Mr. Bob Collins:

I am not sure how many times we can say that we are not here on behalf of RTE. The committee would need to discuss some of these issues with RTE. We are attending as an independent statutory authority that is asked by the statute enacted by the Houses of the Oireachtas to examine the public funding of RTE and TG4. Addressing those stations is all that we can do when performing that task. We are not their extension. When we submitted our report on our section 53 investigation into "Prime Time Investigates" and appeared before this committee, no one in RTE or on this committee believed that we were an extension of RTE. Let us get our positions clear in that regard.

The issue of what people at RTE are paid is a matter primarily for RTE. Like everyone else around the table, we are human beings and taxpayers. We share some views and have our own on what is to be appropriate to be paid, particularly given the changed circumstances. The characterisation, be it that of the IBI or anyone else, of the licence fee as a tax to prop up RTE makes it difficult to hold a constructive debate on the purpose of a licence fee. Sometimes, I would like it if the BAI had the statutory authority to identify precisely what public broadcasters were expected to do in return for their public funding, for example, to have a clearer sense of the balance of content in public broadcasters' schedules and what are appropriate and inappropriate programme ranges, but that is not what the law permits us to do. The law reserves that power to the boards of RTE and TG4, which it describes as being independent. This matter could be debated, since we are out of kilter to a certain extent with some of the European experience of public broadcasting regulation. With the greatest of respect, however, the legislation was enacted by Members collectively, not by us.

I dislike the sponsorship of current affairs programmes. It is inappropriate and raises some of the questions that Deputy McGrath identified, but it is not precluded by law at the moment. There would also be serious implications for local radio stations if the sponsorship of current affairs programmes on radio were to be precluded. If I may express a personal view, although I am not sure that it is only a personal one in terms of what approach the authority will take, the sponsorship of news is obviously precluded, but the sponsorship of current affairs poses difficulties for broadcasters. When we developed our code of fairness and objectivity in news and current affairs, we were seeking to ensure that the audience had a clear indication of, for example, interests that a presenter might have by needing to declare those interests and, at certain times, standing back from involvement in a programme. It complicates matters if that very same programme is being sponsored, but the law does not preclude it. Does Mr. O'Keeffe wish to clarify?