Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

SELECT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 6 Mar 2007

Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill 2006 [Seanad]: Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.

Amendment No. 1 is in the name of Deputy Durkan. Amendments Nos. 14, 30, 31, 43, 63, 64, 65 and 67 to 69, inclusive, are related. These amendments may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, line 10, after "2001" to insert "or as amended by this Act".

Amending the section as proposed in amendment No. 1 will more adequately reflect the intent of the legislation, the requirements of the community and what the Minister wants to do, given that this Act specifically amends anything that went before it.

Amendment No. 14 is in the name of the Minister. I am sure he will have something to say about it in due course.

It is proposed in amendment No. 30 to insert the words "or equivalent" after the word "contractors" in section 4(2). The reason for this amendment is that the concept of a contractor may change in the future, and a different name may be used to describe people contracted to supply services.

Amendment No. 31 is similar. It proposes to insert the words "or alternative meeting the criteria" after the words "multiplex contracts" in section 4(2). It anticipates the introduction of alternative technology or a combination of technologies to provide services in the future, given that multiplex contracts now envisaged are somewhat dated and likely to become more so with the passage of time. If this amendment is taken on board it will improve the legislation by anticipating and providing for further technological developments.

Amendment No. 43 is similar to a previous amendment. It proposes to insert the words "or as may be specified in the Act" after "2001" in section 5(5). The purpose of the amendment is to ensure adequate provisional cover.

Amendment No. 63 proposes to insert the words "consent and" after the word "prior" in section 10(2)(c). It is a technical amendment which will give more meaning to the section. Amendment No. 64 is a technical amendment covering similar ground and proposes to insert the words “or structure” after the word “ownership” in subsection (2)(d). Amendment No. 65 proposes inserting the words “for the duration of the contract” after the word “contract” in subsection (2)(e) in order to add finality to the sentence as it was rather open-ended. For example, a contract might falter or be abrogated or the circumstances might change and the contract might have to be renewed. It would be better to define the situation precisely by the words “duration of the contract” rather than just use the word “contract”.

Amendment No. 67 proposes inserting the word "reasonable" after the word "any" in subsection (2)(f) so that instead of reading “comply with any technical condition” the Bill would state “comply with any reasonable technical condition”. One does not presume it will be necessary, but in these days of advanced technology, bureaucracy and communications it would do no harm to insert the word “reasonable”. The presumption generally is that only reasonable demands or changes will be made, but we have on occasion seen situations where other than reasonable demands were made.

Amendment No. 68 proposes to insert the words "on stated grounds" after the word "consent" in subsection (3)(a). The presumption in the Bill is that the grounds do not need to be stated as they will be stated at the time. It does no harm to require that there be stated grounds specifically setting out the reasons or causes of complaints or support. Amendment No. 69 is the same.

There are a large number of amendments taken together.

It is a large group of amendments. I would prefer if such large groups were taken in two or three tranches in future as the large group is virtually unworkable from the Opposition point of view.

I am governed by how the Bills office sets them out.

I understand that, but from the point of view of the Opposition, I would prefer if a group of that size was taken in two or three tranches. The next group is even worse.

The Deputy got the information note on the groupings.

I did, but I have no control over it.

Neither do I.

I will try to keep my response as simple as possible. Most of the amendments are put together as drafting amendments covering the various sections of the Bill. Amendment No. 14 is a Government amendment which makes an improvement in the text and was suggested by the draftsman to make the text clearer.

I will refer to the amendments put forward by Deputy Durkan. Amendments Nos. 63, 68 and 69 may be useful in clarifying the concepts in those sections of the Bill. If the Deputy withdraws those amendments, we will consider them for Report Stage. We did not finalise the debate but they appear to help the text.

Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 might add some flexibility to the proposal and I will look at them as well. I am unsure what their import might be. Generally such terms are not necessary but to be sure I will double check.

The remainder of the amendments are not necessary as the current drafting is sufficient to meet the Deputy's concerns and the terms of the Bill in those cases do not need to be altered. If the Deputy withdraws amendments No. 30, 31, 63, 68 and 69, we will re-examine them for Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 12, 13, 17, 23, 28, 32, 42, 46, 48, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 66 and 82 to 84, inclusive, are related to amendment No. 2 while amendment No. 89 is consequential so they will be taken together by agreement. I hope Deputy Durkan got plenty of notice of this in his list on Friday because even I am getting confused reading out the numbers of these amendments.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, line 13, to delete "multiplex" and substitute "transmission system or systems".

It takes a lot to confuse the Chairman.

It does not really.

Sometimes the Chairman confuses me.

I am only concerned that the electorate of Cork North-Central is not confused.

I hope the Chairman does not confuse the electorate the way he confuses us. It will take some time to go through this group of amendments.

These amendments can be broadly taken together because they all deal with the definition of "technology". Instead of going through the amendments individually, if we have the general discussion, it might make things easier.

These amendments all refer to the technology or proposed technology to be used under the Bill and to whether the technology proposed should involve the multiplex system referred to or, if it is advancing at a fast pace, it might be better to avail of alternative technology. It would be simplest to recognise the extent to which the proposal, as encompassed in the Bill, is likely to meet the challenges of modern broadcasting when there are advances in technology on a daily basis. The multiplex proposals comprise a possibility but there are other possibilities such as Digital Radio Mondiale, DRM, which, if put together, can work side by side over long or short distances and be tailored to meet particular requirements. In December 2005, the Australian Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts said in respect of the proposed system that the adoption of a standard that is already ten years old, and which may be superseded, for implementation in a further two to three years would be irresponsible. I recognise that might not be the only view on the issue but it comes from those dealing with the technology.

It might be no harm to phrase the Bill in such a way as to be able to consider the various competitive alternatives that may be available while providing an efficient service to the consumer, who is the most important person in this discussion. Would it be possible to consider some of the options? For example, the digital audio broadcasting system, DAB, is said to be too costly for small stations and thus the increased threat of takeovers immediately emerges. This will have implications for existing local radio stations and those of the future.

The quality of reception must be borne in mind. We have had an opportunity to meet various people on all sides of the argument in this regard. The consumer will place heavy emphasis on the quality of reception and the ability to receive broadcasts as conveniently as possible in all circumstances, be it around this country, including places that cannot yet avail of the technologies in question, or in the diaspora. Deputies Stagg and Broughan have promoted the notion of extending services to the diaspora. In order to provide the required quality of service, it is essential that all technological options be examined.

If the wording of the Bill needs to be changed, now is the time to do so and to provide for any combination of technologies that can be put together realistically to deliver a high-quality service. Without making a political point, I contend there is no sense in doing some of the things we did in the past, such as building a road that was out of date as soon as it was opened. We have done that many times and there is no point in providing any service that becomes out of date in a short period. This is not a criticism of the Minister, his Department or anybody else. The lifespan of information technology is short and we must therefore see it for what it is, identify the best combination of technologies to be utilised and assess its ability to provide for the needs of the market. We must recognise that the market must be dealt with first.

We have had a general discussion, including the issue of DAB. Did Deputy Durkan mention the multiplex system also?

I did, in addition to DRM, FM, short wave and long wave radio and the various combinations of technologies that can be made available.

I agree wholeheartedly with the intent of all the amendments. They are based on a strong message enunciated on Second Stage to the effect that we did not want to hire hands in regard to technology. I will not repeat Deputy Durkan's arguments on this matter; suffice it to say that technology changes so fast that we should not pass primary legislation that will tie our hands or preclude broadcasters from using, at any stage, the most beneficial broadcasting technologies available. The legislation does not do this.

As with other Deputies, I note that those who made representations on this legislation seem to be under the strong impression that it is prescriptive and would exclude DAB or DAB2, or DRM. This is not the case. I agree with the sentiments expressed by the Deputy that the legislation should not be prescriptive and that we should not try to second-guess the broadcasters, the experts in this area, or predict the future, thereby tying up the legislation such that it would require revision every six or nine months owing to changes in technology.

I assure the Deputies that the legislation is not prescriptive. I received many representations on this matter and, having spoken to my officials, I am quite clear that the legislation should be technology-neutral. There was so much representation that I asked my officials whether we were missing something. We are not missing anything and anybody who wants to use DAB2 or DRM can do so. The primary legislation is to outline principles rather than the specific technology standards needed to support such principles. This is the sensible approach and the one the Deputies opposite are advocating. The legislation should not reference particular technology standards. The amendments seek to ensure we are technology-neutral and I assure the Deputies that the Bill is such.

Deputy Broughan's amendments require consideration from a different angle. Amendment No. 46, in particular, would require the Commission for Communications Regulation, ComReg, to establish in its own right a sound broadcasting multiplex. This would represent a very dramatic broadening of the functions of the commission and place it in the untenable position of being both the electronic communications regulator and a direct competitor to the sound broadcasting multiplex operators contracted by the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland. I am sure this was not Deputy Broughan's intention.

I note the Minister's point on ComReg being required to operate a multiplex. However, the amendment states the system established should reflect "as far as practicable" the most technologically advanced digital radio media. DAB2 and DRM are obviously included in this regard. Would it be useful to include a phrase such as the one I have proposed to ensure that, when the main multiplexes go to tender, which multiplexes are to provide coverage across the country, we would know at each stage that we were aiming to have the most technologically advanced equipment? Would it be possible, even on Report Stage, to incorporate some such phrase that might meet some of the amendments proposed, including some of those tabled by Deputy Durkan? We all received extensive briefings from former sound engineers in RTE and various other people who feel passionately about quality and who have been watching the DAB explosion and development in the UK. They feel we could come in ahead of DAB in our technology. While I understand the point being made by the Minister, is there some sort of phrase we could use that would always require the regulator to ensure that the MUXs were at the most advanced technological level we could have?

Part of the confusion in all of this is that we are reading this Bill on its own whereas it should be read in conjunction with the Radio and Television Act 1988 and the Broadcasting Authority Act 1960, in terms of what can or cannot be licensed. When these Acts are combined with this Bill, they allow all of the technologies to be licensed. I accept the point being made by the Deputies and we will consider whether it is possible to bring a reference to these Acts into the Bill or use the phrase "perhaps technology neutral". I will look at that for Report Stage to see if it is possible in order to make the issue as clear as we can.

How stands the amendment?

It would be helpful if the Minister did that and made specific reference to "neutrality of the technology" or whatever, or if he took steps to protect the Bill in terms of the technology to be used. That would meet all situations. We can resubmit the amendments on Report Stage and see how they get on then. I am happy to withdraw them now on that basis.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Amendment No. 4. not moved.

Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 85 and 86 are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, line 37, to delete "community or" and substitute "community,".

This is a technical amendment.

One of this group of amendments is in my name. I have a priority question due to be taken in the Dáil and may have to leave and come back to this debate.

Will we get somebody to move the Deputy's amendment?

Yes, if I am not back in time. It is amendment No. 11.

Has Deputy Stagg something to say on these amendments?

I want to say something on the section and thank the Chairman for allowing me in as I must be in the Chamber for the Order of Business.

Deputy Stagg is very welcome. We have not seen him here before, but he is more than welcome.

I have a special interest in section 3 of the legislation and thank the Minister for bringing it forward. I have no real idea about the rest of the Bill and will leave it to my colleagues to deal with that. I thank the Minister for bringing this forward and thank the Taoiseach for his interest in this aspect of the Bill.

Following my comments on Second Stage, I was contacted by senior personnel in RTE who objected to my saying that they were digging their heels in on this matter over a long period. If they assure me it is not their intention to dig in their heels, I will accept that but I am a strong believer in the adages that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and by their fruits we shall know them.

I have two instances of correspondence from RTE that I should make the committee aware of. Everyone received the letter from RTE outlining how expensive it would be to provide the service to Britain. I collected that information from RTE in 2005 and Mr. Goan wrote to me about it in great detail. He stated in his letter to me that the estimated cost associated with carrying a rights-encumbered television service based on RTE's Irish output on the freeview platform in the UK varied depending on the number of hours per day one wishes to broadcast, the time of day required and the increasing premium associated with carriage on DDT in the UK. He said that the most recent discussions on multiplex operations on the UK gave estimated costs which varied between £3 million and £5 million per annum allowing for the above variables. Re-purposing suitable programming for this new service would also carry a cost of £1 million per year.

The best research estimate for commercial return in the UK was that RTE would get nothing from advertising. I asked how much would have to be added to the television licence fee to garnish that amount and it came to 10 cent per week. I got that letter on 11 May 2005.

On 1 March 2007, we received this document from RTE telling us the cost of exactly the same services described here was between £3 million and £5 million. It states this is a free to air, i.e. no cost to consumers, method of terrestrial delivery that would be available throughout Britain but it is unlikely that any freeview slots would become available until later this year or even late in 2008. The total cost for this method would be approximately £26 million in one year with running costs of £23 million per year annually. I am puzzled how the figures could have changed so dramatically for the same service between 2005 and 2007. I am now in the position where I doubt that I should have withdrawn my comments about the digging in of heels.

Does Deputy Broughan have any comments on amendments No. 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 85 and 85?

As I said on Second Stage, the Labour Party is proud of the role Deputy Stagg has played in advancing the cause of broadcasting to the diaspora, particularly after the collapse of Tara in 2001. The maintenance of contact and the dissemination of Irish broadcasting to the Irish abroad and other interested people is a national political decision that the nation has made through this Bill. In that context, the Exchequer should be responsible for it. The BBC World Service is funded directly by the British Exchequer and not through the BBC licence fee. That is not just the case with the BBC, many other national governments see the broadcast voice of the country and its social and cultural values as important to the prestige of the nation. That is the rationale for proceeding with this section. Given that it is a major political decision and that it has been advanced by the Minister, Deputy Stagg and the Taoiseach, would it not be right to ensure that the funding for it comes directly from the Exchequer and that the national broadcaster does not have to bear the brunt of it?

The Minister did not get the chance to come back on some of the questions raised previously about programme rights and the possible lack of availability of Gaelic games. I know that like myself, the Minister has visited some emigrant centres in Birmingham, London and Manchester frequented by the older generation. Besides news and public affairs programmes, what these people love to watch and follow are Gaelic games, particularly when their own counties play. They particularly like to see these games live. Setanta began by tapping into this heartfelt need of the Irish diaspora in London and elsewhere. What issues must be addressed in this area and what approach does the Minister envisage? Will it be difficult to deal with this issue? The Minister already mentioned the possible freesat platform.

These are some of the many issues in this area and senior colleagues in the broadcasting industry are anxious to know how this will pan out in the future. Perhaps the Minister's general approach to the Bill was to keep it in fairly general terms with respect to technology and broadcasting abroad. On reflection, there may be merit in the fact that broadcasters are not tied down too prescriptively and have some leeway in these matters. However, to make a success of the Bill, the issue of rights must be addressed.

It is felt by the public broadcasters, RTE and TG4, and rightly so, that it is the nation that is deciding to do this. Perhaps the Government should take responsibility for it. Leaving the diaspora aside, it is something that we would, perhaps, like to have done to further develop the country and ensure our culture is promoted.

I realise we can follow the affairs of countries fairly closely through the web. In the past few weeks I have been following the French general election campaign, for example, and have found it very interesting to read the speeches of the three main candidates. We have the infrastructure to do that. However, on the broadcasting front, if we have decided to make a major national decision — I commend the Minister on that — will the Minister ensure it is funded as a national priority and task through the Exchequer?

Both the Minister and the previous Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, requested RTE to have a charter, to review programming and to ensure it addressed all the key elements of public service broadcasting. The Minister decided to increase the licence to €158 on the basis of the public service broadcaster's response to those requests. Given that it has responded well to the encouragement it got from the Oireachtas on these matters, could we end with a situation where we have placed a serious burden on the broadcaster? I note what Deputy Stagg said in this regard. Perhaps the best thing for the licence fee and any available funding is to spend it on the best possible programmes in the public service space as, ultimately, that is what public service broadcasting is about. Will the Minister address these issues in his response?

I was worried for a moment that my colleague was displaying masochistic tendencies in looking at the French general election before our general election has been called. There is a serious need for a second look. Perhaps the Minister would look at that as well.

The French Labour Party has a very good candidate.

I am told that the French will be reciprocating by looking in at Dublin North-East.

Amendment No. 5 is merely an accommodating amendment in which it is proposed to delete the word "or". Amendment No. 2 proposes to insert the words ", or international" after the word "regional". It now refers to services of local, community, regional or international character. It merely extends the various concepts — local, community, regional or international. The word "national" is not mentioned. It may be unnecessary. If the Minister believes otherwise perhaps he would indicate that when he has the opportunity.

We have heard a number of Second Stage speeches. I find I am in agreement with some of the speakers. However, I am not allowed to express a view at the select committee, although I can do so in the House. I met a number of interesting groups last week in London who are looking forward to being able to receive the services when they are introduced. In particular, they want to know what is happening in Parliament. I am sure they will be very keen to watch "Oireachtas Report" and other similar programmes. The sooner the better the services are introduced.

I struggled to discern which amendments Deputies were speaking to. In deference to the Chair's earlier ruling, I will do my best to stick to the amendments.

All these amendments deal with the remit of the RTE Authority and consequent reporting obligations. Deputy Durkan's amendments Nos. 5 and 6 amend the core remit of RTE to allow it to provide international broadcasting services. That is covered by the existing text of section 3 which mandates RTE to broadcast to Irish communities abroad. It already provides sufficient latitude and direction in regard to broadcasting overseas.

I am sure it was not Deputy Broughan's intention, but amendments Nos. 9 and 10 would have the effect of requiring the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland to establish the proposed new television and radio services for Irish communities abroad either on its own or with the RTE Authority and then to ensure that any such television service would have to approximate the existing schedules of the RTE 1, RTE 2 and TG4 channels. In effect it would require the broadcasting regulator to become directly involved in broadcasting activities. That would create the potential for serious conflicts of interest, which would not be a good idea. Perhaps the Deputy would re-examine these amendments with a view to tightening them up and resubmitting them on Report Stage.

Amendment No. 11 as proposed by Deputy Eamon Ryan provides that RTE may choose any form of broadcasting transmission platform for the purpose of providing a broadcast service to Irish communities abroad. The current text of the Bill does not prescribe the method of transmission that RTE must use in delivering on its mandate to provide a broadcasting service to Irish communities abroad. It will, therefore, be for RTE to choose the most appropriate broadcasting transmission platform for the purposes of delivering on its mandate.

The remaining amendments Nos. 7, 11, 85 and 86 propose additional reporting and review requirements in regard to the new activities proposed for RTE, in particular digital broadcasting and broadcasting to Irish communities abroad. The requirements proposed in sections 14 and 15 of the Bill, which we can discuss later, and the existing corpus of broadcasting legislation are sufficient for that purpose. Consequently, I cannot accept any of these amendments.

A number of other points were made. The Bill provides that RTE currently gets its financing from licence fees and from its own income. There are different models. The BBC radio service is funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but the TV services are not. Polish television abroad is funded from television licence fees.

There was a question regarding rights and copyright issues. These issues are best dealt with by RTE. People in the UK and elsewhere have a particular interest in the GAA rights. However, Setanta has the GAA rights for the UK, so there would have to be a commercial arrangement to obtain those rights.

I accept the Minister's point regarding amendments Nos. 9 and 10 and I will withdraw them at the appropriate time.

I am not sure whether we addressed amendment No. 7. I was addressing the point made by Deputy Stagg. The amendment proposes that the authority should undertake and publish a comprehensive review of the remit, scope and activities of RTE in the context of the digitisation process. The authority has issued at least one document on the challenge of digitisation. However, other national broadcasters, including the BBC, seem to have gone further down the road. In the context of the reporting that the national broadcaster does to the people through us, would it be useful to ask it to report in regard to all the issues of digitisation, on how it is evolving, given the issues that will arise and the available technology? Clearly public service broadcasting should try to include to protect the free-to-air space.

I spoke yesterday to somebody in the communications industry who, I believe, has addressed our committee. He said that if we proceed speedily with the main tender for the multiplexes, mid to late 2008 should see a national roll-out of service. I understand there are eight multiplexes in total if we include the mobile ones so that the roll-out could be relatively fast. In regard to issues such as non-coverage, free-to-air channels from the UK and so on brought to our attention by the broadcasters, the Ceanaire of RTE and the Ceanaire of TG4, would it be useful to have fairly regular reports?

On amendment No. 11, I am concerned that we should consider a wide variety of transmission systems in providing a broadcasting service and that we should not limit ourselves to any one country. We should look down the line at future demand for such a service in the US, New Zealand, Australia and a range of countries. That would require a range of different transmission systems, web-based, satellite or multiplex, which is the preferred option in this Bill. I wanted to include in the Bill an indication that our long-term targets are broad and that we should not restrict the authority in the way it fulfils this obligation.

We must be clear about the cost of the service, who will carry it and the returns in terms of viewing figures because that will be difficult to calculate when talking about small targeted communities — we are not aiming at a mass market audience. It should and will be possible, however, for anyone providing such a service to provide a report to the Government annually on the costs and viewing figures because it is not possible to measure success or failure otherwise. We must have a proper reporting mechanism to show who is watching.

The wording of the amendment could be improved but the principle is sound — we must be accountable. Even before we pass the Bill I would like an estimate from the Department as to what it believes this will cost. There should be some indication from RTE or the Department as to the preferred delivery system. If there is not yet a system in place, it is strange for us to be legislating. It is a valid argument that we should stitch into the operation of this service a requirement for a continuing annual public assessment of costs and viewing figures. It should be a public document so we can assess the service. That is not to undermine the laudable intention in providing such a service.

I agree with Deputy Broughan's comments on future broadcasting, particularly free-to-air and what will happen when the change over to digital occurs. We must be prepared and that is why he tabled the amendments.

I support amendment No. 11. The strength or weakness of the system we will provide for in the future will be determined by a number of factors such as cost, efficiency and the technology used. In comparisons between DAB and DRM, DAB is more expensive, the quality is not as consistent, smaller operators will not have the same access because it is more expensive and there will be planning issues because of the necessity for more antennae, something this committee knows about.

The points made by Deputy Eamon Ryan on this amendment accord with what we said on previous amendments. It is all about the package and its value and not taking on board any elements that are weak, such as planning. We could end up before An Bord Pleanála on countless occasions if we are committed to a particular technology when that should not be necessary. The proposals, as anticipated in this amendment, point in one direction.

No one technology or method of transmission is prescribed for use by RTE in delivering its mandate to provide a broadcasting service to Irish communities abroad. In response to Deputy Ryan, multiplex is not used for the service abroad at any stage. The Bill specifies Irish communities abroad rather than specific countries. Therefore it is not limited to the UK.

I addressed the amendments relating to reporting requirements earlier. In response to Deputy Broughan, we can ask RTE, as part of its reporting on its customer charter, to keep us informed of progress in the area of concern. This committee has been very active in its areas of responsibility and I suggest it could ask RTE to come in once a year to deal with the issue and report to the Oireachtas on the digitisation of the service. There is no need for that to be included in the legislation. We have fairly extensive reporting mechanisms included in section 15, but in light of the Deputies' suggestions, we will look at the issue again for Report Stage to see whether we need to specify further in the customer charter or whether we can get some understanding between now and then that there will be regular reporting.

I did not mention amendments Nos. 85 and 86. Amendment No. 85 relates to reporting to the Oireachtas. I have it constantly in mind — I dream about it all the time — that a Minister should report regularly to the Oireachtas to provide the maximum accountability, transparency and democracy. Amendment No. 86, raises the issues of the quality and range of the delivery of the service. Some technology has a better range and quality than other technology. The amendment is complementary to what previous speakers and the Minister have said. I am glad to leave it to the Minister to deal with the issues and raise the amendments again on Report Stage to discuss what he has agreed in this regard. I thank him for accommodating the Opposition in this area and for his spirit of co-operation. Hopefully, this means we will achieve legislation that will benefit everybody.

For clarification, the Deputy spoke about digital radio mondial, DRM, and digital radio broadcasting. Is this similar to VHS and Betamax, where people voted with their feet and decided to go VHS rather than Betamax? Is this what has happened with DAB where people have voted with their feet? For example, in the United Kingdom the number of radios being sold over the counter to replace analog radios is increasing rapidly. The clerk and I went on a fact-finding mission last year to the BBC with regard to DAB and DTT where we learned a tremendous amount. The take-up of DAB seems to indicate this is the system people are moving towards. Perhaps, therefore, the Minister is correct in what he is doing.

Did the Chairman go into Dixons while there?

We were in Shaftesbury Avenue where the—

Dixons has barely stopped selling analog devices.

I reported back to the committee on that trip. If Currys and Dixons stock the DAB devices now, they will not continue to stock analog devices. The Minister and his officials have got it right regarding DAB.

I commend the Minister on accepting my point and look forward to his response thereto on Report Stage. It is no harm to stipulate that the RTE Authority should provide a report to the committee. This may help in regard to how one approaches the reviewing mechanisms.

I take the Minister's point that the wording is so broad as not to preclude any technology or territory. However, can he indicate whether the Department knows the first market or community to be considered, or the technologies and their costs?

We do not want to be prescriptive in the Department but want to put the legislation in place to allow RTE to carry out its functions in this regard. The discussions I have heard on this topic generally concerned the UK market, although not exclusively. The focus has been on the Irish community in the United Kingdom.

RTE has produced reports and I am not sure whether it wants to make public its estimates and costs. It has addressed this matter in considerable detail and I have a high stack on reports thereon in my office. All the technical details and other details are available. They are probably commercially sensitive but I am sure RTE would facilitate Members of the Oireachtas if they wanted to examine them confidentially.

Regardless of the costs, is it the intention of the Government that they should be borne by the RTE Authority? Given that this issue relates to the Department of Foreign Affairs in addition to the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, will the Exchequer bear the costs? What is the Government's intention in this regard?

The Bill is drafted on the basis that RTE will bear the cost of broadcasting to the Irish community abroad.

Will that require an increase in the licence fee or a scaling back of existing services?

The one thing I have learned about RTE is that it is very skilled at making cases for licence fee increases. I will not encourage this in any way.

We had this discussion some minutes ago.

Given that we are getting used to the 5% fund, and that RTE and TG4 have done well in that regard, is it not a case of another salami slice being taken from the licence fee if a certain tranche of money is to be set aside for broadcasting to those abroad? Ultimately, the cost will represent a serious imposition on the public service broadcaster.

RTE gets its money from the taxpayer and commercial activities. Regardless of whether it comes from licence fees or other taxpayer sources, it is still from the taxpayer.

We are talking about a multi-million euro investment in the first instance and this must have an effect on the operations of existing programming. Is this not the case?

It is a matter with which RTE must deal. I am sure it will do so in the same way it dealt with the increases it sought in the past to the amount of public service broadcasting, current affairs and Irish programming. The Government has met its requests very reasonably. The licence fee has increased probably by 50% or 60% over the past four or five years, but the cost in question would be a cost on RTE as a body.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 8, 18 to 22, inclusive, 24 to 27, inclusive, 33, 35, 39, 40, 41, 47 and 49 to 51, inclusive, are related. Amendment No. 35 is a technical alternative to amendment No. 34. These amendments may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 4, subsection (1), between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following:

"(b) the authority may contract an outside body to establish, maintain and operate the multiplexes subject to the approval of the Minister,”.

It is difficult to get the wording of the amendment right. The amendment raises a question concerning the reason the RTE Authority must manage the first two multiplexes carrying the Irish public service channels, TV3 and possibly the BBC or other channels. While I am a supporter and defender of the public broadcaster, its chief role should be in the area of content provision. We should maintain the main aspects of transmission in broadcasting in State ownership. My understanding of the technology involved is that one could easily separate it out and the multiplex providers could liaise or work with the existing transmission network. I throw open the possibility that an outside body, rather than the RTE Authority, could manage the system. While I do not have a fixed view on the matter, this possibility should be considered.

I ask the Minister to outline his views on the reason he wants the RTE Authority to manage the first two multiplexes and possibly a third one. Would it not be preferable, in establishing a system in which the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland or multiplex operators would commission, to have the system managed by an independent body that would treat RTE content in the same way as it would treat the content of TV3 or any other provider? Why does the Minister want the RTE Authority to have this specific responsibility?

Deputy Durkan and the Minister have tabled a number of the amendments in the group.

My amendment No. 19 reverts to providing for the insertion of one of my old favourites, the term "after reference to the Oireachtas", which has a different meaning in this case. As we move towards having sweeping legislation introduced at the behest of the European Union, the tendency is to overlook small details. Some time ago we were alerted to an example of this in EU legislation in an area distinct from broadcasting. It is no harm to introduce provisions relating to that old-fashioned parliamentary body, the Oireachtas. Parliaments are becoming less and less fashionable throughout Europe where decisions are increasingly taken behind the scenes. I speak to amendment No. 19 on that basis.

Amendment No. 20 provides for the insertion of the words, "in line with requirements", because these may change from time to time. It may be possible or necessary, for example, to alter technology, frequency, quality or whatever the case may be. In addition, the requirements may be dictated by various external or unanticipated issues, for instance, quality of signal may be dictated by the location of masts which, in turn, may be dictated by the distance from the listener or viewer, that is, the consumer. All these factors should be borne in mind. I ask the Minister to comment.

Essentially, we need a product which is tried and tested and ready and fit to meet the market of the future, rather than one that trails behind or is being tested as part of a pilot scheme. Technology now either works or does not work, it is that simple, there is no half-way house. It might be a good idea to insert this line.

Amendment No. 24 is a ministerial amendment. Amendments Nos. 25 and 27 were tabled by Deputy Durkan.

Amendment No. 25 contains the same provision for Oireachtas approval as the amendment I referred to before. It is not a popular provision, and this applies to Governments of all shades, Ministers do not want to be annoyed by the Oireachtas poking its nose into their business. It does no harm, however, to have such a provision for insurance, it is good for democracy and for the safety of Ministers. It provides supervision that, although the Minister might resent it, could be of benefit to him. Oireachtas approval does no harm.

Amendment No. 27 is similar to the debate we have already had on the quality and quantity sufficient to meet current and future needs, it speaks for itself. The Bill must reflect that vision throughout and from what the Minister has said, it appears that he agrees. I would be happy to withdraw this amendment if the Minister will strengthen the Bill along those lines. It is not a departure from what the Minister said.

I will go to Deputy Broughan. Deputy Durkan might consider amendments Nos. 35, 49, 50 and 51. Deputy Broughan will speak on amendments No. 33, 40 and 47.

These amendments relate to the responsibilities and functions of the commission and the authority regarding the multiplexes. There are two themes in the amendments, to protect public service broadcasting and the national shared space for the public service within the new digitised system, and the concerns that people might have that as the platform is rolled out, it will be sufficiently attractive to ensure the national broadcasters and our other commercial broadcasters are not relegated to a backwater. I tabled a further amendment asking for the six multiplexes to go forward at the same time.

Amendment No. 33 seeks to ensure an additional function for the commission, namely, that Irish public service broadcast obligations are complied with by multiplex contractors. The Minister might give us an indication of the cost of the roll-out for that. I have heard estimates of €100 million to €120 million. I said on Second Stage that in Britain, this is being looked at as one of the largest infrastructural engineering challenges in the history of the country. In our situation, it appears the infrastructure is just as expensive. In amendment No. 40 it is proposed in section 5 (2) to insert after the word "State" the phrase "and which multiplex shall be accessible to all Irish broadcasters including TV3, City Channel, Channel 6 and Setanta Sports". It has been pointed out to me that Setanta is not Irish-owned. However, my concern is that all the national channels should be well catered for when this roll-out happens. Are we talking about six channels per multiplex, or is it more?

We need to have a second multiplex as a stand-by. The British channels we have watched historically would also be on the platform, so that it would be a strong platform in terms of choice in free-to-air viewing. That is the core of these amendments. The Minister has an important opportunity to ensure that will be the case. We are talking about the fifth and sixth multiplexes in terms of the high definition platform. I am trying to ensure that the platform is as attractive as possible and that the public broadcasters or the national channels will not end up in a backwater. It has been suggested in the broadcasting arena that there may be other companies whose business model is built upon a somewhat similar delivery of analogue services and that, for the cost of the set-top box, if he gets it right, the Minister would be able to offer the public service, national channels and a range of British broadcasters. In these amendments I am seeking to ensure the Minister does precisely that. The Minister may say he does not want to be prescriptive. However, there is grave concern about the spill-over effect where people have free-to-air broadcasting of the British channels on the east coast and along the Border with the Six Counties. This is an issue that also came up in regard to the analogue area. These amendments afford the Minister an opportunity to set up those four multiplexes in as strong a position and with as varied a content as possible with public service broadcasting at the heart of it.

Amendment No. 37 is related. I thought the MUXs, as the engineers call them, or the multiplexes, should all go together. It could be compared to the M50 which was built with two lanes when we should, perhaps, have built flyovers and bigger lanes. My colleague probably does not agree with that and that the M50 should have been a deluxe ring road for Dublin from day one.

We are discussing amendment No. 37.

It is somewhat similar. I am seeking to establish in the Bill that the platform will be as varied and strong as possible from day one and that we will move very quickly on it.

I will call Deputy Durkan on amendments Nos. 35, 41 and 49 to 51, inclusive. We will then suspend and the perhaps the Minister will respond when we return.

On amendment No. 35, it is proposed in section 4 (5) to insert after the word "contract" the words "or other contract capable of meeting requirements". The purpose of this amendment is to ensure the Minister is not tied to a particular contract or combination of contracts. It is similar to Deputy Broughan's proposal that the Minister should utilise any option or combination of options available to him. I will outline the options. We can do a job now which will meet the requirements of the next year or two or we can put in place the technology to meet the requirements of the foreseeable future. Deputy Broughan asks which is the right thing to do. Is it not better to take the second option and save money rather than wait a couple of years and pay more for advanced technology when it will be more expensive? The insertion of the words, "or other contracts capable of meeting requirements" gives the Minister options, provided they can be met. The requirements of the consumer are the most important.

Amendment No. 41 is similar to an amendment discussed previously and I do not propose to discuss it now.

Amendment No. 49 anticipates the replacement of the analogue system by a different system. It will ensure that communities are not left without service. Some communities may be unable to avail of the new technology for a certain time. I will withdraw this amendment on the understanding that it can be resubmitted on Report Stage. I ask the Minister to consider this proposal.

I see you looking furtively at the monitor, Chairman.

Leaders' Questions have commenced in the Dáil.

You realise I am missing Leaders' Questions, which will be a major blot on my copy when I speak to the leader of my party at a later stage.

Your antennae are well tuned.

My antennae are not working very well. I should have been aware that Leaders' Questions had commenced, even though the monitor is behind me.

Chairman, I understood we had agreed to suspend at 4.30 p.m.

The committee agreed to deal with this group of Deputy Durkan's amendments before suspending.

My last amendment in this group is amendment No. 51. It speaks for itself. I am sure the Minister, like all Meath men, will not look a gift horse in the mouth. I know he will grasp this proposal with both hands and avail of the opportunity to insert this amendment, subject to good practice and competition rules which we must abide by in the marketplace and in all aspects of service and utility provision.

Is it agreed that the sitting suspends now and resumes after the Order of Business in the Dáil? Agreed.

Sitting suspended at 4.34 p.m. and resumed at 5.13 p.m.

Members had completed their discussion of the amendments in this group so we will resume now with the Minister's response.

I will discuss my amendments Nos. 18, 21, 22, 24, 26, 34 and 39, and in doing that will address most of the points raised in the other amendments in the group. This grouping of amendments relates, generally, to the carriage of various channels on the DTT system. The Government amendments make a number of changes to the rules concerning the carriage of TG4 and the television programme service contractor, TV3, on the first RTE multiplex. The amendments do several things. Amendments Nos. 18 and 24 allow for consultation with ComReg regarding the charges for carriage of TG4 and TV3 on the RTE multiplex. They will give greater certainty to TG4, TV3 and other parties as to the transparency around the transmission costs charged by RTE for carriage on its multiplex.

Amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 34 clarify the role of the BCI in requesting whether the television programmes service contractor, currently TV3, is carried on the RTE multiplex. Amendment No. 34 removes some uncertainty pointed out by the BCI as to whether it must endeavour to provide for TV3 on a separate multiplex in advance of TV3 being carried on the RTE multiplex.

Amendments Nos. 26 to 39 allow for further consultation with the BCI to ensure that both TG4 and TV3, if carried, have adequate digital capacity on the RTE multiplex. Other amendments in the category have been suggested by Deputies Eamon Ryan, Broughan and Durkan but our amendments cover the points they raise and therefore I will not accept their amendments.

Amendment No. 8 tabled by Deputy Eamon Ryan suggests that RTE can subcontract its activities. That amendment is not necessary because it is already the case, it is practice and is not required in legislation. Amendments Nos. 19, 27, 35, 41, 49, 50 and 51 propose unnecessary elaboration of technical matters and I am advised by the draftsman that they are not suitable.

Amendments Nos. 20 and 25 propose that the Minister would consult with the Oireachtas before allocating certain rights to TG4 and TV3. Again, Deputy Durkan makes the point regularly about Oireachtas scrutiny and keeping Ministers on their toes. I do not disagree with the principle as enunciated but there is a difference between doing that in the context of broad policy issues and accountability to the House and these cases where the rights are of a technical and specific nature that relate to follow-on services to be provided by RTE. It is more appropriate in giving certainty to broadcasters that the Minister would decide, having consulted with the relevant regulators because they are the experts.

Amendment No. 33 proposes that public service broadcasting standards be applied to commercial operators and multiplex contracts licensed by the BCI. Commercial operators are in the business to make money, they are bound by standards set out in the Television Without Frontiers Directive and, if regulated under Irish law, by the BCI codes and rules. It would not make sense to require them to apply public service standards.

Amendment No. 40 proposes that Irish channels such as TV3, City Channel, Channel 6 and Setanta Sports should be specifically provided for. TV3, as the television programme service provider, is provided for in the legislation through the actions of the BCI. The other channels are commercial operators that can apply to the BCI for multiplex contracts if they wish.

Amendment No. 47 seeks to extend the use of a sound broadcasting multiplex to other broadcasters beyond RTE, which it is clearly intended for. I cannot accept those amendments because we are meeting the Deputies' requirements in the amendments that we have tabled.

The general question was asked as to why RTE would get the first MUX and why we have decided on the various MUXs as we have. Our basic principle in this legislation is to facilitate the free-to-air public service broadcasting channels and the first MUX is for those free-to-air channels. We allowed TV3 to decide if it wanted to come on board. The second MUX is for the high definition spectrum.

Members asked about the cost of DTT. It will depend on a number of issues such as the number of sites and topography. RTE has done some sums but the information is commercially sensitive so I will not quote any figures. If RTE wants to disclose them that is fine but I do not intend going down that route at this stage. The cost of the roll-out will be dealt with by RTE.

I wish to address amendment No. 8 in my name and the Minister's amendment No. 34. My amendment is an attempt to avoid having to redraft the legislation. Why does the authority have to manage a mux rather than, as Deputy Broughan suggested, the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland managing all six? If the Minister requires that the first one will carry public service channels he could regulate or direct the commission in that regard. What is the thinking behind the requirement that the authority should maintain the first one or two?

In regard to the Minister's amendment No. 34, is he saying he will allow the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland to help negotiate what would possibly be a difficult technical arrangement under which TV3 would be available on a digital service in the North? Given that 70% of households at present receive either satellite or cable delivered multichannel services, for this public service platform to compete and survive and be attractive it will have to carry more than the four public service and TV3 channels and it would also have to carry BBC, ITV and other services. It would, therefore, make sense to have reciprocal arrangements under which we provide our main public service broadcasting channels in the North and Northern Ireland provides its public service channels in the South. Rather than the second mux being used for high definition as the Minister outlined here, would the most obvious development not be for the first two MUXs to carry all eight or so of the main Northern and Southern public service channels, and that this be done straight away? There will be an analogue switch-off within three years, and if the Minister does not get this right from the start by having a free-to-air service that can cope with the analogue switch-off by providing an alternative broad spectrum of public service channels, the viability of the free-to-air digital service will be called into question.

We are providing for RTE to operate the first MUX because, under the 1960 Act, RTE has always been involved in its own transmission and has always had a public service broadcasting remit. It was felt, therefore, that this was the most appropriate course. I have no doubt that with the full roll-out of the DTT services multiplex operators will offer UK television services, given the level of demand in the Irish market. Given that the BBC analogue switch-off is starting in 2008, there is no doubt that any commercial entity worth its salt will negotiate to get the most attractive multiplex it can. That is how this area will operate commercially in the future. We began with RTE because our aim was to ensure that public service broadcasting continued on a free-to-air basis and that space was provided for it, specifically if it went to high definition. It is important to make that clear declaration because it is part of the Government's commitment.

The Minister is aware that 70% of the country is already covered by satellite and there is no restriction in rolling that out to the rest of the country. The satellite is freely available and there is very little cost to the operator as the service is already being provided in the United Kingdom. It is a very nice business. The operator need only insert advertising and has no real additional cost. Given that most urban areas are covered by cable, where would be the commercial viability in trying to take on those two existing dominant businesses with very low cost structures? What would be the commercial case for trying to provide a competing service on a multiplex system? This area requires Government regulation and co-operation between the British and Irish Governments to provide our channels to Northern Ireland with a reciprocal arrangement to provide British public service channels to the rest of Ireland. The market would not deliver such services. In those circumstances we would be solely reliant on satellite or cable providers which are owned outside the State. That would not be a proper development of broadcasting.

We speak of the Irish diaspora but Northern Ireland presents a different issue. Many years ago, we ensured that RTE was available in Northern Ireland. This has meant, for example, that the mighty struggles of the Armagh and Tyrone mux football teams could be seen by Northern viewers. I am also reminded of the Foyle and Carlingford Fisheries Bill. The Bill we are discussing today will bring the two parts of Ireland much closer together. That is why I support the points made by Deputy Ryan. We have a special responsibility in this area.

We have become used to following Northern Ireland affairs through BBC and UTV, and RTE has competed successfully with those stations. We must ensure that a company, such as NTL, is not enabled to provide such programming on a pay-per-view basis. The Minister has an opportunity to provide the widest possible choice of national public and commercial channels. He should give the necessary authority to the regulator. It will be a disaster for public service broadcasting if our digital terrestrial television platform becomes a backwater.

I agree with Deputies Ryan and Broughan. During the discussion on an earlier amendment I referred to the importance of covering the entire map if we are to meet the requirements of the market. I am not convinced that private enterprise will undertake the contract required. It will be difficult to get them to do it except on a cherry-picking basis. Everybody will cherry-pick and look for the easiest way out or for what is most beneficial to them. Commercial forces dictate the market. My concern is that the points raised by Deputies Eamon Ryan and Broughan may not be adequately covered by this legislation and that we could find ourselves wondering in a year or two why we did not make specific legislative provision to ensure particular areas were targeted while utilising all possible technology in that regard. We should seek to ensure as we move forward that we do not leave groups of people or particular areas without services. We should not allow them to fall between stools. There is a possibility this could happen. I would be happy if the Minister were to accept the amendment.

We are, to an extent, talking at cross purposes. We are all expressing the desirability that the free-to-air service, which currently exists in respect of channels such as BBC1, BBC2, UTV, HTV and others, should continue. While I agree it would be great if they were included on a DTT platform I cannot legislate that they do so or prevent them from going on to a commercial platform. It is not possible for me to do this.

I expect that those involved in this business, including RTE, TV3 and others, will pull together in an effort to include on their platform as many of the interesting channels as they possibly can. While they will, in some cases, do this on a free-to-air basis others will receive the channels on a subscription basis. I agree with Deputies, particularly given the circumstances in which we find ourselves, that it is desirable, on an east-west, North-South basis, that there be mutual recognition of each other's channels. I do not know whether that is a commercial proposition for, say, the BBC going on a platform with the BBC in the UK. However, it is something which the Government would support.

None of the amendments before us deals directly with that issue and nothing currently provided in the legislation prohibits this from happening. Deputy Eamon Ryan spoke about satellites. Satellite is an expensive premium-type service while DTT is a less expensive option. I take the point that we will be relying to a certain extent on people realising such a market exists. On the UK side, the BBC could only become free-to-air officially if it changes its charter. It is only accidental that we are receiving that service now. We have had general talks with the BBC in this regard. There is nothing in the amendments that would result in changing the situation. In addition, there is nothing in the Bill which would prevent the BBC or UTV from joining platforms here.

I accept what the Minister is saying. However, I might add that we were looking for something to which we could tie that particular realm of the market into the future and came up with different ways of doing so. While we have found different ways of doing so, they all take the same direction. I recognise the Minister's position fully and the point he makes.

While there is no doubt that satellite transmission is a very expensive and enterprising business, the marginal cost of servicing the Irish market is relatively low due to the pre-existing services in the UK. If one can insert advertising in the service without any regulatory control, it becomes a more attractive business still. Amendment No. 36 represented my attempt to stitch in provisions in this context. The Minister says that while he may wish it, he cannot will it to happen but, as in the energy area, the solution would be to adopt an all-island approach.

It behoves us to ensure in the legislation that whatever digital technology is adopted in the North can be matched or followed here to make it easier to establish all-island coverage. My understanding was that there was discussion on this matter at the negotiations at St. Andrews. While the spillover of the BBC service to the east coast of the South was accidental, it had a significant effect in uniting the island in the information available. There is a clear sense among the Opposition parties that it would be positive to develop free-to-air access in the North to public sector channels from the South. Both Governments could direct the broadcasting authorities concerned to make provisions in this context. There is a political dimension to such provision which is separate completely from the broadcasting one. Is it not a policy we could pursue at intergovernmental level rather than hope the market will provide in what is already a very competitive arena? I note in that context that two players hold 70% of the market.

The Good Friday Agreement contained specific mention of the transmission of TG4 in Northern Ireland, to which end a transmitter was situated in the hills behind Belfast. I had the pleasure of switching it on some time ago. I understand the matter has been discussed in broad terms at intergovernmental level and that it is something the Government considers will be important if achievable. I cannot go further than to state that, as the matter has not progressed beyond those discussions. The enactment of this legislation and our discussions of DTT indicate that all-island transmission may be facilitated in future. I cannot provide for it by amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 9 to 13, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 5, subsection (2)(a), line 32, after “means” to insert “of”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 90 is consequential on amendment No. 15 and they may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 5, subsection (2)(a), between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:

"(iii) the proceedings of Dáil and Seanad Éireann to be known as Oireachtas t.v.".

When I tabled this amendment, I was trying to figure out how best to introduce the idea of a specific channel for broadcasting the proceedings of Dáil and Seanad Éireann. There are cynics both inside and outside the Oireachtas who will think this is a non-starter, however, I think they are wrong. An Oireachtas television channel presents an opportunity for broadcasting generally, Parliament and the community at large. The public would benefit from seeing public representatives perform in public on an ongoing basis. Some may snigger. That is the way democracy works.

We should never be ashamed to observe democracy in its rawest form, with the public representative standing up in public and speaking on a subject. It might improve the standard of speaking and discourage the reliance on scripts prepared by a person which are regurgitated in the various Chambers. It would also encourage Ministers and Members to attend debates in the Chamber.

I am not suggesting that the Minister or his colleagues were reluctant, but there is a tendency for the Minister of State at the Department to sit in the Chamber. We need to bring the public into the debate on the legislation. People will always stop a Member on the street and engage him or her in a conversation on something he or she saw in TG4. None of us is around to see what is on TG4, but it has live broadcasts from the Oireachtas. People may contend that such a channel could not be on all day long, but if the proceedings are interfaced with the work of the committees, it could be made interesting. A similar type of channel is very successful in Canada. Nobody, except those present in the Gallery, ever takes an interest in the committee system. It is a way of burying the Legislature alive.

Serving on a committee has been compared with being in purgatory.

It could even be the other place sometimes. The public will be more engaged and broadcasting will be more engaged with the needs of the public. The contract can go to anybody, whether it be a variation of the multiplexes, RTE or other contractors. It would give a significant opportunity to broadcasting contractors who are anxious to provide such a television service. TG4 has proved that it can make its station interesting and attractive by introducing items not necessarily regarded as normal for an all-Irish station. It has done very well to the extent that most people will watch something on TG4 at some time over a few days.

It is time to do something about a parliamentary broadcasting channel and I am interested in what the Minister has to say on this. I will press the amendment, but I would like to hear the Minister's thoughts on the matter. It is an important issue as we move forward in the maelstrom of electoral activity about to engulf us.

I used to be a Whip at a time when we had a broadcasting committee in the House. We had lengthy talks on the matter, particularly when the Windmill Lane contract ended. As committee members know, Windmill has the current contract and is based across the road. After a competitive tendering process at that time Windmill won the contract by beating the Intermission company — which films the British Parliament — which had also made a strong submission. At the time the primary response lay with the Oireachtas and we spent some of our budget on filming of proceedings.

It would not take much more to turn the current recording process into a full-scale channel and I agree with Deputy Durkan we should do so. Approximately ten years ago when I was a member of Dublin City Council, I asked for council meetings to be recorded on video. We have now reached a stage where council meetings are being webcast. Fingal County Council proceedings have been webcast for three or four months and last night Dublin City Council proceedings were webcast for the first time. Local government is of major interest and many constituents are anxious to ensure their councillors are present and contributing to council meetings. Broadcasts are one way the public can check up on this.

I echo what Deputy Durkan said. There is much interest in parliamentary proceedings. For example, last Wednesday I was asked to comment on the Order of Business for a show on RTE One. It was something like commenting on a match because I had to say how the Taoiseach and the leaders of the Fine Gael, Labour and Green parties did etc. I had never taken part in this before and it struck me that there is significant interest in what goes on. Several people said to me they saw me on the show.

There is definitely interest in televised proceedings. The United States has C-SPAN and the UK has BBC Parliament. I hope we get BBC Parliament here. To be fair, Sky Television covers Ministers' Question Time from the British House of Commons on the only platform available to us. It also covers the Order of Business there or periods when the Prime Minister is at the despatch box. It is much rougher than our Order of Business; another league in some respects. We need to up the ante here.

There is no question but that we need to broadcast proceedings. When I was on the broadcasting committee and we were conducting the tendering process for the recording contract, I felt the initiative should come from that. At the time TG4 expressed interest. With the multiplex by-way, surely both RTE One and TG4 will end up with a family of channels. If funding is adequate and they are both reasonably successful, I see no reason they should not develop this. The ceannaire of TG4 expressed a profound interest in a public affairs channel.

Local government should be broadcast as should other areas of interest. For example, the issue of the Lansdowne Road stadium and An Bord Pleanála, issues to do with Cork harbour and other public business should be broadcast. Proceedings on the Bill we will deal with next week and issues relating to ComReg would also be of interest. ComReg can conduct some issues in public and some companies are unhappy about that. It would be interesting for the public if the telecommunications companies made their case in public to the regulator and commissioners while we all watch. The business should be done in public and we should facilitate that.

I support the amendment. The initiative should come from us and perhaps the Minister could get the ball rolling. TG4 seems to be saying it would go for a second Parliament channel if we offered it. There would be a rolling programme of Oireachtas business and it could cover local affairs as well. The public would be fascinated, although some people would not — they would be annoyed. I remember when Deputy Rabbitte referred to the graveyard shift when "Oireachtas Report" is broadcast.

He said it is watched by drunks and insomniacs. I would not mind but it is a great programme.

It is. There is a strong case for an Oireachtas channel and a public affairs channel. I commend Deputy Durkan for tabling the amendment.

Are we saying that the dedicated Oireachtas channel would be on the new multiplex digital roll-out and would be part of its EPG? Would the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission pay for that?

Yes. We would need skilled broadcasters but I would be happy if one of the national or commercial channels wanted to do it.

A dedicated channel could be paid for by the Houses of the Oireachtas.

We would have to take the initiative. We give a lot of money to Windmill Lane Recording Studios to film us as it is.

I do not see this being a burden on the Houses of the Oireachtas, it could have commercial value, despite what the cynics think. It could have advertising potential and be very competitive in the marketplace. It could be incisive, leading and compelling viewing. I see a disbelieving look on some faces but I disagree, it has great potential and will work.

I agree with Deputy Broughan. We could leave this to the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission forever and it will never happen, it must happen by way of legislation. We must make the provision, in partnership or otherwise, but it can be done and this is the opportunity to do it.

Deputies will be pleased to hear there is no bar on RTE carrying the proceedings in the Houses of the Oireachtas or the European Parliament as part of its national television broadcasting service. It is already provided for in section 28(2) of the Broadcasting Act 2001, which currently requires the RTE Authority to broadcast programmes that provide coverage of the proceedings of the Houses of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament as part of its national television broadcasting service.

In this Bill, section 3(2)(a) in essence requires the RTE Authority to carry the national television broadcasting services of RTE and TG4 in digital form on a multiplex to be established by the authority. Putting the two together, it means the obligation is being placed on the RTE Authority to “provide for the broadcasting by digital means of the proceedings of Dáil and Seanad Éireann”. The legislation is in place but it is a matter for the Houses after that as to where it goes from there.

If RTE said it was going to broadcast RTE4 as a Parliament and public affairs channel, it would impinge on the customer charter and its programme of commitments. What attitude would the Minister have if it came forward with such a proposal?

I would not have any difficulty with RTE or any other channel deciding to establish a dedicated channel to cover local authorities or the European Parliament. I would encourage it because it would be good for democracy. The essential point is that this legislation does not prevent it. It specifically caters for it.

I note what the Minister says. The legislation does not prevent it but nor does it compel it. We need to propel the idea in some direction. The Minister is providing that the commission should take up this matter. Perhaps we have not explained this properly. This service will be sought after. Some people are cynical about it, but they are wrong. It has proved successful in Canada where there are day-long programmes of parliamentary proceedings and, because people must go to work and cannot watch television all day, they can return to the programme at various intervals and there are repeat broadcasts and so on. It is done extremely well.

The difficulty is that the output is edited, which is somebody else's idea of the way parliament works. That is not intended as a criticism of editors but simply to make the point that with the existing system and channels it is impossible to cater fully for what goes on in parliament. As a result members of parliament do not have to make an effort. Why should they? They say what they like whenever they like and the chances are that what they said will never be heard of again other than that in 100 years' time somebody might pick up a bound volume and marvel at how things were done in the past.

We should grasp the opportunity to examine this issue more seriously and deal with it instead of tossing it around like a useless football. The Minister has correctly stated that the Bill does not prevent the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings. However, neither does the Bill compel it. The Bill should at least propel it forward and we should do something to make it happen.

It would require partnership between the Oireachtas, the councils, the European Parliament and the broadcaster. The Joint Committee on Broadcasting and Parliamentary Information, which is a private committee, has very set views about how Parliament is filmed, what can be shown, how cameras can pan between Members and so on. There was a major debate about installing an extra camera. Parliament or any public assembly will have requirements. They will not want somebody shown having nodded off, which, unfortunately, may happen. Partnership is necessary if Parliament is to be shown in a reasonably good light. The 30th Dáil and the 31st Dáil will have similar requirements in an effort to show the Parliament at its best.

How stands amendment No. 15?

I will withdraw it if the Minister gives some indication that he will address the matter on Report Stage. Otherwise I will press the amendment.

I do not see that we can do anything other than facilitate in legislation the broadcasting of the proceedings of the Oireachtas. It is then a matter for the Houses of the Oireachtas, if they feel, as I and the members of this committee feel, that it should happen. That is something that should, perhaps, be taken up with the commission.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 16 is in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 37 and 57 are related. Amendments Nos. 16, 37 and 57 may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 5, subsection (2), between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:

"(b) The national television multiplex referred to in paragraph (a) shall be established as a matter of priority and shall, in due course, ensure the availability by free-to-air digital means of the national television broadcasting service referred to in paragraph (a)(i) to an extent similar to that such as is currently available by free-to-air analogue means.”.

This amendment is in response to various submissions made by Deputies on Second Stage who were concerned that the roll-out of DTT should take place quickly and that the extent of the coverage of RTE1 and RTE2 achieved through that roll-out is similar to that currently available from the analogue network. I agree with the Deputy it is important that viewers in regional and remote areas continue to have the same access to public service broadcasts. We are trying to ensure the Bill meets the sentiments expressed by the Deputies in amendments Nos. 37 and 57.

Would it be an improvement to say we will go ahead with the multiplexes contemporaneously as far as possible? What is the proposal? We have a pilot project currently and the Minister announced a second phase of that last weekend. Is the next step the process of putting it to tender? Presumably telecoms operators will apply and one will get the tender to roll it out around the 28 stations around the country. The Minister has come part of the way in saying the national television multiplex will be a priority and free to air.

The Minister knows our concerns. Without going back over previous arguments, he knows the free to air British channels could end up on a different platform and our platform could be isolated. Is it not his responsibility to try to ensure that he prepares the way for the widest possible range of broadcasting on the multiplexes? Therefore, should he not go with multiplexes? The first should be with the national broadcasters, the second with the high definition, etc. Would it not be in the interest of the State that the Minister ensures that whoever wins the contract rolls out the whole and leaves as much space in the spectrum as possible for whatever arrangements need to be made?

One operator I spoke to said it would be interested in the contract and if it won it would want to roll it out quickly, within a year and a half or so. Is it not possible that by accepting amendment No. 37 we could create a situation whereby we are covered when the switch-off date for Wales and Northern Ireland occurs? The people on the east coast and in the Border region could be covered if we act fast and decisively. Perhaps the use of the word "contemporaneously" in the amendment is not the correct way to express what I mean. I hoped to convince the Minister to get the multiplexes up and running. There are two more multiplexes to be used in the mobile industry. However, these six for broadcasting are critical and it is important the Minister tries to expedite them. I wish to press amendment No. 37.

With regard to the timescale, there is a limit to what the BCI will be able to do with regard to making decisions on different MUXs. In deference to members' suggestions, we have tried to make the legislation more specific with regard to the timescale, but we must pass the legislation before they can begin. As soon as the legislation is in place RTE can build one MUX immediately and the BCI must seek applications for three MUXs within six months of it being passed. The pilot will continue and I extend an invitation to Deputies to see phase 2 of the pilot as it is rolled out. It will continue until the national roll-out is in place. That is our timetable. Hopefully the legislation will be passed by the end of March or early April. We are talking about a competition before the end of the year. RTE is in the process of building a MUX and applications will be in for the other three MUXs within a six-month period. The process is moving quickly.

What happens on the second MUX?

The second MUX is vacant until we switch to high definition; it is a reserve. Deputy Broughan has accused me of being a black and white Minister.

An analogue Minister in a digital age.

He will be delighted to hear I have caught up with and passed the rest of Europe because yesterday we started phase 2 of the trial, where we are testing MPEG-4, and we are one of the few countries in Europe doing that. The Deputy's taunts goad me to greater action.

We are most impressed.

The worst thing is the leader of the British Conservative Party heard the comment and copied it. Our Parliament must be watched somewhere.

I was trying to figure out who copied whom.

Does this mean the Minister will be cycling into work with his driver behind him in the car?

It will take 18 months to build. We could be in operation by the end of 2008 or by the start of 2009.

I hope those words do not come back to haunt the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 5, subsection (3), line 48, after "with" to insert "the Commission for Communications Regulation,".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 6, subsection (5), line 3, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 6, subsection (5), lines 4 and 5, to delete all words from and including "and" in line 4 down to and including "section 4(5),” in line 5.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 23 not moved.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 6, subsection (6), line 15, after "with" to insert "the Commission for Communications Regulation,".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 25 not moved.

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 6, subsection (7), line 21, after "may" to insert the following:

", at the request of the television programme service contractor and after consultation with the Commission,".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 27 not moved.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendment No. 28 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 are related to amendment No. 29 and they will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 6, subsection (1), line 27, after "1960" to insert the following:

"and to ensure as far as practicable that Irish broadcasting services are readily accessible on the electronic programme guide".

This issue was raised when Channel 6 appeared before the committee. It was upset that on the Sky platform, on the electronic programme guide, it was very far down the list of channels. The idea was that channels would run in chronological order, which is important for Irish broadcasting. There is an arrangement between Sky and RTE whereby channel 101 is used for RTE1, channel 103 for TV3 and so on. There was a problem in regard to Channel 6 which was not covered by the earlier agreement with Sky.

Unless we can take some action to change it, the reality facing future Irish channels is that the EPG is owned and regulated by interests outside the State and they are not particularly concerned about Ireland, Irish interests or the Irish broadcasting sector. Irish channels, therefore, will go to the back of the queue.

The channels on our DTT system will be subject to regulation by the BCI which will be able to regulate the EPG for these channels. My colleagues in the Seanad were the first to make the point that it is important to ensure that, as far as is practicable, Irish broadcast services are readily accessible on the electronic programme guide and that in digital packages Irish channels do not end up way down the scale behind shopping, betting, horse racing channels and so on. We need to make sure the Irish voice is prominent and I am asking the Minister to do that to the extent possible.

On amendment No. 62, it occurred to me when I first read the Bill that we always lay out functions. Section 9(1) relates to the award of contracts. It provides that the commission shall consider every application for a multiplex contract received by it pursuant to a notice, etc., having regard to the character of the applicant, the adequacy of the expertise and experience, and the range and type of the programme material. To some extent we are talking about the technical infrastructure — minimum coverage area, national coverage and technical proposals — rather than content.

I felt we should have something along the lines of the new subsection (d) providing that the commission shall also have regard to the public service profile of the applicant and a clear commitment to public service broadcasting in the range and type of programme material or compilations of material proposed to be included in the multiplex by the applicant. One may say this is a technical section, but I felt there should be some reference to public service broadcasting, even at that level, to ensure that, as far as possible, there was a commitment in that area.

Amendment No. 62 is a minor amendment to ensure that applicants to the BCI provide details as to how they will ensure set-top box compatibility between different multiplexes and how they will also ensure that EPG-type information is available with regard to all services. The amendment tightens the stipulation that the BCI must consider issues around multiplex reception and compatibility across the multiplexes. It is vital that all television multiplexes in an area, including the RTE multiplex, can be seen on the one set-top box and the BCI seeks to ensure that applicants take this consideration on board in their applications.

In regard to amendment No. 29 on the positioning of Irish broadcasting services on the electronic programme guide, section 13 of the Bill provides that the provisions under section 16 of the 2001 Act relating to electronic programme guides for existing broadcasting services will now apply to DTT services. Section 16 of the 2001 Act, as amended, will provide that the BCI may give a direction to multiplex contractors who include and transmit an electronic programme guide as part of that multiplex. In addition, the existing provision under section 16(5) remains, that is, that any EPG produced under this section may easily be used by members of the public to access the programme schedules of Irish broadcasting services. That ensures that Irish broadcasting services will be in prominent positions on any EPG produced under a contract with the BCI under section 16. Provision for the positioning of Irish broadcasting services on DTT is covered by section 16 of the 2001 Act, as amended by section 13. The Deputy's amendment is covered under that provision.

In regard to amendment No. 61, we have no control over the Sky platform. That is why we want to move to having our own DTT.

Can we do nothing for Channel 6?

No. It is on channel 232. In regard to the Deputy's other amendment, I appreciate the reasoning behind the amendment. However, sections 3 and 4 set out the provisions for the establishment of Irish public service broadcasters on the DTT platform. The provisions of those two sections cater fully for what the Deputy seeks to insert. Sections 3 and 4 cover public service broadcasters on the DTT platform.

How many multiplexes does the Minister envisage developing eventually?

We are making provision initially for two plus three. It will be a matter of demand after that. We are probably talking about seven or eight. That would probably be the maximum for Ireland, but I would not impose limitations. It is an illustration of how quickly things change that when this discussion began we were talking about putting approximately five or six channels on each multiplex but MPEG-2 and MPEG-4, about which we spoke, allow for ten or 11 channels.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 30 to 33, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 6, lines 42 to 51, to delete subsection (5) and substitute the following:

"(5) It shall be a duty of the Commission to endeavour to arrange for the broadcasting of any television broadcasting service in Northern Ireland that is notified to the Commission by the Minister, being a service that is receivable throughout the whole of Northern Ireland and is provided by terrestrial means, by digital means under a multiplex contract.".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 35 not moved.

Amendment No. 36 is in the name of Deputy Ryan. Amendment No. 76 is related. Amendments Nos. 36 and 76 may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 6, after line 51, to insert the following subsection:

"(6) Subject to direction from the Minister, the Commission, the Authority and the Commission for Communications Regulation may co-operate with the regulator for broadcasting services in Northern Ireland, to ensure that the digital services provided under section 16(1) of the act of 1960 are made available across all the island of Ireland.".

This is Deputy Ryan's amendment. He will move it again on Report Stage. We have already discussed amendment No. 76.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 5.

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 7, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following subsection:

"5.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Commission for Communications Regulation to develop the six digital terrestrial television multiplexes contemporaneously.".

Is the amendment being pressed?

As there are fewer than 12 members present, under Standing Orders we are obliged to wait eight minutes, or until a full membership is present, before we take the division.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl 6.

  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.

Níl

  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Kelly, Peter.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • O’Donovan, Denis.
  • O’Flynn, Noel.
Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 38 is in the name of Deputy Broughan. Amendments Nos. 70 to 75, inclusive, and 77 to 81, inclusive, are related. Amendments Nos. 38, 70 to 75, inclusive, and 77 to 81, inclusive, may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 7, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following subsection:

"5.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Commission for Communications Regulation to publish a Digital Action Plan which will take full cognisance of the timeframe for analogue switch off and which makes proper provision for measures to promote digital inclusion.".

It occurred to me, and to everybody else, that under this legislation the Department will be responsible for the digital roll-out. I looked at the British experience. Ofcom has a specific remit to have a digital action plan that would include matters such as the switch-off of the analogue transmission network and initiatives to promote digital inclusion. On Second Stage we referred to the fact that in some areas in Berlin the Germans distributed approximately 6,000 set-top boxes to households. They were anxious to ensure that people were not left behind and that there should be some methodology to encourage people. The Ceannaire of RTE said the set-top box will cost approximately €120. That does not seem a great expenditure on a household budget, but for many families it would be. That is an area we should, therefore, address to ensure no segment of the population is left behind.

I have a couple of reports here that I brought to the Second Stage debate. One is Ofcom's report entitled Driving Digital Switchover which it published three or four years ago. There is a whole series of these. Ofcom also published a cost benefit analysis of the benefits to Britain if it went digital, the costs, and also the cost to individual households. It examined areas of Britain where there is a significant proportion of people on low incomes and vulnerable households. Bolton, Lancashire, north of Manchester is one area where Ofcom did a study to see how that area could be included. Britain has some problems we do not have because there was a different broadcasting ecology in the UK over the years. We have been used to multichannel transmission since before the advent of Sky, because of the spill-over effect of British channels and so on. I am asking that the commission be required to publish a digital action plan to ensure that the most vulnerable families and communities are not left behind.

I had discussions with the Bills Office in regard to amendments Nos. 71 to 75, inclusive. Amendment No. 71 proposes to insert a new paragraph (b) to provide that the Minister should immediately set a target date for ending the transmission of analogue broadcasting services and charge the commission, the Commission for Communications Regulation and the RTE Authority with co-ordinating the national roll-out of digital terrestrial television services. The various bodies will have a particular responsibility. ComReg has a spectrum of responsibilities. In a previous amendment I sought to give it the lead role. The BCI would have responsibility in terms of content and the RTE Authority in terms of public service broadcasting. In the Bill we refer to the authority and the BCI. I made the point on Second Stage that if the BCI and the authority will no longer exist it is strange to mention them in a Bill. I presume that will have to be amended in a new broadcasting Act under the next Government. Amendment No. 71, therefore, proposes that the Minister bite the bullet and set a switch-off date. We watch the Minister’s press officer very closely and noted a couple of statements recently in which the Minister seemed about to suggest a date. He sometimes seems close to naming the day and then veers away.

We got an invitation to the Minister's biofuels presentation late on Saturday. It was thanks the clerk to the committee that we received it. As anybody who has ever been involved in politics would know, Saturday is probably the busiest day of the week for public representatives. It is the day we talk to the people in our constituencies who elect us. If I had not read about it in The Sunday Business Post I would not have been aware of it. That is something the Minister’s press officer might note. I would have gone to the presentation if I could have done so but, unfortunately, the invitation came too late. I thank the clerk for bringing it to our attention. Amendment No. 72 states:

In page 13, subsection (1), between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

"(c) that the Minister develops and publishes before the Houses of the Oireachtas a National Digital Strategy laying out a comprehensive timeframe for digital switchover, including a cost-benefit analysis of the total switchover project and measures to ensure that a new digital divide is not created during the DTT rollout.”.

The Minister may suggest I am to some extent going over the same points. However, this is the best section in which to include this provision. It is interesting that the Government has during the past six or eight months only suddenly realised it is the Government and has responded by undertaking studies, White Papers, Green Papers and introducing legislation and so forth. The Taoiseach, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, and the remainder of the Government are like children who did not study during their fifth and sixth year at school for their leaving certificate examination in that with the election looming they have only two or three months left in office and are frantically trying to address everything. That often works. The same could apply in respect of a young person in his or her second or third year in college who, having had a good year playing football and socialising—

The Deputy should speak to the amendment.

I am. We have had a plethora of—

The Government has been a constant performer during recent years.

Why has it produced so many reports? The Labour Party requested studies in regard to biofuels, energy strategies, natural resources strategies and so on. I know Fine Gael published its own study in this area.

Deputy Broughan made a useful analogy.

The analogy of the student who has not done his or her homework for the upcoming examinations is a good one.

An equally good analogy is the gentleman at the races who having lost on all his bets on a particular day must put everything on the last race.

I have been a student of the Fianna Fáil Party since my childhood. This system has worked for it in the past and it could work again. However, one cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

Amendment No. 73 states:

In page 13, subsection (1), between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

"(d) the National Digital Strategy will consider the establishment of a new not for-profit agency to co-ordinate the technical and social aspects of the digital switchover between all relevant regulatory, government and service provider bodies and to implement a national information campaign.”.

Members might well ask, why set up another quango? The UK has established an agency, Digital Britain, which operates between the regulator and the industry. Through our dealings on this matter we have just learned about MUXs and so on. There is much that the public will know about this. People e-mail us about all kinds of issues. I am not sure if the Minister has received e-mails from people asking "What is all the fuss about; we have digital services?" Some people have put together a free-to-air combination by way of aerial and satellite dish. Many people are wondering what all the fuss is about and why we need to bother with this legislation. However, the issue must be addressed now. For this reason a national information campaign is necessary.

Amendment No. 74 states:

In page 13, subsection (1), between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

"(e) that the National Digital Strategy contains measures to facilitate digital technologies in the e-government agenda.”.

It is interesting to note, Chairman, that last weekend some Estonian people cast their vote on the web. People here would be extremely nervous to do this. The electronic voting machines are now stored in a hangar in the Minister's constituency in Gormanstown. I am not sure if they will ever again see the light of day given the company concerned is in dire straits. I do not know why the Minister went down that road when there was no demand for it. If the Minister had followed a paper trail—

The Deputy should stick to the amendment.

The issue is e-government agenda. I am sticking to it. The Minister introduced e-voting machines which were a disaster because they provided no paper trail and there was a fault in the programme. I was one of the first people to voice concern about the problems that arose and made a submission to the commission set up to address those problems.

We could take advantage of the digital strategy. A leader of the Labour Party in the UK had a vision — crazy though it may seem, he had a dream — that through e-government in the digital age, which is ultimately what we are talking about, people could be asked to vote on issues such as the Finance Bill. In other words, following the next five year period of representative democracy during which time all decisions will be made by Government — I believe the Minister is ad idem with me on this — democratic development would result in all the people being involved in decision-making. For example, it would be interesting to ask the people to vote on carbon taxes, an issue on which our colleagues in the Green Party are currently focused. Many problems in regard to e-voting remain to be addressed. What happened, despite the Minister’s best intentions, is that he moved too fast on e-voting.

Should we legislate that the e-government agenda would also be included given we, or rather the Minister, made a mess of the voting machines and so on?

Amendment No. 75 states:

In page 13, subsection (1), between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

"(f) that a draft national plan for the long-term allocation of Irish spectrum space is laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas for approval.”.

The analogue spectrum and future digital spectrum are national assets and we should ensure we obtain the highest possible value for them. This is the reason I asked that the Minister undertake a cost benefit analysis. It has been done in the UK which has recognised the incredible value of the spectrum. To some extent, it also comes within the Minister's territory. For example, we allocated the 3G licences whereas in the UK Mr. Gordon Browne auctioned them and raised substantial funding for the Exchequer. That may be a problem for the companies involved down the line but he got the best possible value for money. I wonder if we should at this stage stress the value and importance of the spectrum. It is a national asset we are holding in trust for the people we represent.

The final amendment deals with a point I raised earlier in regard to MUXs 1 and 2. The Minister in response to an earlier amendment stated that this cannot be done and for that reason I put the amendment to a vote. If the Minister could provide for the speediest resolution of the platform — I believe that is his intention and I commend him in that regard — we could then ensure we continue to receive the free-to-air channels. We, as politicians, may watch RTE and "Newsnight" on BBC1 as we are interested in tracking what is happening in British politics and so on. We should try to keep alive that type of public broadcasting space in the public sector.

Amendment No. 77 is one of a series of amendments in my name. Section 11(4) states:

(4) Before making any report under subsection (1)(b), the Commission shall consult with—

(a) the holders of all multiplex contracts,

(b) the holders of all digital content contracts,

(c) the television 5 programme service contractor,

(d) the Commission for Communications Regulation, and

(e) such other persons as the Commission considers fit,

and the Commission shall include in their report a summary of any representations made to them by the persons consulted.

Amendment No. 77 states:

In page 13, subsection (4)(e), line 29, after “fit” to insert the following:

"including those with technical expertise in the broadcasting sector".

We spoke about a similar issue during the debate on earlier amendments. I do not wish to delay the proceedings at this late stage. Acceptance of the amendment would provide a useful addition to the proposal. There are people in the technical area of broadcasting who are astute and adept at identifying what is required at a particular time. Does the Chairman wish me to move all my amendments now?

No, the Deputy may move them later. He may speak to all of them now.

Section 11(5) states:

(5) For the purpose mentioned in subsection (1), the Minister shall, on requiring reports under subsection (1)(b), consult with—

(a) such persons as appear to the Minister to represent viewers as the Minister considers fit, and

(b) such other persons as the Minister considers fit.....

The Minister's considerations are broadening. Amendment No. 78 seeks to insert: "(c) persons with proven technical knowledge,”.

The addition of a person with proven technical knowledge would be helpful given the fact that consumers and all other interested parties are represented. While persons with proven technical knowledge might be represented among the other groups, it would do no harm to provide for specific representation.

Should I move the next amendment?

Just speak to it, if you feel you have not spoken enough.

One can never speak enough in the Oireachtas.

I do not want to keep the Deputy from other pressing appointments.

The Chairman's dominant and spectacular presence compels me to make a speech whenever I see him. I must hold myself back on a regular basis, which I realise is a mutual state of affairs.

Amendment No. 79 is similar to previous amendments in Deputy Broughan's name. Section 11(6) provides that the Minister may issue a policy direction on the date or dates after which the Commission for Communications Regulation may no longer grant licences under section 16(3) of the 1960 Act or section 4(3) of the 1988 Act in respect of the provision of any of the services referred to in subsection (2) by analogue means.

My amendment seeks to append a provision that this be "subject to the availability of digital technology throughout the State", or throughout the service area. We do not want to have an embarrassing situation on our hands by allowing blackspots to develop. All we can do is our best. The technology exists to meet all of these requirements. We will look awfully stupid if we allow glitches to develop in the system having laboured for so long and having had available to us the benefits of modern technology. We should beat the glitches. We do not want another Black Valley. The Chairman, being a Corkman, would not like to see the Black Valley's problems continue or to see a similar scenario in Cork. Deputy Broughan's amendments and mine were tabled separately and without consultation, which is an indication of what we were prompted to think about. I am sure the Chairman thinks along the same lines when he is in the thinking mode, as he is on a regular basis.

Amendment No. 80 is similarly aimed to avert an embarrassing development. I will be very interested in the Minister's response. If I were him, I would try to make provision by accepting an amendment now or by introducing one on Report Stage. They Minister may contend that provision will be made anyway, but I am not sure that is right. Technology is very tricky and things do not always work out as expected. The available technology improves on a daily basis. It is upgraded every day, challenged and made subject to review. Products are often superseded even before they reach the market.

Recently, I paid a visit to the Minister's own constituency by special invitation. One hears of the need for post codes to find places nowadays. I visited the area in the middle of a dirty night when it was raining heavily and the roads were bad. I had GPS in my car and, believe it or believe it not, had travelled from Naas to Athboy before I realised it. The GPS announced "You have arrived at your destination" and I had not had to look at a signpost or get out of the car to ask for directions. Even if one knew the road very well, it has changed and one would be lost without directions. We should utilise technology of this kind. Its availability is growing and we need to incorporate it in our plans.

Amendment No. 81 is in the name of the Minister. The Minister may make a general comment on the amendments in the group. I ask him to confine himself to the amendments and the Bill and to ignore some of the remarks made.

I am very tempted to be disobedient to the Chairman having listened to some of the comments.

I am anxious to conclude the Bill.

I had intended to enlighten Deputy Broughan as to the way things work, especially in government. I realise that he has no experience of it.

Save it for Report Stage, Minister.

He was wondering why a number of amendments, reports and documents like the bio-energy one should be produced at the tail end of a Government. It is simply because an Administration takes office with a programme for Government. While the elements of that programme are being implemented, the Government begins to plan ahead for the next five years. This happens to have coincided with the tail-end of the current term of office. I have put forward a significant number of reports over 29 months and am quite happy.

The Deputies have been making their point about the switch to digital services for some time. To be fair, they raised it on Second Stage, when I listened carefully to what they had to say. I have introduced amendment No. 81 in response to strengthen the provisions for informing viewers of Irish analogue television services of the digital switchover. Amendment No. 81 further places a duty on RTE to play a role in the provision of public information about how to access digital television services and the practical issues involved for viewers. A similar obligation was placed on the BBC under the British system. The wording for new subsections (8) and (11) has been drawn from sections 34 to 38 of the agreement of July 2006 between the BBC and the UK Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The provisions will ensure that Irish public service broadcasters play a key role in any public information campaign on digital switchover. The amendment further clarifies the meaning of "digital switchover date or dates" as the date after which analogue licences may no longer be granted.

I am attempting to meet the thrust of the amendments proposed by the Deputies. The justification for the approach we have chosen is that full role-out of DTT must take place before we can talk about the digital switchover. The aim of the DTT pilot project is to provide an insight into the issues associated with the roll-out of a national system. We are using the experience to inform the legislation before the committee and the roll-out plan. I agree with Deputy Broughan on the need to make digital services available nationally, but he was quite wrong about voting machines which were used very successfully on three occasions when I was Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

The Minister cannot produce a single document to prove that.

A 92% satisfaction rating was recorded.

The Minister cannot guarantee the results at all.

There would be many problems if I was not legitimately elected.

That is what worries me. The Minister cannot prove he was elected because there is no way of proving the number of votes cast in his constituency, for him or anyone else.

Deputy Durkan, you are determined to have me sacked from this job with only a month to go.

I apologise, Chairman, if I offended you again.

Some time ago, we met John Whittingdale, MP, chair of the House of Commons culture, media and sport committee. When the United Kingdom switched from analogue to digital there was some concern regarding people who owned analogue systems. I am delighted this section is included in the Bill. Will it be possible to establish, before the switch off, the number of people who have analogue sets? How many sets are involved and are they mostly owned by older people? If they are owned by people in receipt of a free TV licence it may be possible to ascertain exactly how many will be affected by the switch off. In the United Kingdom funding was provided for the purchase of new television sets for older people affected by the switch off. Mr. Whittingdale also told us that the multiplexes being put in place cannot provide a digital signal to parts of Scotland. Will every household in Ireland be able to receive digital TV? I am glad to hear that digital can be received through satellite and other means. We learned of the UK experience during a fact finding trip we made last year, at the request of the committee.

It has been estimated in the United Kingdom that approximately 10% of analogue users are what are called "refuseniks" who will not, under any circumstances, leave their analogue world. What can we do about them?

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 7, subsection (2), line 14, to delete "and the Commission" and substitute the following:

"and with the Commission regarding the digital capacity requirements of Teilifís na Gaeilge and the television programme service contractor".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 7, subsection (2), line 19, after "State" to insert the following:

"and which multiplex shall be accessible to all Irish broadcasters including TV3, City Channel, Channel 6 and Setanta Sports".

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 7, subsection (3), line 28, after"section 4” to insert “or existing contracts”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 7, subsection (4), line 35, after "by" to insert "high quality".

Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 43 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 44 and 52 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 44:

In page 7, subsection (6), line 49, after "Minister" to insert the following:

", subject to the approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas,".

It would be so much more convenient if amendments were not grouped together. The groupings have been done by well intentioned officials who are not expert in this area.

The groups should be smaller.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 45:

In page 7, after line 53, to insert the following subsection:

"(7) In the event of failure to provide service due to technological or administrative failure the Minister may take whatever steps necessary to restore services.".

This amendment deals with a situation such as that already cited by Deputy Broughan and you, Chairman. It arises from recent experiences when technology services were suddenly terminated leaving consumers wondering where to access replacement services. Regulation, service providers, the commission and other bodies are all very well but the Minister must accept overall responsibility. No Minister is anxious to do that. I have never seen a Minister rush to accept responsibility for a failure. That does not happen. Responsibility is usually passed to the commission, the regulator, the broadcasting service provider or someone else.

An event such as that provided for by the amendment could occur. I refer to administrative as well as technological failures. The proposal arises from the experience of consumers in this area in recent years. I ask the Minister to consider it. I am so sensitive to the feelings of the Minister that I do not even mention electronic ballot boxes. I am sure he would not want me to do so. The possibility of administrative and technological failure in this area is considerable. Provision must be made for that.

Deputy Durkan's amendment is important. My constituents, particularly senior citizens, constantly ask me about the performance of NTL. There have been breaks in the supply of service by this company and customers who complain by telephone are shuttled from one location to another and taken on a telephone tour of Ireland. Customers who miss three weeks of episodes of their favourite programmes are very angry. This issue is raised with me more often than those, such as health and policing, which are mentioned in focus groups as major election issues. Delivery of service by television cable companies such as NTL/UPC, formerly Cablelink, and Chorus is a major issue.

I expect my amendments on this issue to the Communications Regulation (Amendment) Bill will be ruled out of order because they refer to a broadcasting company. Deputy Durkan's amendment will not be accepted because the Minister will say it is not relevant to the subject of the Bill. We must have convergence. Britain is five or ten years ahead of us on these issues. The British Government became tired of trying to invigilate telecommunications and broadcasting companies and decided to group them together and appoint one tough regulator for all. The medium is the message. Content and structure cannot be separated. We have the Competition Authority and other consumer bodies but how does one ensure that a broadcaster delivers a satisfactory service? Deputy Durkan is saying that the Minister should take responsibility in this regard.

I do not know what the situation is in Meath but in Dublin cable television is a major issue. There is disappointment. I met with the representatives of the company concerned. I believe they met representatives of the other parties and the Minister. The Minister probably called them in to see him first. They said they are trying to integrate two separate cable companies and that they have a model for that in Holland and Austria which has worked successfully. They said, for example, that the complaints telephone line that NTL customers are being put through to is actually the Chorus line, which is why people ended up in Limerick. Nevertheless, people did not get their television service for three or four weeks in a couple of cases of which I am aware. That is unacceptable. Perhaps we should provide in this or the other Bill for some way of dealing with this issue.

It is tough that these two significant Bills have been produced in the last couple of months. The issue is convergence which is approaching us in a major way. The debate taking place in the Dáil at present about criminal behaviour on the web, telephone lines and so forth is an example. This entire area represents convergence. There is, as it were, a single big medium and perhaps we are a little behind the times in that we have two separate systems for dealing with it.

It is a thoughtful amendment. I do not know how the Minister will incorporate it but he should try to anticipate what will happen in the future.

Section 5 provides that the Commission for Communications Regulation is required to make available wireless telegraphy licences for digital terrestrial television services to RTE, the BCI and any other multiplex service providers. The amendment provides that where a multiplex service provider ceases its service the Minister will be empowered to take such steps as are necessary to restore such a service.

I appreciate the Deputy's point with regard to the desirability of continuity of service to viewers but putting it in the Minister's hands is not the best option. It is best that it be addressed by the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland in the context of sections 8 and 9 of the Bill. Section 8 empowers the BCI to invite applications from multiplex contractors and section 9 sets out the criteria against which the BCI must judge those applications, including, but not limited to, the financial resources available to each applicant. In effect, section 9 charges the BCI with assessing the sustainability of the service offering with a view to ensuring continuity of service. Section 8 allows the BCI to re-advertise for service offerings in the event of the failure of a service or if no service offering is initially forthcoming.

The point made by the Deputy is catered for in the Bill, in so far as it can be. Regardless of what business sphere one is in, there can be business failures. We have seen that in telecommunications. There is no way to guarantee that services will continue to be available 100% of the time. These provisions, however, cover the situation in so far as that is possible.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 not moved.

I move amendment No. 48:

In page 8, subsection (2), line 15, after "State" to insert "through the use of modern technology".

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 49:

In page 8, subsection (3), line 24, after "section 4” to insert the following:

"which may encompass access by communities to existing services".

Perhaps the Minister will comment on Report Stage on the group of issues raised by Deputy Broughan and myself today.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 50 to 52, inclusive, not moved.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.

Amendment No. 54 is related to amendment No. 53. Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 53:

In page 9, subsection (1), line 9, after "section" to insert the following:

"subject to such regulations being approved by the Oireachtas".

This amendment is self-explanatory. Amendment No. 54 seeks to insert the words "regardless of at whose instigation". A concern might be expressed by one of the parties who might feel a need to make a proposal or suggestion or to refer a matter for more serious discussion. That should be possible regardless of who instigates it.

Section 7(3) requires any regulations that are made to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and provides that either House may annul the regulations within 21 days by way of passing a resolution to that effect. That deals with section 7(1) and the charges which the Commission for Communications Regulation can impose. The matter is covered in the section as it stands.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 54 not moved.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Amendments Nos. 55 to 57, inclusive, not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."

Section 8 states that a multiplex "may consist of the whole or any part of the State". Does the Minister have any concerns about that? When discussing the earlier sections the Minister said it would cover all of the State. Would he be concerned about a multiplex that would, for example, only serve the Dublin region or the Dublin, Meath and Wicklow area or the Cork region? Some operators could cherry-pick. The Chairman has already made a good point, and this also came through from some broadcasters, that there is a worry that some valleys and hills might not get the benefit of digitisation. We need to keep that under review. That has arisen in this committee in regard to the Black Valley. It is crazy that the people there have not had a telephone service. Does the Minister have concerns on this point, or what was he thinking when he included the provision, rather than extending it to the whole State or beyond?

It is included to be as flexible as possible. The Broadcasting Commission of Ireland has an obligation to ensure that the first three multiplex operators are national. Depending on the platform this might be anything from 20 to 40 stations. It is in this section to allow for the possibility of regional or local broadcasting or televising. The first three must be national. Thereafter there is the possibility for regional ones.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Amendments Nos. 58 to 61, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 62:

In page 10, subsection (2)(d), line 36, to delete “any” and substitute “the”.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 63 to 69, inclusive, not moved.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 not moved.

I move amendment No. 72:

In page 13, subsection (1), between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

"(c) that the Minister develops and publishes before the Houses of the Oireachtas a National Digital Strategy laying out a comprehensive timeframe for digital switchover, including a cost-benefit analysis of the total switchover project and measures to ensure that a new digital divide is not created during the DTT rollout.”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 73 has been formally ruled out of order.

I do not agree with this but I have to accept it.

It is unbelievable that we are going to the other extreme.

It was a not-for-profit agency.

Amendment No. 73 not moved.

I move amendment No. 74:

In page 13, subsection (1), between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

"(e) that the National Digital Strategy contains measures to facilitate digital technologies in the e-government agenda.”.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 75 to 77, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 78:

In page 13, subsection (5), between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:

"(c) persons with proven technical knowledge,”.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 79 not moved.

I move amendment No. 80:

In page 14, subsection (7)(b), line 18, after “course” to insert the following:

"subject to the availability of digital technology throughout the State".

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 81:

In page 14, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following subsections:

"(8) The Authority shall endeavour to ensure that all viewers of services referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) provided by analogue means are made aware, in general terms, of the digital switchover date or dates, the reasons for it or them, the consequences, and practical information on how such viewers can receive such services by digital means after that date or those dates.

(9) For the purpose of subsection (8), "digital switchover date or dates" means the date or dates after which the Commission for Communications Regulation may no longer grant any licences specified in subsection (6).".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Amendment No. 82 not moved.

I move amendment No. 83:

In page 14, line 35, after "contractor" to insert "or contractor using digital or modern technology".

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 13 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 not moved.
Section 14 agreed to.
Amendment No. 86 not moved.
Section 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.

Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 will be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 87:

In page 16, line 5, after "telegraphy" to insert the following:

"with a view to meeting the needs of viewers and listeners".

The Minister and Deputy Broughan have spoken along these lines. The need to meet the requirements of the viewers and listeners should be paramount. The same applies to amendment No. 88 which provides after "Regulation" to insert "or in response to particular circumstances". We may or may not anticipate the particular circumstances. Many circumstances arise from time to time that may encourage or cause things to happen that were not anticipated. I am not certain that the Bill as it is could meet those circumstances. I tabled my amendment simply to enable Ministers, regulators, broadcasters or others to be able to respond to circumstances that arise. I intend to withdraw my amendments with a view to resubmitting them on Report Stage.

Section 16 is a technical provision which essentially requires the Commission for Communications Regulation to license a broadcasting frequency to TG4 after its separation from RTE. That provision is necessitated by the proposed changes to the digital terrestrial broadcasting model proposed in the Broadcasting Act 2001. The wording proposed is based on section 16 of the Broadcasting Authority Act 1960, which requires the Commission for Communications Regulation to license a broadcasting frequency to the RTE Authority.

Amendment No. 87 proposes to link the objective of meeting the needs of viewers and listeners with the proposed power of TG4 to maintain broadcasting transmitters. Such an objective is already broadly stated in the existing remit of TG4, as defined under section 45 of the Broadcasting Act 2001. The amendment is not necessary.

Amendment No. 88, as proposed, would empower TG4 to operate an unlicensed wireless telegraphy apparatus. I am sure this was not the Deputy's intention. The Commission for Communications Regulation has the role of co-ordinating the allocation of analogue frequencies to public service, commercial and community broadcasters. The amendment, as proposed, would undermine that role. As a consequence, the amendments proposed cannot be accepted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 88 not moved.
Section 16 agreed to.
Sections 17 and 18 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
TITLE.
Amendment No. 89 not moved.

I move amendment No. 90:

In page 3, line 15, after "IRELAND," to insert the following:

"IN RELATION TO THE BROADCASTING OF THE BUSINESS OF DÁIL AND SEANAD ÉIREANN,".

I felt it was appropriate to offer this as a final salute to the endeavours of the Chairman. I will withdraw the amendment and leave the matter to the combined wisdom of the Chairman and Minister.

It was very interesting to hear Deputy Durkan speak of Canada's broadcasting channel. When Canada's general election took place, a conservative government, which had approximately 90 seats, returned with two. It evaporated to this level. Let us hope it does not happen to the present Irish Government.

Does the Deputy think I am encouraging the incumbents?

It will not happen as long as there is proportional representation.

I do not know about that.

How did we get to Canada all of a sudden?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Title agreed to.

I thank the Minister and his officials for attending.

I thank the Chairman for facilitating the committee so ably and my colleagues opposite for their very constructive approach to the Bill and the amendments they tabled. I thank the officials of the committee and the House for facilitating the discussion, and I thank the officials in my Department. I look forward to Report Stage and to having the Bill enacted as soon as possible.

I thank the Chairman for presiding over the proceedings and his officials for their help and co-operation during our consideration of the Bill so far.

I was looking at the Chairman's tie on the television and would regard it as a high-definition tie. However, the tie and its wearer are not shown to their full credit on the screen and I have no doubt that when this legislation passes, it will be of benefit to all. I thank the Minister for accepting the principle of some of our amendments. I hope that, as a result, the Bill will be somewhat better.

I thank the Chairman and the Minister. I thank their officials for their briefings and the other officials of the Oireachtas. Thanks be to God that we have got the Bill to this stage.

We have only one more Bill to consider and I believe we are to deal with it on 21 March. I would appreciate the support of the members.

As long as the Chairman is leading the charge, we will be right behind him.

That will bring an end to our proceedings until the 30th Dáil, provided we are all re-elected. I thank the Minister, his officials, those in the Visitors Gallery and my colleagues from the Opposition. I thank the clerk and editorial staff for sitting here with us all day.

Bill reported with amendments.
Barr
Roinn