I thank the committee for inviting us here and giving us an opportunity to make a presentation on the two topics, the broadcasting Bill 2006 and the roll-out of the digital terrestrial television. I am joined by Michael O'Keeffe, who is the chairman of the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland. I am also joined by Celene Craig, head of broadcasting at the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland, and by Neil O'Brien, head of engineering, who is present because some of the matter we are dealing with is of a technical nature and he is available to respond to any queries from the committee. Some of the material may appear not to be complex but when one goes into it in depth it can be quite technical. I am chairman of the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland. Since 1988 I was chairman of the Independent Radio and Television Commission.
Dealing first with the Broadcasting Bill 2006, I do not propose to comment on each head of the Bill given the time constraints. We have available for the committee and the members a copy of the submission we made here previously and we will answer any questions after my initial introduction.
The Broadcasting Commission of Ireland welcomes the publication of the general scheme of the Broadcasting Bill 2006. It has promoted and supported what is for us an important concept, namely, a single content regulation and that has now been adopted in the Bill.
In this regard, we made submissions both to the Forum on Broadcasting in May 2002 and to this committee in September 2003, July 2005 and October 2006. We responded also to the OX report, with which members will be familiar, in September 2004. When the committee issued its report we welcomed that also. If I were to pick a single matter of significance to the commission it is the concept of single content regulation.
On the proposed structures of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, BAI, the Bill contemplates the establishment of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland under which there are two committees. The first of those is a compliance committee and then a licensing-contract awards committee. We welcome the establishment of the single committee dealing with compliance. Effectively, that is a merger of the current functions of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, which is a separate commission from the BCI, with the compliance and monitoring functions of the BCI, which are currently exercised by us. It emphasises the operational nature of the functions and separates policy from the operational functions. That is the first of the committees and it appears to the BCI to be a logical and appropriate way to approach the matters with which it is proposed it would deal.
On the contract awards committee, the BCI believes its function should be undertaken by the main board, namely, the board of the BAI, for two principal reasons. First, I suspect the origin of the decision to divide up the functions in the way that is done in the Bill results from the competitive licensing process. Members will be familiar with the strong competition for radio licences in particular, which have been quite controversial. In respect of that, the licensing environment has changed because until now we were dealing with the licences dealt with under the 1988 Act. That was about parcelling out, if I might use that general term, the spectrum, inviting tenders for licences and going through a licensing process to deal with what was essentially the allocation of a scarce resource. The technological developments have moved on and the new legislation contemplates a different idea of licensing. The BCI believes that competitive licence applications will decline in the coming years. Second, we point to the European experience where the functions of broadcasting regulators in respect of broadcasting policy and the award of licences is almost exclusively within the remit of a single body.
Turning to the role of the Minister, head 32 permits the Minister to issue policy directives to the BAI. The commission is satisfied to endorse the proposal and that reflects the respective roles of the Minister and the regulator. It allows the Minister to set the broad policy framework, which is appropriate, within which the BAI can then make its detailed decisions. It provides a forum and a structure for dialogue on the one hand while maintaining what the BCI regards as being important in these matters, namely, the independence of the regulator.
Head 41 provides that when the Minister receives codes and rules on programming, advertising or other matters made by the BAI he or she should cause copies of those to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. It goes on to provide that either House may, by resolution, annul a code or a rule. The BCI does not support that provision as it could undermine the effectiveness and independence of the BAI and could make the introduction of the codes or rules somewhat unworkable. Having set up the independent regulation system and the regime for the development of the codes and rules and giving that job to the BAI or to the BCI, as it is at present, the Minister is then taking it back within the political sphere and allowing a level of debate to be dealt with on a political level rather than on the basis with which it has been dealt heretofore.
Under the public service broadcaster's common provisions, which are dealt with under heads 70 to 108, it is provided that the Minister retains overall control over public broadcasting while the BAI must be consulted on a significant amount of the company's activities, in particular, those with a commercial dimension.
A reporting role is envisaged for the compliance committee in a range of areas. The commission is satisfied to support the general principle of the retention of approval by the Minister as outlined under these heads but we are of the view that the sequencing of the relationship between the broadcasters, the BAI, and the Minister should be more consistent. It is proposed, therefore, that inputs in respect of all matters where approval is required by the public broadcasters should be channelled through the BAI, which would then have an opportunity to comment on the matters in question before remitting the submissions to the Minister.
Dealing briefly with some other provisions, and I am conscious of the fact that I am merely touching on these as we proceed because of the time constraints involved, head 36 proposes the reintroduction of a levy. The BCI is broadly supportive of that. Under the old regime before the 2001 Act there was a levy in operation and the BCI, or the IRTC as it was then, was funded through the Exchequer. It is the commission's view that the manner of raising the levy and the types of income which will be subject to the levy should be a matter for the discretion of the BAI.
On a separate matter, namely, the enforcement of regulatory decisions, this issue has been problematic because the commission has taken a type of sledgehammer approach where the only option one has in dealing ultimately with problems that arise in respect of enforcement is the withdrawal of the licence, which can be too heavy a penalty to visit in respect of some of the matters with which we deal. That is always done against a background of a very compliant industry. In other words, the commission has not had a problem with regulation in respect of the broadcasters but the way in which the sanctions are currently set up only allows for the sanction of the withdrawal of the licence, which is not appropriate. The commission has always been in favour of the idea of fines and has taken a great deal of time to consider it. We have sought advice on a number of occasions and are always met with the proposition that fining, as such, would create constitutional problems and is an area that would have to be examined in more depth. In the wording of the proposals in the Bill there is a degree of caution and a question of looking to the Attorney General for advice in respect of that. If it is possible, we are in favour of it but we are aware of the constitutional problems surrounding it.
The second segment refers to the roll-out of digital terrestrial broadcasting. I wish to comment briefly on the background to digital broadcasting, with which the members of the committee will be familiar. The Broadcasting Act 2001 provided a legislative framework for the licensing of digital television and radio services in Ireland. Unfortunately, progress was hampered because there was difficulty with the appointment of a multiplex operator. It did not take place, largely due to issues of economic viability. In the meantime, satellite and cable operators such as Sky, NTL and Chorus achieved considerable market penetration in digital broadcasting. The matter was revisited to some extent when the Department launched a DTT pilot project in 2006. It commissioned a network of three multiplexes at two transmitter sites and these were beamed or geared towards 600 to 1,000 homes. The pilot project was officially launched by the Minister on 5 March 2007 and it is anticipated to run until August 2008.
The Broadcasting (Amendment) Act 2007 sets out the responsibilities of the BCI, RTE, ComReg and the Minister. The principal objective is to provide for the transmission by digital terrestrial means of television and radio content and other data. The Act also provides the legislative framework for the switch off of television broadcasting by analogue means. The key objective in this regard is, at a minimum, that DTT would guarantee that Irish viewers would have the ability to continue to receive free-to-air television services after the analogue switch off. It also provides for additional content and services on either a free-to-air or pay basis. From a consumer perspective DTT has further platform choice. Economically, it facilitates new media and business opportunities.
I will mention the role of the key players. ComReg's role under the legislation is concerned with the allocation of the digital television multiplexes. Initially, one will be provided to RTE to cover the entire community in the State. The BCI will make arrangements for the establishment and maintenance of three other national television multiplexes. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has responsibility for determining the date of the analogue switch off.
With regard to the role of the BCI, we consider policy development as central to the work on DTT. The BCI has undertaken this work through consultation, knowledge building and research. That research is both national and international. In formulating its policy the BCI has adopted a phased approach to the planning and introduction of DTT in Ireland. During phase 1, targeted consultations were undertaken with a number of organisations. A total of 26 meetings were held with key stakeholders. They covered a range of issues linked to the commission's development of policy for DTT and include: learning and experience from the DTT pilot; economic and business issues for the establishment and long-term sustainability of the DTT platform; ownership and control issues; content carriage and content packages offered on the platform; technical issues; disability; and access.
In phase 2 the outcomes of these meetings, together with the independent research commissioned by the BCI, informed the draft BCI DTT licensing policy. That policy paper formed the basis of a discussion at a forum of interested parties which took place on 22 November last. It was well attended by the interested parties. The board will consider the outcomes of that meeting and decide on the final policy on DTT multiplex licensing at its board meeting on 17 December. That will lead to the licensing, which will commence in the first quarter of 2008.
I am conscious of the time constraint. I have referred to a variety of matters within the Bill rather than try to cover every aspect of it. These are the matters we believe will be of interest to the committee and are matters which we wish to bring to its attention at this stage.
