I move:
That Dáil Éireann, concerned at the failure of the Government's policy in several areas of broadcasting, calls on the Government to appoint, without delay, an independent review body comprised of competent and representative personnel to report to the Oireachtas within six months on the future and quality of broadcasting including:
(1) The future funding of RTE and alternative national, local and community radio and television services and the effects on the print media.
(2) Questions of copyright, performing right, consumer rights, balance, public order and public morality in an era of increased trans-national broadcasting and advertising.
(3) The likely impact of foreign based broadcasting and advertising (including direct and indirect satellite services) on the home market in terms of viability, quality and standards; and how to maintain and monitor quality and standards in this era.
(4) To report on current concerns relating to alternative national radio and TV, including Irish language services;
and to take all reasonable steps to maintain present services pending the report.
This debate is taking place at a critical time in the affairs of radio and television broadcasting. It is taking place at a time when the national radio alternative to RTE — Century Radio — has well advertised and imminent difficulties. While this very immediate issue gives great urgency to this debate, it is not the sole reason for it or even the central one.
There has been no independent and comprehensive review of broadcasting since 1974. Since then there has been a veritable revolution in broadcasting and communications technology which puts into an international context many issues which, heretofore, could be judged solely by national criteria.
However, for radio and for television, there are very distinct issues and challenges but there are also common issues and the most vital of these is the question of funding. As a significant part of present and future funding depends on advertising, it is clear that the position of the newspapers and the rest of the print media, who also depend on advertising, has to be considered simultaneously. However, what must not happen is for the vital issue of funding to be a rushed and ill-considered job which ends up missing most of its targets and, in the process, does a great deal of damage. This is clearly a danger from the approach of the present Minister who does not appear to know the difference between burlesque and ballet.
Let me recall that the idea of a national radio alternative and a national television alternative was the Minister's own brainchild. He overruled the advice of his Department and that contained in the Touche Ross report commissioned with my consent by the Interim Local Radio Commission which I appointed when Minister.
Having acted against all that advice, the Minister then insisted on imposing heavy handed requirements on alternative national and local radio to a commission whose remit has a heavy touch in practice when a light touch would be more appropriate. These are the factors that are causing difficulties for Century Radio and for many of our local stations.
If the Minister is contemplating compounding that error by making RTE pay, and by penalising RTE for its major financial success over the past five years, he will be utterly opposed by this side of the House.
It will be recalled that, when I revealed in a speech in Cork on 12 February last that the Minister was planning to divert income from RTE to independent radio, a one line statement was issued on the same day on behalf of the Minister denying my revelation. He refused to give any press, radio or television interviews. It will be further recalled on 27 February when at Communications Question Time he again gave misleading information to the House. By saying so at that time I was wrongly asked to leave the House. Then in the last week of March in Cork the Minister revealed the full accuracy of my assertions when he announced he was going to "level the playing pitch". Again he refused to be interviewed on radio or television.
I challenge the Minister tonight to stop hunking and sliding, to stop this slippery approach, to stop running hither and thither, and to come into this House and tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about his intentions.
What does he mean by "levelling the playing pitch" and why did he deny his intentions not once but twice? Who is it he hopes to penalise and who is it he hopes to benefit by his proposals? Almost four months have elapsed since I first revealed his intentions. Yet even now with a crisis imminent he has not revealed his hand. I hope by this motion tonight we have forced the Minister's hand and that he will make some announcement tonight.
Having criticised the Minister I wish now to offer him some advice. I ask him to recognise that any attempt to divert income from RTE to the rest of the media in the Republic could end up penalising RTE and benefiting only TV stations based in Belfast or London. This likelihood becomes greater as the MMDS spreads and as the penetration of the Republic by Northern and satellite stations spreads with it. To say this is not to cosset RTE nor is it to deny that a serious funding issue exists which impinges both on alternative national and local radio, TV and newspapers. Quite the contrary, part of RTE's success and their improvements in recent years have been brought about by the presence or promise of competition.
Century Radio are its only national radio competition. It would be a disaster for Century and bad for RTE if Century were allowed to collapse. Clearly Century need changes but, in this their hour of acute difficulties, we in this House should recognise the quality and contribution made this past nine months by their frontline and background staff alike. Some of the changes necessary are internal to Century, and indeed some have already been made, but many of the changes needed are legislative and administrative if alternative national and local radio is to survive.
These changes need to be thoroughly and independently considered by an independent review body and this will take some months. The Minister should announce such a body tonight. However, clearly some immediate action is required to preserve alternative national radio pending the study.
Two things need to be done immediately. Confidence needs to be given to the market by: (1) A declaration by the Government that they are fully committed to maintaining an alternative national radio station in being as a permanent and continuous feature of our broadcasting arrangements. (2) The Government to take power by legislation during this session to temporarily borrow from the proceeds of licence fees up to 5 per cent of the annual total of £45 million, that is £2.25 million, and this to be made available, free of interest, to alternative radio to ensure none collapse during the rest of this year, and pending the report.
This temporary loan is justified by the fact that the Government, in their haste, have made mistakes and imposed excessive requirements on independent radio. These mistakes can be rectified but they can also be compounded. I stress, therefore, that this loan can only be a once-off payment to help get over teething problems some of which were of the Government's making. It is purely a temporary expedient pending the report of the review body that I propose. However, if the Minister proposes more fundamental changes in haste without such a review, the chances are that he will compound his earlier errors and will be throwing good money after bad.
The suggestions that either or both Radio 2 or Network 2 TV should be separated from RTE or in some other way be restricted are misguided and totally unacceptable. They can only be motivated by malice towards RTE. For the Minister to embark along this route would be detrimental, and could even be disastrous for RTE. These are considerations which must be objectively and thoroughly considered and it cannot be a matter of ministerial whim.
There are other options for long-term funding and for future organisation of broadcasting which require independent analysis. There is the question of the 10 per cent VAT on advertising in the Republic for newspaper, radio and TV advertising. In other administrations it is zero. As Minister, I persuaded our Government to reduce it to 10 per cent some years ago. Perhaps a further concession would now be timely.
Given the requirement, and it is a requiement, for a network of independent radio stations both national and local as an alternative to RTE, should the introduction of a radio licence be considered in order to fund the public service element of independent radio? A £1 licence per annum would yield over £2.5 million.
There is also the question of extending the reception area of Irish radio and TV into other territories especially into Northern Ireland and into Britain. This is an area where we have not received the co-operation of the UK authorities in the past but which needs much greater emphasis now because, under draft rules from the Council of Europe which the UK supports, cross-Border broadcasting and, as important, cross-Border advertising will be uninhibited.
Let me say in that respect that during the negotiation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, as the then Minister for Communications I raised this as an issue for discussion in the negotiations for that agreement. Unfortunately, the British side utterly resisted the idea of the penetration or coverage of the whole of Northern Ireland by RTE and other broadcasting media based in the Republic. That was the case then but it cannot be the case now as the British authorities have spelled out in their own White Paper that they are totally against the restriction of cross-Border broadcasting and advertising in the context of the draft directive from the European Commission and of the paper from the Council of Europe. Therefore, now is the time, when the Anglo-Irish Agreement is under review and when things appear to be happening in Northern Ireland, for us to put it to the British again that if they mean what they say in their own White Paper they should start by allowing RTE, Century Radio and other broadcasting media based in this State to have full coverage in Northern Ireland.
These are some of the matters which need to be considered, and the case for a review body is now a strong one. It will allow all the interest groups to present their case and challenge other cases. Unquestionably, this is an area where there are conflicting interests. There are conflicting claims and counter claims. There are assertions by one side about another and vice versa. There are people protecting their own interests, people making plaintive pleas and others making excessive demands. We need all these arguments to be weighed up carefully. Some of them interact with one another. Some of them contradict one another, but these are things that need to be assessed independently and comprehensively. This will give time for calm analysis and research and will provide a good basis for long-term decisions.
In the UK the White Paper to which I have already referred was published in November 1988 and is entitled Broadcasting in the 90s: Competition, Choice and Quality. It followed several reports, and I will name some of them: The Peacock Report a 1986 report on the financing of the BBC; The Future of Broadcasting published in 1988 as a report of the Home Affairs Committee of the Commons; the subscription television report of 1987 done on behalf of the British Government by Communications Studies and Planning International Limited; a White Paper in 1983, The Development of Cable Systems and Services; a Government commission and study of MMDS in Britain by Touche Ross Management Company; a Green Paper entitled Radio: Choices and Opportunities published in 1987; and in 1988, here was another report of the Home Affairs Committee of the Commons on the Government's plans for radio broadcasting.
It is on the basis of such thorough analysis and debate that the UK decides its broadcasting policy. It involves prior advice, examination and comments of both Houses of Parliament and the views and contributions of all interest groups together with professional and independent analysis before legislation was introduced.
In the Republic we can undoubtedly learn to some extent from the UK reports but we have our own distinct issues, opportunities and limitations. These require debate and independent analysis before the fundamental decisions for the future are made. I hope the Minister can accept the case for an independent review body tonight and announce their composition speedily.
This week the Minister must also appoint a new RTE Authority. I do not say that they should include only people of no known political persuasion — that would be absurd — but they should be composed of a team of competent and suitable people who, when necessary, will stand up to the Minister. They should be a politically balanced Authority if they are to fulfil their role properly. They should not be like a Fianna Fáil cumann, as in the past, dedicated, in breach of the law, more to the interest of the party than the Authority.
The retiring Authority were independent, competent and balanced. They have led RTE to major reorganisation and expansion and to financial soundness. We thank them as they retire, as we ought to thank all those who work in RTE who have brought about this result. It would be poor recompense for them if their very success is now rewarded by being plundered by a Minister motivated either by haste or by hate or both.
The issue before us is an important one. If the proposal is accepted it could have a very important influence well into the next century. Haste is to be avoided.
Let me say something about the Minister's style. He is a man who likes to get things done and for that we must admire him. I concede that he took in hand the whole broadcasting mess when he became Minister a few years ago. He spoke in 1987 about the prevarication of the previous ten years. I was determined not to proceed along the lines I was being pushed because I believed they were ill-judged and would not have stood the test of time. The Minister embraced the idea of a new independent radio station and an independent television station. Neither of these proposals was well-researched or well-founded.
Following the experience of the past year or so we realise that some mistakes were made. The Minister should be big enough to take on board this fact and he and the House should learn from those mistakes. I hope the product of this debate will be that we learn from those mistakes and that we lay a lasting foundation for a vibrant, successful, high quality broadcasting system on radio and television which will have the support of a wide viewership and listenership throughout the Republic and further afield.