Vol. 149 No. 15
I move:
That Seanad Éireann notes the reports for 1994 and 1995 on the implementation by Radio Telefís Éireann of Section 4 of the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1993, with regard to commissioning the making of television programmes from independent producers.
Is mór agam an deis a fháil chun an dá thuarascáil seo a phlé sa Teach seo. Beidh a fhios ag Seanadóirí go bhfuil cúram leagtha ar Radio Telefís Éireann faoi alt 4 den Acht Craolacháin (Leasú), 1993, suimeanna sonracha airgid a chur ar fáil in aghaidh na bliana d'fhonn cláir theilifíse a choimisiúnú ón earnáil táirgeachta neamhspleách. I welcome the opportunity of speaking on these two reports for 1994 and 1995.
The minimum amount to be made available under Article 4 of the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1993, in 1994, the first year of operation, was £5 million and was £6.5 million in 1995. In 1996 the amount to be made available is £7.5 million and will rise annually until 1999 when, under the provisions of section 4, £12.5 million or 20 per cent of television programme expenditure must be made available by RTÉ for independent productions.
When I introduced the legislation in 1993, I undertook to place a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas to show how this facility for the independent production sector relating to the national broadcaster would work. Under section 6 of the 1993 Act, RTÉ is required to make a report to me on its activities regarding the commissioning of independent productions and I am required to lay that report before both Houses of the Oireachtas.
Turning to the report for 1994, we can see that, in 1994, £5.6 million was paid into the special account established under the 1993 Act and that £5.28 million was expended or committed on 258 hours of independently produced programmes. The report contains a list of programme makers who received commissions and the types of programmes which they provided. It also shows that independent commissions covered a range of programme strands which included features, sports, current affairs, drama, agriculture, gardening, variety, documentaries and young people's programming. Bhí cláir i nGaeilge san áireamh freisin, ar ndóigh.
The 1994 report also sets out the arrangements which RTÉ put in place to implement the provisions of the 1993 Act. The requirement that the independent sector would have the right to make programmes and submit them to RTÉ was one of the fundamental aspects of the 1993 legislation. An independent production unit was established. Seven people, including a commissioning editor, were appointed to the unit. One round of commissioning was operated in 1994 to which there was a most enthusiastic response resulting in 683 proposals from 185 companies.
At the time of publication, I welcomed the positive tone of the report. The then chairman of the Authority welcomed the addition made to RTÉ schedules made by the independent sector. In my consultations with the sector following the publication of the report, some concerns were expressed about aspects of the commissioning process. However, I am happy to say that, in the light of my discussions with the sector, these problems seemed to be teething ones.
I clarify that it was never my function, nor is it now, to become involved in RTÉ's decisions on the nature of programmes it commissions, to whom the commissions are awarded and how it reaches these decisions. I cannot emphasise that sufficiently strongly because it is an important part of the distance which I, as Minister, have from this aspect of RTÉ. This may come as news to some people who have irresponsibly asserted the opposite. It was never my intention to diminish in any way RTÉ's authority and control over and responsibility for its own programming schedules. It is a matter for RTÉ, within the parameters of the Broadcasting Authority Acts, to decide on the nature and content of its own schedules. My concern is to form a view as to whether the 1993 provisions are actually meeting the objectives which I had in mind when they were introduced. My intention was broadly to provide a statutory base from which the independent production sector could have a reasonable chance of achieving its potential. Senators will recall that the 1993 legislation abolished the cap on RTÉ and provided this facility for the independent sector. It also made it necessary that there be gender equality on the RTÉ Authority.
Turning to the report for 1995, it is most interesting and gratifying to note that, in the director general's foreword, the status of independent productions has moved from being described a year earlier as a "welcome addition" to the RTÉ schedules of 1994 to being "a valuable and significant element of the RTÉ schedule" in 1995 and the belief is expressed that independent productions will be central to RTÉ's output in the future. In 1995, RTÉ was required to make available £6.5 million for independent productions.
The report gives details of activities including the statutory payment into the special account of £6.5 million and other moneys such as bank interest and VAT refunds. It also shows that 261 hours of programming were commissioned at a cost of £6.5 million in 1995. Two commissioning rounds were operated in 1995 as opposed to one round in 1994. The report also shows that independently produced programmes covered a broad range of strands within the schedule. I am especially pleased with the reported increase in the value of drama commissions from just over £130,000 in 1994 to over £500,000 in 1995. I believe that the two reports demonstrate how the national broadcaster can contribute to the development of a vibrant independent production sector without diminishing the role of RTÉ itself as a producer of quality programming.
The quality of the commissioned programming across the range of the schedule over these two years demonstrates the talent, competence and versatility of our independent programme makers. What we have seen also is a clear demonstration through programmes such as "Dear Daughter" and "You Die On The Inside First" of television that can inform, challenge, disturb, provide access to the excluded and abused and generate real and valuable controversy. We have seen light entertainment programmes and fascinating and popular factual programmes such as the series on Waterford Regional Hospital. The mix of programmes commissioned shows that the independent sector can make a vital contribution to the schedules of a broadcaster with a clear public service remit and can carry forward the tradition of providing programming for minority as well as mainstream tastes.
As before, I will continue to consult with interested parties on the operation of the 1993 provisions to determine whether the objectives are being met. Next year £8.5 million will have been made available for independent productions. I look forward to the continuation of the development of a successful creative relationship between our national broadcaster and the independent production sector.
Before concluding, I think it would be appropriate for me to congratulate and compliment the independent production sector that is supplying virtually 100 per cent of the programming for Teilifís na Gaeilge. Feictear dom go bhfuil na cláir seo den chaighdeán is airde ar bhonn teicniúil agus ar bhonn ealaíona araon. Táim dóchasach go leanfaidh an scéál amhlaidh agus go ndéanfar forbairt ar chúrsaí de réir mar a dtéann an tseirbhís in aois. Is breá liom a fheiceáil freisin go bhfuil cuid mhór den táirgíocht seo i lámha daoine atá lonnaithe lasmuigh de Bhaile Átha Cliath. This is a strand of independent television production that is not covered by the provisions of the 1993 Act and it is worth putting on record, so that Senators have the total picture, that expenditure by Teilifís na Gaeilge on programme commissions in 1995 was £1.8 million. This year the amount will be £7.5 million.
I am confident that as the long-term effects of the legislative provisions relating to independent production and the establishment of Teilifís na Gaeilge enable the industry to put down secure roots at home, independent producers will, in time, find themselves well placed to avail of the explosion in demand for programme material to fill the virtually limitless broadcasting capacity which is being created internationally.
In 1993, the Minister came into the House and removed the cap on RTÉ which was welcomed by most people in the industry. We are fortunate to have a Minister with such an open attitude and a winning way when it comes to the entertainment industry. The Minister will long be remembered for the contribution he has made to this sector.
I agree that there is very good work being done by the independent sector and that they have been given a massive incentive by the Minister to create good programmes and have them broadcast on our national channels. However, Ireland is a small market. Australia's success in this sector is the great example for us. It is an island economy like Ireland with far less attractive markets to sell to. However, Australian producers were given incentives and they conquered the English-speaking world. This is why this motion is very timely. We are framing the budget and all thoughts are of creating more jobs in this sector.
I welcomed the Minister to the world music publishers conference in Cannes two years ago. He generously graced the conference at which we try to exploit new technologies and productions created during the previous year. He was the first Minister to attend the conference in a long time. In fact his presence was the reason Ireland had a stand at the conference and he is to be commended.
The film industry has generated £100 million investment in Ireland this year. Much of this is due to the Minister's efforts and I congratulate him. However, what do we need to achieve the success of the Australians? We need to retain the best production teams and use all the high tech equipment available to us. However, to keep these people in Ireland we must provide them with a tax base. The tax incentives which are required are those which currently exist for our writers, sculptors and other creative artists.
The audio-visual industry is a high risk industry; only about 20 per cent of the work created is successful. The success rate in the recording industry is even worse; about 25: one. A tax regime of at least 20 per cent must be introduced to keep the best creative talent in this country and persuade investors to continue to take risks.
In the coming year, £8.5 million will be spent by RTÉ on independent productions. That is a sizeable amount and is to be welcomed. I have had a very good working relationship with RTÉ over 25 years and have great respect for them but I fear that between 500 and 1,000 jobs could be in danger in the long term. I do not want to scaremonger during Christmas week, but perhaps the Minister could clarify the situation for RTÉ personnel and assure them that the increase in independent productions will not result in job losses at the station?
The success of our tourism industry is in no small way due to Eurovision; we are the leaders in this area. Eurovision provides a shop window to hundreds of millions of viewers. We were successful in 1996 and the 1997 competition will be hosted and financed by RTÉ. As a result, the autumn schedules have shown a cutback in light entertainment. The total entertainment bill in RTÉ is less than 2 per cent of the overall budget. RTÉ should be given a special allocation to cover the costs of the Eurovision Song Contest. Bord Fáilte, An Bord Tráchtála, IDA Ireland and many other organisations will benefit from the huge public relations exercise involved. The Eurovision programme should not be funded out of RTÉ's budget.
Senator McGowan is aware of the great success of artists from Donegal. One in particular has proved a great tourist attraction and he will present a Christmas night special on television. Tourism is one of the main sectors for job creation and the amount of money spent on the Eurovision is very small compared to the cost of buying equivalent advertising.
Riverdance has been a mind boggling success. The best visitor numbers for the months of January and February in Dublin were in 1995 when Riverdance was showing at The Point Theatre. That show came directly from the Eurovision. It is all about capturing the public's imagination and we have another chance to do so next year. The Minister should get a specific budget allocation for the song contest so as not to impinge on the budget for home light entertainment productions.
I wish the Minister continued success. I thank him for his open approach whenever I have sought to express views or obtain advice from him.
These reports indicate that the initiative taken by the Minister in 1993 has proved useful and positive. The large number of companies which made proposals to RTÉ is an indication of the extent to which the initiative was necessary. It gave the talented programme makers the opportunity to make proposals for programmes to RTÉ.
The changing world requires a new approach to creating job opportunities. We have a wealth of talent in the programme making field and this initiative gives them the opportunity to use their talents. It also takes programme making out of the confines of RTÉ in Dublin 4. This has given film makers an opportunity to deal with any issue of social or historic interest in any part of the country and to carry out all the necessary work with a view to making a programme. As the Minister pointed out, this work has become an integral part of RTÉ's schedules. It is now accepted as part and parcel of RTÉ's activity.
One of the independent productions was "Dear Daughter" and it had a great impact on the nation's conscience. It sensitively and honestly highlighted a situation that was almost too traumatic for many people. It challenged many of the hypocrisies and double standards of a certain element of Irish life which had been unexplored. The programme deserves high commendation because it gave many people an opportunity for the first time to openly discuss their sad experiences. If independent programming can successfully challenge the nation to face many of its taboos it is well worthwhile.
The documentary made by Louis Marcus on the Great Famine was another success. Each of us had heard stories about the effects of the famine in our own rural areas, of the disasters and tragedies that occurred. This documentary gave a sensitive vision of the events. People traditionally read historical material but given that people read less nowadays we have to adapt television to deal with such events.
The Minister's initiative was wise and positive. Those who produce the independent programmes come from a different background than the confines of RTÉ. They are less restricted by the system and are freer in their thinking. In the final analysis the decision must be made by RTÉ to have the programme made and shown. Nonetheless, the independent programmes bring with them a welcome freshness of spirit.
I am delighted that the Minister and RTÉ have budgeted for increased expenditure in the future — £12.5 million in 1999. It shows a confidence in the work already done. I am not aware of the details of the way in which RTÉ decides which programmes will be broadcast but it has done a good job to date. I hope an open attitude will be adopted, particularly to young people and programmes dealing with issues of interest to them. I look forward to more challenging independently produced programmes such as those we have seen recently.
I would point out to the House that my change of location to the front row does not mean any change in party or ideological loyalty.
We would not have thought that.
I simply did not wish to deprive myself of the opportunity to see Senator Taylor-Quinn and the Minister in animated close-up.
No sexist remarks.
Gender equality was observed.
I do not share Senator Cassidy's familiarity with or experience in this area, I echo his generous and well deserved tribute to the Minister for the achievements which have followed this successful initiative.
I regret that it is only now that the 1994 and 1995 reports are being discussed; the 1994 report is water under the bridge at this stage. The 1995 report was sent to the Minister on 2 April. Given the intrinsic importance of this issue it deserves to come to the House earlier. I do not know whether there are deadlines for the submission of reports but I hope that, in future, in keeping with the significance of the issues and the excitement that can be generated by progress in this area, it will come to the Oireachtas earlier than December of the following year.
I wish to comment on a few points in the Minister's informative speech. I know it is probably impossible to arrive at judgments, even if one were in a position to do so, about the quality of decision making on commissioned programmes unless one knows which ones were not commissioned. It is like promotions in certain institutions with which both the Minister and I are familiar, where all those promoted doubtless deserve it but unless you know who was next in line you cannot cast judgment on the decision-making qualities of those who have the largesse to dispense. While it may not be possible to include that, there should be some way of knowing about the context, criteria and reasons for near misses in greater detail.
One of the encouraging features of the report is the reference to the high quality of a number of programmes that could not be commissioned. It would be helpful to have more detail on that dimension rather than saying 64 programmes were accepted and over 700 were not. There must have been many good quality programmes among them.
I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify his reference to the fact that it is not his function to become involved in the decisions of RTÉ with regard to the nature of programmes that are commissioned. I accept that, of course, but the Minister stated: "My concern is to form a view as to whether the 1993 provisions are actually meeting the objectives which I have in mind". He also said he was "particularly pleased with the reported increase in the value of drama commissions". I find it difficult to believe that the commissioners would be entirely insensitive to an observation of that type, even though it may be a well justified one.
The Minister said he "will continue to consult with interested parties on the operation of the provisions to determine whether the objectives are being met". There must be a subtle relationship between ministerial interest in, and justifiable ministerial concern with, the objectives being met, and the actual decisions being taken in a general way. I would welcome some clarification on how that process operates.
The Minister referred to the quality of programmes on Teilifís na Gaeilge agus aontaím go h-iomlán leis. Is breá liom a fheiceál freisin go bhfuil cuid mhór don tógáil seo i láimhe daoine atá lonnaithe lasmuigh de Bhaile Átha Cliath. Cuireann sé sin áthas orm nuair a bhreathnaítear ar lonnaíocht na gcuideachtaí sa chontae seo taobh amuigh de Theilifís na Gaeilge: 63 cuideachtaí in Éire, seachas Baile Átha Cliath, 105 in mBaile Átha Cliath, timpeall 70 faoin gcéad in mBaile Átha Cliath, 30 faoin gcead lasmuigh de Bhaile Átha Cliath. Ní thugann sin an oiread sin dóchais dom agus a ba mhaith liom a bheith agam faoi bhorradh na gcuideachtaí seo taobh amuigh de Bhaile Átha Cliath.
I presume there is some development in this direction. Naturally, Dublin has to be a centre of activity in this regard. Senator Taylor-Quinn referred to people going down the country but I would also like to see people coming up from the country, while based there, to conduct activities of this type so that we will get a national — and not a disproportionately metropolitan based, activity of this sort. There are different perspectives depending on where one is coming from, as the Minister well knows.
The Minister expressed the hope that "independent producers will in time find themselves well placed to avail of the explosion in demand for programme material". Will the Minister give some idea what schedule "in time" envisages?
I share the hope expressed by Senator Cassidy about the potential. He referred to the Australian example. I do not know if one would want to follow every aspect of that but it provides some indication of what the potential might be. Senator Taylor-Quinn quite rightly referred to our natural talent for this type of activity. If we cannot provide the talents required by television and film then we will not be successful in anything. If there is an area where indigenous industry, to use that awful phrase, can develop export markets — and we are still lagging far behind in the development of export markets, as the Minister knows — this ought to be one of the cutting edges. I know perfectly well that I am preaching to the converted but it would be useful if that final paragraph could be fleshed out more specifically to target the dimensions, scenarios and timescales in so far as that is possible.
I congratulate the Minister on the success of this initiative. I hope that when he comes back to report at an early date next year, he will be able to record further progress in this direction.
I am loathe to depart from the consensus of congratulation which appears to greet this motion. I do not wish to be controversial in any way but I would like to say one or two words about RTÉ itself before we drown in a sea of self-satisfaction as we head towards Christmas. The first thing the Minister will be aware of is that RTÉ is losing money on its broadcasting activities. Last year it lost of the order of £2.35 million, purely on broadcasting activities. We ought to ask why and how this has come to pass. RTÉ declared an overall profit but that came from elsewhere. We also ought to ask whether RTÉ wants to make a profit from its broadcasting activities. I am not sure it really does or that it is under any particular pressure to make such a profit. The reason is simple; RTÉ is a subsidised national broadcasting station which is not under normal commercial pressure and its ethos, in turn, is to subsidise itself to be a subsidiser.
From memory, I think RTÉ received £51 million from licence fees in 1995 and the year before it was a little less. Next year, thanks to the Minister's generosity to RTÉ, it will be considerably more — another £8 or £9 million. RTÉ's consumers have little choice about whether to pay the licence fee. When this amount is confiscated from them by the Government, they will watch RTÉ whether they like it or not because the station has a monopoly. In turn, RTÉ is required — this is what this motion is about — to give an escalating amount of money every year to the independent production unit regardless of merit, talent or any other criteria. According to this year's annual report, £6.5 million was directed from RTÉ to the independent production unit in 1995. That amount must rise to about £12.5 million in 1999.
Not being a great sympathiser with semi-State bodies, I feel a certain pang of sympathy for RTÉ in this case. Before the Minister picks me up on that, because he would be more aware of those particular sensitivities than I, I should declare an interest in that a substantial amount of my family income comes from RTÉ. RTÉ is not, in any sense, master of its own destiny. Those of us who would require it to make a profit or strive to do so are aware that it is working in a straitjacket. Not only is it subsidised and its subsidy controlled, but its cash profits are directed in a certain way. The promotion of an independent production unit is obviously something we welcome but the compulsory direction of funds to this area is regrettable.
We should also be aware of the amount of money which goes to Teilifís na Gaeilge by Government direction. Reading between the lines of the annual report, there is no doubt that Mr. Corcoran makes it perfectly clear that he is not happy with this, although in the jargon of annual reports one never says that to one's Minister. However, one does it in such a way as to convey the message to the outside world and if one accuses him of criticising Government policy, he will immediately say that he did not do so. According to him, Teilifís na Gaeilge makes a dent in the operations of RTÉ and costs it £5.5 million per annum. There was an initial capital payment of £6.5 million. This affects the performance of RTÉ and its ability to make a profit. We cannot have it both ways. RTÉ is a creature of whoever happens to be Minister. I beg the Minister not to take this personally. Long may he be Minister — for at least another six months. RTÉ is a creature of the Government and the State — that is the nature of State broadcasting.
Senator Cassidy asked if the Minister could give some reassurance to the staff of RTÉ. It is my understanding, not from my family relationships with RTÉ but from other staff there, that morale in RTÉ has been low for a long time. At present, cutbacks are being implemented at RTÉ in both radio and television which have not been particularly well explained to the employees. Money is being frittered away on Teilifís na Gaeilge and other areas and cutbacks are being made internally in programmes simultaneously so there is a direct relationship between the two.
With all its great merits, RTÉ has one in particular, that is, it is the national champion of openness, transparency and accountability. That is something for which we can applaud many of the broadcasters and I say this without any hesitation or qualification. Without exception, RTÉ has fairly fearlessly flushed out many of the hidden parts of Irish life and politics and it has been a great pioneer in exposing cant in places where it was necessary, but it should also be transparent and open.
I have asked RTÉ on several occasions about one or two matters on which it has refused to answer and in certain cases that was perfectly reasonable. However, I have asked RTÉ publicly and in private correspondence how many meetings members of its board attend and who turns up? That may seem trivial but it is not. I have asked many semi-State bodies that question and nearly all of them sent me the necessary reply. The members of RTÉ Authority are paid £4,000 per year out of public money. The chairman is paid £6,000. I am open to question on all these figures, as they are purely from memory. It is unforgivable that those who promote people so successfully and with such great talent expose politicians and pursue the need to account for public money, do not and will not let the public or Members of the Oireachtas know whether they are doing their job.
That is not relevant to the motion.
It is relevant because we are talking about the distribution of public money to the IPUs. The way this money is used is important and I want to know whether members turn up. If they do not, why will they not tell us? That is relevant to the motion. Why do I consistently receive a reply to the effect that they will not tell me who turns up at board and Authority meetings. I do not believe there is some big hidden secret but there is a hypocrisy in the RTÉ culture which expects one thing from politicians and other people in public and private life but will not divulge whether they are earning their living with the licence fee. I ask the Minister to apply that across all State bodies and to ask RTÉ to give us that information.
I thank Senators who have taken an interest in this motion and contributed so thoughtfully to it.
I thank Senator Cassidy and all the Senators who spoke about the consequences which flowed from the 1993 decision to include an independent sector contribution to the programming of RTÉ. It is useful to state that the circumstances to which I was responding then as Minister were ones which had been crucially affected by the 1990 broadcasting legislation which placed a cap on RTÉ's revenue, and this will answer one of Senator Ross's questions. He said that, following the general election in 1992, the Programme for Government explicitly stated that the start up costs of Teilifís na Gaeilge would be met from those sums above the cap which had been accumulated in RTÉ. There was a prohibition on RTÉ's capacity to earn, both from advertising and other activities.
In addition, and in reply to one of Senator Ross's opinions which are very interesting, if morale is low now, one could touch the morale at that point when the cap was in place. The 1993 legislation, from which these two reports derive, dealt essentially with three matters if I remember correctly: first, the removal of the cap; second, creating capacity for the independent film production sector and, third, some small changes were made, including the provision for gender equality in the composition of the RTÉ Authority.
I agree entirely with Senator Lee's point that the reports should be published more quickly. I am required under section 6 of the 1993 legislation to place the reports before the Oireachtas and I agree it would be more satisfactory if they were being discussed closer to the end of the production year. I am aiming towards that.
Senator Cassidy raised an interesting point to which other Senators referred. It is not true to say that RTÉ must spend the independent production unit money. What is important is that the legislation specifies RTÉ will make the money available. There are, if one looks at the text of the 1993 legislation, clear criteria on the disbursement of that money once it is made available. For example, under section 4 (7) of the Bill, the Minister of the day has the power to vary the amounts which have to be made available for independent production. One of the criteria to be taken into account is the employment conditions within RTÉ at the time. There is the capacity in the criteria laid down which enable the obligation to make money available for independent production to be examined.
Senator Cassidy is right about the export capacity of Australian TV production. When this business is concluded here, I will be launching a report on the future of the music industry. I agree with the Senator that music is important to culture and that it can also make a major contribution to employment creation and to the economy. The external circumstances taking place in relation to television and film production are interesting in that the capacity to transmit far outstrips the programmes available for transmission.
Within two years, pay television channels will probably be available. This will be followed, probably in a second generation of decoders, by digitalisation and digital home entertainment capacity. These developments will take place within ten years. In relation to developing productive capacity the idea in 1993 was to give the indigenous independent production sector a platform from which to launch into this much larger market. It will come from cable, from pay television through satellite and the new digital services that I expect to come onstream about three or four years later. BSkyB, for example, is one player in this market.
Senator Lee asked a very interesting philosophical question about my relationship to the independent production, selection and editorial process. I have never read a script that came into Bord Scannán na hÉireann and I have never seen a proposal being considered by RTÉ under the independent productions sector. There are seven people and an independent commissioning editor. She has been very anxious to maintain her own integrity in media with which Senator Ross will be familiar and in relation to her distance from me as Minister. I have never, do not now, and have no intention of ever interfering in an autonomous artistic activity within RTÉ.
I meet the RTÉ Authority perhaps once a year and different topics come up for discussion in relation to the future of RTÉ. The Authority introduced the topic in 1993, anticipating public concern at the costly nature of making drama and the difference between making drama and buying in a programme.
As regards Senator Ross's comment on RTÉ's £2.35 million loss on strict broadcasting activities, it is true that RTÉ is in surplus in the last published report because the commercial activities outweigh that £2.35 million loss in strict broadcasting, but the reasons given for that loss are the cost of purchasing programmes which have escalated with the bid for exclusive sports rights and a whole series of other factors which have made the purchasing of programmes in a scarce environment extremely difficult.
It is important to note that the independent production sector whose activities have been reported here are in a very healthy state. There are far more suppliers than there are people to be catered for on the airwaves. It is only reasonable that the independent sector should be able to look to the national broadcaster as a place in which it will be able to reflect life in all its complexity, black and white, good and bad, as it is in both a contemporary and traditional setting. RTÉ is not a commercial body; it is the national broadcaster. It gets a licence fee for that reason but it also has obligations. If it is to carry out its commitment it needs support. It was always my intention that, from 1993, the arrival of material from the independent production sector would be a joining of the creativity from outside with the creativity within.
I understand the point made by Senator Lee on the location of the companies. About 70 per cent of the population lives in or near the Dublin area and some 70 per cent of the companies are in that general area as well but you cannot look at it on a strict population basis. The greater the diversity of production companies the better chance there is of having a thematic stretch that will include all sorts of experience.
Senator Ross made an interesting point about the structure of the Authority. It is very important to draw distinctions between the national broadcaster and others. In the international entertainment industry, people occasionally communicate. In national communications, people sometimes entertain but they also have an obligation in the traditional conception of broadcasting to inform, educate, look after minority tastes and so on. In the second version, there is a very democratic theory of citizenship. In the first, in which one imposes simply an accountability to the marketplace, there is a strong diminution of the citizens' rights and even at times an anti-democratic impulse. There is the suggestion that a person is entitled to benefit from the receipt of images when, and only when, he or she is able to pay for them. That is the choice that is opening up between the future of national broadcasters and the immense pay TV conglomerates who are only interested in entertaining to the point at which they can maximise their profits. There is room in a mixed world for both.
Teilifís na Gaeilge is not strictly involved here but as the national broadcaster's advertising cap has been removed and the choice of television increased for the first time in ten years, it is not a huge burden to ask RTÉ to provide one hour of television for Teilifís na Gaeilge. You can only answer this question when you have answered the question for yourself as to the value you put on a cultural diversity which includes the right of people to communicate, using modern means of communication, in the Irish language. I respect that there are those who do not consider that important. There are many who do and ultimately all a Minister can do is to take decisions openly. I said from the very beginning that RTÉ would be required to provide an hour of programming. It has and it will. Teilifís na Gaeilge's start up costs were met from the sums accumulated over the cap, precisely as laid down in the Government programme.
In relation to matters which are more suitable to an epistolary communication between Senator Ross and RTÉ he will be glad to hear I am in favour of the openness he seeks. Many years ago he and I discussed the lack of democracy and openness in so many private corporations about which he now writes with more enthusiasm than he spoke then.
I remember the occasion well, it was a monologue.
If we are to aspire to openness on the part of these corporations, perhaps it is not unfair to also aspire to openness on the part of the State sector.
