Amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Frances Fitzgerald. Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 inclusive, 8, 18, 23, 24 and 32 form a composite proposal so I suggest that they be taken together. Agreed? Agreed.
Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill, 1993: Committee Stage.
SECTION 1.
Acting Chairman
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, subsection (1), line 12, after "service" where it firstly occurs to insert "or radio service".
As well as applying to those making independent television programmes this Bill should apply to those who wish to make independent radio programmes. The Minister agreed about the problems in relation to the production of drama for local radio. We can see the difficulties in terms of financing in local radio stations. It has not been possible to do a great deal of work in this area because of problems in relation to cost. If this Bill applied to radio we would see this being remedied and there would be the possibility of independents making an approach in the same way as the Minister has suggested for independent television producers. This section could be extended to include those who wish to make radio programmes. The financial demands would not be enormous due to the different costs involved.
Ar an gcéad dul síos, tuigim go maith go bhfuil an Teachta dáiríre maidir leis an tábhacht a bhaineann le cúrsaí drámaíochta agus, chuige sin, le cúrsaí craolacháin chomh maith.
I accept the Deputy's sincerity in relation to the improvement of radio. I share the concern expressed with regard to the importance of drama. However, the mechanism proposed in the amendments we are discussing together is unsatisfactory. I regard what I am doing in this Bill as but one step in relation to putting broadcasting on a proper footing. I repeat in this regard the commitment given in the Programme for Government to put local radio on a sound basis.
The question one has to ask in responding to amendments such as these is whether this would be the best way to proceed. The purpose of the amendments is to divert a proportion of the revenue raised by way of licence fee to the independent radio sector. As I indicated in my speech on Second Stage, I regard local radio — I mentioned local community radio as well as local commercial radio which have evolved into a mixed entity — as a critical mix in the broadcasting services available here. I propose to deal with their needs and make proposals when I bring forward comprehensive broadcasting legislation.
On Second Stage the view was expressed that I was operating on an ad hoc basis but one could express a similar view in regard to what is being suggested to me now, that the Deputy is guilty of ad hocery. For example administratively, if I were to accept these amendments, I would be required to pay grant-in-aid from the Exchequer to RTE with which RTE would set up a fund which would be administered by it for the independent radio sector on foot of certification from the Independent Radio and Television Commission. With respect, this would not just be ad hocery it would be an administrative nightmare.
I have had meetings with AIRS, and with other representatives, both individually and collectively, of the independent radio sector to deal with their proposals and their responses to my proposals in the context of a comprehensive approach. I will be doing this in reviewing broadcasting legislation. It would be wrong to seek to meet their needs in that way. It would be best to let this Bill achieve its limited purpose and ameliorate the situation of local radio. I will consider other structures in this regard in a more substantial way.
Deputy Fitzgerald's amendment is valid and I support it. First, the Deputy makes the case in favour of the development of local radio and highlights the major deficiency of this Bill to which I referred at some length on Second Stage. I said then that the broadcasting sector is a seamless garment and one cannot introduce a single narrow measure, such as the one proposed by the Minister, without considering the effect it would have — perhaps unintended but nonetheless adverse — in other areas of broadcasting.
While I can support what the Minister is trying to achieve with this measure, which is essentially good, I am fearful of the effect it will have in other areas of broadcasting. It is a great pity that the Minister has not introduced his comprehensive broadcasting Bill to enable us consider his proposals in the overall context of broadcasting.
When a previous Minister put a cap on RTE's advertising revenue he talked about the need to level the playing pitch but, unfortunately, this phrase has been discredited and will be forever associated with that Minister. Nonetheless, the principle is valid. It is my fear that in making corrections to what has become known as the Rambo Bill this might prove to be as painful and as damaging, in some areas of broadcasting, as the original Bill. That is the risk we run in introducing narrow legislation such as this.
The points raised by Deputy Fitzgerald are valid. However, she has been accused of ad hocery but I can see no difference between ad hocery on the part of the Minister and ad hocery on the part of Deputy Fitzgerald. The Minister's response to a range of problems which will have to be confronted in the context of broadcasting legislation is not comprehensive or well thought out.
As has been said, local radio has enormous potential for growth and development. It has shown that it can act as an energising force in rural communities and as a counter-magnet to the mid-Atlantic waffle we sometimes hear on other stations. I would like to see this acknowledged in a practical way in the context of new legislation. I have no difficulty in supporting the amendment put forward by Deputy Fitzgerald.
I was surprised at the Minister's comments about the procedure I suggested because amendment No. 23 mirrors section 4 under which direct finance will be provided to the independent television programme sector and thus will directly be of assistance to the independent radio sector in maintaining a quality service. It would give effect to the commitment contained in the Programme for a Partnership Government in tandem with the repeal of the cap on RTE's advertising revenue. Indeed, this is the only part of the programme dealing with this area that the Minister is not attending to. If the amendment is accepted the threat of up to 100 job losses in the local radio industry, which has considerable potential for job creation would be removed. I agree with my colleague that it would lead also to equity in the national broadcasting sector.
We are in this situation because the Minister chose to approach broadcasting in this way as opposed to adopting an overall approach and looking at many sectors, including the newspaper industry. Although the Minister said earlier that he has no direct responsibility for the newspaper industry I am sure he would agree that the Government need to consider several issues and respond to the crisis facing that industry at this time.
The amendment would also give more substance to the role of the Independent Radio and Television Commission and enable it to expand and develop as an advisory and development body as well as a regulatory body if it had access to the extra funding suggested in the amendment. I will raise questions later with the Minister about the mechanisims he has suggested, in regard to independent film production, as to whether these are the appropriate ones in, for example, commissioning productions.
I am trying to be as positive as I can but there is a difference. Let me take the point made about the relationship between the independents which will prepare products in the television sector and RTE which will commission these products. We are talking here about the preparation of television programmes to be broadcast on a televisual medium. Standing above RTE is the RTE Authority and their relationship is specified in legislation.
In relation to local radio, if one wanted to assist local radio, one should look at the Independent Radio and Television Commission and ways in which one can address the real needs of local radio. I do not know how often I have to say it, and I must repeat it, that, because I introduce this legislation, the assumption is I am doing nothing else. AIRS met me for over two and a half hours in a formal meeting which was preceded by several meetings between my officials and their executive about practical proposals in relation to local radio. The meeting that took place with me for over a couple of hours was succeeded by other meetings. They know we are following an agenda on how they may be assisted in relation to their needs. I know that a number of Deputies met them and gave them assurances that they recognised that their needs were urgent. I accept that they have great difficulties but, at the same time, people want me to wait for one comprehensive Bill and do nothing about anything else.
At the time I examined the circumstances arising in relation to the cap — and I appreciate Deputy Quill's views this afternoon because, unlike her, I voted against the cap — I appreciate that if one was caught badly once by having voted for an ad hoc measure in 1990, one would like not to make the same mistake again and would approach one's new position with a fervour that would be beyond the ordinary.
The Minister is in a new position himself as a partner in Government.
Of course I am; our lives change constantly.
I have a long memory. The pen is mightier than the sword. In fact the quill is mightier than the sword.
Good, indeed, but there is nothing wrong with conversions; literature and theology are full of them.
Thank you. The Minister is absolutely stunned by the magnitude of his own conversion.
Let me face the point. People have raised with me section 3 of the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1990. I wonder do people really know what was its effect. Let me finish my point about the people I met. I have met the chairman and executive of the Independent Radio and Television Commission; I have met the members of AIRS and I have met individual radio station operators. I have also met the provincial and national newspapers, their managing editors, and I have listened to all the views. I do know that what happens in relation to one sector is linked to the other.
What is important to state here is that I was dealing with job losses in advertising agencies, job losses in RTE, real and threatened, also job losses in relation to other areas that were dependent on advertising, such as the film sector involved in the preparation of advertising. What the provisions of this Bill are doing, if you like, is simply lifting the consequences of section 3 of the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1990 from the televisual sector.
I must reiterate that the whole media mix I will have to address, when preparing the fundamental legislation, will have to address conflicting demands. For example, people speak on the one hand about the newspapers and, on the other, about the demands of local radio. There are local radio operators who have said to me that they want assistance. There are representatives of the provincial newspapers who have said they do not want certain kinds of assistance going to local radio operators. Then there is the view of the national newspapers in relation to what should not be given to local radio. Again, there are views in relation to both, if you like, in relation to forms of advertising that have their source outside of the State altogether. I intend to deal with all of those in the legislation I am now preparing. I hope I do not appear to be ungenerous. I respond at times in the spirit in which the odd shaft is fired at me; I have to fire spears back before they grow in my garden.
Deputy Fitzgerald made a point about the Independent Radio and Television Commission in respect of which I will be very forthcoming. We should examine the role of the Independent Radio and Television Commission — which derived from the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1988 — not as an attachment to this Bill, but in terms of the fundamental broadcasting review. When Deputy Fitzgerald holds that the amendments she has tabled would enable the Independent Radio and Television Commission to take a role in development beyond monitoring, supervision and so on, quite frankly I would have to say I always thought the provisions of the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1988 limiting. Even if it was a limited Bill it contained scope for development that may not have been used, or could have been used much better.
In regard to the legislation I am planning, when I say I am looking at structures I mean I am going to look at the Independent Radio and Television Commission and at the operation of the provisions of the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1988. This is a better way of approaching the needs of radio, of continuing the discussions I have had, than by the mechanism of attaching these particular demands to this legislation which, as I said, is quite limited.
The Minister should not really make too much of the point that he uses to criticise people who want everything done in this Bill. We do not want everything done in this Bill. The fact is that we are now dealing with the cap on RTE advertising. There is a problem in relation to local radio. Indeed, Deputy Fitzgerald's amendment was tabled to allow us to deal with the local radio issue at the same time as we deal with the cap on RTE. I do not think that is at all unreasonable or illogical. Local radio stations are in some difficulty in ensuring that they remain, as they want to remain, stations that have a subtantial element of public service broadcasting. They have difficulties with news gathering, difficulties with other aspects of public service broadcasting and are seeking some remedy for those difficulties — I would have to say, a modest enough remedy — but they are seeking a remedy. We should assist them in seeking that remedy. We are dealing with broadcasting, we are not dealing with all of the media.
RTE has available to it the amount of revenue it gets from licence fees and advertising. Local radio stations have available to them only the amount of revenue they get from advertising, which has proved to be less than sufficient to meet their perceived needs. For many reasons, some of which have nothing to do with broadcasting, there is an insufficiency of revenue there to run local radio stations and ensure the continuance of the kind of public service broadcasting in which they are involved. Personally, I should like to see a lot more of them giving more of their time to public service broadcasting. But I was very impressed recently — the Minister had meetings with them too — by the determination of local radio operators not to become, as they said themselves, provincial jukeboxes. That is not what they want to be. The matter is urgent and cannot wait until the Minister has time to get around to another, perhaps more elegant, Bill whose provisions will address that issue. It is relevant to the issue of what we do following the removal of the cap on RTE.
I do not know whether the Minister really has thought much about what he said. The reason the proposal from the local radio stations — to which Deputy Fitzgerald referred — involves the Independent Radio and Television Commission in the loop is very simple; it is not to render life more complicated for the Independent Radio and Television Commission, the Minister or anybody else; it is so that there will be a body involved there that will be seen to be impartial and also knows about broadcasting. It is not there just for the fun of it; it is there because the Independent Radio and Television Commission has a position and a status in our broadcasting complex to which the local radio stations attach considerable importance, which gives it a standing in the regulation of the kind of things it is proposed to hand to it.
It may be awkward to do this. The Minister, in his first response to Deputy Fitzgerald, criticised the procedure underlying these amendments as being a cumbersome one. Perhaps it is, but the reason it takes that form is in order to have, within the operation of the system being proposed, an independent commission that can have its own status, clear independence, that will be listened to and whose decision will be accepted. If the Minister considers that too cumbersome, then it appears to me it is incumbent on the Minister to propose a better system, not to await some other Bill, rather to propose it now because this is the context within which the opportunity arises to deal with a specific problem obtaining in the case of local radio. I do not have to go over the remainder of the fears of the local radio station. The Minister knows them perfectly well.
By taking the cap off RTE advertising there is the prospect that the advertising minutage will drift upwards. This will inevitably allow RTE to look again at the rate it charges for advertising and may create a situation where the local radios will be unable to compete. Again, this is one of the reasons for the amendment. They are parts of a piece. The proposal being made is one that becomes necessary to make when the Minister is taking the type of action he is on RTE. It is not enough for the Minister to say that we should not lump irrelevancies into the Bill because it is relevant. This is the opportunity to do so because the mechanisms open up as a result of the principal provisions of the Bill.
Let me repeat again that broadcasting is a seamless garment. I am very concerned about what is likely to happen to independent radio between the enactment of this Bill and the introduction of the promised legislation by the Minister. I am very fearful about what may very well happen to local radio in that period. I do not know how long that period will be — it could be as long as a piece of string. We have no idea when the further legislation the Minister has promised will be introduced in the House. But this lacuna may very well be the period where legitimate gains made by local radio are lost, audiences are lost, the potential for production lost and as a result jobs are lost. That may very well be the valley period. That is why the Minister has to address the problem of local radio in the context of the Bill before us.
This very narrow legislation may have unintended effects. We do not know the unintentional effects it may have on RTE, local radio or newspapers. The Minister correctly said that he has no responsibility for newspapers, but it must be of concern because the health of democracy must be his concern. It may not be his responsibility directly, but it ought to be his concern. Newspapers are a vital organ of a healthy democracy. The Minister cannot say to us that he has brought in a measure that he can stand over unless he can spell out the likely effects of this measure on newspapers. The Minister told us he has been talking to the newspaper people and has been listening to what they have to say. I hope the talking and the listening is now over. At the end of the day politics is not about talking or listening alone but about making decisions. The decisions have to be made in this House and we on this side of the House are very right to counsel caution in the enactment of this Bill. My fear is that this Bill will have adverse effects on RTE, on local radio and on newspapers. If that were to happen it would be a bad day for democracy in this country.
I welcome the thrust of the Bill. The removal of the cap is more than welcome. We all argued for that when the Bill was introduced in 1988. However, I am disappointed that the Bill is not dealing with the totality of broadcasting in the country. The Minister had the opportunity to look at local radio as well as the national broadcasting network. As we all know, legislation moves very slowly through the House and it takes time to draft it. Many local radio stations have a problem in funding their further development. This Bill provides the opportunity for the Minister to address that problem. There is the additional concern about newspapers but I think that is a totally separate issue. I agree that several of the provincial newspapers are under pressure because of competition from local radio and the removal of the cap from RTE will put further pressure on them. There are other solutions that could be put forward for the provincial newspapers and the reduction of VAT is one possibility, especially when one considers there is no VAT on their competitors from England.
I will confine my remarks to local radio. There are 21 local radio stations operating relatively successfully in this country. Thankfully, only a few are under threat at present and some are operating very successfully. I take this opportunity to compliment the management of Radio Kerry on their marvellous contribution to broadcasting in the county and to the development of the county. If the Minister needs an example of how a local radio station should be run successfully he need look no further than Radio Kerry. Local radio makes the case for funding because if it had the funding proposed in Deputy Fitzgerald's amendment it could make further advances and develop its service to the public. There are several areas where it could develop if it had sufficient funding — for example, it could provide a better news service, both local, national and international. It could also play a more major role in community development, and Deputy Quill referred already to the possibilities that local radio opens up to community development.
There are immense opportunities that are not being exploited because of the lack of resources. Indeed, in an area that touches on the Minister's own brief — cultural development — there are opportunities for exploiting the vast reservoir of cultural resources through the medium of local radio. Local radio has the opportunity to bring its resources to bear on a local level, as it has been doing, and this type of work energises the community. If local radio were given some share of the licence fee it would be able to do this work. It is only right that people should pay for a service. If the public is listening to local radio it is only right that some part of the licence fee being paid to RTE should be given to local radio, which is providing an essential new service for the public. There is justification for refunding a portion of the licence fee paid to RTE by assisting local radio. This is a very important issue and the Minister should give it serious consideration.
Deputy Fitzgerald's amendment presents the Minister with an opportunity — he may not get the opportunity of doing something like this again for some time — and he should not allow it to slip by on this occasion.
There are very few, if any, Deputies in this House who would not support the development of local radio and specifically community radio, which is not quite the same thing in the terms of what is being discussed here today. What is being argued for by Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats is the subsidisation of commercial radio stations at local level.
The whole question of local radio is one which was debated at length when the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1988, was introduced. I argued at that time that there were far too many commercial radio licences at local level. I could not see how the revenues would be available to maintain them and felt it was inevitable that a number would go to the wall. At that time I stated that I did not see how the commercial national television station proposed would ever get off the ground — it did not — or that there would be room for a third national commercial radio station. That station got off the ground but unfortunately disappeared.
We are attempting to ensure that RTE survives as the national broadcasting service and that provision is made for some of the resources they receive from advertising to be used for independent programme making. That is an entirely laudable step to take and one which should not be confused with the broader debate on local or community radio broadcasting. For that reason I would not be supportive of the amendments which are attempting to introduce the subsidisation of local privately-owned commercial radio stations.
I am not arguing against the survival of these stations. I am simply saying there needs to be a much more comprehensive debate about what precise kind of service local communities need. I get a lot of representation from local groups seeking to establish community stations which would not be commercially based, which would not depend on advertising and which might be dependent on some kind of subvention from local authorities, who have not yet entered into this debate and would have a significant role to play. Obviously that would depend on the whole question of funding and the powers of local authorities being changed. I am not opposed to the idea of local radio; it is an excellent development, but we have to be careful that we do not give a particular group a certain amount of money in order to survive when in fact we may be blocking a much more worthwhile development at local community level when we would have time to address that issue.
I have argued previously in relation to other matters in the broadcasting area. We need a real debate on this issue and the Minister should use the new committees to generate that debate in this House. I am not opposed to the development or the survival of local radio in principle but I do not see that the amendment put forward is the vehicle by which that should be done. Issues concerning local radio, how it is to be funded, kinds of programming and how stations should interact with each other need to be addressed much more comprehensively. It makes little sense for areas of small population to have a number of stations competing with each other for scarce revenue from the commercial sector. There is an exciting future for local radio provided we tackle it in an innovative way and not by trying to tag it on, so to speak, at this point.
Reference was made to newspapers and their survival problems in the current climate. All the newspapers, whether in the Tony O'Reilly stable or the Cork Examiner stable, are commercial enterprises whose bottom line is to remain in the black and make a profit. They have done so quite successfully primarily because Irish people generally are voracious readers of newspapers, books and magazines. The range of newspapers available is extraordinary compared with other countries and the extraordinary low circulations which newspapers have in, say, France. It is a question of private business arguing for subsidisation, whether by way of reductions in VAT or transferring some of the advertising revenue from RTE to them or, as they argued successfully previously, for the capping of RTE advertising so that they could get a share of it. As it turned out they failed to do that because the ethos promoted by newspapers is one of choice and of the free market. I have never read an editorial in any of the newspapers, either national or provincial, which promoted anything other than the level——
I would remind the Deputy that we are on Committee Stage of the Bill. I consider that the Deputy's contribution is more in keeping with Second Stage than Committee Stage.
I take your point, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and I agree I have wandered into a Second Stage debate. To attempt to use this Bill as a vehicle for subsidising the proprietors of private newspapers would be a mistake. It is confusing a range of issues.
That is a very simplistic interpretation of what was said by people who spoke.
The Deputy is interrupting me. Deputy Quill will realise this is a Committee Stage debate and she is entitled to get up immediately after me and make those points if she wishes. She does not have to interrupt me.
I will.
I am glad to hear the Deputy re-emphasise Committee Stage.
It is a mistake to try to use this Bill as a means of subsidising the proprietors of a private business whether in the broadcasting area or the newspaper area. The Bill has a fairly limited approach. I agree there is a need for a comprehensive approach to the whole area but this Bill does not deal with it and we should not attempt to extend it beyond what is intended. Let us get this Bill through and then, by all means, harass the Minister to bring in the kind of comprehensive debate and legislation we need in this area.
Although it is the Broadcasting Bill we are dealing with, the provincial press will also be affected. My case is for the provincial papers. The provincial press plays a major role in keeping people properly informed. In my constituency The Anglo-Celt, a well known journal, is read from cover to cover in every household. They are finding it extremely difficult to compete, not with local radio but with regional radio. We were promised local radio in the original Bill, but that has failed and we now have regional radio with the local news element being lost. We are therefore back to the provincial press who are finding it extremely hard at present. All the problems involved in libel cases, with money having to be lodged in court and so on, come under what we are discussing. Now, because the cap is being removed, one broadcasting station will be able to grab all the business. That should not be supported. I am sure that is not the Minister's intention and it would not have the support of this House.
I am an advocate of local radio and, having listened attentively to Deputy De Rossa, I believe there is no intention to create a situation whereby local radio stations are subsidised. All they are looking for is a levelling of the playing pitch, and it is far from level at the moment.
With the introduction of local radio stations in 1988 a chapter in broadcasting history was written. I know they are commercial radio stations, but the setting up of such stations did not not turn out to be the licence to print money that people thought it would be; most of them are losing money. The area that I represent is as entitled to a local radio service as any other place, irrespective of population density. There is no problem in major towns and cities which have the infrastructure to keep radio stations going. However, the input of news in areas like parts of County Mayo, County Sligo and County Galway is very small simply because it is too costly to gather it. What I am trying to do here today is to bell the cat and find out who pays for what. I will not stand for a weakening of what we thought we were entitled to in 1988 and we are not getting that.
I have no axe to grind with RTE apart from the fact that their regional coverage is not as good as I would like to it to be. They are very professional and, if I am not out of order, I would like to congratulate them on what they did in Millstreet. I was glad to be Irish looking at that programme the other night. I do not know any place in the world where technical input is better. We more than held our own in Millstreet and I would like that to be conveyed to RTE.
The Deputy will appreciate that we are on Committee Stage.
You are not writing Christmas cards now.
Christmas is too far away. I had occasion to speak to many radio personnel in the last few weeks and one thing I have told them is that I will not stand for cross-subsidisation of a lame duck outfit. If they cannot produce the goods I see no reason why anyone should subsidise them. In my view local radio stations are very professional but there are certain aspects of their business that will suffer because of the removal of the cap on RTE advertising. RTE has a hard business nose and will go after extra business, and the only way to do that is to drop advertising rates. That will have a ripple effect all around the country and will put more pressure on the already pressurised commercial radio stations. Perhaps the Minister has great ideas to include in his next Bill; but, allowing for the fact that such Bills take a long time to get to the floor of this House, the local radio stations have been handicapped and RTE will have a three-furlong start. As the Minister knows, if people in the business world believe they are getting a good service in one area they tend to stay with it. The local radio stations will then have more problems trying to coax back that sort of business.
What my colleague, Deputy Fitzgerald, is trying to do is very relevant and encompasses all the opinions we are hearing from right around the country. She is very much in tune with the trends of the moment. Nobody has more of an interest in this business than the Minister and surely he must see that this is putting unnecessary pressure on the very local radio stations we would all like to help. It is against that background that I have made my remarks.
I agree with Deputy De Rossa that we need a debate on community radio also and I look forward to such a debate, but I am now concentrating on the public service obligations of the local radio stations, which are very important. Local radio is very much an arm of democracy. The development we have seen is very positive in terms of the quality of much of the programming and of the role local radio plays and can play in local communities. That role could be developed and expanded even more. However, there is always a danger that they will broadcast nothing but wall to wall music and we do not want to see that. We really do want to see quality services.
This amendment would allow support to be given to local radio in areas where it is necessary but that would not be unconditional support. As can be seen from section 6, it is tied to the provision and development of training facilities, the news service and transmission costs. I am sure the Minister is aware that startup and ongoing monitoring and transmission costs are very expensive for local radio and this amendment proposes to address those issues. The public service broadcasting remit is important and should be developed and supported as far as possible. The role of radio here is very important in maintaining a healthy democracy as is the role of other sections of the media. The amendment would allow local radio develop that mandate to the benefit of local communities.
I want to make a brief point in response to Deputy De Rossa. He incorrectly suggested that those supporting this amendment were seeking cross subsidisation of newspapers when nothing of the kind is being sought. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a member of the Progressive Democrats I want the legislation to create and maintain conditions of fair competition and, in this instance, fair competition between various sections and sectors of the media. That is all I am asking. It is a very threadbare line of thought that does not take into account the impact of the removal of the cap on advertising and the imposition of an increased VAT rate on our newspapers. It is fairly perverse logic to suggest that a reduction in VAT is somehow a subsidy to newspapers. It is a type of logic that I have not heard advanced in this House since I became a member six years ago.
It is valid that we should take into account the predicament of the newspaper sector as a result of the two measures enacted in the past three months. As Deputy Fitzgerald said, the ultimate sufferers will be those who believe in democracy. People of my generation learned how the political process works through reading newspapers and listening to the radio. Television was introduced much later. Anything that would put the price of newspapers beyond the reach of ordinary people would be a backward step and we must be conscious of that. I am certainly not calling for the subsidisation of newspapers, but I expect that legislators would take into account the overall impact of the measures they implement here on the availability of newspapers to the literate citizens of this country. I do not want that factor overlooked despite the fact that it does not directly relate to the provisions of this Bill. I apologise for taking up so much time because this matter does not arise on the Bill but I felt I had to respond to the point made by Deputy De Rossa.
I wish to clarify some points. When I met the advertisers they told me that one of the consequences of placing the cap on advertising was that less time was available for television advertising. Advertising on television became more expensive and was occupying a greater proportion of advertising budgets. They cut back on advertising in the print media and on local radio because they had less money in their budgets to spend as a result of the higher cost of advertising on television. Because it was more costly to advertise on television, new firms and procedures found it difficult to purchase the time to launch new products on television. In addition there were less shoots per month from 1990 to 1993. This resulted in job losses and the flight of advertising revenue and earnings from advertising from the Irish system. In addition the figures for the film companies involved in the production of such advertising initially froze and then began to decline.
In this legislation I am restoring the position to that which prevailed prior to 1990. In addition, I am creating opportunites for the independent film sector which can easily be related to obligations that will arise anyway in a European sense on the televisual broadcast of RTE regarding proportionality in commissioning from the independent sector. I have built some flexibility into its operation.
I will not fall into the trap of resuming a Second Stage debate on this matter. We are discussing a batch of amendments which deals specifically with the issue of radio. The matter is not about whether the Minister recognises the difficulties facing local radio. I do. How often have I to say that? If I meet them I am accused of indulging in meetings and words, and if I do not meet them I am still wrong, unless I rush legislation through here. Representatives of AIRS have told me they are glad I am not rushing legislation on radio through the House and that I am addressing the position comprehensively. I am looking at the cost of news gathering.
That is a selective condition.
Deputy Fitzgerald had a good run at it.
They have changed their tune.
I will reply fairly to all the points. For example, the debate on community radio is not a separate matter for another day. For example, if I allow local commercial radio to go on the air and deal with community radio in a few years' time when I have concluded my commercial radio list, what chance have I given community radio? Community radio is part of local broadcasting as is local commercial radio. Let us live in the real world.
The public here decided they wanted public service broadcasting. This does not have to be seen as a case of threatening wall to wall music on people. Some stations started with wall to wall music and the listeners told them they did not want it. Some of the better stations that have been referred to had a strong news, current affairs and documentary basis from the start. They covered news broadcasts mainly, then current affairs programmes, to a lesser extent documentaries and they are among the stations that fared best. Other stations started out on another road, but were quickly converted. To an extent, the listeners define the quality of what is broadcast and today there are three groups, the first making minuscule profits or merely balancing its books, the second seeking mergers to avoid difficulties and the third resisting any merger. I have examined this matter in detail for the first time and not only have I taken their agenda of proposals on board, but I have made further suggestions to them which are being examined.
I have not neglected the needs of radio and neither have I neglected the needs of newspapers. One of the most fruitful meetings I have had was with members of the provincial newspapers association who had some interesting things to tell me, including, for example, the conditions of work which prevail in them and for those in local radio. Some are paying trade union rates and carrying the cost of that and others are not. It is a very complicated issue. I met representatives of the national newspapers of Ireland and a number of other people.
I am not labouring under any misconception but it is becoming clear that the whole structure of the media is very important. I am committed to pluralism in the media. I agree with Deputy Connaughton's point. One is not defined in terms of one's broadcasting access rights, what one can spend or the number of people involved.
In my Second Stage speech I stressed the communicative order and laid down clear philosophical principles guiding me in broadcasting. The second fundamental issue is whether this is the way to deal with the needs of radio. I believe it is not. I can deal with it much better when I have an opportunity of looking at the balances. Lest people think this is just my view I will refer to evidence. It is not accidental that the 1988 Act dealt with radio and set up the Independent Radio and Television Commission and the 1990 Act dealt with RTE, particularly in relation to the cap. It is time to review the 1988 legislation. I do not accept that it was not possible for that Act to have a development role. Narrow and all as that legislation was, there was a capacity there. It is another issue as to whether it has been used sufficiently.
People want community radio and Deputy De Rossa is right in stressing the need for it. People are entitled to look back and see if they got a fair share since 1988. I propose when considering the introduction of fundamental legislation to examine the whole structure of broadcasting in relation to the structures to which I have referred. This will include examining the relationships between RTE, Telefís na Gaeltachta and local radio. Local radio which would deal with local issues must be considered also and I will do that. I have explained this to the interest groups involved and they are willing to accept this strategy. I will not breach confidence with those groups but people had said that all would be right with local radio if a share of the licence fee was allocated to it. However, a large group has said the last thing we should do is allocate a share of the licence fee to local radio without discriminating as to standards and so on. It is necessary to consider the quality of broadcasting.
Deputy Boylan made the point that proposals in relation to local radio must be considered in the context of the balance of media locally, including local papers. I propose to do that. I believe that is the right path to follow and it is preferable to amending a Bill that restores the position to that which prevailed prior to 1990. It will create opportunities for the independent film sector and define a relationship between it and the RTE authority. I have covered most of the points raised by Deputies. I appreciate the Deputies who have paid tribute to those who have provided an excellent local service. I have noted the points made.
I accept the need for a general broadcasting debate and I accept that issues are related. It would be wrong to follow the path of establishing a complicated relationship with the RTE authority in this legislation. It is best to deal with all the issues regarding radio including those of structures, representation, costs relating to the structures, the Independent Radio and Television Commission, transmission, costs of gathering news, forms and mechanisms of sharing news, the role of the Irish language, the nature of documentaries, the sheer number of stations and so forth. I must consider all that, but regardless of what proposals I make, it will be impossible to please everyone. If one please the local radio people one is certain to offend some local newspaper owners and if their agenda was considered another group would be offended. I am interested in the best mix of reformed broadcasting. This can be achieved by a through debate and I will introduce legislation towards that end. For that reason I cannot accept the amendments.
The problem with this Bill is that it involves two areas, removing the cap and providing for independent film production, without considering their impact on other sectors.
I have not said that.
The Minister made a case about the complexity of the different sectors involved.
It is necessary to save jobs in the short term.
When action is taken in one sector consideration must be taken of its impact on another, for example the impact an action in respect of local radio has on the local newspaper sector. The Minister's discussion has highlighted the point I made on Second Stage that it is impossible to extract the two areas to which the Minister has referred and put the Bill through without that having consequences for the other sectors. It would be better to approach this matter in a comprehensive way. This amendment deals with local radio and provides it with the opportunity to pursue its public service broadcasting remit and provide support for that.
I wish to take up Deputy Quill's point regarding VAT and the argument that a reduction in VAT on newspapers would essentially be a subsidisation.
The Deputy's speech should be relevant to the point at issue.
We are discussing the wider effects the amendments of the Minister or Deputy Fitzgerald may have. It appears that the removal of the cap will have an effect on the revenues of newspapers. One of the suggestions made in the course of the discussion was that reducing the VAT rate would be one way of assisting the newspaper. It has been the experience in relation to newspapers that when VAT was reduced, its reduction was not incorporated into the newspaper price. Effectively, the reduction in VAT was a subsidisation for newspapers. The newspaper owners were no longer obliged to return X amount of VAT to the Exchequer. They were returning an amount of X minus Y and keeping Y and putting it in their own pockets. That is a subsidy. The myth created in the eighties that there is a level playing pitch in a market economy is total nonsense.
Regulated by deregulation.
It is extraordinary that people who demand free markets scream for regulation and protection as soon as they are applied.
Fair competition.
What is fair competition? Competition is competition. If two small shops in my constituency are in trouble because a nearby supermarket can buy in bulk at a cheaper rate, that is fair competition. The two small shops will eventually close. That is the nature of the free market ideology. Fair competition means that small shops go to the wall and big shops survive.
The imposition of VAT at 21 per cent can hardly be called fair competition.
That is the nature of the system that it has been attempted for so long to impose on this country inside and outside Government.
We must have a debate on this matter another time.
If one argues for the broadcasting service to subsidise newspapers one could equally argue that newspapers should subsidise magazines, who may also be suffering.
That is not being argued for.
If one wants a level playing pitch it should be available to everyone.
That is not being argued for. It is pure perversion.
We are getting into a debate which requires a broader approach in terms of legislation.
We all agree with that.
However, what we have before us is an attempt to create a situation where RTE can do its business and where money can be provided for independent film production. I would have thought that Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats would have supported that——
We do.
——without qualification and without equivocation. Instead, they want to take it from the film makers.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.