We will consider advertisements and sponsorship. For the benefit of those watching on the Internet, these are covered under Part 8, head 106.
Sponsorship, Quotas for Advertisements and News and Current Affairs.
I can envisage people turning over their Bills looking for Part 8. I hope they got a copy of it.
My first question is for Mr. Prasifka. Much of what we are discussing concerns the fact that we have a broadcasting industry with a public component and an independent private component. How does one define a programme produced in the public sector such as Ryan Tubridy's radio or television show? Is it defined as public service broadcasting? If it is, so be it. If not, is there not unfair competition in that licence fee funds are directed towards such shows and not to similar shows of competitors? I am thinking of when Pat Kenny and Eamon Dunphy were competing for the late night slot. How do we define public service broadcasting? Has Mr. Prasifka any proposals on how this should be done and on the legislative consequences?
Mr. Prasifka
I thank the Deputy for addressing his question to me. I was afraid I would not have the opportunity to make a contribution. His question is the essential question about which the Competition Authority is concerned. Clearly the role of public broadcasting and the public broadcasting service is absolutely critical in a democratic society. We fully endorse that but it raises issues as to plurality of media and diversity of views, and in respect of the appropriate and efficient delivery of that public service broadcasting remit.
The essential question concerns defining the public broadcasting service's remit. RTE is receiving €200 million per year. What do we expect to receive from it in return? In our submission, we have highlighted that we believe the definition of this remit is absolutely essential.
The Deputy has asked the Competition Authority about what this remit should be. Frankly, it is an area in which the authority does not have any particular expertise. In respect of other markets, we would say the need for Government intervention is required when the market fails to provide certain types of products or services. We have not considered this in extraordinary depth in terms of public service broadcasting but we would like to see the requirements pertaining to the entire regulatory framework set out in some degree of detail, perhaps by the BCI. I found this debate illuminating. It indicates that Irish content and programming is necessary and perhaps appropriate in this market. If that is required we would like to see it defined. If that Irish content and programming is required, it may not be necessary to broadcast it on any particular platform.
The gaping hole in the current framework is the lack of precise definition of the public service remit. As we understand it, the broadcasting commission will issue guidelines and RTE is then to draw up its own charter which the Minister can approve. We would like a more direct role for democratic accountability, respecting the independence of the institutions while setting out in a clearer fashion what is expected on foot of the €200 million remit, for that to be ring-fenced in whatever possible way, for greater impetus for a plurality of media and a recognition that the public service remit in all circumstances need not be delivered through a single platform.
It is interesting to see Mr. Prasifka make this contribution on this industry but when he had a role to play which concerned the committee earlier this year, his organisation signally failed to carry out its duties. When it came to the oil industry, it did not do its stuff.
That is not relevant; we are not starting down that road again.
I want to ask about the media market in the United States.
We are dealing with broadcasting here.
Mr. Prasifka does not know what public sector broadcasting is.
Mr. Prasifka does not have to answer this question.
I just want to ask about public sector broadcasting.
The Deputy must keep away from any other matter. Members of the public are watching these hearings.
They are delighted I am asking about the price of oil. We were crucified and Mr. Prasifka had a particular-----
We have a schedule for the next two days and I will not go against the decision of the committee on that schedule.
Can I ask about public sector broadcasting in the United States, where the European tradition of such broadcasting does not exist? Despite what people might say about different platforms, some stations that seemed to be public service broadcasters took blatant political positions on issues such as the war in Iraq. Is that not a difficulty — that if we move away from the RTE tradition of delivering areas of Irish and public service content, the other sector will not be sufficiently motivated to cover them?
The two gentlemen appearing before us must answer to the shareholders. We might address that tomorrow when we are examining the performance of the BCI. People were able to secure licences very cheaply and then sold them on, making a packet and moving on. These men and women are answerable to shareholders but public sector broadcasting has a wider remit.
Is it not a fact that in certain areas, particularly in the United States, it would be difficult to demonstrate a public service remit, whereas in many European states, we think we know what public service broadcasting is because RTE and the BBC do it very well?
Mr. Prasifka should answer on the issue of broadcasting and not on any other question posed.
Mr. Prasifka
I will confine myself to the issues I have been called here to discuss. The entire thrust of our submission has been to increase the accountability of those entrusted with delivering the public service remit. The Deputy said that he knows what it is and that it is being done. If that is the case, it should be spelled out transparently so we can all be informed of it.
One could be describing a camel or an elephant.
Mr. Prasifka, without interruption.
One knows it when one sees it.
Mr. Prasifka
I have made my point. If it is so obvious, it could be memorialised in writing so all of us could enjoy the enlightenment the Deputy claims he has.
Will RTE and TV3 also contribute on the definition of "public service broadcasting"?
Mr. Maguire
We have not addressed the question of defining or deciding on what is public service broadcasting. If we were asked to do so, there is no reason we would not attempt to do so. We usually adopt a wide consultative process with the stakeholders in the industry. We would be prepared to do that in this case.
Mr. Feeney
RTE believes public service television should be seen as the range of programmes it offers across all of its channels. It is not particular programmes such as "The Late Late Show" or "Prime Time". It is the breadth and range of our programmes which are designed to be fair and impartial and directed towards our audiences.
We also believe there is an issue of quality in public service broadcasting. It should be the leader in its field and it has public funding to enable it to do that. RTE argues strongly — it believes it has European Commission support on this — that one cannot define public service broadcasting by identifying particular programmes. It believes it is quite accountable in addressing all audiences. Each year RTE publishes its annual commitment which is independently audited. It sets out what it wishes to achieve and at the end of each year it is audited. A narrow definition of public service broadcasting which identifies particular programmes is not helpful. What must be examined is the range of services provided by RTE.
Mr. McMunn
I am delighted the Competition Authority is present because it has asked the same question we have been asking for several years. There is no definition of public service broadcasting in Ireland, other than that it is a variety of programming. Under European law, while the State is entitled to have a definition of public service broadcasting, it is nonetheless meant to be precise and define what areas it covers. This is not covered in the current definition.
In autumn 2005, the Department commissioned a consultancy firm, European Economics, to review the impact of the licence fee on broadcasting. When it asked for a definition of public service broadcasting in Ireland, it did not receive one. What it understood from the Department was that the nearest to a definition was that RTE should be seen as providing a variety of programming as if no other broadcast service was available.
Mr. McMunn is arguing more guidance is needed, even primary legislation, regarding public service broadcasting.
Mr. McMunn
It is absolutely essential.
When RTE was first established, its role was described as holding a mirror up to the State, providing a platform from which people could speak about it. That is not a bad definition. In that definition, maybe "Podge and Rodge" or Pat Kenny on a Friday night is public sector broadcasting. Most members recognise that the introduction of TV3 and independent radio stations has improved the overall quality of broadcasting. When we consider the definition of public sector broadcasting, the mirror should be extended to include private sector broadcasting. However, I tend to agree with Deputy Broughan that market mechanisms alone will not deliver a good broadcasting system for the public.
I will bunch together my questions regarding sponsorship. On "The Late Late Show" Pat Kenny gave away a Renault Laguna or Mégane — whatever the flavour of the week was. I assume that it was part of a deal with Mr. Cullen whereby advertising at the start of the programme was reinforced by the car given away. I would be interested to know if we are getting it right in defining "sponsorship" and including it as advertising. I believe there have been submissions on whether there should be ministerial approval and whether it is appropriate. Perhaps RTE might comment on this.
The general question is whether we should not treat sponsorship as advertising. Are we happy that the provisions in the legislation as proposed do this? Is RTE dealt with differently in its use of sponsorship and the special conditions attached to advertising time regarding the arts or the licence fee? The broad question relates to how sponsorship is dealt with.
Does the Deputy have any other questions in that regard?
I will leave them to the Chairman.
I am only the sweeper.
Mr. Mulligan
There can be confusion between sponsorship and advertising, something we encounter from time to time. Most people are clear regarding advertising. When there is a break in a programme, there is a bumper in that it is separated from the programme by audiovisual means. There are several advertisements which end with another bumper, after which one returns to the programme. Everyone is clear that it constitutes an ad break.
The nature of sponsorship can be confusing, however. Sponsorship and advertising are recognised as separate right across European television frontiers and in debate on the subject. Sponsorship is a material contribution to a programme and can take many forms. For instance, it can be money, in that one can pay a sum to be associated with a programme. One could also make a fully funded programme, as some have. However, sponsorship can also take the form of the provision of facilities. One can provide facilities such as a place or location at which the broadcasters are allowed to make a programme. It can also take the form of skills, for instance, if one provides certain expertise free for a programme that might otherwise be relatively expensive to make.
The law states that if there is a sponsorship arrangement, it must be made clear to the viewing or listening public. That is why one has announcements during programmes in order that the viewer or listener is left in no doubt that there is a commercial relationship between a company and a programme. They are made during the programme rather than the advertising break. They are also outside the regulations on advertising time.
Why should that be the case?
Mr. Mulligan
Why should it be the case?
Yes, why should it be treated differently?
Mr. Mulligan
The model originates in the overarching European broadcasting legislation which dates back 15 or 16 years. It has been the case ever since sponsorship became separate. It has grown but is still a relatively small proportion of commercial revenue.
Stating it has always been that way and that it is a small amount of money does not necessarily make for a strong argument for its being so.
Mr. Mulligan
What I am trying to explain is that sponsorship can take many forms. It is not always easy to see where it occurs. Let us take a programme such as "Off the Rails", to produce which one must go into clothes shops and show clothes. Many make a contribution and they will all be mentioned and credited as sponsors in the credits. That is a legal requirement.
There is a difference between a car being given away as part of a programme and a dress being shown.
Mr. Mulligan
Yes. Renault no longer sponsors "The Late Late Show", as the Deputy is probably aware. Halifax, which is relatively new to the market, has done so for three years. "The Late Late Show" had always given away cars, whether it was sponsored by Renault or not. Part of the sponsorship deal involved an agreement that if it did so a number of Renaults would be included.
Mr. Maguire's organisation currently operates a quota on advertising. Should there also be a quota on sponsorship?
Mr. Maguire
First, I echo what Mr. Mulligan said to the effect there is a distinction to be drawn, even though many would say they were both forms of advertising, and certainly of promotion. The distinction is drawn in European legislation and is recognised in the television without frontiers directive. We are in the process of finalising the general advertising code, which recognises the different forms of promotion. I will come to the question of why that is the case, but to compare sponsorship and advertising is not to compare like with like. The Chairman asked why there should not be a quota, or minutage, and it is arguable that should be so. However, that is not the approach of the EU nor is it that of the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland. It is probably not for this forum to decide why that should be so and it would be possible to have a code which caps the time allowed for sponsorship, though none exists.
I will move, with some trepidation, onto an adjoining issue. One of the problems we have in respect of the way codes are brought in is that they must be laid before the House. This is covered in section 41(11) (b), which states:
(a) The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the receipt by him or her of a copy of any broadcasting code or rule made under subsections (1) or (5), cause copies of it to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.
(b) Either House of the Oireachtas may, by resolution passed within 21 sitting days after the day on which a broadcasting code or rule was laid before it in accordance with paragraph (a), annul a broadcasting code or rule.
We think that is a bad provision. In saying so before this committee I am probably embarking on a controversial path but the provision cuts across the principle of an independent regulator. On the one hand we try to take the issue out of the political sphere by entrusting regulation to a body which has a record of operating independently but on the other hand we refer responsibility to the Dáil for a debate, which may lead to the annulment of a code. That brings us back to the situation we sought to avoid in the first instance by the setting up of an independent regulation system. If members analysed that further they would conclude it was not the way to go. It politicises regulation, which is the antithesis of what they tried to achieve in the first instance.
That was to be the subject of my next question.
We will probably run over our time and will continue until 4.10 p.m., with the co-operation of the clerk, the officials present and the webcasting staff providing the service to the public.
Who should authorise sponsorship? Should it be initiated and authorised by the broadcaster or by a combination of the broadcaster, the regulator and the Oireachtas? I do not agree the Oireachtas should be excluded on the grounds that to do so would introduce a political dimension. Previous to that, Government content was the only content available by means of ministerial approval. Oireachtas approval is somewhat different and it means parliamentary approval right across the board. We have repeatedly tried to get legislation to recognise the existence of the Oireachtas, or Parliament, as opposed to merely the existence of the Minister. It is very important we all recognise this.
It should be a combined effort and everyone should be allowed to have an input. We may have a valid input on how the general public would be affected. For example, if any member on these benches is sponsored and goes on the airwaves to promote something, how does the public react? Does it associate that person with the Oireachtas or would it be fully aware of the extent to which such a person may have received sponsorship in another context? How is such a person's job affected? We could ask questions on many of these areas. How does the definition of public broadcasting here measure up to the public broadcasting definition in the UK, for example? How does it measure up with regard to both the public and private sectors? As we evolve, do we expect to see a greater degree of recognition of the need to give to the general public a totally impartial and untainted version of whatever it is we are saying or doing?
That is of critical importance. I can see the Chairman furrowing his brow as I move into that area but he should not be afraid. I am not about to upset the Chairman. I am merely asking how, for example, we measure up to the standards in the BBC. Somebody may say I am not comparing like with like but we know that. However, we can look at a scaled down version of our operation and ask ourselves if we are seriously addressing that whole area of impartiality in all contexts, not just the political context. Everybody could then be satisfied.
Can members of the general public in the commercial area raise the kind of questions that have just been raised around this table? Would the public be able to argue it is somewhat disadvantaged because persons A, B or C have access to the airwaves in a particular fashion because they have an established privileged position?
I will take questions from other members as well because of the time constraints. I hope Deputy Broughan will have shorter questions, as we are about to conclude.
I have a question relating to head 106 dealing with RTE and more general matters. I wish to consider the variations given to encourage advertising in Irish and whether this should be extended to other minority languages. The Metro newspaper contacted me and several other Deputies yesterday asking about the media. I believe Channel 6 or the City Channel broadcasts news in Polish, which is very valuable to our new Polish residents.
Should we more explicitly require everybody, both commercial and public service broadcasters, to be more inclusive in terms of the new make-up of this city and parts of the country? Deputy Eamon Ryan referred to a mirror on the nation, and a slightly different nation is currently seen in that mirror. Should we support this?
The broadcasting Bill we will have to pass before the end of this Government refers to broadcasts to the Irish diaspora in the UK. It is fantastic that we have brought this forward at last. Should there be a section or head in this relating to the new shape or look of Ireland, under which those new to Ireland would feel comfortable in their community?
Mr. Maguire will not be used to me saying that I agree with him completely, and I do not believe politicians should be next or near any editorial decision, be it in regard to advertising, sponsorship or editorial content, but we should ensure in this legislation that any such connection, ministerial approval or otherwise, is removed. We can bring Mr. Maguire, Mr. O'Keeffe and others before this committee on a regular basis if we have questions on an issue as this is the appropriate forum. Representatives of RTE and TV3 have attended here previously. For the benefit of democracy, it is totally inappropriate for legislation to allow politicians anywhere near editorial aspects of the media.
I was imagining an alternative coalition which has been wooed in certain quarters and I presume this is a manifestation of that.
Deputy Durkan can woo me any time.
I was not talking about my wooing Deputy Eamon Ryan, I was talking to the Chairman.
I will go back to disagreeing with Mr. Maguire. One of the fundamental flaws in current broadcasting legislation is the television without frontiers directive. We have seen the presentation by TV3 citing the example of satellite broadcasters from the UK which have no obligations regarding broadcasting here. I believe this situation exists because the television without frontiers directive is overly concerned with commercial development and does not protect public interests. It is our responsibility to inform legislation to protect public interests and we can tighten this legislation as much as the directive allows.
Mr. Maguire
I will be brief as I am aware of time constraints. Deputy Eamon Ryan agreed with me and I, in turn, agree with him that there is a lacuna regarding the regulation of broadcasts received in Ireland from other jurisdictions. This causes problems for us, for the committee and for broadcasters but it is not part of the legislative remit of the Oireachtas, unfortunately, and must be resolved at a European level.
My point is that citing the television without frontiers directive treatment of sponsorship as a justification does not mean we should not go further on the issue here.
Mr. Maguire
I was citing it as a fact rather than a justification.
A question was raised on comparisons between Ireland and the UK, particularly the BBC. People sometimes lose sight of the fact that in this jurisdiction on both the public service side and the commercial side, there is a strong broadcasting sector that serves the public very well. There are criticisms at all levels, but if one seeks to make comparisons with the UK one should examine failures there as well as successes and, in doing so, one might find there are more failures in the UK than people are prepared to admit.
Regarding Deputy Durkan's point, I wish to distinguish between sponsorship and the question of bringing politicians back into the decision making process on codes on sponsorship, advertising, access, etc. This is a point I wished to bring to the committee's attention and on which Deputy Eamon Ryan and I are in agreement. It is important to preserve the independence that has been built as we regard the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland as a robust regulator and hope that will continue to be the case under the broadcasting authority of Ireland. We have survived numerous challenges relating to judicial review and we hope we have discharged our remit as independently, openly and transparently as possible.
Mr. Mulligan
Deputy Durkan raised the issue of sanctioning sponsorship arrangements and wondered if the regulator should be involved. The BCI has recently finished its review of a code for advertising and sponsorship, which will be available in March, and part of this was a long process of defining the difference between sponsorship and advertising. This code will provide broadcasters with rules and examples relating to its implementation. In RTE we have internal committee procedures to deal with the approval of sponsorship and we hope the rules set by the BCI will be in line with these. We hope they will apply to all broadcasters and all commercial arrangements.
There was a question about personalities sponsored elsewhere and whether this influenced the public. It is a thorny issue, of which we have had experience in various sports areas where people are associated with particular products. We have had to make rulings with regard to not interviewing people because of this or make it clear to their sports authorities that we cannot interview them unless things change. It does not go without viewing and action if it is inappropriate. One does not always get everything but when one realises something is happening with regard to a sponsorship arrangement, one puts in place measures to ensure it does not happen again.
Are we as good as the BBC? I would like to think we are but I would say that, would I not? I do not know how independent anybody is but I believe RTE withstands a test as well as the BBC.
Deputy Broughan asked about ethnic programmes. It is absolutely correct that a mirror must be held up to a changing society. Radio 1 is experimenting by introducing ethnic programmes and ethnic presenters to present programmes for their communities. That is a positive development which will probably grow.
Mr. McMunn
With regard to Deputy Durkan's point about sponsorship, I agree with the comments made by the BCI. There has been a long process regarding the codes and the BCI has conducted a rigorous and exhaustive consultation process. We will wait to see how it works. The Deputy also raised the comparison with the BBC which has no advertisements. That is a big difference. Ofcom, the equivalent of the BAI, has a market regulatory power over the BBC because of its sheer size. That is something that should be adopted in this jurisdiction.
Mr. Tighe
There was a plethora of questions and I will try to answer a couple of them briefly.
We have an excellent relationship with the BCI. Its consultative process on the codes was welcomed by our members.
With regard to the definition of "public service", we believe, a little like in politics, that if one ends up with a majority, one has served the public well and will get to serve it again in the future. Most of our members are market leaders in their areas. While there is still room for improvement, we believe our members are serving the public exceptionally well on a daily basis. There seems to be a separation between public service broadcasters and commercial broadcasters but many of our members would say they are public service broadcasters as well as being commercial. They are doing so daily and the audience results and statistics are available to support this. I ask members to bear in mind that as radio does not have pages, unlike newspapers, with any decisions made here or in the future, one cannot turn a page. The only thing one can do with a radio station is turn it off.
Mr. Rhodes
Chairman, you suggested we might have one minute in which to reply to some of the questions raised about independently produced radio programmes.
Yes, Mr. Rhodes has one minute.
Mr. Rhodes
Mr. Maguire mentioned that the broadcasting fund was available to independent producers. However, 95% of the fund has gone to television programmes because it was set up to fund independent productions. It is hard for radio producers, without something in place in the legislation, to find an outlet in which to use the funding. Mr. Tighe was concerned about control and he is correct. All we are trying to offer him and the public is more programme makers and more programmes. Ultimately, he has the choice. Senator O'Meara asked if there should be a requirement in legislation. Everybody today had glowing things to say about independent productions on television but that did not happen until there was a requirement in legislation. The reason for that requirement was to stimulate new sources of production and to promote a market. We ask the committee to consider the same for radio in order that we can repeat that success to the ultimate benefit of listeners.
Mr. Prasifka, we did not have a representative from the Competition Authority this morning. Perhaps it was a mix up.
As regards the current television licence, would it be in the best interests of transparency and accountability to ensure that the contract for collection of the licence fee is put out to tender? Would that not also ensure the best value for money? Does Mr. Prasifka have a view on whether RTE — and An Post, which currently collects the licence fee — should participate in an open tender of this nature? Would the ministerial appointment of an agent be in breach of the EU procurement rules as they currently stand?
Mr. Prasifka
This is a matter we have addressed in our written submission. The contract should be put out to tender and no one should be excluded. In this jurisdiction, EU procurement rules are a matter for the Department of Finance and are not within our remit.
I thank Mr. Prasifka for those answers which I wanted to get on the record. I thank all members of the joint committee for participating in today's session. We will be back at 10 a.m. tomorrow morning when the session will be webcast. The general public may think the Dáil is not sitting today, but it is. There will be plenary sessions of the main House on 24 January, but many committees will sit this week. It is important the message gets out to the general public that much work is being done in the Houses of the Oireachtas today.
I thank all the groups that participated in our discussions today. Their contributions to this consultation process have been of immense importance both to the joint committee and to the officials in the public gallery from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. The contributions will, no doubt, also be of immense importance to the Minister when he approves the final draft of the Bill before it goes to Government.
I am advised by the clerk that an archive of today's webcast proceedings will be available on the econsultation.ie website in an hour. I thank the staff who participated in today’s session. I hope tomorrow’s session, which will begin at 10 o’clock, will go as well as today’s one. I also hope the e-consultation process experiment, which has been webcast, will become a regular feature of Oireachtas committees in future. If that happens and more people tune in to them, we may not have to worry about “Oireachtas Report”.
We will have a dedicated station.
The joint committee adjourned at 4.20 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 11 January 2007.