To avoid any confusion in the debate, I remind Senators that there are two lists of amendments, the printed yellow list and the white list.
Broadcasting (Funding) Bill 2003: Committee Stage.
Acting Chairman
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 1, 4b and 5 are related and it is proposed to discuss them together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 14, after "funds" to insert "of which a minimum of two-thirds is dedicated for the community media sector.".
On Second Stage I spoke about the importance of community radio and the need to develop it. I also referred to the start-up costs involved in many cases. If we are to develop community bases, whether it is in radio or television, on a national basis, they will be stillborn unless some financial subvention is given to them.
When the Forum on Broadcasting discussed this area, the Minister spoke in favour of the development of community radio and television. That is important. Also, concern was expressed by RTE at the forum about the fact that 5% of the licence fee was being targeted at development. It indicated that its concern was that much of the funding would go to commercial entities, many of which are based outside the country.
In moving this amendment I hope that at least two thirds of the funding could be allocated towards the development of community radio and television. It is also important to bear in mind that there are certain impediments in the community area. For example, independent radio can advertise for ten minutes but local or community radio is limited to six minutes and the overall contribution from commercial activity must only be 50%. As a result, local community radio and television may have to depend on raffles, sponsorships, cake sales and a plethora of activity for support. We will have to recognise there is considerable expenditure involved in community radio which I will illustrate by way of one simple example. West Limerick Community Radio is on air on a pilot basis. It has submitted an application, which is being assessed by officials, to operate on a long-term basis. It will cover a large geographical area in west Limerick and, based on its success to date, will appeal to local activities. There will, however, be considerable start-up costs. In addition, there will be associated costs because not everybody will work on a voluntary basis and people will be needed at the top to deal with commercial activities. If we are serious about getting this off the ground, it should be possible to earmark two thirds of overall funding for community radio and television.
The Minister is aware that Dóchas is an umbrella organisation for approximately 33 non-governmental organisations. Those NGOs have put Ireland on the map and have helped to establish Ireland's position in the international marketplace. I propose to table an amendment on Report Stage to section 2 on new television and radio programmes to foster understanding of the global dimensions of Irish society. I hope the Minister will seriously consider the amendment.
I refer to the Minister's objective, as stated at the broadcasting forum, of developing community and radio television and ensuring it survives and prospers in rural areas. Funding of €8 million will be provided each year. The funding will be controlled and submissions will have to be made initially to the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland before it can be drawn down by community radio or television. If we are to seriously encourage community radio and television, rather than paying lip-service to the ideal, commercial stimulus will be required if we are to get it off the ground.
I reiterate the points made by Senator Finucane. My amendment No. 5 proposes that a specified percentage of funding be allocated to community broadcasters. It is a pity the Bill does not go further in this regard. We made this point extensively on Second Stage. It has come up in the discussions between certain groups and the Minister's officials. The Bill is deficient in this regard.
Community media is a separate strand of media and has its own dynamic. One of the problems it faces concerns start up. Unlike commercial stations, it does not have a licence fee or investment so it needs help to get off the ground. This fund would have been an ideal vehicle to generate at least some of the start up costs associated with the establishment of a community radio or television station.
The amendment I have tabled proposes that a specified percentage of funding be allocated. The specified percentage could be left to the Minister in terms of the regulations and so on but it would, most importantly, provide for a ring-fenced amount of money for community media in the Bill.
As Senator Finucane pointed out, we have been lobbied by some groups of which I am sure the Minister is aware, including Dublin Community Television and Community Media Network Ireland. They made the point that there is a need for start up funding or operating costs so that producers of community media can get up and running and continue to operate. It would also be an important recognition of the separate function of community media. At a time of globalisation and growing concern about its effects, particularly in the media, it would be a small step forward in protecting the notion of community which we have always held dear and to which we have, to some extent, paid lip-service, particularly in recent times. This is an opportunity to move beyond that and to reflect it in the legislation.
The use of media is important. The Minister agrees that the use of media is important and this is generally reflected in his legislation. Media is hugely important in preserving our culture and in reflecting and preserving our heritage in the modern era. Community media is a distinct strand of that and this legislation would be the ideal vehicle through which to open a fund to provide the necessary investment to give community media the kick start it needs.
I agree with the points Senator Finucane and Senator O'Meara made and I will not repeat them. However, when speaking about community media, Senator Finucane seemed to cover rural areas. I want to make sure we are not limiting this to rural areas. I also spoke to the Dublin community television people and they made a strong case that the difference between local and community should be distinguished. I made this point on Second Stage and I am not sure what the ideal solution is but it is something the Minister might take into account. There is a need to proceed exactly as has been proposed for which a case has been strongly made.
I refer to my amendment No. 4b. I also raised this issue on Second Stage. One of the things that is not spelled out in this legislation is the exact basis of the funding for the programme to be supported. It is easy to overlook the fact that a broadcaster incurs two types of costs in creating public service broadcasting. The first is the cost of making the programme which is easily understood. However, that is not the end of the matter. In arriving at the total cost to the broadcaster, one must note that the broadcaster must also take into account income foregone by broadcasting that programme rather than a more popular one which would attract a much wider audience and would, therefore, raise far more in advertising revenue. There is a difference. It is easy to understand but is not an easy case to make.
There are two costs and that is particularly an issue as the Bill specifically provides that programmes funded be broadcast at peak viewing or listening times. I approve of that proviso because it would be possible to cheat, that is, to produce a programme and broadcast it at the same time as "Oireachtas Report" when we are all asleep, or should be. By insisting such programmes are broadcast at peak times, a cost is being imposed on the broadcaster. The cost being imposed is the cost of advertising revenue forgone. If broadcasters are not compensated for that cost, the incentive to compete for the funding will be greatly reduced. It may even be removed altogether in that there may not be competition for it. Under this scheme, we are paying to make things happen which would not otherwise happen. We must ensure we pay enough because if we do not, progress will not be made. The reality is that commercial broadcasters will outsource the costs and production of the programmes. What we have to remember is that after they pay the production company for its work, there has to be something left over for the commercial broadcaster to make it worth its while to give up valuable airtime to put the programme out in the first place. It is vital that in drawing up the scheme the BCI allows for this particular factor. If it does not, we will find that all the money will end up going to RTE. It will be the only one tendering and looking for the money.
The amendment is necessary to make it clear to the BCI, beyond any possible doubt, that when it funds programmes, it is legally empowered, if it so chooses and to whatever extent it considers appropriate, to recompense a broadcaster for the advertising income that has been foregone by the broadcasting of the programme at peak times. I am not insisting that it does it every time, but it must be legally empowered to do it. I would like competition in this area, but I am a little worried that there might not be competition as we might be making the restrictions too tight.
Acting Chairman
I welcome the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to the House.
I thank the Senators for their amendments. They obviously have been thinking intensely about this issue. Even before they tabled the amendments, we in the Department were looking at the possibility of including such provisions in the legislation. When drafting legislation, it is important to allow some flexibility. However, while I understand the spirit in which the amendments were tabled, I cannot accept them.
The detail of the funding, including grant rates, the calculation of eligible costs and the allocation of funds among various categories, is best left to when the detail of the scheme is being drawn up. If one was to ring-fence amounts for specific categories of broadcasters or programmes, this could, in effect, lead to an inefficient use of the fund. As I said earlier, I considered this approach but decided against it. The objective of the fund is to encourage the provision of additional high-quality programming for the licence fee paying public. While the broadcasters will benefit from it, we have to remember that the fund is for the audience, the public, and not for the broadcasters. It is not there to aid, or in some way kick-start, broadcasters, but to provide additional high quality public service broadcasts in certain sectors to the public.
We should not attempt to anticipate in the legislation from where the best programme proposals will come. This is likely to be a developing phenomenon. If the legislation fixed amounts for specific categories, this would be likely to lead to a negative impact on the possibility that broadcasters and independent producers would bring forward innovative proposals.
The Bill specifically provides that the broadcasting commission will have the power to decide that in any year the fund should be directed at particular classes of programmes or at programmes broadcast on a particular medium. This would allow for funds to be specifically directed at community broadcasters, as is the intention of two of the amendments, and national broadcasters.
The issue of what costs will be considered eligible in the context of applications and grant approvals again is one of the detailed matters that should be considered in the drawing up of the scheme. The intention is that the Bill will provide the framework, but allow the necessary flexibility for the scheme to be developed, operate effectively and amended as necessary over time. If we wanted to amend it or put in specific provisions, we would have to come back to the Oireachtas every time rather than leaving issues, such as specific percentages, to the detail of schemes. I do not anticipate that within the scheme there will be specific percentages because sectionalising it may prevent the type of phenomenon we are trying to create.
Ultimately, the scheme will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and if the Dáil or Seanad wished to debate it, it would be a matter for that time. I suggest to the Senators that it is best left in more general terms in the legislation and that we address the specifics when the scheme is being drawn up.
I understand the Minister's point about ring-fencing a certain portion of the fund. Regarding Senator Quinn's point, I was giving a rural example as I come from a rural location which makes me cognisant of the rural scene. I have also been lobbied on the urban scene. Regardless of whether community radio or television is urban or rural, I want to ensure it gets off the ground and survives financially. It was in that spirit that I tabled the amendment, suggesting that a certain amount should be ring-fenced.
What concerns me is that if we leave it until the scheme is in place, we will have very little input after it is passed by the Dáil and Seanad. The Minister is asking us to accept something with a great sense of vagueness. I ask the Minister to state specifically that in the case of this funding he will be favourably disposed towards the community radio and television concept.
In the report of the Forum on Broadcasting, which I read at length, and also the Minister's commitment to it, I became aware that a senior person in the Minister's Department did not want this 5% development in the first place, which is worth bearing in mind. It is also worth bearing in mind that RTE did not want 5% of the overall licence fee diverted to this particular mechanism. If the senior official had reservations about the 5% input under the Bill and if the advice given to the Minister today has come from the same source, I am entitled to be very doubtful about the position of community radio and television under the Bill. There is no point having a broadcasting forum and discussing the themes of culture, heritage, historical issues and buildings we want to encompass if they are sidelined. In terms of local input, we have all experienced that the best contributions are often made on local community radio.
Independent radio stations have a track record of survival, shown by the large fees that have been paid for them. Many of those commercial radio stations exist on the basis of commerce and making a profit. If they make a generous profit and have a licence for a period of time, they are ripe for take overs. In that situation, the people involved originally – one might say good luck to them for taking a chance – will go off with millions of euros of profit.
The spirit and intent is for a certain percentage of current affairs and news, but the main theme of many of these commercial radio stations is programming for the 20 to 35 age bracket. The music played is chosen with that in mind. The themes of the Bill, in terms of spirit and intent, can best be achieved by the community type of radio, whether it is local or urban. While I understand that the Minister cannot ring-fence two thirds of the funding, I would like reassurance that despite the concerns expressed by RTE and his senior official, the Minister is serious about his intention, when matters are finalised, to proceed with the development of community radio and television.
There is no point in the Minister paying lip service at the broadcasting forum only for the whole idea to be stillborn because of a lack of support. They need a certain level of support as they cannot exist on a wing and a prayer in regard to the type of start-up and operational expenditure involved. They are not looking for the State to bail them out completely as many of the people who participate tend to do so on a voluntary basis, but they achieve an objective within the community. The themes outlined by the Minister can be achieved in many cases by community radio and television. Before I press this further I would like firm assurances that the Minister and his officials are committed to the concept of community radio and television.
The Minister referred to a generalised approach. While such an approach might be designed to mean everything, it usually means very little. Unless something is stated specifically in legislation, there is no guarantee that it will happen. In fact, there is every likelihood that it will not happen. We have enough experience to know this is the case. Therefore, I am disappointed with the Minister's response and more convinced than ever that the amendments are necessary.
I must declare interests. On the one hand I receive some of my income from the national State broadcaster. On the other, those who bothered to read my declaration of interests will know that I also have a small equity holding in a Dublin-based commercial radio station. I am between two stools on this issue, having an interest in both aspects of it. However, public service broadcasting is a totally different concept from commercial broadcasting.
I rarely, if ever, disagree with my friend and colleague, Senator Quinn. His amendment seems to presuppose that commercial broadcasting stations, despite this scheme, would not provide radio and television programmes that people would listen to or watch at peak times. This seems to be the premise on which he bases his argument. If that is the case I point to the outstanding success of RTE, as the national State broadcaster, in developing its programmes for the widest possible diversity of views. The TAM ratings for any week show that the overwhelming majority of the top ten most successful programmes are home produced. They are programmes that in other countries, even on state broadcasting networks, would not be prepared, costed and implemented.
This country has a unique tradition in this regard. We seem to want to watch programmes about ourselves. My criticism is that we are not developing enough programmes which reflect our culture and the real Ireland. This is where I hope the Minister's scheme will come into play. Senator Ryan has tabled amendments which relate to cultural diversity and which we will discuss later. There appears to be an overwhelming appetite for programmes that reflect and portray us as we are. This has been proven statistically in the decades since the introduction of television and before that in the early days of radio. Programmes of this nature which the State broadcaster has produced have always been successful.
Every speaker is correct that licences were granted to commercially based operators who then ran with them. The primary objective of commercial stations is to make money for their shareholders. We can argue about whether this is a good or bad thing and about whether it is moral or immoral, but business is business. I hope the station in which I am involved will continue to garner listeners because if it does I might have a chance of getting my initial investment back. It is looking extremely shaky at present, given the station's share of the audience in Dublin.
Commercial broadcasters were then forced by the Government of the day to ensure that their programming would have a 5% current affairs content. That percentage of current affairs had to be presented in their peak time schedule and not shoved into the ghettos of the early morning or late night. Many of them railed against that requirement and continue to lobby to have it dropped, diluted, changed or in some way neutralised. The production of news costs money. It is a labour intensive operation. I have no doubt Senator O'Meara, through her sister's most distinguished career in public service broadcasting, can testify to the fact that news presentation is a labour intensive job. The 30 second clip which we see is preceded by, perhaps, a full day's work.
Commercial operators do not want this 5% requirement and they jump through all sorts of hoops to convince the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland that they are complying with it. In some cases this is extremely difficult. A music based station—
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator, your contribution must be relevant to the amendment.
It is. Far be it from me to argue with the Leas-Chathaoirleach but the point I am making relates to the 5% requirement and the manner in which it will be used once it is put into the mix. I am attempting to reflect the fact that there are two interests, the public service interest and the commercial interest, involved in this issue. RTE will be entitled to apply for this money for its programming.
I would prefer the money ring-fenced for local and community broadcasting rather than for RTE. There is not a level playing field because radio has become so diverse. Deregulation has gone too far and soon there will be too many radio stations in the country. However, I accept Senator Finucane's point about community radio.
I would prefer if local commercial radio, where people have invested a great deal of their own money, would be given preference in this regard and that the emphasis would be placed on encouraging local radio operators to use the money to more accurately reflect the diversity of our culture, as stated in the Bill. We must understand from where we are starting. We have a unique broadcasting set up in Ireland and it is still evolving. I am interested to hear the Minister justify why he has framed the Bill in such a way. If I have a criticism of the Minister, it is his generality. I would like to hear more about his philosophy in this regard.
I am sure there is no misunderstanding between me and Senator Mooney in this regard. My point was that I do not want this money to be used entirely by RTE. I was hoping that it would be used by community broadcasters. We must find a way to encourage communities to become involved. That is why I supported the amendment.
I thank the Senators for their comments.
I do not share Senator Finucane's suspicion of public service officials. In all my dealings with the public service, as a Minister and otherwise, I have found the advice given to Ministers and Members of the Oireachtas and the work done for us to be nothing but professional. It is a public servant's job to advise, but it is the job of a Minister to decide. An official may lose an argument about what a Minister should do, but the public service – this is particularly true in the case Senator Finucane mentioned – will put into action the legislation that is passed by the Oireachtas. Senator Finucane need have no worries in that regard.
I can understand why RTE was somewhat worried. This legislation represents a dramatic sea change. For the first time in the history of the State, a portion of the licence fee will not go specifically to RTE. The original intention was to ring-fence 5% for all broadcasters except RTE but on the advice of the Attorney General, that there was a strong possibility that this would fall foul of the state aid issue, it was decided that we would have to include RTE and allow the fund to operate on a level playing field.
I was asked to be more specific about this issue. In response to Senator Quinn's proposal, Senator Mooney made the argument that I would make. Senator Quinn's proposal presupposes that this type of programming would lose audience share and, consequently, lose advertising revenue. I would like to think that it would do the opposite. People should not lose sight of what this legislation is trying to do, which is to give more emphasis to the diversity of our culture in specific areas. I am not saying anything that is against community or local radio and television; I am a great supporter of them. The genesis of this legislation is the need to assist broadcasters in providing additional high quality programmes in particular areas. The audience rather than the broadcasters will be the recipients of the benefits of this fund.
This legislation must provide for an open, competitive market where all broadcasters are operating on a level playing field and can tender to the BCI for assistance. This method will allow the best type of programming to be produced. Where would one start and end with ring-fencing the fund for certain areas? A portion could be ring-fenced for television, while another portion could be ring-fenced for radio. Funds could be ring-fenced between public and independent broadcasters. Equally, there could be an insistence on a national, regional or community focus. We considered designating a specific part of this fund for Irish language programmes. Where does it end?
The specific ring-fencing of funds ultimately would go against the whole idea of open competition and getting the best programmes for the available money. If we were to include this in legislation it would be difficult for us to change it or to dilute what we had previously done. It would be an easier process to amend this by regulations. For these reasons I cannot accept the amendments. However, I understand the spirit in which they were tabled.
I respect the Minister's sterling defence of the Civil Service. I said that if the Department's senior head of the broadcasting division had reservations about 5% of funding going towards the Bill and if RTE had similar reservations, one is inclined to be doubtful about the spirit and intent of this regarding community radio and television. The Minister elaborated on this in the same way as he did previously, but for me it is like buying a pig in a poke. I hoped for a new reassurance that, in the submissions to the BCI, community radio and television would get a sympathetic hearing from the commission. After all, RTE and commercial radio and television stations are starting with a tremendous advantage – a good financial position. I am talking about the concept of voluntary, non-profit-making enterprises and the restrictions and impediments that exist. For example, we are talking about ten minutes of advertising for a commercial radio station while a restriction of six minutes will be placed on a local community station. Community stations are restricted to raising 50% funding from commercial activities.
I predict that if encouragement is not given to community radio and television stations in urban and rural areas, despite the greatest intent of communities, they will falter over time and the principle will be stillborn. There is a community radio station in Connemara serving a scattered population. While meaningful programmes on Irish culture or language could be produced by that station, unless the BCI looks seriously at helping it and providing financial assistance, stations such as this will falter and die.
Senator O'Meara's amendment did not mention a specific amount of money to be ring-fenced for community radio and television. At this stage, I feel it incumbent on me to press the amendment. I have had many discussions with rural community radio stations and have heard their problems. I have been lobbied also by Dublin-based community television. I have received information from Dóchas on thematic issues and globalisation. I am almost tempted to insist on ring-fencing on the basis that I feel I am not giving these bodies anything back even by raising this issue.
The Minister can defend the officials and RTE. I read the forum report and I saw a spirit of hope that the whole community concept would be fostered and developed in this Bill. I am not 100% reassured. I believe that when it comes to submissions to the BCI, commercial entities will get a large percentage of the 5% fund of €8 million. All I want is reassurance that the type of community radio and television we are trying to foster is given a fair chance and that there is a commitment from the BCI that it will seriously entertain proposals from this sector.
So far, the Minister has not reassured me of this – he only criticised me a little as I appeared to be critical of the Civil Service. I only stated the facts as I see them and where reservations have been expressed to me. RTE's heart was not in it and neither was the heart of the Minister's senior official. Yet, the Minister won on what he wanted in the Forum on Broadcasting for community radio. Where is the Minister's serious intent after that?
I do not doubt Senator Finucane's sincerity. I do not speak for RTE but I am not at all surprised to hear him and the Minister refer to RTE's reluctance in this regard. RTE was in a serious financial crisis when this Bill was in gestation and when consultations were taking place in the public domain – we all followed them. RTE was up in arms when the Minister suggested he intended to divert €8 million of his Department's budget under this Bill. Any organisation would be up in arms about it and I do not think there is any great conspiracy or secret about it. I do not see the political point of suggesting RTE was somewhat reluctant to accept it. If I was in charge of RTE, I would be reluctant to accept it. If I was working in RTE and relying exclusively on my income from that organisation I, too, would be concerned about the intention of the Minister, my political boss, to divert money from the place in which I worked. People working in RTE have families too. That is one side of the argument.
I do not speak for the commercial sector but I rhetorically put the question of whether any Member of this House seriously believes that stations like FM104 or 98FM will seek money from the Minister or the BCI under this fund with the obligations inherent in applying for it? It is my view as a broadcaster, for what it is worth, that the overwhelming majority of applications will come from the very sector to which Senator Finucane and Senator O'Meara referred, the community and non-profit making sector. They will not come, in the main, from the commercial radio sector because that sector will see this as a further imposition on their schedules. Once they apply for and receive money from the BCI, they are legally obliged to meet the criteria under the fund. I do not see the commercial sector overwhelming the community or non-profit sector in this regard. I cannot see that happening; it is not a runner.
The Senator should seriously consider this matter. It is a national disgrace that up to recently there was no diversity in broadcasting in this city. There was little alternative to RTE's public service concept. The vast majority of licences issued in this city have been, up to now, for music-driven radio programmes. Such licences have not been issued for any of the worthy, noble aspirations contained in this Bill. That is a disgrace. I say that as a broadcaster, a listener and as a politician without fear or favour. That situation should never have developed. There should have been much more diversity in the granting of licences in the greater Dublin area because it has deprived a huge volume of people of diversity in radio programming. The Minister should, perhaps, be complimented on introducing this initiative which might wake them up and increase listenership in the greater Dublin area. I am referring specifically to that sector. It must be remembered that two thirds of our population can access Dublin radio stations. That is not widely known. Anyone who travels the roads of Ireland knows one can pick up Dublin stations at least 70 to 80 miles away from the city.
I disagree with the fears expressed in this amendment that somehow the community or non-profit making radio broadcasting sector will be further disenfranchised. That will not be the case. I am sure that when the Minister set about putting together this initiative in legislative form he was not intent on using it as a financial leg-up for the community radio sector. If that was so, the commercial sector would rightly be screaming blue murder about it. I am sure there is an EU directive which would prevent the Minister doing so.
The €8 million to be made available is a significant sum for the sort of community sector to which Senators referred. Their operating costs, as Senators know, are low. They operate, in the main, in the voluntary sector. Their main expenses are local transmission costs and limited production costs given the type of programming in which they are involved. I am firmly of the opinion that the very talented people operating in the community sector are the ones who will seek funding from the BCI.
I assure Senator Finucane and others that there will be a level playing field and that local community radio and television stations will get due regard. Ultimately, it will be the quality of programmes that will determine whether they are successful. That is the way we envisaged this from the start. Senators must understand that this is part of an overall package relating to increases in licence fees. I felt there were areas of broadcasting that, with the best will in the world, much of our independent sector were not addressing because, as Senator Mooney said, they are driven by commercial costs. While they provide a public service in their local communities – most Senators from rural areas acknowledge that – the Government and I felt they needed to focus on specific areas such as heritage, cultural diversity and the Irish language. It is correct to say we are restricted in what we can target in these areas as they are subject to EU directives. We are working under directives in the area of culture in this respect to allow us produce this fund.
The principle of the fund is not to provide a leg-up to any specific broadcaster. It is to provide additional high quality public service programming in certain sectors. It does not always follow that the more money a broadcaster has, the better the programme. Some of the most successful programmes have been produced on a shoestring. That is not merely a phenomenon in Ireland; it happens throughout the world. This is a genuine effort to try to engender some competition in specific areas of the public service. No sector will be excluded from applying for funding and that is how it should be.
I welcome the assurances given by the Minister and Senator Mooney.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4a are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, subsection (1)(a), lines 15 and 16, to delete “on Irish culture, heritage and experience” and substitute “the diversity of culture, heritage and experience on the island of Ireland”.
The Minister stated that the aim of this legislation is to provide additional high quality programmes for the audience and not for the programme makers. That is an important and valid point. We are not in the business of providing a fund with which people can play. The fund is important for the generation of particular types of programming as set out in the legislation.
This amendment relates to Irish culture, heritage and experience. I wish to make two points, one of which relates specifically to the amendment and another which does not relate to it. However, I wish to make it anyway because I intend to raise it on Report Stage and I alert the Minister to that fact. The object of the amendment is to substitute the words "on Irish culture, heritage and experience" with "the diversity of culture, heritage and experience on the island of Ireland". It is specifically designed to broaden the definition, and the whole vision, of Irish culture in the legislation. I hope the Minister will see the amendment's intention for what it is, namely to be helpful, using the opportunity to encompass a broader notion of Irish culture than that set out in the draft legislation. It is not my understanding or assumption that the wording is designed to be narrow in its interpretation of Irish culture. However, the amendment is designed to use the legislation to set down a marker that Irish culture is somewhat broader, encompassing the whole island. For instance, it would certainly include the culture of Ulster, which is obviously a very important integral part of our culture to which we should be seen to extend an encompassing hand in our definition. That is the purpose of the amendment, which does not rule out Irish experience abroad either, covering it further on in the section.
I have always had an interest in broadcasting. I can look back to the early years of community radio, which was the forerunner of local radio, at that time sponsored by RTE. I was also involved in the foundation of Tipperary Mid West Radio. I was a founding director of Dublin 98FM, and I have served on a liaison committee with RTE for over 30 years. Senators will recall that I made a very strong case for RTE last time. In fairness, I had to do that, since I felt it had made a huge contribution to broadcasting, including the areas that we are now discussing in the motion.
I can fully understand some of the points being put forward by Senator O'Meara. The heart tends to agree with quite a few of the sentiments in all the amendments, but the head might give a little word of caution to be careful down the line. I am always a little worried at such times, when we start broadening definitions. One might almost say that it is the same argument as that for community radio. It is the very same idea. I do not want to see the parameters being extended at the moment. I know the word "multicultural" does not show up, meaning that one can assume the diversity mentioned in the amendment could be that of Irish culture, heritage and experience. That is a very broad definition to start with. I am sure everyone in the Chamber is quite clear, but lest anyone outside think that in some way we wanted to exclude some definition of Irish culture, history or experience, that is not the case, nor has it, in fairness, been the case in most broadcasting on the island for many years. It should not be so, for that would undermine the very credibility of broadcasting itself.
On the other hand, if the definition diverges from that, we get into multiculturalism, something that I very much support. I have the proud boast of being the godfather of a Chinese lady who came to Ireland not so long ago. I have always kept in touch with Chinese culture and listened to that community's views. She said to me on several occasions that she was always worried that, when we talked about being multicultural, we might misunderstand what visitors to this island want. They do not want us to sideline or dilute our own culture. It is like building a house. If our own culture is not firm and strong, we cannot build a multicultural society on the island. I argued on the very same issues when we were first entering the European Community, saying that, if we were going in only with a cultural begging bowl rather than offering our rich heritage and culture, we would lose out.
I was therefore absolutely delighted when the legislation was brought forward that the Government had seen the need for ensuring that what was rich and ours would be kept intact, not just for ourselves but to share with others. If the diversity of culture as mentioned in the amendment means "multicultural", members will all agree that all the big satellite stations are already serving that purpose exceptionally well. How often will Senators see Fox television or any of the other stations in any way representing our culture or heritage? It is very much a multicultural or, as someone has already said, global view. This is one occasion when even visitors from outside and those who have accepted us as their adopted country, I have no doubt, would want to see our culture strengthened. I am therefore extremely pleased with the legislation. I certainly hope Senator O'Meara might consider after the debate not pressing the amendment. The diversity on this island is well reflected and will be represented under this legislation.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I remind Senators that this debate must finish at 7 p.m. We have reached only amendment No. 2.
I will be very brief. I propose the new subsection on the theme on which I had been talking a great deal, namely, the concept of community radio and television. I felt, on the basis of the Minister's reassurance, that good proposals from community radio and television would be considered. If those subparagraphs referring to "contemporary community culture" and "current dimensions of community cultural diversity" were included as part of the themes of the broadcasting funding scheme, it would strengthen the community radio and television concept.
I was approached by Dóchas, representing such organisations as Gorta, Trócaire and Concern, which said there was a need to recognise the global picture. That is rather different from the multicultural attitudes of which Senator O'Meara has spoken. It is the concept of Ireland's experience in the international context. They suggested – there is something to be said for it, so I ask the Minister to consider it – that they would like a formulation about fostering understanding of the global dimension of Irish society. Perhaps the Minister might be able to consider including that in some form when he is examining the suggestion from Senator O'Meara. I understand her point, but this is slightly different.
I would like to address amendment No. 4a which I have tabled. It refers to a matter I raised on Second Stage. I have no problems with excluding news programmes from the Bill's scope, but I have a big problem with extending that exclusion to cover current affairs programmes. This Bill is all about public service programming. It is an attempt, which I fully support, to level the playing field for programmes that might otherwise get squeezed out of broadcasting schedules by commercial considerations. I therefore do not altogether agree with what the Minister said, since it seems to me that, if a programme is going to attract a very large audience, it does not need any support by virtue of being a community programme. My point is that current affairs should be included. The Bill does not cover current affairs, but one aspect should be included. As drafted the subsection undermines the point I made about commercial concerns.
I ask the Minister to consider one type of current affairs programme, namely, investigative journalism, or documentaries as one would say in radio and television. These are programmes with a missionary intent, or with the aim of achieving something. They come about when a programme maker identifies a scandal that has been swept under the carpet, or a story that has been ignored in the ordinary scheme of things. The programme maker sets out to investigate the facts. The Minister mentioned earlier that Senator Mooney and Senator O'Meara's sister can confirm that it can take a full day to prepare 30 seconds of a programme. A programme maker who sets out to produce an investigative programme will face a long and expensive process. It can take a great deal of effort to uncover something that has been covered up, deliberately or otherwise, by the mists of time. Legal considerations may have to be pondered and expensive advice may have to be sought.
Given that the long road to producing an investigative documentary is strewn with many pitfalls, it is not very surprising that not many such documentaries are produced for radio or television. The cost structure of broadcasting is such that the production of an investigative documentary may not provide a satisfactory return on a broadcaster's investment. The reality is that investigative documentaries are an endangered species. They will not survive because they are expensive.
I would like us to examine this matter from the point of view of the national interest, however. As a citizen of a Republic that considers freedom of expression to be a key value, I want broadcasters to offer us investigative documentaries on a regular basis. If one asks ordinary citizens about this matter, one will discover that most people consider that public service broadcasters have a basic responsibility to take the risks involved in researching and producing investigative documentaries. As I have said, however, the everyday economics of broadcasting do not facilitate such productions. It is for that reason that I suggest that this type of programming should be on the list of eligible programmes in schemes such as those outlined in the Bill.
The deliberate exclusion of investigative documentaries from the remit of this Bill could be seen as a form of censorship. I know that is not the Minister's intention, but I urge him to consider my amendment. I would hate this Bill to be regarded as a form of censorship, perhaps imposed by a regime that has chosen not to expose itself to the risk of embarrassment. I do not refer to the present Administration. I would like a measure such as that I have recommended to be part of public service broadcasting in the future. I hasten to add that I am not making a comment on the Minister or the Government. The wording of this subsection could have an unintended effect. I ask the Minister to consider removing the reference to current affairs in order to encourage investigative documentaries.
The existing current affairs requirements apply to all broadcasters. Part of the commitment given by RTE in the context of its large licence fee increase was that it would increase its current affairs and news programming by a sizeable percentage. Other broadcasters are obliged, under the terms of their licences, to provide a certain level of current affairs output. Senator Mooney said earlier that many such broadcasters do not like to provide such output because it is very costly.
My original point relating to the fund was that we are not establishing a broad-brush fund, but a fund specific to certain areas. I am reluctant to accept amendments that would broaden the focus of the fund because they would take away from the specific idea that underpins it, which is that issues relating to Irish culture and heritage need more emphasis than they receive from RTE and, more particularly, from the independent broadcasting sector.
I do not think there is a need to amend the Bill in the manner suggested by Senator O'Meara. There are specific references to Irish culture, heritage and experience throughout the Bill, especially in sections 2 and 3. These references account for all cultures on the island of Ireland and I do not think that there is a need for change in this regard.
Senator Quinn referred to the global experience. Section 2(1)(a)(vii) of the Bill refers to “the Irish experience in European and international contexts”. I am somewhat reluctant to broaden this section of the Bill, as it could lead to the fund being expended by broadcasters doing programmes from all over the world. This finite fund is aimed specifically at honing in on uniquely Irish experiences.
Senator Finucane spoke about community, culture and diversity. I believe we have covered these areas, which are not excluded under this Bill. If I start to open out its focus, the benefit of the fund will be diluted.
I neglected to mention the global issue, which the Minister dealt with in his reply to Senator Quinn. An opportunity will be lost if this issue is not examined. I will put down an amendment to that effect on Report Stage.
I would like to respond to Senator Quinn's proposal in respect of current affairs. His amendment suggests that current affairs be included in this fund. I fundamentally disagree with the Senator's suggestion, however. Speakers have referred to the fact that my sister works as a public service broadcaster, but they may not remember that I, too, once worked as a public service broadcaster in the news area of RTE. It is true that I know the cost of producing current affairs programmes, but I also know that a fundamental part of the brief of a public service broadcaster is to engage in investigative journalism. The Minister has reiterated this. It would be wrong to include current affairs and investigative journalism in this fund. Such a measure would undermine the public service broadcaster's responsibility in this regard.
Investigative journalism needs to be as independent as possible. It needs to operate behind closed doors, to a large extent, until it emerges into the open. A great deal of research needs to be done in a way that the public does not know about. One does not know how the programme one is working on will end up until one has concluded one's investigation and research. One can start looking at an issue in a particular way, but one may conclude by seeing it entirely differently. I disagree with Senator Quinn because I do not think this fund is suitable. I do not favour his amendment, based on my own experience.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 4, subsection (2), between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(c) the start-up costs of community broadcasters,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 4a and 4b not moved.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 5, subsection (4), line 30, after "circumstances" to insert "and may in particular require that funding be allocated on a thematic basis during periods specified in the scheme".
Amendment No. 6 is designed to ensure that funding be allocated on a thematic basis. However, in light of what the Minister has already said, I do not feel it will be accepted. I would like to hear his response.
I agree with the proposal that the Bill should provide the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland with the power to decide from time to time that the fund should be directed at particular categories of broadcasters or programmes. However, I do not propose to accept the amendment because this principle is adequately provided for in section 2(3)(c), which provides that the scheme can provide for a variety of funding arrangements, including funding of different types of programmes or different media in different years.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 5, subsection (8), line 41, after "scheme" to insert "or an amendment to a scheme".
This is pretty much a technical amendment which seeks to insert "or an amendment to a scheme" after "scheme". It is helpful.
Again, where a scheme is to be amended, a new scheme will have to be submitted in its place. If that new scheme is approved by the Minister, it will then be laid before the Oireachtas. The amended scheme will become the scheme and the existing section 2(8) will then apply to it as the scheme.
I reiterate that I do not believe I should be too prescriptive in legislation about the format of the scheme. It should be allowed to evolve and we should not have to return to the Oireachtas time and again to change it.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment being pressed?
No.
I assure Senator O'Meara that we will act in the spirit of her proposal.
It is largely a drafting amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 7a:
In page 5, subsection 9(a), line 45, after “made” to insert “or amended under section 2(6)(b), and the Minister shall cause to have published by electronic means all schemes which may from time to time be in effect”.
The purpose of this amendment is to broaden the scope of the disclosure requirements for any schemes drawn up under the Bill. The existing provision requires merely that the scheme be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. This is a standard provision and it is necessary and very valuable. I entirely agree with it but it is not quite enough in this case. While it requires disclosure in a technical sense, it is a long way from requiring the publication of the information in a proper way. There will be strong public interest in the details of these schemes and the legislation should cater for this by providing for more than just the absolute minimum level of disclosure envisaged.
I make the point in respect of every Bill that passes through the House that the average person does not read Iris Oifigiúil. Still less does the average person have access to the Library in Leinster House, unlike Members of the Oireachtas. Fortunately, we now have a very easy, inexpensive way to give every member of the public access to information, namely, the Internet. There is an enormous difference between requiring that information to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and requiring that it be published on the Internet or “by electronic means”, which I understand is the correct terminology. Public interest calls for the information requirement to be extended beyond the minimum level and that the details of the schemes drawn up under the Act be available immediately to anybody who cares to look for them.
I have tabled an amendment such as this in respect of almost every Bill in the past five years. When I was first elected to the House ten years ago, the Internet practically did not exist. Now its use is growing. It is so accessible, easy to use and cost-effective that it seems a shame not to publish on it on every single occasion. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment.
The Broadcasting Commission of Ireland, in all that it does, is obliged to publish and consult. From my recollection, it has always published on the Internet. Equally, my Department, of all Departments, is the one that puts decisions made on many issues on our website for public consultation. We have discussed this issue in reference to previous legislation and I understand the Senator's position, but I do not want to be overly prescriptive. It is good practice that all documents, such as those pertaining to new schemes, be published on websites immediately but dilution of the practice of dealing with them in the Houses of the Oireachtas and publishing them in Iris Oifigiúil is not desirable.
We often complain about the broadcasters being interested only in the sexy news, such as the fact that we may have taken a week off, but they do not publish or give due regard to the day-to-day work done in the Houses. I hazard a guess that there will be some reference to this debate in the media tomorrow because it is about broadcasting and the broadcasters' own sector but, time and again, we discuss very important Bills in both Houses and not a line is published about us. I am first to favour of publication on the Internet. Certain statutory organisations are trying to prevent me from trying to publish too much information on our website, which I rail against, and I fear that if we legislate for the Senator's proposal and have a blanket requirement to immediately publish information on a website, it will cause difficulties in the system that we might not appreciate today. It might be a good idea in a general way but, in respect of specific issues, it could cause difficulties.
I know the Minister's heart is in the right place and I agree entirely with him when he says that publication on the Internet is good practice. I know that this is done under his regime. However, it is not enough because he will not be in office for all time. It is important that others engage in good practice also. We should stitch my proposal into every Bill. When the word "publish" is used, it is not enough to publish in print or in Iris Oifigiúil. I am not saying information on schemes should not be in Iris Oifigiúil, because it should, as it should be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. However, information can be published on the Internet at the press of a button and there is no cost factor involved. Therefore, publication “by electronic means” should be provided for.
I have tabled amendments of this kind many times and they have been accepted on a number of occasions. I would have assumed that the Minister would have nodded his head, thanked me for reminding him and acknowledge that the Department had slipped up by missing this. I urge him to consider my amendment to ensure that publication by electronic means be carried out. Such a provision should be included in all legislation where the word "published" is mentioned. The Internet offers an easy, low-cost method of making publications accessible to the public.
The Senator has argued in favour of his amendment so well that I will consider it for Report Stage.
I strongly support Senator Quinn's proposal. I am glad the Minister is considering it positively because, unless it is included in the Bill, its objective will not be achieved. The Minister stated its inclusion could cause problems in the system. Let us see what those problems are and iron them out. The amendment is very important and I strongly urge the Minister to take it on board.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 7b:
In page 6, lines 20 and 21, to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1), any broadcaster receiving funding for a programme under a scheme operated pursuant to this Act shall be free to offer for sale the rights to any such programme to broadcasters outside the jurisdiction of the State.”.
The amendment has been proposed to remove any possible doubts in regard to what rights attach to the broadcaster of a programme funded under the legislation. As currently framed, the Bill leaves it open to the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland to argue that programmes it funds may be used only to fulfil the objectives of the scheme as set out in the section. While I am not sure anybody would make such a case, it would be possible for the BCI to do so.
The objectives listed in the section relate exclusively to matters which obtain here and say nothing about the dissemination of Irish culture abroad, an issue raised in my earlier amendment, or any such provision. As such, it may be open to the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland to argue that its funding of a programme precludes the broadcaster of that programme from selling it abroad if the opportunity arises. This would be counterproductive because it would increase the real cost of producing such programmes in that not only would the broadcaster have to take into account the actual production costs, namely, the advertising income which has been foregone, but he would also have to take into account the income foregone from any possible overseas sales. In addition, it is in the broad national interest that Irish made programmes are seen by the widest possible audience wherever it may be. We should be in favour of the largest possible number of the programmes funded under the legislation being shown around the world. As framed, the Bill could present an obstacle to this taking place, which the amendment seeks to remove.
The issue of rights is a business matter for agreement between the producer of the programme in question and those who wish to purchase it and not one we should be delving into in legislation. Rights are an ongoing issue which will probably arise again in new, more significant legislation, namely, the broadcasting authority Bill designed to bring RTE within the remit of an expanded Broadcasting Commission of Ireland. While it is possible that the BCI, in drawing up the scheme, will take into account the costs involved, we should not intervene in a commercial transaction between the producers of programmes and those who wish to purchase them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
While I welcome the section, I have a few brief questions which return us to the core of our earlier dialogue. A close reading of the section would lead one to conclude that the response to the criteria laid down in the Bill will overwhelmingly emanate from the community and non-commercial sector. In a sense, this is a pity. While I do not wish to rehearse the argument, like my colleague, Senator Quinn, I cannot envisage commercial radio broadcasters producing peak time programmes based on Irish cultural heritage and experience, the Irish language and the diversity of Irish culture and heritage. I say this with great sadness and I wish the Minister could introduce some form of legislative framework which would force some operators to produce programmes of this nature. They will not do this, however, because having opened the gate, the horse has bolted and it will be difficult to get it back into the field again. In other words, the programming formats have been laid down by many of the commercial operators. Incidentally, I am glad the Minister and Senators made a distinction between rural and local broadcasters and those based in the greater Dublin area, which are my bugbear.
Once the scheme is in operation, does the Minister envisage introducing any directives or a policy framework to encourage the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland proactively to go after obsessively commercial radio stations which play wall to wall music and dress up the news and current affairs they are legally obliged to provide in all sorts of abstract programming? I say this partly with tongue in cheek because some local broadcasters do this extremely well. On the other hand, one has to ask how broadcasters in Dublin have been able to get away with this practice for so long.
I am particularly pleased the Minister addressed the issue of archiving in the Bill. Will he consider legislating to make archive material available on the Internet, not only in terms of the programmes which will, I hope, result from the legislation, but also RTE's current archive? The reason I ask this question is that Greg Dyke, the director general of the BBC, recently stated that his organisation was seriously considering making its archives available to the general public because it is funded by the taxpayer. Almost 50% of RTE's funding comes from the taxpayer and although it generates a certain amount of overseas income from the sale of its programmes, it is insignificant as a proportion of overall income. I am aware this is a wider issue related to RTE, but given that the section addresses the archiving of material, has the Minister considered legislating to ensure that archive material is made generally available to the public?
We are all aware from our experience of community and local radio that it broadcasts some wonderful programmes. If, however, one lives in counties Leitrim or Dublin, one will not hear a programme transmitted in counties Clare, Tipperary or Limerick. In the event that there is a public sector element – taxpayers' money – involved in encouraging people to provide and archive programmes of the type listed in the legislation, will the Minister consider legislating to ensure such material is made generally available on the Internet?
As regards the first issue, we cannot force, nor is it the intention to force, broadcasters to apply or try to adhere to the criteria laid down in the legislation. I do not envisage, therefore, that the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland will actively canvass some of the obsessively commercial broadcasters, as the Senator described them, notably the pop radio stations, to focus on this element of the legislation. Minimum requirements with which broadcasters must comply under the licence are in force. This provision will apply only to those broadcasters who wish to get involved in this area by providing additional programmes of the nature outlined.
On the issue of archiving, the rationale behind this aspect of the Bill flows from the forum report and its comments on the dearth of archiving, particularly in the independent sector. We do not want RTE to halt its current archiving activities and apply for funding under this section to continue with them. One can take it as read that this will not happen.
On the question of making archives available on the Internet, RTE places a significant amount of its archives of specific programmes on the Internet. When agreeing to the licence fee increase, I was particularly insistent that the excellent RTE website be maintained as part of its public service remit. I would not be averse to allowing and trying to promote archiving on the Internet. However, this involves a number of small, local and community broadcasters who would not have the wherewithal to maintain a website to the standard that would be required. It might also hoover up any of the funds that might be available to them. I do not wish to be overly prescriptive in this respect.
Would the Minister consider introducing an amendment on Report Stage to encourage the BCI to finance a website on which it could accumulate all the material we have mentioned, rather than putting the financial onus on community or local radio stations? After all, the BCI is monitoring the output of all the licensed stations. As a number of schemes are being created under this legislation and a sum of approximately €8 million is involved, could some of that money be used to create a website to allow Internet users worldwide, particularly the Irish diaspora, to access this material? I accept the Minister's point about the cost involved in establishing websites.
I support Senator Mooney's proposal. The Minister is correct that it would be beyond the means of small operators to establish and support such a website, nor would it necessarily be justified. However, it would be a justified and valuable proposal that the BCI undertake this in the context of archiving. The Minister should encourage the BCI to do it. It might not be necessary to provide for it in the legislation but it would be useful to do so. As I said earlier, if one does not specify something, it rarely happens. We are dealing with aspiration rather than reality. I would be happy to put down that amendment on Report Stage.
Senator Mooney's suggestion is admirable. I am not sure who would pay for it or what the cost would be but it should not come out of a budget provided for something else. However, I doubt that the cost would be high. The suggestion is worthy of consideration.
The Bill only deals with the development of policy on archiving, not getting an individual broadcaster to look after archiving. The idea was that it would be a boost for the independent broadcasting sector to start archiving its material. I have no wish to pour cold water on Senator Mooney's proposal but it would take a huge amount of the focus of the BCI if it were required to start archiving all the material of the broadcasters in the country. It would be a mammoth task and it would probably be necessary to have a specific archiving authority, which would have to be funded. Ultimately, the funding would have to come from the sector and this, in turn, would reduce the level of funding for actual broadcasting.
While I will bring it to the attention of the BCI and perhaps consider it in the context of the legislation on the BAI, I do not wish to raise any false hopes.
I am sorry for throwing, in cricket parlance, a googly at the Minister at this stage in the debate. The BCI currently has a website and anybody who wishes to access information on any of the licensed radio stations in this country can do so through that website. Perhaps the Minister, in his discussions on the implementation of this scheme, might be able to advance these views and encourage the BCI to look in that direction. I accept the Minister's point that the purpose of this legislation is to ensure that the money is spent on the creation of the type of programmes listed and the archiving of those programmes. My proposal was simply a follow up on that. Perhaps the Minister will consider it a worthy dimension to the BAI legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 7c:
In page 7, line 17, after "review" to insert ", and the Minister shall, as soon as may be after receiving the review, lay a copy of it before each House of the Oireachtas and shall at the same time cause it to be published by electronic means.".
This amendment is concerned with the matter of publication. The Bill provides that the details of any scheme drawn up by the BCI under this legislation be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. However, it does not mention doing the same with any review of the scheme. That makes no sense. If the Oireachtas is entitled to be informed as a matter of law of the details of any scheme to fund programmes, it seems obvious that the same requirement should apply to the results of any statutory review of the arrangements.
I am not suggesting that every item of correspondence between the BCI and the Minister should be put into the public domain. What is at issue is a formal statutory review which is provided for in the legislation. Such a review is an important document and is of public interest. That is the purpose of the review. There is no argument for the publication of the review being a matter for the Minister of the day to decide. That politicises the matter and it is uncalled for in the present circumstances. The publication of the review should be automatic and immediate.
The amendment further provides that in addition to laying the review before both Houses of the Oireachtas, the Minister should also publish it on the Internet or by electronic means. My arguments for the wider form of publication are the same as the arguments I made earlier and I will not repeat them. The purpose of the amendment is to secure automatic publication of the review. It removes the decision to do so from the hands of the Minister and makes it a statutory requirement. If it is to be done with the original scheme, it should be done with the reviews as well.
On the two issues dealt with in the amendment, I undertake to come back to them on Report Stage. I accept the spirit of the Senator's amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
I wish to ask the Minister about licence fee collection and the recent decision by An Post to divest itself of this obligation. The commission will review the operation, effectiveness and impact of the scheme not later than three years from the date it comes into service but the collection of the licence fee will have a direct impact on the effectiveness of the scheme in terms of the amount of money made available. It is 5% of the total collection fee. I do not know the statistics in this country on the compliance rate in collecting the fee but I believe it is high, above 90%. The failure rate in some countries in Europe is above 90%. Obviously, the more money that is collected through the licence fee, the more will be available for this scheme.
An Post has not made a formal decision. There have been indications that it wishes to get out of non-core business to concentrate on its core business. It has indicated, at least informally, that it is considering getting out of licence fee collection. That would require amending legislation but no formal proposal has come to me or my Department in that respect. If it were to get out of the business of licence fee collection, the business would have to be put to public tender.
The Senator is correct that there is a high degree of compliance. In the last two years, particularly since we started discussions with RTE about its financial position and in the context of the commitments RTE gave under the licence fee increase, it was decided to bring together, on an ongoing basis, representatives of An Post, RTE and the Department to ensure licence fee collection would be improved. If there were any new moves from a legislative point of view, they would be proposed to me in order to address some of the existing deficiencies. I guarantee the Senator that, regardless of the system, every effort will be made to ensure full compliance.
An Post is projecting a negative image by being involved in the television licence issue.
That is its opinion, but it remains to be seen.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 7d:
In page 7, subsection (1), lines 23 and 24, to delete "The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance," and substitute "The Minister shall, no later than seven years after the enactment of this Act, or at any earlier time".
The purpose of this amendment is to put a time limit on the life of the legislation. My reason for suggesting what I call this sunset clause is the experimental nature of what is proposed in the Bill. We are moving into new territory with this legislation. We should, therefore, keep a close eye on what happens and how it develops. I am not doing this because I have reservations about the objectives of the Bill because it should be clear by now that I fully support them. However, I want to ensure that we legislate in such a way as to ensure that these objectives are realised.
I am aware that the Bill, as drafted, includes a provision for a review of the scheme every three years. I approve of and support that approach. However, we should go further. After two such reviews, namely, after six years, it will then be time for the Minister of the day to come back to the Oireachtas. He could say at that stage that the scheme has been a failure and that he wants to abolish it. I am fairly sure that will not happen. The second thing he could say is that the scheme's operation has proved to be satisfactory and that he wants to introduce amending legislation which will continue its effect beyond the seven years proposed in the legislation. The third thing he could say is that the scheme has proved to be broadly satisfactory, but that there is a need for some fundamental change in the enabling legislation. He may, therefore, introduce a Bill to give legal force to those changes.
If my amendment is accepted, that will happen. If, on the other hand, the Bill is passed without such a sunset clause, the legislation risks falling into the type of limbo into which most legislation falls. Such legislation is on the Statute Book, but it is not revisited by the Oireachtas and we do not get the chance to ask if it achieved what we set out to achieve when we passed it. I realise a similar argument could be made for putting sunset clauses into most Bills, but that is not my point today. My argument today is that the experimental nature of this Bill creates a strong case for making it a requirement that the Oireachtas revisits the matter after a suitable period has elapsed. We would then be able to ask if it worked and whether we should change it. I included a period of seven years, which is worthy of consideration.
The effect of the Senator's amendment is that the scheme, irrespective of whether it was a success or failure, would be wound up in seven years. I could not accept that.
That may be the effect. However, because of the experimental nature of this legislation the Minister of the day would be obliged to come back to us about how it worked. That is a worthy consideration in such experimental legislation. It is better than not looking at it or reconsidering it again. I have a case to make and I would like the Minister to consider it, but I will not press the amendment.
I accepted earlier that I would come back on Report Stage about the review. A review is already provided for in section 5, which is sufficient. I operate on the principle that if it is not broken, it should not be fixed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 7 agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 8, after line 4, to add the following new subsection:
"(2) The Broadcasting (Offences) Acts 1968 and 1988, the Broadcasting Authority Acts 1960 to 2001, the Broadcasting (Major Events Television Coverage) Acts 1999 and 2003, the Broadcasting Act 2001 and this Act may be cited as the Broadcasting Acts 1960 to 2003 and shall be construed together as one.".
This is a tidying up amendment to bring all the Broadcasting Acts under one citation.
The advice I have received is that this legislation is not directly related to some of the legislation quoted. I accept that all the Acts mentioned relate to the broadcasting sector. However, I would do something like that in the Broadcasting Authority Bill rather than in this legislation.
Perhaps the Minister would consider doing this important tidying up exercise in the Broadcasting Authority Bill. I will withdraw the amendment.
Yes, I thought I made that clear.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
It is proposed to take Report Stage next Thursday morning.
Report Stage ordered for Thursday, 13 November 2003.
Acting Chairman
When is it proposed to sit again?
Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.