Vol. 537 No. 2
47 Mrs. B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands if she will publish the report commissioned from a company (details supplied) on the submission made by RTE regarding an increase in the licence fee; when she expects to make a decision on the application; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [15735/01]
67 Mr. McDowell asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands if RTE has now provided the additional information sought by the consultants examining the case for a licence fee increase; when she expects to make a final decision on the matter; when she expects to bring proposals to Government; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [15729/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 47 and 67 together.
I refer the Deputies to my earlier replies on this topic and in particular to my reply to Question No. 30 on 11 April 2001. Additional information supplied by RTE in support of its appli cation for an increase in the level of television licence fee was received in my Department on 20 April 2001 and has been examined by PricewaterhouseCoopers, who were engaged by my Department to advise on the application. I expect to receive the consultants' report on the additional information within days. On the basis of this report, in conjunction with PricewaterouseCoopers' earlier report on RTE's application, I will develop my proposals for Government.
I am anxious to bring this matter to Government for decision as soon as possible. However, I must be certain that any increase I might propose can be objectively justified. I have no plans at present to publish PricewaterhouseCoopers' reports.
I welcome the fact that the additional information required by the consultants was provided to the Department and has been passed to them. Does the Minister not agree that the present situation regarding the RTE application for a licence fee increase is most unsatisfactory, particularly with regard to the type of strategic planning RTE must engage in with the introduction of digital terrestrial television? Can the Minister assure the House that she will have brought her recommendations regarding the proposed licence fee increase to Government before the summer recess?
I am anxious to have all the information to hand to make this decision. As I outlined on the last occasion, the delay was not mine but was due to the fact that further information was sought from RTE by the consultants I engaged to evaluate the application. Now that the information is with the consultants and I hope to receive it within a number of days, I will be in a position to evaluate the application along with the additional application. When I have completed that, I will bring it to Government and a Government decision will follow.
The Deputy and other Members will be aware that if there is to be an increase, I must be able to say that the proposal put to me, including the additional information, has been objectively justified.
The information was supplied to the Minister by RTE on 20 April and passed on by the Department at that time. The fact that she has not yet received the recommendations from the consultants means the process is extremely slow, particularly in the context of the urgent situation facing RTE. With regard to the earlier part of Question No. 47, is the Minister disposed to publish the PricewaterhouseCoopers report when it is completed and received by the Department? Then all Members can assess the real situation in the run up to the Government decision.
I asked PricewaterhouseCoopers to evaluate this issue. Obviously, if I ask an objective, professional firm to do the work I will give it the time it wants to do the job in an effective manner. I know the firm will do so and that it took only the amount of time needed to carry out the objective evaluation. As I said, when I receive that information, which should be within days, I will be in a position to make my final decision. I will then bring that to Government for a decision.
Regarding the publication of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, the Deputy will know that this is part of a Government decision and it would not be appropriate to publish information that is still part of the decision-making process. This is the usual procedure when decisions are being taken – that information remains for the Government to decide on.
Does the Minister agree that RTE is in a difficult, if not impossible, situation in that for a number of years it has been running at a deficit? It is in a limbo because it is difficult to plan for the future and that has repercussions not only for RTE but for bodies such as TG4, which depend on RTE for a significant amount of their funding. Does the Minister agree that an early decision is important and should be made so that RTE and other stations which depend on it know what the future holds for them?
As I said, as soon as that information comes to hand I will not delay in making my decision. It is important when talking about public funds that this matter is looked at objectively and in the possible event of complaints being made to the European Commission about unacceptable State aids to RTE. That is not to say I accept the licence fee revenue constitutes a State aid but it is important to look at this matter objectively and to give a considered view at the end of the day.
Is it not the case that the Minister stated time and again that she does not believe RTE deserves a licence fee increase and that from the first time an application was put before her, when she became Minister, she said "no" to an increase? She said "no" to a proportionate increase based on the cost of living index and based on cost indices of any sort. How will she change her mind now?
I do not know from where that information came. Obviously, the Deputy misunderstood what I said. At no stage did I say RTE would not be considered for a licence fee increase. Obviously I would not be wasting my time, that of the Department or of PricewaterhouseCoopers in taking on a great amount of information to be evaluated without taking their proposals seriously. I would not have asked that firm to do so if I did not think it was necessary to look in a very objective way at the proposal put forward by RTE. I have always said that if there is to be an increase it will have to be based on value for money. Nobody would object to that, as we are dealing with public funds.
We want value for money and a level playing pitch. If the Minister is to allow RTE a licence fee increase, will she make that conditional on the Freedom of Information Act applying to all public servants, particularly those in RTE, and not just to Deputies and Senators?
For the Deputy's information, the Freedom of Information Act applies to RTE.
Why are we not getting the information about the broadcasters? Their incomes have been queried but information has not been forthcoming. What about the high profile people, who are slagging us day in, day out as if we were fair game?
I acknowledge what the Deputy is saying and questions have been asked on this for a number of years. The answer we have been given to date is that commercial sensitivities are involved when it comes to certain individuals. As the Deputy will be aware, the Cabinet sought certain information and some information was given regarding the money paid to certain ranks of individuals and sections in RTE. This is a matter the Deputy might like to raise with RTE directly.
RTE will not give me any information. The Minister has to bring in legislation and tell RTE it will not get any money until it operates under the same conditions as us.
Regarding the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, the Minister pointed out earlier that it cannot be published at present as it is part of the decision-making process of Government. Once the decision is made, however, will the Minister publish it? In any event, we could then obtain it under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Minister stated earlier that the licence fee increase and the setting up of the transmission company were not linked. Does she not agree, however, that it is unlikely agreement will be reached regarding the setting up of the transmission company until RTE knows its financial position? It will obviously not know that until the Minister has reached a decision on the licence fee.
When I was talking about the licence fee and setting up the DTT, I was referring to the fact that there is obviously no link between licence fees and the setting up of these structures. RTE would argue that to be able to improve its service it would need an increase in licence fees and that is precisely what I will be looking at in terms of the PricewaterhouseCoopers evaluation. Those are some of the arguments that have already been put to me both by the chairman of the authority and the director-gen eral and they will be issues of importance. When I said there was no link, I was talking about the setting up of the structures and the selection process of DTT as well as the construction and sale by RTE, as that is all part of the broadcasting Act.
The Minister should indicate clearly her goodwill towards RTE. From the terms of reference of the examination being carried out, RTE management and the whole organisation has lost confidence in the Department providing proper funding to it. Will the Minister make a statement indicating that she does favour an increase in the licence fee?
The Deputy will realise that public service broadcasting is an important part of broadcasting and has been given its rightful role in the broadcasting Act. The Deputy will not be surprised when I say that any group or body seeking funding from a Government must obviously be able to justify its case, and that is the case here. I am looking forward to examining the proposals that are to be put forward in the next few days.
