(Carlow-Kilkenny): Last night I emphasised the wonderful return we get from local radio and I welcome the removal of that levy by this Bill and that local radio stations will receive a share of £500,000 to help finance their organisations. It will be a major help to local radio stations, which have done a great deal in rural Ireland to keep the flag flying and make local news items available to everybody. I sympathise with many producers in RTE who receive a certain amount of stick because their listenership has decreased. RTE had a monopoly for a long time and had all the listeners it wanted but increased competition from local radio stations meant it could not maintain the same listenership. Everybody listened to its morning programmes in the past but RTE now competes with similar programmes on local stations and very often lesser politicians make wonderful contributions to these live discussions. I hope the RTE Authority will take note of that. I welcome the Bill.
Broadcasting Bill, 1999: Second Stage (Resumed).
I wish to share my time with Deputy Moloney.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I support the Bill. Broadcasting legislation in Ireland needs to be updated as the most recent broadcasting legislation to be enacted was the Radio and Television Act, 1988. The 1990s has brought fundamental change in the nature of broadcasting within Ireland and Europe. It is fundamentally about securing a balance between deregulating the television sector while, at the same time, ensuring that all viewers are entitled to watch television programmes of economic, social and cultural importance.
The Minister has stressed already that the importance of public broadcasting is paramount as preparations are made to introduce digital television in Ireland. As she stated, it is vital that all citizens are given some basic guarantees, namely that the State must ensure, as far as possible, that all people have a guarantee of access to broadcasting services that have a distinctly Irish quality, reflect Irish values and are relevant, regardless of their economic circumstances. Such services must be provided on a universal basis or as near to that concept as is feasible.
The Government believes the best way of providing that guarantee is through the maintenance of a strong public service ethos in broadcasting. There is a stronger argument than ever for broadcasting services, operating with a strong public service remit, providing programme schedules of quality and diversity and catering for minorities as well as mainstream tastes. It must be recalled that the Protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty recognises that the system of public broadcasting in member states is directly related to the democratic, social and cultural needs of each society and to the need to preserve media pluralism.
The public service remit is currently defined only in a general way in the Broadcasting Auth ority (Amendment) Act, 1976. There have been significant changes in the broadcasting scene in Ireland and across Europe. There will be a significant increase in broadcasting capacity, which will be brought about by the introduction of digital terrestrial television and the Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam on the system of public broadcasting in EU members states. It is, therefore, only correct and proper that greater clarity is provided as to what is expected of RTE in the fulfilment of its public service broadcasting remit and to similarly define the remit appropriate to the ethos and mandate of TG4.
We must try and ensure real diversity and choice between broadcasting services. One of the objectives of the Bill is to put in place a regulatory structure that allows private sector broadcasting and public broadcasters to co-exist satisfactorily. Both sectors have much to bring to viewers and each sector can learn and challenge the other. While they have different objectives, both have an important part to play in the range of broadcasting services which can be offered to viewers.
I referred briefly to the advent of digital television on our screens. The application of digital techniques is set to revolutionise broadcasting. The promoters of digital broadcasting radio and television have become the most powerful mass media ever devised. They have profound cultural and social effects at local, national and international level and are powerful tools for the dissemination of information and the education of public opinion. Broadcasting in its totality, therefore, is very much more than a commercial activity where the object of the exercise is simply to deliver the biggest audience at the lowest price.
The Bill is designed to provide a structure for the introduction and regulation of digital television services from a broadcasting perspective. It deals with a number of these broader issues. It is intended to facilitate the introduction of digital terrestrial television – DTT – in Ireland. The Government will designate a company which will be licensed by the Director of the Office of Telecommunications to construct and operate the DTT infrastructure which shall comprise six transmission systems known as "multiplexes". RTE will be a minority partner with a shareholding of 40 per cent. That entity will be mandated to build and operate the DTT infrastructure and promote the development of multimedia services and the information society. RTE's existing transmission function will be separated from RTE as a going concern and its equity contribution to the new entity will be met to the extent required by the value of these assets. Certain obligations will be laid on the designated company through the Bill and the licences, which the director will issue.
The Bill also provides for the name of the Independent Radio and Television Commission to be changed to the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland. It provides for this body to be given expanded powers and functions in regard to the regulation of digital broadcasting on all platforms – terrestrial broadcasting, cable and MMDS sys tems and satellite – when entering into contracts with providers of broadcast content and drawing up codes and rules relating to the broadcast programme material, broadcast advertising and a range of other related matters.
Section 10 enables the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland to enter into digital content contracts with broadcasters for the production of programme material to be transmitted by digital terrestrial means. Section 11 provides that a designated company shall, if requested, enter into arrangements to transmit the analogue and digital free to air television services of RTE, TG4 and the television programme service contractor, TV3 and the sound radio services of RTE and independent radio stations, some of which are currently transmitted by RTE on a contractual basis.
Section 15 provides for the preparation by the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland of the codes and rules to be complied with by broadcasters with respect to programme material. The commission, shall, following consultation with RTE, prepare codes in relation to programme material and other forms of commercial promotion. It shall also make the rules in order to promote the enjoyment of broadcast services by persons who are deaf or hard of hearing as well as those who are blind or partially sighted.
The provision in section 3 for the abolition of the levy payable to the Independent Radio and Television Commission by independent broadcasters by virtue of paragraph 4 of section 14 of the Radio and Television Act, 1988, will require that the commission must be funded from the Exchequer through the Vote of the Office of the Minister for the Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. Accordingly, £2 million is provided in the Vote in 1999 for the running costs of the commission. The expanded functions of the commission will also give rise to an increase in staff numbers. However, the number of extra staff required has not yet been determined.
Under the legislation, the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland shall also draw up a scheme for the disbursement by it of a fund of £500,000 provided from the Exchequer in respect of capital expenditure on transmission infrastructure incurred by local and community radio. This provision is only right and proper in light of the fact that local and community radio has been proven in recent years to be a total and real success. Local radio gives its respective licensing audience an opportunity to hear about developments in their locality as well as to contribute to various debates which are taking place on general local radio discussion shows. In this regard I welcome the repeal of paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of section 14 of the Radio and Television Act, 1988, which enabled the Independent Radio and Television Commission to impose annual levies on the income of independent broadcasters. Now that this provision is being included in the Broadcasting Bill, 1999, it will help ensure that more moneys will be made available for the operation of local radio stations in Ireland. We all know the great success that local radio has been since its inception in 1988. We all know of the high listening audiences that local radio stations have built up throughout the country and this process must continue.
I am confident the decision of the Government not to permit the Independent Radio and Television Commission to impose annual financial levies on the local radio stations in Ireland will assist in freeing up more financial resources and help ensure local radio stations prosper and continue into the future.
In terms of promoting diversity in broadcasting I wish to refer to the changes which are taking place with this legislation concerning moneys which will be made available for independent television producers. One of the original provisions included in the Radio and Television Act, 1988, related to the fact that independent television producers had to be financially supported via the TV network administered and run by RTE. Section 4 of the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1993, continued this process. These were very innovative proposals and they have been proven to have operated in a very successful manner. They have ensured that RTE television produced programmes have been complemented by a wide range of independently produced programmes.
The Broadcasting Bill, 1999, recognises that this process must continue and, accordingly, an amendment to section 4 of the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1993, has been included in the legislation under discussion.
In the financial year 1999 RTE shall make the sum of £16 million available for independent productions and in subsequent years this amount will be adjusted in line with the changes in the consumer price index. Under the 1993 Act the amount of moneys available for television productions was only £12.5 million. There will also be a Committee Stage amendment which will link the annual increase in the amount available to the increase in the RTE spend on television programme production.
Sections 18 to 23 provide for matters relating to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Section 18 provides for the appointment, remuneration, resignation and removal of the chairman and members of the commission and provides for a gender balance among its members. Section 19 provides for the supply by the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of its staff, services, accommodation and facilities for the performance of its functions and for the payment of the expenses of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of Ireland.
Section 20 provides for the grounds which exist for complaints to be made to the Broadcasting Commission in addition to the cases of breaches of codes regarding the taste and decency of programme material. This section also provides the procedures for making complaints and the procedures to be followed by the commission in investigating a complaint.
Sections 36 to 42 govern future legislative requirements for Teilifís na Gaeilge. Sections 36, 37 and 38 provide for the establishment of Teilifís na Gaeilge as a statutory corporate body on the day which the Minister shall appoint. Section 39 provides that the function of Teilifís na Gaeilge shall be to provide a national television broadcasting service catering for the expectations of those whose preferred spoken language is Irish or who otherwise have an interest in Irish. The service shall have a public service character similar to that provided for in the case of RTE by means of section 24 of this Bill.
They call it TG4.
Legally it is TnaG.
I thank my colleague, Deputy Collins, for sharing time. I welcome the Bill and recognise that today young and old alike have daily access to information technology from bank machines to videos and from the Internet and e-mail.
The Broadcasting Bill, 1999, sets out the legislative framework for the biggest evolution in broadcasting services, the invention of television itself, digital broadcasting. As the Minister pointed out in her speech, digital broadcasting will significantly improve the quality of television reception but, more importantly, will increase the capacity, flexibility, sophistication and types of service. More does not always mean better. The Bill attempts to ensure that digital TV is not simply about delivering the biggest audience at the lowest price.
I welcome the basic guarantees in the Bill. All households have access to broadcasting services that have a distinctive Irish quality and reflect Irish values. We must protect the public service remit in broadcasting, otherwise we are in danger of creating TV that is no better than thrashy magazines. While commercial broadcasters have in the past provided a service, recent developments have not always been encouraging in terms of quality and range of programmes.
I welcome the fact that the Bill ensures the diet of cheap imported programmes will not constitute a good television station. Many countries in Europe and elsewhere have seen the service offered to them by purely commercial forces as a poor offering. The Bill ensures that real diversity, along with a capacity to cater for minority and mainstream tastes, will be maintained and put on a statutory footing. In light of this I welcome section 24 which will bring additional clarity to the public service in both radio and television. In this day of more we must ensure that some of that means better.
I welcome the provision of £500,000 for local transmission infrastructure. We are all aware of the evolution brought out by the advent of local radio. The service and diversity provided by local radio stations can be seen from their popularity in the ratings. Local radio has given local people a facility to tell their story, share their concerns and celebrate achievements together. These stations operate on a commercial basis, and as successful enterprises, paying their own way. The cost of providing for television would be greater. If there is a need to make more moneys available to local services that issue should be addressed. This would allow for national access, for which the Bill endeavours to provide. The funding should be linked to those who will best provide for local needs in terms of news, arts, culture and sport.
The establishment of the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland is welcome and in particular the provision which allows it enter into contracts with persons for the supply of programme materials for local interest channels being transmitted on cable and MMDS. This could be a very exciting development. At a time when localisation of trends is welcome, this new technology can make it possible for local communities to make their own programmes and broadcast their own sporting events on occasion. These choices will make the global choice capable of being more local and relevant. The world will come to the village and the village to the world.
The £16 million reserved for independent productions and its subsequent link to the consumer price index is welcome. I urge the Minister to ensure this money is used to make programmes of a public ethos nature. It would be regrettable if independents were only encouraged to make programmes that were imitations of shows from other networks. While imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, we should try to ensure that programmes made from these funds will encourage excellence in drama, sports, features and documentaries. RTE, while providing a range of programmes, could do better when, as Brian Friel once said, we are talking to ourselves. RTE has been given a strong position in the Bill and I welcome this with a caution. Its track record in catering for minority interests and a variety of tastes is variable. Next week cross channel will see four comedy programmes with a large Irish input from people such as Ardal O'Hanlon, Dylan Moran, Tommy Tiernan, Graham Linehan and Arthur Matthews. While these people's achievements are laudable, it is disappointing that they did not have a suitable platform for their talents through the Irish broadcasting service. The late lamented Dermot Morgan eventually had to turn to Britain to have his work produced for television. This is an indictment of RTE's record in fostering and promoting Irish talent. This is but one example of why we need to ensure the modest £16 million is used wisely and well, not cheaply and cheerfully.
The reservation of a multiplex for broadcasting services in the North leads me to urge the Minister to encourage a reciprocal arrangement as a matter of priority. It is an important way of bringing together the many traditions on the island. Television is a powerful medium which affects every home. It can be used to break down barriers, celebrate diversity and encourage understanding and pride in our achievements as a people.
The Bill provides for the establishment of Teilifís na Gaeilge as a statutory corporate body. This is an important provision. Against some expectations, the station has made an important impact on Irish life. Its sports coverage, commitment to Irish music and drama as well as coverage of the recent DIRT hearings show how a creative approach can make a difference for a range of interests. Ensuring the survival of this important cultural institution is timely and welcome. Increasing to 30 the number of days for which a temporary licence can be granted for the broadcast of specialist programmes is also an important initiative.
I congratulate the Minister on putting together this comprehensive Bill which will introduce huge changes in terms of the number of television and other services available while maintaining quality, integrity and diversity in the important national services. She has shown that we are embracing the possibilities and potential that derive from digital television and have the foresight to ensure the changes are dealt with confidently and assuredly with an understanding of what is important in an Irish context. I welcome the Bill.
I welcome the Bill. It is the first major broadcasting Bill to be presented in over a decade. The Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1976, provided for the establishment of RTE as a statutory corporate body while the Radio and Television Act, 1988, provided for the establishment of independent broadcasting services. One would have thought, therefore, that after such a long period this would be a more substantial and comprehensive Bill but that is not the case. It has been introduced in a time of rapid and great change in technology and competition in broadcasting, especially from digital broadcasting services in the United Kingdom.
The Bill sets out the terms on which digital terrestrial television services will be provided which will also be available from cable and MMDS operators. The Director of Telecommunications Regulation, Ms Etain Doyle, will have responsibility for the technical aspects of digital television while the Independent Radio and Television Commission, to be known as the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland, will have extensive powers to regulate the licensing process.
The new commercial partnership in which RTE will hold up to 40 per cent of the equity will manage and control the entire terrestrial television network comprised of six multiplex sections, each having five channels, one of which has been allocated to RTE while a second will be shared by TV3 and Teilifís na Gaeilge or TG4. As a result, the Bill focuses to a great extent on the promotion of a single media entity, that is RTE, and fails to encourage the emergence of an indepen dent broadcasting sector or provide for the possibility of a community service.
The Bill does not provide for open competition. Legislation adopted in 1988 facilitated the introduction of competition in the marketplace by providing for the establishment of independent national television and radio stations. No corresponding regulatory framework was put in place, however, to regulate the existing national broadcasting monopoly enjoyed by RTE which is State funded. Its dominance will continue and as a result distort the marketplace. This is a major failure of the Bill. An ideal opportunity has been lost to level the playing pitch and provide a solid basis for broadcasting into the new millennium.
The Bill confirms that the State subsidy to RTE, the licence fee, the revenue from which amounts to £70 million per year, is to continue without adequate procedures in place to ensure it is not used to compete unfairly with channels such as TV3 and TG4 which do not receive parallel State funding. This is unfair competition. This must be addressed if fairness is to be assured for the providers of services. A proper, open and transparent definition of "public service broadcasting" should be included in the Bill. Section 24(2)(a) reads:
provide a comprehensive range of programmes in the Irish and English languages that reflect the cultural diversity of the whole island of Ireland and include...programmes that entertain, inform and educate, provide coverage of sporting and cultural activities and cater for the expectations of the community generally as well as members of the community with special or minority interests and which, in every case, respect human dignity.
This seems to be intended to provide a bulwark against the European Commission in its attack on State subsidies rather than support more home produced programmes sought by audiences for which they pay a licence fee of £70. There is nothing in the Bill which will bring about changes in the current broadcasting regime which might lead viewers to expect an improvement in the quality of programming by providing Exchequer support for home produced programmes.
There must be an external audit of the accounts of RTE, otherwise the status quo will continue. The director general should report to the Oireachtas annually if we are to have confidence in the commission. An RTE management report issued in June 1998 entitled Review of RTE's Structures and Operations – Report by Project Team concluded that the organisation would be capable of achieving a minimum reduction of 270 personnel and savings of at least £15 million. It appears that its conclusions have not been implemented. The recently published annual report shows an increase, rather than a decrease, in the number of personnel employed in RTE. It is difficult to discern whether any savings have been achieved as a result of greater efficiencies.
This illustrates the importance of subjecting RTE to annual independent scrutiny by a third party based on a transparent definition of "public service broadcasting". This would mean that the public service broadcaster would use revenues raised by way of the licence fee to fulfil its public service remit while any commercial revenues generated would be used to compete with others in the marketplace. This would ensure public service programming was available to viewers and competition distortions would be minimised.
It is not proposed to reform RTE. Why should it be involved with a holding of up to 40 per cent in the distribution company? Would it not be better if it focused its attention on its public service remit, producing and broadcasting Irish programmes for its viewers? Why should one indigenous broadcaster be favoured over another? Will TG4 or TV3 similarly be allowed to participate? I hope TV3 will make a greater effort to improve the Irish content in its programming. What will be the consequences if they are not allowed to compete on a level playing pitch? While the Minister has established a statutory corporate body for TG4, she has given support to a degree which will inevitably lead to its demise. It will be a long and painful death unless the Minister adequately provides at a later stage for the provision of resources to allow TG4 continue its excellent programmes in the Irish language.
Will the Minister of State indicate if the existing Broadcasting Complaints Commission will be established as the new commission? The Bill states that the members of the commission shall be appointed by the Government. Does that mean the Minister, probably for the first time, is relinquishing her right to make the appointments? Who will be the Government, rather than the ministerial, appointees to the commission? What interest groups will be served on the commission? Transparency in the appointments will be important and there should not be any strictly political appointments over people who are committed to public broadcasting and who can make a professional input to the commission.
It is important that the Minister retained the services of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission rather than subsuming its function into a new broadcasting commission of Ireland. This is necessary in view of the multiplicity of material which will be available, much of it possibly of a violent and distasteful nature. It would be unacceptable to have the new broadcasting commission act as a standard setter, complaints agency and final arbitrator. The Bill must give assurance of quality to the viewer at a time of invasion of the airwaves from abroad, but it does not give this assurance and it does not support Irish broadcasting.
I want to put on record the important role local radio has played in Irish society over the short period of its existence. There is no doubt local radio has given local communities and groupings an important vehicle for expressing their views. It deals with local issues which would never be car ried on the national airwaves or on television. Since its inception, Galway Bay FM has provided an excellent service in catering for all needs in the community. It has improved its professionalism to a standard where it ranks as one of the best radio stations in the country. The input at local level has given many people a greater opportunity to voice their opinions on issues of importance locally that heretofore would have been decided without such an input.
The provision in section 53 of £500,000 in grant aid to local radio is welcome in one sense, but it must be seen as totally inadequate if local radio stations are to continue to develop on a level playing pitch. Local radio must be given additional resources by the Minister as an acknowledgement of the important role it has played in our society.
Is Bille fairsing é seo le réimse leathan maidir le beagnach gach gné den gcraolacháin in Éirinn. Is beag díospóireacht a bhí ann faoi sa tír go dtí seo agus is ábhair iontais é sin mar tá sé ag ullmhú an bhealaí don réabhlóid is déanaí sa chraolacháin, an t-athrú is mó i dteicneolaíocht na teilifíse ón uair a fhionnadh í. Tá gá le reachtaíocht mar seo ach caithfidh mé a rá gur chaill an Rialtas deis chun reachtaíocht i bhfad níos fearr a chur ós ár gcomhair.
This is a wide-ranging Bill that deals with almost every aspect of broadcasting in Ireland. There has been relatively little debate on it, which is surprising given that it is preparing the way for the latest revolution in broadcasting, the biggest change in television since its invention. Legislation is obviously necessary but the Bill is inadequate in many respects and the Government has lost a golden opportunity to bring a much better and more progressive Bill before us.
It is interesting that the debate on the key issues dealt with in the Bill has been so restricted. There is no widespread public understanding of digital terrestrial television. The new technology is not widely understood and less so the implications for what people will actually see on their television screens which, once costs are clarified, is what really matters. Our job as legislators is to inform ourselves on these issues, but we too are at a disadvantage in attempting to keep pace with rapidly changing technology. Most TDs, myself included, are doubly disadvantaged in this area and poorly qualified to legislate because, due to our heavy workloads, we see very little television.
I wish to concentrate on some aspects of the Bill. Probably its most far-reaching provision is the privatisation of broadcasting transmission. In its paper on digital television, published in March 1998, RTE stated it would not be able to control the national broadcasting transmission business in the future "because of issues relating to domestic growth, deregulation and competition laws".
It seems the diktats of the market, as enshrined in EU and domestic legislation, which actively discriminates against public ownership, ruled out even consideration of the retention of the broadcasting transmission network in public hands. This is yet another opportunity missed. As new technology creates a new world of communication, private companies and individuals are rushing to cash in, yet the State has been precluded from doing so by the actions of successive Governments. None of these companies will become involved if they do not consider a profit can be made, yet the public is denied the right to ownership of a network whose profits, once they come on-stream, instead of benefiting big business, could be ploughed back to provide public service broadcasting of the highest standards. I record my opposition to section 5 of the Bill on that basis.
One of the buzz words in our increasingly commercialised consumer society is "choice". This usually means quantity in place of quality. Does anyone consider that the increased number of TV channels which have come on-stream in Ireland in recent years has led to better quality programming over all? With the exception of Teilfís na Gaeilge, I do not believe new stations have raised standards, but quite the opposite. We have seen a dumbing down of television.
This is all driven by the rapacious appetite of advertisers, an appetite which could ultimately spell the end of public service broadcasting, despite the provisions of this Bill. What is the effect of broadcasting driven solely by commercial greed? I compare it to a bus carrying an advertisement for designer clothes – or, God forbid, shirts. One day, the clothes company buys the bus and only allows it to be driven through streets where the advertisement will reach its target audience. The route is changed and the commuters who are not seen as consumers are left standing. That is the fate of much of the community, as far as commercially driven television and radio is concerned. Those outside certain age groups, social classes, cultures and geographic areas are not catered for in programming because the advertisers know that the take-up by such people of their products is minimal. This is, in essence, the "Murdochisation" of the media.
Section 24 sets out the type of public service broadcasting that the new Broadcasting Commission is required to provide. It must "provide a comprehensive range of programmes in the Irish and English languages" which "entertain, inform and educate, provide coverage of sporting and cultural activities and cater for the expectations of the community generally as well as members of the community with special or minority interests and which, in every case, respect human dignity". These are very laudable terms of reference, but they must be set against the record of RTE.
Ó thaobh na teanga Gaeilge de, is léir ní hamháin gur theip ar RTE í a chur chun cinn thar na blianta ach gur theip air fiú an t-íosmhéid Gaeilge a chraoladh ar raidió agus teilifís. Mar gheall air sin bhí feachtas fada chun Teilifís na Gaeilge a chur ar bun. Tá sé ann anois agus ba chéim mhór chun tosaigh don Ghaeilge é nuair a bunaíodh an stáisiún. Tá súil agam go leanfaidh sé mar a thosaigh sé; is stáisiún are leith é seo agus ní cóir é a úsáid mar bhealach eile chun cláracha i mBéarla a chraoladh. Tá súil agam go mbeidh TG4 ar fáil ar fud na tíre leis an teicneolaícht nua. Níl sé, is mór an trua é, ar fáil go soiléir faoi láthair i mo cheantar fhéin ar an teorainn. Níl sé ar fáil sna Sé Chontae ar chor ar bith.
The Bill refers to the supply of broadcasts from the Six Counties to this jurisdiction, but there is not any reference to provision of public service broadcasting from this jurisdiction to the north-east. Many people there are denied access to RTE and TG4. This is surely a totally anomalous situation, especially for the Irish language community there.
One of the most positive developments in the Irish media in recent years has been the blossoming of local radio, especially outside the greater Dublin area. Local radio stations have galvanised the sense of identity in counties and regions and they provide a vital counterbalance to the domination of most of the media by mediocre mid-Atlantic culture. They truly serve the community. In saying that, I know I reflect the views of people in the north midlands and Border regions in relation to our local service, Shannonside/ Northern Sound.
The whole area of community radio and television is much less well developed. We have about a dozen community radio stations. Local and community television have not yet been developed. The Bill gives legal recognition to community broadcasting, which is welcome. However, there are significant problems in relation to the definition of "community". The Bill defines "community" in a geographical sense. Those working in community broadcasting are concerned that this could prove restrictive. Communities of interest on a broader level – for example, rural small farmers, environmentalists, the disabled, travellers and refugees – might wish to broadcast, and this should be recognised. This category of special interest broadcasting would allow, for example, the lifting of restrictions which have prevented United Christian Broadcasters from broadcasting. Community radio and television has tremendous potential to provide real public service broadcasting at grassroots level locally and among the many diverse sectors of our society. Its full potential is not recognised in the Bill, in particular, the need for proper funding.
The Bill places the Broadcasting Complaints Commission under the auspices of the new Broadcasting Commission. I agree with the National Union of Journalists that this is unsatisfactory and that the complaints commission should be completely independent. This is a significant flaw in the legislation.
I strongly oppose the retention in the Bill of the powers of the Minister under section 31 of the Broadcasting Authority Act. This is the first opportunity I have had since I was elected to this House to refer to section 31 in this Chamber. This measure gives the Minister the sweeping power to "direct the Authority in writing to refrain from broadcasting any particular matter or matter of any particular class, and the Authority shall comply with the direction". The orders under that section made by successive Ministers were applied by RTE in the most wide-ranging way, not only against spokespersons of Sinn Féin but against any person or group who expressed republican views. Members of Sinn Féin could not be interviewed on any issue or subject. There are many incredible examples of how this was employed. We were rendered non-persons by this measure. Even songs and poetry, some of which were the works of nationally acclaimed artists, were targeted under the regime of Government political censorship and media self censorship.
Section 31 was an outright denial of democracy, deployed in the most cynical way by Governments involving all the parties in the House which have been in Government. It contributed to the political vacuum which, I emphasise, fed the conflict for nearly 30 years. It tried to deny the reality of British state injustice in the North of Ireland and it reinforced partition.
At present, there are no orders under section 31 in force. However, this Bill retains in the hands of the Minister the power to ban anyone and anything from the airwaves at the stroke of a pen. This can be contrasted with section 24(3) of the Bill, which allows the Minister to change the terms of reference of the Broadcasting Commission in relation to public service broadcasting, but only after widespread consultation and the passing of a resolution by the Oireachtas. There are no such conditions attached to section 31. I put the House on notice that I will pursue my opposition to this aspect of the Bill at subsequent Stages and I intend to table an amendment for the repeal of section 31 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960. I request all Members to support that amendment.
Tá gá le díospóireacht leathan ar an mBille ní hamháin sa Teach seo ach ar fud na tíre agus tá súil agam go mbeidh sé sin againn amach anseo.
Ba mhaith liom comhgháirdeas a dhéanamh leis an Aire as ucht an reachtaíocht seo a chur os comhair na Dála. Is é atá i gceist leis an reachtaíocht seo ná bunchreatlach a chur in áit le gur féidir forbairt a dhéanamh ar chúrsaí chraolacháin in Éirinn.
During her contribution on Second Stage, the Minister dealt in detail with the provisions of the Bill, so I will make a few general points. We have to recognise that technology will bring about radical changes, a convergence between telecommunications, computers and broadcasting infrastructures, and will create a global infrastructure for the information society. "Globalisation" and "convergence" are buzz words which have become part of our vocabulary. Digital broadcasting will be essential in providing a wide variety of services with a broad range of content. In layman's terms, digitalisation will allow for the provision of a large number of services and information.
When we consider digitalisation it is important that we recognise the broader aspects involved in this revolution, in addition to its technical and economic elements. Digital terrestrial services have been introduced in a number of countries, including Britain and Sweden. To facilitate the early introduction of DTT in Ireland, the Bill allows for the creation of a new entity to build and operate the DTT infrastructure and to promote the development of multi-media services and the information society. The proposals being adopted by Government and reflected in the legislation are based on RTE's suggestions for the development of DTT in Ireland. Listening to the debate, it strikes me that some Deputies do not recognise that RTE is a State service and, therefore, it is right that the Government gives recognition to its proposals.
A fundamental objective is the concept of universal service and it is important that DTT is made available to all. Access to the Internet and other interactive services are important public policy objectives as DTT has the potential to be an important delivery medium for information society services, particulary in rural areas. One of the opportunities provided by the new digital era, which is of particular interest to me, is that it will offer programme makers the opportunity to produce material using multi-lingual soundtracks. This is of great interest to those interested in moving away from a unilingual society.
The new technology also creates other opportunities and it is important that it is used to benefit those who are physically disadvantaged. To this end the legislation proposes that the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland shall make rules requiring broadcasters to take specific steps to promote understanding of broadcasting services by people with aural or visual impairments. The legislation envisages a quota regime which would see an increasing amount of programming being accessible to those with hearing and visual impairments. This is important as we need to take positive discriminatory steps to ensure that those who suffer such impairments are not excluded from programming or access to television services.
The Bill is not solely concerned with the introduction of DTT, although we have to recognise that this will be one of the greatest revolutions in terms of the amount of services available. Another vital provision concerns public service broadcasting. I was disappointed today to hear an attack on public service broadcasting. There is a great emphasis on the private sector at present. I have nothing against that sector if it is willing to do those things we expect public service broadcasting to do. Deputy Ó Caoláin noted that experience elsewhere has shown that an absol utely free market, with no element of public service broadcasting, results in a market servicing the maximum number of people in terms of advertising revenue and the lowest common denominator. I am a strong supporter of public service broadcasting as it is vital for the health of broadcasting in general.
The protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty recognised that the system of public broadcasting in the member states is directly related to the democratic, social and cultural needs of each society and to the need to preserve media pluralism. In light of the significant changes in broadcasting in Ireland and across Europe, it is appropriate and necessary to provide greater clarity as to what is expected in fulfilment of the public service broadcasting remit which applies to RTE, and to similarly define a public service remit appropriate to the ethos and mandate of TG4.
Ba mhaith liom a rá mar an tAire Stáit a bhfuil freagracht orm ó thaobh cúrsaí Gaeilge agus Gaeltachta go speisialta, go bhfuil fíor-áthas orm go bhfuil an tAire tar éis a dhéanamh cinnte de sa Bhille seo go mbeidh deis ann anois Teilifís na Gaeilge a chur ar bhonn reachtúil. Sa chaoi seo tá comhlíonadh á dhéanamh ar ghealltanais a tugadh i gclár an rialtais. Mar a dúirt an tAire, sula dtiocfaidh seo i gceist, glacfar comhairle le RTÉ agus le comhairle agus le bainistíocht Teilifís na Gaeilge faoin am is oiriúnaí chun an chumhacht sin a fheidhmiú. Is é ainm an chomhlachta ná Teilifís na Gaeilge agus is féidir ainm ar bith a chur ar an tseirbhís nó ar an mbealach teilifíse. Mar a thuigimid uilig i láthair na huaire tá TG4 á thabhairt ar an tseirbhís sin.
Ba mhaith liom a rá go soiléir go bhfuil soláthar sonrach á dhéanamh do Theilifís na Gaeilge atá luaite sa Bhille seo, gurb é an t-ainm atá air ná Teilifís na Gaeilge, ag déanamh cinnte go mbeidh soláthar ceart trí Ghaeilge ar fáil do phobal na tíre seo ó thaobh na seirbhíse de. Ná bíodh eagla ar dhaoine faoi sin. Tá sé soiléir gur chuige sin atá sé ann. Tá sé fíor freisin go mbíonn cláracha á gcraoladh ag Teilifís na Gaeilge i mBéarla ach mura ndéanfaí é sin ní fhéadfaí ar na hachmhainní atá ar fáil na huaireannta sin a úsáid chun críocha cláracha trí Ghaeilge. Agus is maith an rud é go bhfuil an t-am saor á úsáid le scoth cláracha trí Bhéarla a chur ar fáil, mar shampla le seirbhís nach beag a chur ar fáil ó thaobh chraoladh an Tí seo. Ach is é an príomhrud agus an fáth go dtugtar airgead an Stáit chuige ná seirbhís trí Ghaeilge a chur ar fáil. Tá sé ráite liom ag Teilifís na Gaeilge féin, aon rud a chuireann siad amach i mBéarla íocann sé as féin agus go bhfuil airgead iomlán an Stáit atá á chaitheamh ar Theilifís na Gaeilge á chaitheamh ar theilifís trí Ghaeilge.
Tá airgead nach beag á chur ar fáil. Chuir an Rialtas deiridh é ar fáil agus tá sé méadaithe go mór ag an Rialtas seo. Chomh maith leis sin tá soláthar sa reachtaíocht go mbeidh ar RTÉ leanúint leo ag cur cláracha trí Ghaeilge ar fáil do Theilifís na Gaeilge. Tá dualgas faoi na hAchtanna craolacháin ar RTÉ a bheith ag cur amach clára cha trí Ghaeilge idir raidió agus teilifís. Tá sin ann i gcomhnaí; is coinníol reachtúil é sin. B'fhéidir go raibh amannta ann gur cheap mise agus daoine eile nach raibh siad ag comlíonadh an dualgais sin ach ní shin le rá nach bhfuil sé ann. Tá mé cinnte go dtuigfidh daoine go bhfuil sé fíor-thábhachtach nuair atáimid ag caint ar sheirbhísí domhanda go bhfuil deis ann anois ó thaobh na féiniúlachta de déanamh cinnte go gcuirfear breis seirbhísí ar fáil atá dírithe ar mhargadh na hÉireann agus ar phobal na hÉireann agus i bhfad níos mó craolaidh áitiúla agus náisiúnta a dhéanamh. Ag an am céanna beidh fáil ar sheirbhísí ar scála i bhfad níos leithne ar bhonn domhanda. Mar sin beidh an rogha i bhfad níos leithne. Tá sé de thuairim agam gur cheann de na rudaí a thiocfaidh amach anseo go mbeidh i bhfad níos mó aird ar rudaí áitiúla agus náisiúnta ná ar rudaí domhanda. Ainneoin gur féidir le daoine ar ghléasanna craolacháin raidió go leor stáisiún náisiúnta agus idirnáisiúnta a fháil is mó atá daoine ag díriú ar na stáisiúin náisiúnta. Tarlóidh an rud céanna, dar liomsa, maidir le lucht féachana teilifíse.
Ach caithfimid a bheith cúramach. Go leor de na seirbhísí atá á bhunú ag lucht an bhrabaigh tá siad bunaithe ar an margadh agus ar airgead a dhéanamh. Mar sin, tá sé fíor-thábhachtach go gcoinneoimid súil air go mbeidh sé de bhuncheart ag an phobal teacht ar na bunsheirbhísí go náisiúnta agus go mbeidh siad in aisce. Ba bhocht an scéal é dá mbeadh siad ar fáil ag daoine saibhre agus gan iad a bheith ar fáil ag gnáth-phobal na tíre. Mar sin, tá sé fíor-thábhachtach sa Bhille Craolacháin nua go leanfar ag tabhairt tacaíochta do sheirbhís phoiblí pobail.
The new technology increases the need for broadcasting services to be organised according to a public service remit. I accept the argument that commercial broadcasting on its own would fail to produce a form of broadcasting which individuals or the public in general require and that while rules and regulations have the capacity to stop the undesirable, they cannot promote the desirable. The only way to counteract the deficiencies of a purely commercial system is through the existence of broadcasters – despite what was said earlier, TG4 is one of the public service broadcasters – which have the ethos of public service broadcasting as their driving force rather than purely commercial considerations.
Turning to radio, I particularly welcome the provisions in the Bill which will assist that sector. The £500,000 which will assist independent and community radio services was mentioned. No mention was made of the removal of the requirement of the independent radio sector to pay a levy to the Independent Radio and Television Commission to meet its operating costs, which I welcome. The commercial local radio stations have taken on a public service remit and, particularly in rural areas as was mentioned by previous speakers, have certainly served the community well and provide a broad remit in terms of local current affairs, politics, matters of general interest to the community and sport. In general they have provided a very good locally based service. It is interesting that those who have been the best in doing this have also attracted the biggest listenerships. While some broadcasters seem to think it is necessary to go to the bottom of the market to get an audience, local radio has proved that there is an insatiable appetite in the public for top class broadcasting and for current affairs and matters of public interest. I congratulate the local and community radio sectors in this regard. We are very fortunate in Connemara to have Raidio na Gaeltachta, an excellent service, and Connemara Community Radio serving north-west Connemara. Local and community radio have served the country well and have found a particular niche close to the hearts of the people in less urbanised areas.
Ar deireadh ba mhaith liom comhgháirdeas a dhéanamh leis an Aire. Tá job mór le déanamh, nach bhfuil éasca. Tá cúrsaí craolacháin ag éirí an-chasta. ach is dóigh liom sa mBille seo go bhfuil obair an-mhaith déanta aici agus tá mé cinnte nuair a bheidh sé rite go mbeimid réidh le tabhairt faoi ré nua iomlán craolacháin sa tír agus go mbeimid in ann cothromaíocht a dhéanamh idir na riachtanais phoiblí, riachtanais seirbhís poiblí, agus an deis a mbeidh ag an airnéal príobháideach fáil níos gafa le cúrsaí craolacháin. Tá sé deacair scaití teacht ar bhealach cothrom le seo a dhéanamh. Is dóigh liom go bhfuil seo déanta sa mBille.
Mar a dúirt mé, tá fíor-áthas orm go bhfuil soláthar sa mBille seo le daingnú a dhéanamh ar bhunús TG4, go mbeidh sé ann go reachtúil agus creidim féin go rachaidh sé ó neart go neart agus go bhfuil seirbhís an mhaith á chur ar fáil ag TG4. Tá piantaí fáis ann ar ndóigh, ach tá sé ag dul i gcionn ar an bpobal agus creidim go mb'fhéidir gurb é seo an deis is fearr atá againn le tír fíor-dhátheangach a dhéanamh.
I am glad to have the opportunity to make a few remarks on what is a very important Bill. By and large, no matter how much carping we do from time to time, relatively speaking the Irish television broadcasting audience over the past 30 years has received a quality service. There may be a view that perhaps certain essential public service commitments delivered by RTE nowadays are somewhat more tired than in the past, but by and large the national broadcaster has had a profound impact on the development of Irish society. For most of those 30 years we have had the opportunity to engage in high class electronic piracy and avail of the best available on the neighbouring island.
It seems that whereas digital television will offer more choice, the expectation on all sides of the House seems to be that more will be better. I am not sure this will necessarily prove to be the case. My colleague, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, when making his remarks on the Bill commented that providing an increased number of channels was not the only choice open to digital television. Theoretically, going this route will offer greater choice, an opportunity to cater for minority tastes, programme specialisation and so on, however, quality of programming ought to remain paramount and could also be a casualty in this new era.
I have not heard from the Minister an explanation as to why the Government chose DTT over cable and satellite. As I understand it, there is considerable evidence from other countries of a very low uptake of digital terrestrial television. I do not know what research was engaged in by the Government in coming down in favour of this preference. Was research carried out on countries of similar size and cultural background?
The Labour Party spokesperson, Deputy O'Shea, set out some important principles which ought to remain paramount in any discussion of broadcasting. These included universality of availability, universality of appeal, provision for minorities, service to the public sphere and a commitment to the education of the public or, as Deputy Michael Higgins put it succinctly, the paternalistic, nonetheless sound, Reith principles of "to inform, to educate and to entertain".
I am not persuaded that, in practice, these principles will be guaranteed in the new structures. The Bill attempts to strengthen the position of public service broadcasting and I welcome that. At the same time, however, the legislation is fundamentally weak in respect of State funding of this critical area of public policy. Take the example of TG4. Is the Minister satisfied that TG4 will be able to afford the commercial fees that will be levied by the designated company?
This is a long awaited Bill. Essentially, it sets about facilitating the establishment of digital terrestrial television as, in effect, the only option for free to air delivery of television programme material. This will be achieved through the establishment of the designated company which will have wide ranging powers and functions under the Bill. Although the legislation sets out broad objectives for the company, it will be the same as any other company established under the Companies Acts. It will subsume the RTE transmission system as RTE is obliged to transfer its existing transmission infrastructure to the designated company in exchange for a shareholding in that company.
The major shareholding will be held by a private sector investor, in all probability an investor with no involvement and, perhaps, no commitment to television production or programming. This is, effectively, privatisation. It is difficult to divine from the Bill how lucrative the new enterprise is likely to be. However, since the structure suggests that the designated company will, in effect, be an monopoly and that the licence system will stay in place, it is likely to be lucrative. Both TG4 and TV3 will be expected to pay carriage fees to the designated company. Is the Minister satisfied that TG4 will be able to pay the commercial fees for transmission the new company is likely to charge?
Can the Minister give the House an outline of the type of fees anticipated as well as the estimates of the cost of DTT? What is the likely cost of the network upgrade? What is the value of the existing RTE network and is it fixed that the RTE shareholding in the designated company is to be equated to this value? What is the ballpark figure and can the Minister give us such a figure for the annual income to the company? Is there a ballpark figure for the new company's operating costs?
The reference by the Minister to the possibilities provided for indigenous broadcasting puzzles me. Her office appears to be saying that we should speed this Bill through the House so RTE can be enabled to pay independent programme makers their £16 million before the end of the year. The Minister should clarify that. Under the legislation introduced by the previous Minister, Deputy Higgins, up to 20 per cent of revenue may go to independent producers. If my figures are correct, that 20 per cent this year is likely to be the equivalent of £19 million. I am not sure why it is being said that the speedy enactment of this legislation is a prerequisite to the payment of programme makers or why there is a £16 million ceiling.
The reason I ask the Minister to give these figures is that we need to be able to make a rough stab at the profitability of the new enterprise. If we are correct in assuming that the new company's capital cost is roughly to be equated with the amount of funding to be raised by the new company, we should be told as much. RTE's stake will, I understand, be equivalent to the value of its existing network and there appears to be a nod in the direction of centralised billing. What does that portend for the future? What is the Minister's intention concerning future responsibility for collecting licence fees? All of this points in the inevitable direction of what we have seen across the water, high private sector salaries for executives and, down the road in a thriving commercially privatised entity, millionaire status, share options and the like. The Minister has made no comment on that.
Is it logical or fair to assume the current commercial analog carriage fees can be used as a precedent in the new company's revenue estimates? What return does the public get for selling off the transmission network? Why is it not possible to reserve frequencies to meet the policy objectives of Government and other publicly funded initiatives? This policy would secure a platform for the delivery of free to air public service programme material at no additional cost to the public. My colleague, Deputy Higgins, referred to research carried out in New Zealand. It should be noted that New Zealand has adopted the approach I suggested. I instance here not just the case of TG4 but, for example, an Oireachtas channel offering the type of service envisaged in a paper I prepared last year for the Oireachtas broadcast ing committee. It would be similar to the C-SPAN service in the United States.
There is insufficient clarity of commitment in the Bill to the principle of universality and free to air. This should be elaborated in Part II. I welcome the attempt to strengthen the position of public service broadcasting but where is the funding commitment in this critical area? Despite the long time we have waited for the Bill, its definitions are old fashioned and traditional. They do not take into account the realities of modern broadcasting or future trends. One must look to the reports prepared for Government on the information society, for example, the report chaired by Ms Vivienne Jupp. The significance of Government as a player in the development of the information society is one of the themes running through those documents.
I am not sure why the Bill seems to ignore the key role that converged broadcasting can play across so many social, industrial, educational and cultural policy areas.
The Minister of State, Deputy Ó Cuív, made a number of remarks about TG4, and I agree with many of them. It has been a breath of fresh air in many ways. I referred earlier to some tiredness on the part of the national broadcaster, but Teilifís na Gaelige, as it was called then, demonstrated a capacity for—
The Deputy had a good run on it, but he always asked quality questions.
Go raibh maith agat, a Teachta.
The Deputy is a hero in the Gaeltacht, although he might not know that.
That is a good example of the innovation by TG4 to which I was going to refer. In respect of approbatory words expressed inside and outside this House on the DIRT hearings, the Committee of Public Accounts could be in Kildare House until this time next year and nobody would have paid a blind bit of notice to the proceedings were it not for TG4 taking the innovatory step to enable the viewing public to judge the process of examining why allegations of serious tax evasion were made, to see the people responsible – whether in the major financial institutions or major institutions of State – being questioned and to see their demeanour and hear their replies. The dynamic of television made the difference. TG4 led the way in that, as it did in the broadcasting of Question Time from this House, but there are other areas in which it has demonstrated a vitality of programming and novel approaches that has recommended it to a great many viewers, not all of whom are proficient in the first national language.
In terms of the first national language, TG4 is probably the most significant development in the past 40 years. I am not sure what the Bill portends for its future. It provides that it may be estab lished on an independent and statutory basis. It would be of great assistance if the Minister could be more specific and indicate a date as to when that will happen, but that, almost by definition, would involve certain funding impediments. I am not clear there is a clarity of commitment that is necessary for TG4 to thrive. It requires a funding formula that will enable it to plan ahead and that is not provided in the Bill, as drafted. We cannot be certain of the future attitude of Digico in terms of the position of primacy it will have in the structures that are being set up under this legislation. Independence is the appropriate status for TG4 and in so far as there is a promise of statutory independence for TG4 in the Bill, I welcome it, but it can only grow and develop if it is master of its own destiny. My colleague, Deputy O'Shea, has drafted a large number of amendments for Committee Stage.
I will put a further question to the Minister that relates to the remarks I made earlier about the effects of privatisation, which is what we are engaged in here. Will the Minister consider, even at this late stage, retaining some spectrum space for public policy uses? More is not necessarily better. I do not know what programmes these 30 channels will broadcast, but based on the experience of the United States, many of them for much of the time will broadcast rubbish, trash that we would be far better off not receiving. We ought to retain the freedom to address that question in the light of experience and in the light of the evolution of broadcasting when the Bill is enacted.
Broadcasting policy and the nature of broadcasting here tells us a good deal about our people. When we travel abroad and view the programmes presented in other countries, we get a feel for the life of the people of those countries. In some countries, one can only view what the Government wants to broadcast. One would see dour, dreary presenters poorly presenting dark news in countries like Iran. Such presentations do not give a sense of the culture or of the lives of the people of these countries. Local news in some countries is what happens on the local street and national news is what happens in the State, but they have no perspective on real national or international news and the peoples of those countries are deprived of that. I noticed that was the case in a country as advanced and as democratic as Canada.
In other countries television channels seem to concentrate on games shows. That demonstrates a very frivolous people who are not able to find the balance between living in the never-never land and living in the real world. Other channels seem to concentrate solely on chat shows, which run from morning until evening, particularly in the United States. That demonstrates a people who are so concerned with navel gazing and sharing their embarrassing experiences that they are not really interested in problem solving. That is the danger of opening up our system to multichannels from other countries.
If we, like other countries, depend on imports – I have visited countries where these type of systems exist – it would indicate they have no culture of their own, but we have been very fortunate in that we have had a very professional system. From the outset we learned from an excellent system, the BBC. We have managed to provide a cultural mix and, above all, the broadcasting service that has been offered here has allowed our people to develop from an insular, inward-looking people into an outward-looking people with not only an international knowledge but an international concern. That is recognised worldwide and much of the credit for that must go to our broadcasting service and system. We have managed over the years to provide a balance between enjoyment and the serious and to provide a public service. In recent years, the system that traditionally was offered by RTE alone has been expanded to include other national radio and television stations, particularly local and community stations, and those which serve sectional and minority interests.
As time and technology change and as the information age creeps upon us, it is timely that we should examine all our legislation on broadcasting so that we can respond to this change and rise to the challenge. I welcome this Bill which not only deals with commercial and technological interests but provides a challenge for us and for the people to balance our social, cultural, democratic, technological and economic interests.
The Minister spoke about the delivery of services of a distinct Irish quality in an age where there are hundreds of channels. These channels will undoubtedly be a threat to standards. I welcome the fact that Part III of the Bill deals with standards in broadcasting. We will soon open our doors to a multitude of channels where quantity does not mean quality and where it tends to balance out at the lowest rather than the highest common denominator in some countries. For that reason, the standards imposed in this Bill must be met.
I welcome the fact the new Broadcasting Commission must establish a code specifying standards to be complied with and rules and practices to be observed in respect of the taste and decency of programme material. Taste and decency are words which sum up what is needed by the people in our new service. It will allow for the continuation of a sound broadcasting service, particularly in respect of the portrayal of violence and sexual conduct in such material.
I am worried about the level of violence portrayed on our screens at all times of the day. Violence is glorified and gratuitous in many programmes. Violence and death are included in children's programmes and are seen as entertainment. It is not right that almost every programme on television should carry a "V" sign for violence. I am not sure if a definitive study has been carried out on the effects of such violence on children in their formative years. Surely we should question what purpose it has in such programmes. Must everything be exterminated for a commercial reason and, if so, should we pursue that policy?
The code will also deal with sexual conduct. Over the past couple of days I had the misfortune to change my television to a recognised British channel at approximately 9.30 p.m. or 10 p.m., which is determined as adult viewing but is not late viewing, and I saw a programme which offended my sensibilities. It was entitled "Eurotrash" and it outlines the worst of what is happening in each European country. This programme, which commemorated the fall of the Berlin Wall, did not tell us about the best aspects of East Germany but about its worst aspects in a most offensive manner. I do not want to see such broadcasting on State or recognised and easily available channels. We need to show our people the best of what is happening in the world. I do not know if there is a similar programme called "Eurobest".
The same can be said about advertising and a section in this Bill on standards in broadcasting deals with that issue. I welcome the fact the amount of time spent on advertising in any one day and the maximum period per hour can be controlled. It is timely and opportune that we should look at the amount of money and time spent from October until December advertising expensive Christmas toys on children's television. The focus during children's programmes early on Saturday mornings is on pressurising children to put pressure on parents to buy expensive toys. I spoke earlier this week about the early advent of Santa and Christmas, but such broadcasting and advertising needs to be questioned. We lower our standards to crass commercialism when we use advertising to put pressure on children.
I have also noticed in advertisements over the past few weeks a tendency to play on unacceptable language. I refer specifically to washing powder advertisements where it is hilarious if a child has a stutter, a stammer or a lisp which means they are unable to pronounce some words which would not be acceptable in normal language but which are suddenly acceptable in an advertisement. I hope the advertising standards set down in this Bill will ensure that language, sexual conduct and violence are looked at seriously. One of the ways this will be done is through the membership of the commission. I welcome the fact that three men and three women will be appointed to it. This will allow a balance of gender and, I hope, of age on the commission.
The Bill will ensure that steps are taken to promote the understanding and enjoyment of persons who are deaf or hard of hearing. We are not properly serving those who are deaf or hard of hearing. Some pre-recorded programmes provide subtitles, but many people, who are hard of hearing, are interested in current affairs and the news. However, our national broadcasting service does not provide subtitles for the news any day of the week. This should be done in the interests of these people.
The Bill specifically mentions the proceedings of the Houses of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament in relation to the RTE authority. However, I wonder about the quality of the current affairs programmes presented on our national airwaves in recent years, which have been reduced to shrill shouting shops. I am not just talking about politicians. The prejudice of the presenters is now coming across clearly. A five or ten minute film strip, which shows us the views of the presenter, is often followed by a person from the Government or Opposition trying to explain their position in two minutes. Few programmes allow for a proper discussion or for any politician to be able to present their views to the people. This happens from early morning on the radio to prime time viewing at night.
The style of interviewing now being adopted was abandoned in England in the mid 1960s as being too aggressive and non-productive. One of the few programmes which allows a full discussion and issues to be teased out is "Questions & Answers". However, that is the exception rather than the rule. By being too aggressive and by demeaning politicians – sometimes we add to that ourselves – a proper public service is not being provided and then we wonder why the people are apathetic about us.
Part IV of the Bill states that the duty of programmers and of the authority shall be to provide programmes which entertain, inform and educate, provide coverage of sporting and cultural activities and cater for the expectations of the community generally, as well as members of the community with special or minority interests, and which in every case respect human dignity. The human dignity of all people is not always respected at different levels of broadcasting. The minority and special interests are well catered for on local radio.
I welcome the fact that all these groups are now being brought under this legislation and I welcome the new technology and licences which are available to them. The criteria should remain quite strict.
Dublin does not have the same service as counties served by stations such as Louth-Meath Radio, Tipp FM or Kerry Radio. Dublin radio stations tend to be pop-orientated and while they give very good snappy news bulletins, they carry no real local stories or programmes. I question their commitment to the Irish language and to current affairs. I do not suggest that there should be specific stations in the Dublin area dealing solely with matters of local interest but that the balance should be more evident throughout the stations.
The Bill refers to teleshopping which is new to this country although we have seen it on other channels in other countries. In this area the standard which is adopted at the outset is the one which will continue. I know of people who have been sucked into buying goods about which false or exaggerated statements were made on shop ping channels. From the outset we must establish what can be sold, who the seller will be and how it shall be promoted.
Bhí an-áthas orm a fheiscint ins an mBille go bhfuil TG4 chun a neamhspleáchas a fháil. Gan aon amhras, ag díriú ar a fógra féin, tá TG4 tar éis súil eile a chaitheamh ar an saol agus ar shaol na hÉireann, ar an nGaeilge agus ar mhuintir na tíre. Molaim TG4 as an méid atá bainte amach aici, go háirithe i dtaobh spóirt agus ó thaobh seirbhís spórt áitiúil a chur ar fáil gach Domhnach. Molaim an stáisiúin as imeachtaí an Choiste um Chuntais Phoiblí a chraoladh agus a thaispeáint to dhaoine. Tá mé ag súil go mbeidh TG4 ag díriú ar aon díospóireacht a bheidh ar síul maidir le leasaithe i dtoghcháin don Oireachtas. If the committee on the Constitution decides to have oral hearings on the review of electoral law and reform of the Oireachtas, I hope TG4 will rise to the challenge of presenting those activities and open up the debate to the Irish people.
Má tá TG4 le bheith neamhspleách agus dualgas uirthi seirbhís phoiblí a thabhairt do dhaoine, an mbeidh dóthain airgid aici? An mbeidh TG4 in ann airgead a fháil ó chomhluchtaí nó an mbeidh sí ag fáil airgid on gceadúnas? Will the licence fee continue to go solely to RTE? RTE will continue to be obliged to give one hour of free television to TG4, but I hope in facing the challenge, with other stations, to become independent it will also be given the support necessary to allow it to continue the service it provides.
There has been much interest in the section of the Bill dealing with pay-per-view and free to air programmes. Other legislation dealing with the broadcasting of major events guarantees that items of major interest will be free to air. There is always a danger that when more channels are available the best programmes will become less accessible. I want to ensure that the television set does not become the one-armed bandit in the corner. One should not have to pay to see the best and most interesting programmes. It is important to maintain a balance in this regard and this challenge faces us in this Bill.
The number of channels and services which will be made available by digitalisation is mind-boggling. We must respect human dignity and maintain high standards. We must ensure that we receive the best in broadcasting and not the trash, that programmes are available free to air and not on a pay-per-view basis and that the service offered by new technology reflects the Irish people and gives us the same quality of service which we have got over the past 30 years and which we deserve to get in the next millennium.
There is an economic and cultural obligation on every Member of this House to pay particular attention to the passage of the Broadcasting Bill as it will have an impact on every citizen in their respective constituencies. This impact will take many forms as Ireland attempts to confirm its presence in the digital age by creating the correct legislative environment for the introduction of digital terrestrial television. Most critically, the Broadcasting Bill seeks to create a way – if currently somewhat flawed as outlined in this Bill – to grant the Irish people an opportunity to maintain some control over its broadcasting integrity and cultural destiny.
While appreciating that legislating for an industry which is currently experiencing such revolutionary change is an almost impossible task, we must ensure that this Bill represents the best option for the Irish people in terms of profiting from the full benefits of the digital age while not compromising our broadcasting culture and traditions. However, the Bill fails in this regard. This Bill must deal with the issue of offering choice to the Irish people with regard to what television platform they prefer to have their television delivered on, the interactive services they will use and how they will embrace and become comfortable with the digital age.
Deputies are aware that one of the critical aspects of the success of digital television is an early announcement of when the Government intends to shut off the analogue frequencies. The Minister, in framing and introducing the Bill, has failed in her primary responsibility to create the correct environment for the arrival of the digital age by failing to give an indication of when this date may be and what criteria the Government will use in deciding this important milestone. Once a date has been announced the public will be encouraged to buy into the digital age earlier, thereby consolidating Ireland's position as one of the world's most technologically advanced nations. It must also be considered that once these frequencies have been shut off they will have a strong commercial value, particularly among telecommunications companies, and will undoubtedly yield sizeable revenues for the Exchequer and, I hope, benefit RTE. The Minister is a person who listens and takes notice of what is said in the House and she may be interested to know that the UK, where digital terrestrial television was launched exactly one year ago, has provisionally set the date 2007 for full analogue shut-off. I suggest the Minister should give the House some indication of when an announcement will be made regarding analogue shut-off. Does she agree that an early shut-off date would be a key driver in the take-up of digital terrestrial television?
Further confusion surrounds the critical matter of the licence issue. It would appear that the Director of Telecommunications Regulation has different views on the number of licences to be issued as a result of the Broadcasting Bill. In a recent consultative document published by the office of the DTR, Document 99/57, the director clearly states in section 115 that she "proposes to provide for two separate licences under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926, that is, a programme services multiplex licence which allows a multiplex provider to combine broadcasters' digital signals into a programme service multiplex and secondly a transmission licence, which allows DDT transmission service providers to modulate the programme service complex and to transmit it in the television broadcasting bands".
While accepting that the ODTR is the guardian of the spectrum, could the Minister please confirm that a two license scenario has her seal of approval? If so, should provision be made for this in the Bill? Is it her understanding that to make the introduction of the DTT financially attractive to a commercial partner in Digico, both licences must be awarded to the same entity? These are important questions and I want the Minister to refer to them in her response.
It would be remiss of me to forego this opportunity of speaking on the Broadcasting Bill without referring to public service broadcasting. The Minister when introducing the Bill said that that one of the primary objectives of this legislation is: "To put in place a regulatory structure that allows private sector broadcasters and public broadcasters to co-exist." This is a highly contentious issue for some interested parties. Permitting RTE to participate in the proposed entity that is Digico, will allow RTE to become both a private and public broadcaster and, therefore, to sit on both sides of the fence. As well as giving the impression to some of being anti-competitive, it is a cause of major concern to independent television companies who have invested a great deal of money and expertise in giving Ireland an independent option to the State broadcaster. I received a briefing document from one such source who recently invested heavily in the Irish television industry and who believes RTE's participation in the new entity is wholly inappropriate considering its potential conflict with its primary role of public service broadcaster, a role RTE has fulfilled admirably. I want the Minister to allay some of the fears of those people. I am not an expert in this area, but the Minister must clarify certain matters if we are to create the vibrant public private broadcasting sector which we all want.
It is a valid argument that digital terrestrial television's establishment and operation and it's associated risks are best assumed by private companies geared towards and experienced in risk management and digital television. Such an approach would reduce the potential discriminatory practices which may result in a content-distributor vertically integrated structure and would release revenues available for investment in local programming. Accordingly, I call on the Minister to state her view regarding the position of RTE within the new proposed structure and whether it can exist fairly when it has an interest in both public and private broadcasting in the State. When replying, will she comment on the current situation which allows RTE to receive 100 per cent of the licence fee and whether she intends altering this, considering RTE will have interests in both public and private broadcast sectors as a result of the Broadcasting Bill.
I will refer to the question of RTE's funding later. Recently I spoke to people in RTE and, as the Minister will be aware, they are concerned about their funding, the capacity of the funding to allow them to deliver on their remit and their responsibility to the public.
When dealing with the matter of public service broadcasting, it must be remembered that RTE receives 100 per cent of the television licence revenues. The Minister has also alluded to the necessity to provide the public with the option of several different digital television delivery platforms where feasible, namely digital satellite, digital cable and digital wards, and the platform referred to in the Bill, namely digital terrestrial. As digital satellite is currently available and the upgrade to digital cable, as a result of the Government's sale of Cablelink, is well under way, it is generally accepted, both from a technical and commercial standpoint, that the Government's date for the launch of DTT, September 2000, is unattainable now, primarily as a result of the delay in the introduction of the Second Stage debate in this House. The process can be exploited. There are a number of speakers offering. I do not know if Second Stage will finish this week. In addition, there are a large number of amendments being tabled to the Bill. I heard Deputy Rabbitte referring to the number of amendments which have been tabled by his colleague, Deputy O'Shea, and Deputy Kenny indicated to me before he left that he will table a number of amendments. As I expect this debate will not be guillotined, I can see it continuing for some time if we, as legislators, are to fulfil our responsibility to the people. This Bill is important to the ordinary people and they probably do not realise that is the case because it is a technical Bill. Many Deputies would have little knowledge of the Bill and of what is happening in the House today. It is important that we address the issues I raise and those raised by other Deputies before this Bill becomes law because we are unlikely to get another opportunity in the foreseeable future judging by the way legislation is processed. We must get it right. It is up to us to help the Minister in every way possible to get it right.
Does the Minister accept that the statement re the delay and the September 2000 launch date is correct, and if so, allowing for the inordinate delay we are experiencing on the legislation front, what is a realistic date for the launch of DTT? Will this delay affect the financial viability of DTT, allowing for the ambitious roll-out agenda which is an integral part of the cable companies' licences? It is important that the Minister clarify whether a September launch date is realisable and realistic.
It is my understanding that a number of international consortiums have expressed an initial interest in becoming the commercial partner of RTE in the new digital entity. However, interested parties have become both concerned and frustrated at the lack of accurate information emanating from both the Minister's office and AIB Corporate Finance, which the Minister commissioned to oversee and administer the entire process of network transfer to Digico. Considering the fiasco we experienced in the appointment of the third mobile network licensee, it is in the State's best interest and that of prospective commercial parties to Digico that the Minister outlines what will be the relevant criteria used in the selection of the commercial partner in Digico, what timeframe is now accurate for the selection of this partner considering that it is 10 November and the Bill is only being introduced, what format will this selection process follow, will it be an auction or will a formal request for proposals be issued and administered accordingly? When will the, by now, infamous information memorandum, which I asked the Minister about in the Dáil a few weeks ago, be issued and what is the delay? This is very important to the interested parties. It was promised some weeks ago and there is now a question mark over why it has not been issued. When the Minister replies, I want her to refer to that also.
Last Wednesday the Minister stated on Second Stage that, despite the convergence of relevant technologies associated with the delivery of broadcasting services and telecommunications, she did not feel it would be appropriate that one office be responsible for its regulations. I acknowledge that, while the Minister has accepted that there is an argument for a single regulator, it is not a view she shares. She stated that the EU also believes that one omnipotent regulator scenario is not currently valid. I wonder, in accepting the EU view, has the Minister made allowance for the size of Ireland in comparison, for example, to the population of France and Germany, whose Governments heavily influenced current EU policy in this area and who, in the past, manifested an inability to regulate their own marketplaces?
The absence of a single regulator deprives Ireland of its ability to control its destiny in terms of creating a fully competitive environment and removing the protectionist barriers that have for so long stifled growth and deterred private investment in this sector. In the absence of a single regulator, distortions of competition must be reduced through the introduction of proper accountability on the part of public service broadcasters to an adequately equipped executive regulatory authority. RTE and TG4 should come under the auspices of the new broadcasting commission, while the network's regulatory infrastructure should fall under the jurisdiction of the ODTR.
I wish to revisit the at times controversial subject of public service broadcasting. It would benefit all interested parties – I refer here to RTE, independent television companies and prospective Digico partners – if the Minister gave a clear, adequate and unambiguous definition of the public service remit, which would involve specific references to the type of public service programmes to be provided and set specific, objectively verifiable targets in relation to those types of programmes, for example, their number and timing. I refer here to programmes of national and cultural interest, Irish co-productions, and non-Irish programmes of specific interest to the Irish viewers.
Deputy Hanafin made a number of interesting comments and, as a result, I will refer briefly to RTE and its remit. RTE will continue to play an important role in Irish broadcasting. The station has provided a tremendous service to the country. I worked with an independent production company at the studios of RTE where I received great co-operation and had access to a wealth of expertise in helping to produce a number of documentaries on Kerry writers. If it were not for RTE, the valuable information contained in those documentaries on people, such as Micheál Ó Hehir, who are no longer living and the footage of interviews given by individuals such as Bryan McMahon would no longer be available.
It is important that a balance is struck in terms of competition in any future arrangement. At the same time, however, the important public service broadcasting role RTE has honourably provided in the past should be protected as far as possible. To do that, the station requires money. This year, regardless of the need to restructure its operations, it will lose approximately £6 million. Private sector operators are anxious about how the money from licence fees is spent, while the authorities at RTE are concerned about the percentage of funding they can obtain from licence fees. I am sure they do not mind sharing what is a big pot but the current licence fee is inadequate. The previous Administration addressed this issue by making a commitment to introduce an index-linked increase in respect of licence fees. The Minister must now take further action in that regard.
The passage of the Bill will change forever the concept that television will continue to be a passive medium in Ireland, reserved strictly for entertainment. Instead it will become an interactive terminal that people will be able to use to assist them with daily activities such as shopping, sending e-mails and banking, in addition to availing of more traditional services such as entertainment and news gathering. However, we must not, as elected representatives, shirk our responsibility to ensure this choice of service is available to the entire population, therefore, guaranteeing that we prevent the creation of an information rich and an information poor society. That is a very important principle.
I compliment Deputy Deenihan on his excellent contribution. The broadcasting industry in this country is 71 years old. The Radio and Television Act, 1988, established the Independent Radio and Television Commission, the main task of which was the development of broadcasting at national and, particularly, local level. It is now intended to transfer the activities of the Independent Radio and Television Com mission to the proposed new commission. Revenue from advertising in 1995 was estimated at £100 million. At present, the Independent Radio and Television Commission contributes a levy of 3 per cent to the commercial income of local radio stations but the Bill proposes that the Minister can, by order, allow the commission to vary this.
The 1988 Act was the most important development in the area of broadcasting during the past 30 years. No other major changes, with the exception of the establishment of local radio stations, took place during that period. In my opinion, the bulk of the £100 million raised through advertising in 1995 went to RTE. Since then, however, a sizeable amount of revenue has been generated by local radio stations. With the revenue from television licence fees estimated at £70 million, RTE has a considerable income and has been the biggest player in the field until now. Major changes are taking place in broadcasting and we are entering a new era of massive competition.
Local radio stations have been very successful since 1988. The Minister should take into consideration the investment these stations make in respect of training their staff. In certain instances, these operations are profit-driven and they are run on a shoestring. Deputy Deenihan referred to the archival material retained by RTE during a difficult period and the new commission should consider what has been achieved by local radio stations in the past ten years. It would be very easy to maintain the status quo but a number of major changes are required in this area. Courses should be offered to teach people the skills required to record archival material that relates to their communities. The Minister should make funding available at county level to allow people to make radio programmes and empower them to create their own images and project the positive aspects of life within the communities in which they live.
Local radio stations have little or no resources to enable them to produce cultural programmes. I have the highest regard for these stations – they were a fantastic development – but they are run on a shoestring and their total revenue comes from advertising. In today's competitive world, the presenter of a major chat show might also read the news and death notices.
We have entered a period of major change where improvements in training are required. We need to offer training courses in presentation skills, interview techniques, digital editing for radio, research, sound desk operation, writing for radio, personal development and language and computer skills. Using the 1.5 per cent of revenue which it receives, the commission should establish a fund for the development of those skills. There would be many benefits – the participants would have a medium to project their own image and would learn practical skills which could be put to commercial use.
Irish broadcasting is at the threshold of a revol ution which will create a demand in all areas for people with radio skills. Many people who started out in local radio now appear on national television. Any training programme should invest in the necessary recording facilities. The future development of community radio requires funding at local level. The bulk of the revenue goes to the main players, such as RTE, while local radio picks up the local advertiser. It is an area the Minister should examine.
The recent sale of Cablelink for £535 million provides some idea of the value of television and information services. The decision by the Government to invest heavily in digital technology and to restructure the operations of RTE and TG4 in the process is particularly significant.
I am concerned by cases, such as Bere Island local radio, where the local station ceases broadcasting on a Friday evening and does not return to the airwaves until Monday morning solely because of costs. The quality of programming on local stations is excellent and all polls have indicated that they have a huge listenership. The Minister talked about the independence of our national airwaves – where local radio stations are listened to by 55 per cent of the population there should be a massive improvement. The Minister should not overlook this in these reforms. Regardless of the number of television channels available, most people in rural areas still listen to local radio stations.
It is essential to retain the services of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission rather than have its functions subsumed into the new Broadcasting Commission. It would be inappropriate for a single body to act as a standard setter, complaints agency and arbitrator.
This is the most far-reaching legislation in this area since 1988. It will introduce digital television providing 35 channels to Ireland. RTE will remain a major player, owning up to 40 per cent in a deal, but the remainder will be owned by commercial interests. This is multi-million pound business and there are very few players in the field who will be able to afford to be part of it. Will a monopoly similar to that in the print media be allowed? In certain cases a number of consortia might become involved. The 40 per cent shareholding represents a good deal for RTE, although it depends what sum is represented by that 40 per cent. RTE has done a great job since its foundation and we are indebted to it. It is wonderful that so many great people in history have been recorded, but the future role of broadcasting is to safeguard the history of tomorrow for future generations.
At the heart of the Bill is a definition of public service broadcasting. The number of television channels available via cable, satellite or MMDS will put public television under huge pressure. Unless a strong commitment to public service broadcasting is written into legislation, the licence fee could be called into question as viewers turn to the alternatives to RTE. That will happen. There will be 30 new channels representing a huge threat to RTE. Already there is competition with Sky and other providers and with niche channels aiming for a particular market.
The concept of pay per view television must be examined in the context of the information rich and the information poor. Often it is people on lower incomes and social welfare who have more time to hire videos. Even in a supermarket, at the confectionery end of the business the biggest customers are the people on lower incomes. They are not the most prudent shoppers and the same situation will exist in this market. There will be pressure on people to have pay per view television in their homes.
It is a new phenomenon to have so many channels. The quality of programming is important. There should be programmes dealing with current affairs and politics. Under the Bill RTE becomes a public service programme provider. Its transmission system will be privatised and RTE will pay to be involved in partnership with a new commercial transmission company. Establishing that company will be a major responsibility because once the 60 per cent not owned by RTE is sold, it will be outside Government control. Will the Minister allow a monopoly in those circumstances?
The entertainment and media sectors face significant issues arising from globalisation, digitalisation and the Internet. Against this background the Broadcasting Bill is a significant development in the history of Irish broadcasting. It seeks to put into place a foundation for the development of Irish broadcasting services into the next century, ensuring that the State stays abreast of change.
How will these new channels be filled? Will providers from other countries be allowed into the market? Where will the content come from? What will the level of original content be? Is the Irish audience of sufficient scale? Will there be an adequate level of demand for services? Will there be sufficient demand for advertising? With increased competition in the industry, RTE's revenue will be affected because of the number of channels that will be available. There will be a huge choice for advertisers and it will be difficult for RTE to retain its customers, but competition is good. RTE had projected advertising revenue of £100 million in 1995, but will that be maintained with increased competition? The major players in advertising are well known in the market and many of them will be selective. A number have diversified into local radio which will affect RTE's revenue. Will the licence fee be index-linked or will the Minister set the fee?
The Bill expands the role of the Independent Radio and Television Commission and renames it as the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland. It provides for it to be funded by the Exchequer rather than through an income levy on broadcasters. It is strange that the BCI will play an important role in the regulation of digital broadcasting in all platforms and the development of codes, rules, guidelines and standards with respect to programme materials, broadcasting advertising or other forms of commercial promotion. This will involve BCI entering into contracts with providers of broadcasting content. BCI will be given powerful legislative responsibilities.
I am delighted RTE will be required to provide an annual report on how television licensing revenue has expanded. Undoubtedly, many accounting issues will be addressed in providing expenditure for services under the public service remit, leaving aside the debate on the definition of "public service". The Bill provides for the establishment of TG4 as a separate statutory co-operative body and many issues noted in regard to RTE will apply equally to TG4. RTE has a great deal more resources than TG4 or any new station which intends to set up.
I am also delighted the Minister has promised to amend the Bill on Committee Stage to relax the prohibition on religious advertising. This was introduced during Private Members' Business previously and it is important that the amendment is made. Given the multitude of non-Irish services available, there is an unanswerable case for strong public service broadcasting that caters for the specific needs and culture of Irish viewers, especially on issues of public concern. As the broadcasting industry expands with the advent of increased competition through the issue of more licences, does the Minister intend to appoint an independent assessor to monitor RTE's remit as a public broadcaster? How will he or she be assured RTE fulfils its role? Will he or she have to depend on the annual report of the RTE Authority?
It is important to monitor the quality of programming and the content of home based production. There are opportunities for film producers to make programmes in Ireland and to take advantage of tax benefits. A separate company could be set up to deal with this area. It is equally important that such programming should be available on other channels in America and the UK. A number of people in the UK cannot receive RTE and that is a major loss.
People cannot receive RTE in Mayo.
A number of people in the north Sligo area have access to Sky One but do not have access to RTE1 because of a transmission problem. As we enter a new era of digitalisation, everybody in the State who pays a licence fee should receive RTE. I appeal to the Minister to reassure the people of north Sligo that the matter will be resolved and a mast erected to ensure they receive RTE channels.
I have listened with interest to the debate. As a relatively young man, I have seen great change in radio and television broadcasting and I listened avidly to some of my elder family members and friends talk about the importance in years gone by of a night out sitting on an orange box listening to a wireless and their enjoyment of the social gathering that surrounded such an event. I was probably in nappies when RTE was launched on 31 December 1961.
The Deputy was probably crying.
The Deputy is not that young.
I am.
The Deputy is in nappies a long time.
Some Members opposite might be jealous of my youth. All of us can picture a group of people sitting around a table listening to a wireless and recall the advent of black and white televisions with rabbits ears. One often had to bang the top of the television or move the rabbits ears to improve reception. Many people can relate to that.
Over the years radio and television broadcasting have been a powerful means of mass communication. There has been tremendous change in broadcasting systems, communications networks and televisions, video recorders, radios, and so on. Broadcasting has considerable influence on our understanding of different issues. The way it is presented often influences the way we think. Since the era of black and white television, we have witnessed the introduction of colour television, different sound systems and televisions of various shapes, sizes and quality.
It is common for many of us to sit on our sofas and change television channels without getting up, and one might even need three or four remote controls to use the various networks and facilities. It is possible to buy a remote control which will operate all the available technology and receive all the networks one wishes to have. There has been tremendous change in broadcasting. I acknowledge, as the Minister has done, that broadcasters in the public service have always provided universal access to a certain level of information, education and entertainment and have contributed greatly to a shared sense of community and interests regardless of where we live and who we are. I congratulate all involved. In particular I pay tribute to Radio Teilifís Éireann for which I have a high regard. I congratulate some of the lead presenters on the manner in which they present their programmes: Marian Finucane, Joe Duffy, Gerry Ryan, Marty Whelan, Pat Kenny, Vincent Browne, Eamon Dunphy. Going through the list we can appreciate the diversity of their presentations and how they relay the required information to the public. I acknowledge the team spirit of the researchers in the backroom and all that goes with it. Given the range of current affairs programmes and other programmes on radio and TV, Lyric FM, Radio 1, 98FM and FM104, a tremendous array of programmes are presented in a professional manner. This has developed in recent years and stretches back to the beginning of RTE in 1961.
I do not give plaudits all the time, I am prepared to criticise on occasion. I was amused when watching the first half of a programme by RTE recently where a particular national issue was presented. In the opening remarks there was a criticism that the Minister with responsibility did not participate in the programme. Initially I was concerned because I felt that, perhaps, the Minister should have been present. Having seen the audience that had been invited to participate in the programme I support whoever took the decision that the Minister should not participate. On that occasion there was a biased audience that would not have been in the best interests of fairness and professionalism which we normally see from RTE.
I welcome the Broadcasting Bill. This is the first broadcasting legislation in the past decade. In that period there have been significant changes and major developments in the arena of broadcasting. The onset of digital technology provides further tremendous opportunity for the provision of a vast additional range of information society services. We must ensure that those services can compete with regulation in the marketplace. Digital terrestrial television, DTT, is the way forward in broadcasting communication as we turn the century into the new millennium. I welcome the focus to put in place an appropriate infrastructure to promote and develop digital services and the clear policy objective of a universal service.
I listened with interest to one of the previous speakers who questioned the Minister on the reason for going down the route of DTT. The Minister has adequately explained in her opening contribution and on other occasions the reason DTT has been chosen. I concur with and support the Minister in her decision. In going down this road we must ensure specific standards are complied with in respect of what has been referred to as the taste and decency of programme material. The Minister is proactive in ensuring the legislative proposals will confer additional powers and functions on the new Broadcasting Commission of Ireland. Will the Minister clarify what level of consumer consultation will take place to enable the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland draw up its codes and rules in relation to programme standards? This is one of the major concerns of the public in relation to DTT. While I welcome the fact the Minister has been proactive in this regard, will she specify what role the consumer will have and what type of reporting structure will be in place and so on?
I warmly welcome the promotion of the beneficial aspects of the digital era for people with a sensory disability and especially those with a hearing impediment. I know a number of people with deafness problems and the new digital developments in television broadcasting opens a new accommodation which is welcome. The Minister is convinced that DTT offers the best opportunity of providing an acceptable level of free air digital broadcasting services which will be available to all our citizens. Her clear statement that the role of broadcasting services in ensuring access by all our citizens to a level of participation in the information society guarantees the maintenance of our democracy is an important underlying principle.
The Bill also provides for programme contracts, relating to the relay of local and community programmes in the digital era, referred to in three forms – the local interest service which can be provided on cable and MMDS systems, the second commercial cable and MMDS system and local community and service providers. I have a high regard for the benefits that accrue from local and community programmes and I ask the Minister to review the support and encouragement of such programmes for the Dublin area. Will the Minister indicate the level of support for local and community programmes, the take-up of such support and, more importantly, the issues that have been brought to her Department's attention by service providers or intended providers on difficulties in the marketplace? I would appreciate if the Minister would refer to urban areas as well as the Dublin area.
I congratulate the service providers in my own area on the service currently provided but I understand they have a number of difficulties and that there are obstacles in the way. If issues have been brought to the Minister's attention, given that we are reviewing the legislative proposals for broadcasting, I would like to see the response to those issues with a view to encouraging further development of community programmes in the Dublin area.
The Minister confirmed that there is a need for a national service which will cater for the needs for all citizens in the new era of broadcasting. She made the unambiguous statement that there is an unanswerable case for a strong public broadcasting service to cater for the specific needs and culture of Irish viewers by contextualising issues of concern to them to ensure the maintenance of democracy.