Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 20 May 1993

Vol. 431 No. 2

Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill, 1993: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1.
In page 2, subsection (1), line 12, after "service" where it firstly occurs to insert "or radio service".

Prior to Question Time I was holding fort on the silliness of the Thatcher-like speak of the level playing field. That is not the type of criteria that should be applied to a discussion on broadcasting because we are talking here about values which go beyond the economic and crass commercialism that often pervades life in Ireland. Therefore, any arguments which seek to introduce elements such as that into this Bill would be a mistake.

There is a major distinction in the broadcasting area in that there are specific obligations on broadcasts on both radio and television to be fair and equitable in their treatment of news and current affairs whereas no such obligations apply to newspapers in that regard. The primary concerns of those involved in newspapers relate to obscenity and libel. Therefore, even at that level we are not comparing like with like. If one wants to use the level playing field approach in this area we should introduce legislation which would oblige newspapers to treat the public to a fair and balanced reportage of events in Ireland, in this House and around the world.

I want to return to the point about balance in the various sectors. Of course, the Minister is correct in saying that it is difficult to get it right, but one must endeavour to do that. There is a crisis in the media here in many ways. It could be fairly said that we are swamped by trans-frontier competition which is impacting in many respects on the various sectors.

I tabled a question to the Minister for Finance recently regarding the amount of money collected by the Exchequer from national and provincial newspapers in the past three years and he stated that £70 million was collected last year. The Government should examine VAT rates, but it should also examine changes that are required in the area of libel law, lodgments in court and so on. However, as the Minister stated already, that matter is outside his remit. The impact of the provisions of this Bill on the various sectors and the international position are matters which need to be examined so that we get the balance right and attract appropriate competition. The matter of manufacturing relief needs to be examined also on Committee Stage of the Finance Bill.

The whole question of the 20 per cent is — to move away from some of the phrases used by Deputy De Rossa — to build in a balanced local radio system that will address the various requirements about which I have spoken and at the end of the day lead to a more pluralistic approach and greater representation of interest groups in local radio stations catering for the needs of the various sectors in the community. This type of support would help local radio stations to do that in a positive manner.

This group of amendments has had sufficient airing and I would ask the Minister to bring them to a conclusion.

I would be delighted to do so. I intend to address comprehensively the issues that have been raised by the Deputies opposite in fundamental legislation which I hope will bring us past the end of this century. I realise what is involved in terms of its complexity. On Second Stage I attempted to indicate my philosophy in this regard. There are two clear choices which can be made by a person responsible for media and broadcasting and I have made my choice clear. One could view the population as comprising a set of market segments in which approaches to broadcasting media, film and newsprint are targeted entirely at the market segment composition of the population.

An alternative view is to see acts of communications as rights in whatever medium. I have taken that second view which departs from a democratic theory of media, which is a culture that is democratic requiring a media that is pluralist. Therefore, an older unemployed person who may have very little consumer power has rights to participate in the communicative order the same as a rich employed person. I am following the second path and in my approach towards the legislation I am defending these norms. I considered it was incumbent upon me on Second Stage to indicate what path I was taking. The meetings I have had with different groups and the questions elicited have been informative. The argument about the viability of a pluralist democratic local radio are valid but it is best to consider the full agenda presented by those interested groups who came to see me. They have accepted some further proposals I have made in relation to Irish language broadcasting. I have added matters to their agenda and they are being examined.

An interesting point was raised by Deputy De Rossa. He is right to emphasise that if one believes in a democratic communicative order some importance must be given to community television. This does not just relate to what the local market can deliver. There is also issue of what is happening in the local community. Many people who began in a commercial vein have been pushed into the community vein by the power of the listeners who have requested specific structures for broadcasting. I am sure we all agree in regard to that.

Both Deputies De Rossa and Fitzgerald have raised the issue of libel. While it is a slightly separate issue from the one we are dealing with it is one about which I am concerned. I have discussed the implementation of the report of the Law Reform Commission with the Minister with responsibility in that area. There is also the issue of clearing up court procedures. Another issue arises in relation to that. While one might be anxious to protect newspapers from excessively litigious people one must consider the person who is offended by the libel. If there is not a mechanism to address the rights of a person who has been libelled, is it not in the public interest for the Government to address the matter? This is a matter that will engage my attention. It arises in relation to radio also. For example, where improper procedures are used to gain an interview or what might purport to be an interview and the interview is then broadcast on radio, this also involves the mechanism. In this case there is an opportunity to consider what are malpractices in radio and television broadcasts. These are valid points for fundamental review.

These amendments are not the way to answer the problems in respect of radio broadcasting, but I will consider the matter in relation fundamental legislation. There are some technical points about implementing these amendments. Reference to a radio set is not made in the 1988 Act.

It refers back to the Bill and in that way it covers it.

Not quite. The requirement of having a radio licence was scrapped a long time ago and the reason initially for including a reference to a television set was linked to that. I am not arguing about the point. The best way to address the complicated issues of radio is through the introduction of fundamental legislation which I hope will be the occasion of a major debate on broadcasting. We cannot introduce further legislation without having a good debate on what is meant, for example, by public service in public service broadcasting. Introduction of that legislation will not be delayed. I cannot accept the amendment proposed but I can assure Deputies I will address the issues when I introduce substantial legislation in this area.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 33; Níl, 51.

  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Dukes, Alan M.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Keogh, Helen.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
  • O'Donnell, Liz.
  • O'Malley, Desmond J.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Bree, Declan.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Brian.
  • Fitzgerald, Eithne.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Pat
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • Moffatt, Tom.
  • Morley, P. J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
  • Mulvihill, John.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Sullivan, Gerry.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Penrose, William.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Upton, Pat.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Walsh, Eamon.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies E. Kenny and Boylan; Níl, Deputies Dempsey and Ferris.
Amendment declared lost.

As amendment No. 1 has now been negatived, amendments Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, 8, 18, 23, 24 and 32 cannot now be moved.

Amendments Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive, not moved.
Section 1 agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.

We now come to amendment No. 7 in the name of the Minister. I observe that amendment No. 9 is related. I suggest, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 7 and 9 together. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 3, subsection (2), lines 9 to 12, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:

"(a) Moneys standing to the credit of the account shall be used by the Authority for the purpose of—

(i) commissioning the making of independent television programmes,

(ii) procuring the formulation by persons of proposals for the commissioning by the Authority of the making of programmes as aforesaid,

(iii) assisting the completion of programmes as aforesaid the making of which has not been commissioned by the Authority,

and for no other purpose.".

Taréis coimriú a dhéanamh ar Alt 4 den Bhille tá mé sásta gur féidir é a leasú agus go rachadh an leasú seo chun tairbhe na reachtaíochta.

When I looked again at section 4 I considered that there was need for some flexibility as to how RTE could spend the money in the account and vary the amounts which must be allocated to the commissioning of independent programming. In the light of experience there is case for more flexibility than I originally envisaged. Amendments Nos. 7, 9 and 15 have been tabled for this purpose. Under amendments Nos. 7 and 9, RTE may spend up to 10 per cent of the annual amount paid into the account on programme support and development. This is to cater for situations where a programme concept or script appears to have some merit but needs to be developed further. The amendment will allow RTE to provide funding to enable such development to take place. The amendment will also allow RTE to step in to provide funding for the completion of a programme where the project has run into difficulties through, say, the loss of a backer. In some circumstances the requirement under the definition of "commissioning" in section 1 (2), which requires 25 per cent of the cost of making the programme to be committed before work commences, would be inappropriate.

I welcome the increased flexibility being provided by the Minister in his amendment. I tabled a number of amendments which have the same objective. This amendment will give RTE more flexibility in terms of the amounts paid by it to programme-makers. One cannot predict the financial circumstances which will prevail at any time. This is why I tabled my amendments. The flexibility being provided in this amendment will mean that a great variety of independent productions can be catered for, especially in circumstances where difficulties may arise.

I wish to join with Deputy Fitzgerald in thanking the Minister for looking again at the terms of the Bill. This flexibility will be particularly relevant to new indpendent fledgling companies set up by graduates to make films on slightly marginal issues for which it may be difficult to get backers. This flexibility gives necessary impetus to this sort of initiative. I am glad the Minister realised that he was tying the hands of RTE too tightly in this respect. While the concept of allocating a portion of the money to independent film makers is good, it will be no use if it is not workable. This flexibility will allow for this.

I welcome this amendment which will improve the Bill. As drafted the Bill was far too high in arithmetic and too low in policy — it could not have been described as a policy-making exercise. This amendment will give RTE a much better opportunity to promote its internal programme-makers and the flexibility to commission work from independent programme-makers. The allocation of this money can be monitored. The Minister has also provided for a better reporting mechanism in this amendment. If any changes or modifications are made to the amount of money allocated we will be able to find out if value for money was achieved in the annual report presented to the House. We will learn if the programmes being made are up to a certain standard and if they are enhancing the already very high reputation of RTE. This amendment will improve the Bill from every point of view.

I regret I missed the Minister's introductory remarks. I welcome this amendment. On Second Stage I expressed concern about the apparent inflexibility of the section as originally drafted. How necessary is the phrase, "and for no other purpose"? It seems to be unnecessary in that the section specifies the activities on which the money may be spent. Why does the Minister think it necessary to emphasise that the money may be spent for no other purpose?

Is he afraid the money might be spent on a holiday?

However, I welcome the amendment. The proposal that the Authority may use moneys standing to the credit of the account for the purpose of "commissioning the making of independent television programmes" is fairly straightforward. It also proposes that such money may be used for "procuring the formulation by persons of proposals for the commissioning by the Authority of the making of programmes as aforesaid." Does this refer to independent television programme-makers? Is it intended that the Authority can employ people as consultants? Finally, it provides that the moneys can be used in "assisting the completion of programmes as aforesaid the making of which has not been commissioned by the Authority". Is that intended as a means of bailing out independent film-makers who may get into trouble? In the nature of things I would not have any great difficulty with this as the film-making business is not a precise science and problems can arise. Is it a means whereby the Authority can enter into joint ventures with independent film-makers? The Minister may have covered these points already, but I would like to hear his response.

I compliment the Minister on putting down this amendment and I suppose that comes as no surprise to anyone. He has acknowledged that the Bill as originaly drafted was not all-embracing and did not give sufficient guarantees to independent film-makers. His acceptance of this point will give the necessary stimulus to independent film-makers. Much concern has been expressed that many of the skills which have been built up over the years and acquired by film technicians may be lost to this country. This amendment will ensure that we have a very vibrant independent programme-making sector. I welcome this amendment.

The Minister has been consistent in his attitude towards the broadcasting sector. He advocated the introduction of such a measure when he was in Opposition and he is now putting it into effect. I compliment him on that.

On a later amendment I have made some suggestions as to how the commissioning might be handled. I suggested that this be a separate unit. To take up the point made by Deputy De Rossa, is the Minister envisaging something like that in amendment No. 7 (ii)?

I thank the Deputies for the generosity of their remarks. Deputy O'Sullivan, probably more than anyone else in this House knows the shape of my thinking in relation to broadcasting and the film industry.

Other sections in the Bill provide for flexibility but in this case I needed to address two very definite situations — the young film maker who needs a small amount of money to develop a concept and the other who might need a small amount of money to finish it. I was very anxious to have the fund removed within RTE's accounts to a separate film commissioning account. I have done that and have retained elsewhere in the Bill some discretion in relation to it. When I say "and for no other purpose" it is to indicate unequivocally that that is where the money is to go. Deputies should remember that this is a proportion of a total fund. The issues relating to residuals that move from one year to another have been addressed later in the Bill. The purpose of putting in that formulation of words was to focus on the needs of two clearly identifiable sets of circumstances. I welcome the Deputy's response to my amendment in this regard. I wanted not only to focus it to preserve that kind of creativity but because that links in to my total proposals for film which go beyond the Bill.

If, out of the sums of money directed at independent film making, I specify a proportion that will go for this purpose, I would like to think that within RTE we will find an equivalent response and that many young and not so young creative people in that organisation will have a development unit headed by a senior member of staff. This is not to say that they are not already spending their money on such matters. They may well be, but if one wants to inculcate creativity it is necessary to give it a formal recognition and a formal place in the structure.

I welcome the amendment but paragraph (ii) is a rather odd formulation. It is for:

procuring the formulation by persons of proposals for the commissioning by the Authority of the making of programmes as a foresaid.

From whom will they procure it? Will they procure it from already established film makers or is the Minister adding another layer? From whom does the original idea come? Is it from the Authority or from some other source? When the idea has been formulated what will happen? Does it come back to the Authority which will then pick out an independent film maker to do the work, or do the people who formulated the idea carry it to fruition? If the Authority is responsible for procuring the formulation by persons of proposals for commissioning, then RTE ideas will be used. One of the very good things about bringing in the film makers, in addition to increasing our expertise and giving employment, was that they would have separate ideas from those of RTE. If one watches RTE, there is a kind of sameness about programmes and that is something we want to break from. While this amendment has its advantages, if it is accepted RTE will originate most of the ideas. While this amendment will do a good job in a specific area and will provide the seed factor which will finally lead to films or to very good programmes, RTE will be inclined to use that in a very big way with a view to getting over the idea that the programmes coming through to them will be those they want on the air rather than programmes originated elsewhere. I would not mind if there was a general fund through which outside people could apply to RTE but here we have the Authority procuring the formulation. I welcome the Minister's amendment but, because of it, the originating people will appear to be RTE rather than other people.

What the Minister is doing has a down side with regard to local radio. I hope that with this new uncapping of RTE they will not exercise predatory type pricing for their advertising with a view to knocking out the local radios who have now taken a larger part of their listnership. That is a diversion, but perhaps the Minister would look at the possibility of getting a better wording for this proposal.

The Minister did not answer the question in relation to the structure he needs to put in place to ensure that the commissioning of independent film production is done appropriately representing independents and RTE interests. When we discussed this before the Minister said I was suggesting that the Minister would interfere editorially with RTE. That is not a valid criticism. We are speaking about a serious amount of money which will, no doubt, help independent film production but we need some mechanism at the commissioning stage to ensure that there is the sort of balance about which my colleague talked. I am interested in the Minister's views on whether we need an independent unit in RTE representing RTE and outside people.

My understanding is that RTE from time to time commission independent film makers to make a series of programmes. I visited an independent programme making company on the south side of Dublin recently. They were making a series of music programmes. Would that kind of programme which has essentially been commissioned by RTE because they did not have the facilities to make it themselves go into the log book as part of the money being set aside for independent film making? Must the two gel before funds are handed out?

Even though RTE will come up with the idea?

Yes. I anticipated some of this discussion. When one compares this with other legislation dealing with a similar problem it is obvious that I have gone to considerable lengths in addressing it. Section 5 defines an independent television programme while section 6 refers to a report on the way in which the procedure is operated.

The Authority will be able to procure ideas from whoever it wishes, not just from the person with a completed product but also from the person with a product in embryo — a cumbersome form of words which relates to the formulation of proposals. Those who have developed ideas for programmes will realise that this is very real; it is not in its finished state at that stage. Those who wish to finish a programme can offer this to RTE which, equally, can generate concepts and feed them out to see what the response is.

I wish to make three points in response to those raised by Deputy Nealon and others. I have defined the distance between the commissioning entity and the independent producer and made provision for an annual report. Deputy Dukes made a good point about the manner in which regulations are made. Changes to my Bill will have to follow the path described by Deputy Dukes. Further, I have made provision for a review not later than two years' time. Therefore, if something was going wrong this would become transparent every year having regard to the requirement to publish a report and if it repeated itself from one year to the next it would fall to be considered in review.

I am satisfied with what is available now and I am reluctant to put a structure in place which may not be necessary in the short term. I am happy to leave it as it is at present and if a review is necessary, so be it.

With whom will editorial control reside? Is the Minister ceding this to independent film makers and will RTE be obliged to accept a product even when it is not up to standard? If these questions have been answered, I have not understood the answer fully. Furthermore, will RTE be obliged to accept product even if it is incomparable with the statutory requirements on RTE? Those questions must be answered.

The answer is clear; RTE will retain editorial control.

Total control?

Yes. One can use as many qualifying adjectives or adverbs as one wishes but control is control. What we are talking here is the national broadcasting system. Let us suppose, for example, that the argument is made that some of the product submitted in any one year is not up to standard and unacceptable. Such a mechanism could be abused to reject material but if this happened I would retain the money in the fund, carry it forward to the following year and retain the right to speak about the manner in which it could be used. I feel that it is necessary to do this.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Barr
Roinn