would agree that we should ensure the maximum quality of access to viewers throughout Ireland of television programming. At present the maximum equality of access to viewers is being provided by RTÉ and Teilifís na Gaeilge. Some people, for whatever reason, want multi-channel viewing and to watch Spanish basketball matches and skiing from obscure places. We must, therefore, have satellites and Sky to provide this coverage. A number of programmes being broadcast via satellite are abominable and culturally neutral and few people wish to watch. However, the only way people can avoid viewing these programme is if they turn off their televisions or switch channels.

The motion states: "to ensure that exclusive rights to major Irish sporting events are not exercised by broadcasters in such a way as to deprive any sizeable proportion of the Irish public of the possibility of viewing such events live". Unfortunately, the Government will not be able to dictate that but rather those holding these sporting events. If the IRFU, the FAI, the GAA or another body decides to sell or buy television coverage, they will go to Sky or Celtic. I am delighted people in Britain and America, including my sons and daughters, whether in Edinburgh or New York, can watch football matches on Sunday. RTÉ should provide that service but it did not win the rights because the GAA sold them to another organisation.

If the Government is to take appropriate action, it must make agreements with the relevant sporting bodies, this would ensure that exclusive rights to major Irish sporting events are not exercised by broadcasters in such a way as to deprive any sizeable proportion of the public of the possibility of viewing such events live on television. However, this is where the problem arises. Will the Government be able to tell the sporting bodies to whom to sell the rights of their games or will the sporting bodies tell the Government they have the right to sell their games to the organisation which pays the most?

A number of months ago the RFU decided to take as much money as was available from Sky, but the Scottish RU and Welsh RU did not do so. The RFU was to receive £85 million for the rights to the English matches, which was to include the five nations championship. Of the £85 million given to the RFU, £25 million was to be divided among the other three unions. However, the BBC beat Sky and won the rights to the rugby internationals. We would not have the resources to match those of the BBC or Sky.

Small soccer clubs are benefiting from the money being provided by Sky. Because of the lack of coverage of live matches, Sky is paying a certain amount to small clubs. The only way to beat Sky is to remove its satellites but how can the EU or Ireland ban the setting up of communication satellites? The only people who can stop this are sporting bodies selling their product, including those selling the all-Ireland and the rugby and soccer internationals. While I do not believe we can stop this, we can request the Government to do something. This is a wasted exercise unless legislation is introduced to stop satellites from beaming programmes into Ireland. I am not sure if we or the EU have the ability to do that.

The motion also asks the Government to "develop a just and coherent response to the situation currently obtaining regarding MMDS relay television transmission." Companies providing MMDS have given a good service in certain areas. However, those providing deflector systems are operating illegally. If we allow them to operate illegally, we are saying it is right because it costs less than operating legally. Poitín is cheaper than a bottle of whiskey, so why not allow people to sell poitín?

Mr. Norris

It would be a lot better too.

Mr. Lanigan

We must legalise or eliminate deflector systems. I presume before the election some deflector companies will pull the plug and when Members go out to canvass people will ask why. The answer will be that the Government stopped the deflector systems. The Minister has a choice; he must tell those operating deflectors systems they are operating illegally and face the problems we did when in Government or legalise them and ask them to pay a huge fee. If we legalise deflector systems, the price to the consumer will increase.

The only people making money from deflector systems are the providers of the service who are earning money illegally. I am not sure if they are paying tax. How does one tax an illegal operation? The Minister and the Minister for Finance must find a way to tax the providers of deflector systems. The Minister is in a minefield and will be unable to resolve the problem, but I wish him well in trying to do so.

Mr. Kelleher

This is a pertinent motion because much concern has been expressed about Sky and other large television corporations seeking exclusive rights to all-Ireland finals and rugby matches for commercial reasons. However, Sky has offered a great service in terms of its coverage of soccer matches, etc., and there is no doubt interest in soccer has grown. One only has to go into a pub on a Sunday when Manchester United is playing Chelsea or another large English club to see the hours of enjoyment it provides. It is not necessarily true to say Sky is a huge problem. The problem is how we ensure significant matches are protected and made accessible to everybody through our broadcasting system. We should sit down and put a legislative proposal in place to ensure any match or home event is transmitted through the national broadcasting service free of charge.

I wish to refer to community television. It is a minefield because, unfortunately, it has been made a political issue. All parties can claim guilt for that. However, during by-election campaigns in Cork the electorate was told that if the candidates were returned to the Dáil, certain community television providers would be granted a temporary licence. What will happen to these providers? There has been hedging and hiding behind court cases. Politicians claimed they could not comment because the matter was sub judice. Now that the case has concluded, can the Government give a response to community television providers?

The current position is grossly unfair on large numbers of people who avail of that service at present at a reasonable cost. If the providers are illegal it is incumbent on a Government to enforce the law. The Government has two choices. It can introduce legislation or arrive at a compromise with the companies which object to the current position. The people who are suffering are not the community television providers or the multichannel providers but the viewers. They do not know where they stand or whether they will have a television service next week or next month. They do not know whether to buy a satellite dish.

I urge the Minister to make a swift decision. I understand the sensitivities of the issue but it was made a political issue by the present Government parties when they were in opposition. The problem must be resolved immediately. The Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Dukes, appeared on television a few days ago and again he hedged on the question by saying the matter had just been dealt with by the court and that proposals would be put forward. Everybody knew what the outcome of the court case would be. The Government should have had legislation ready to ensure that these groups are established on a statutory basis or it should have made them illegal by enforcing the present legislation.

If the Government decides to allow the community television providers to function on a long-term basis, will such providers be exempt from planning legislation, as some of them do not have such permission at present? Can they be exempted from applying for planning permission if the Government deems their operations essential?

Mr. Norris

Last night in Sweden I was offered, by telephone, a menu of Ministers whom I could choose to reply to this debate. I chose the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and, having heard his contribution, I am exceedingly glad I did so. The Minister was, as usual, magisterial.

I am glad he referred to Dennis Potter as he was part of the inspiration for this motion. I had a slight friendship with Mr. Potter as I was his host for a week during the 1982 celebrations of the centenary of James Joyce. I remember the extraordinarily moving interview he gave when he said his pancreatic cancer was to be named Rupert after Mr. Murdoch, who was his bete noir. I am grateful to Senator Naughten for his contribution and to Senator Quinn who fulfilled the role of devil's advocate or Aunt Sally. All his arguments were knocked for six but, if we had not given the opportunity for that view to be promoted, the debate might have seemed one sided. Senator Quinn ensured that this was not the case.

The attempt by one of the media empires, presumably BSkyB, to acquire exclusive rights to the retransmission in Europe of the summer and winter Olympic Games from 2000 to 2008, by making what the European Commission coyly describes as "an extremely high bid", led to another defensive move by the European Union when the European Parliament passed a resolution on the broadcasting of sports events on 22 May 1996. The preamble to this resolution notes that:

the costs of the right to broadcast sports events are reaching levels that only make it possible for the most capital rich broadcasters to bid for them successfully and that, as a result, there is a danger of the right of the public to information being undermined due to the exercise by a broadcaster of exclusive rights for the transmission or retransmission of an event of high public interest. As a result this resolution welcomes the amendment of 6 February, 1996, to the UK Broadcasting Bill and suggests that other European states might follow suit.

By 5 February this year the European Commission produced a document entitled "Television Without Tears and Major Sports Events; Commission Communication". In this the Commission indicates that the exercise of exclusive rights for the television broadcast, in a transfrontier context, of a major event may prove to be detrimental to the right of access of the public to information. It recommends that each member state should take action within its own boundaries to ensure that the buccaneering tactics of international television moguls do not strip its citizens of access to their culture. In particular, member states are held to "retain competence to decide for themselves what events, be they sports or other events, they consider to be of major importance for their population".

In the UK, for example, the Broadcasting Act, 1996, contains provisions to guarantee the availability of live coverage of listed events to the in-the-clear television system. There are currently eight events listed by the Secretary of State for National Heritage. They are: the FA cup final, the Scottish FA cup final, the FIFA World Cup final, the Derby, the Grand National, the Olympic Games, the Wimbledon tennis championships and cricket test matches involving England.

The Independent Television Commission is currently drawing up a code for the implementation of these measures. United Kingdom measures apply to broadcasts by domestic broadcasters — that is, those under UK jurisdiction — and for reception in the UK. France has a roughly similar situation in which similar or identical sporting fixtures are protected. In the Flemish community of Belgium a list is drawn up by the Minister responsible for culture and media before 1 July each year consisting of cultural and sports events of major interest to the Flemish public. The Netherlands, Germany, Portugal, Denmark and Italy have taken, with differing methodologies, similar steps to protect what they see as part of their national sporting and cultural heritage.

Ireland, in common with Greece, Sweden, Finland, Spain and Luxembourg, has no system of protection yet. A working group has been set up to examine the possibility of legal intervention to prevent broadcasters from outside Ireland acquiring exclusive rights to transmit major sporting events taking place in Ireland. As of last Friday, I was unable to determine what, if any, conclusions had been reached or what recommendations might be made. However, the Minister made his feelings clear. It is urgent that this House should make clear its unambiguous view of the matter.

The question of deflector systems and MMDS is comparatively unimportant. However, it applies to the same underlying principle, the right of access of all citizens to information. The Irish Times of 20 February carried a report on a group involving 2,000 householders which erected a deflector mast that has been in operation for 15 years. The mast captures and rebroadcasts from a position near Enniskillen the signals of BBC and ITV. This type of community development roughly parallels the equally intriguing agitation currently surrounding local group water schemes who are aggrieved at being excluded from the benefits of the Government's water rate amnesty.

The issue of the deflector systems could add an intriguing element to the coming election. In 1990, an independent candidate in Cork South-Central polled 2,239 first preference votes according to an interesting article in The Irish Times on Thursday, 20 February, by Unision McDubhghaill. This intervention article helped to unseat the sitting Fianna Fáil TD, John Dennehy. The Taoiseach has apparently aggravated many of these groups by promising action on the deflector problem but failing to deliver.

The situation is complicated by an important decision of Mr. Justice Keane in November 1995. He found that the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications had failed to act fairly by adopting a policy of granting exclusive licences to MMDS operators only, thus effectively excluding all other applicants and refusing to examine the groups' case for a licence. Deflector operators are popular because they provide a low cost signal to rural areas which previously did not have a service and do so without raising the spectre of health risk associated, fairly or unfairly, with microwave transmission.

It is clear that on grounds of universal political and moral principles, as well as on grounds of media self-interest, the Government would be well advised to take serious note of the substance of this debate. I thank the Minister for contributing and listening so graciously and I thank my colleague, Senator Henry, for her clear and incisive contribution. I also thank the House for allowing me to impugn the reputation of Mr. Rupert Murdoch in a way I have long wished to do in a public arena.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Naughten

At 10.30 tomorrow morning.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997