Professor Kevin Rafter:

I am grateful for the invitation to contribute. I welcome the committee's decision to prioritise public service broadcasting as part of its work programme and also the positive engagement of the Minister with the topic.

By way of background, I am currently Professor of Political Communication at DCU. I was previously head of the department of film and media at IADT, Dún Laoghaire. I have been associate dean for research and chairperson of the MA in Political Communication programme at DCU. My statement draws on some of the research I have undertaken in DCU. Several members of the committee will recall that prior to 2008, I worked in the media as a political journalist based in Leinster House with a number of newspapers and also with RTE. I also produced a number of radio documentaries for Newstalk. I am, therefore, alongside my academic work, drawing on this substantial professional media experience in my contribution to the committee's deliberations. The statement is based on a longer submission made to the committee in the past few days.

All broadcasters, irrespective of ownership type, face funding challenges. Recent changes in communication technologies and public consumption of media have had a dramatic impact on the media sector. Global media has become local and the related impact on audience, advertising and content has been significant. In October 2011, the then Director-General of RTE, Mr. Noel Curran, delivered a speech in DCU where he recounted how it was possible to go through a normal day consuming a great deal of media beginning with "Ireland AM" on TV3 and continuing with independent radio, Sky News, using Google, tweeting, posting on Facebook, watching the BBC and listening to Today FM. As he said at the time, this type of media consumption was, "an Irish audience in a single day, any day, of any month, of any year [...] an average day of viewing, listening and web browsing — where you don’t use any of RTÉS services". It is now possible to go through an average day of viewing, listening and web browsing without using services of an Irish broadcaster, be they publicly or privately owned. That is evidence of the scale of the global transformation in media in recent years and the challenges faced by Irish broadcasters.

RTE has a special place in the Irish broadcast landscape. Given its Irish language remit, TG4 fills a unique space, but when we talk about public service broadcasting, we can no longer confine the discussion to RTE and TG4. If the committee took that on board, it would be a major advance. A considerable volume of research has focused on the difference in programming between public broadcasters and their privately-owned counterparts. We have done research on that in DCU, which challenges the idea that RTE provides the only substantial news content in the country given that private broadcasters also produce public service content. In a democracy, it is important to have multiple sources of news and current affairs and ensuring all sources are financially viable is hugely important. We need to recognise the changed landscape in which broadcasters exist. It is important to support RTE and TG4 and that is a viewpoint I hold strongly. Private broadcasters, particularly those producing news and current affairs content, need public policy support. We, in DCU, produced major research last July, which examined Irish journalism, and the findings were bleak. The profile of journalists has become younger, mid-career journalists have exited the profession, the pressure to sensationalise news has increased and research times on stories has decreased. If we believe that when journalism fails, democracy suffers, it is important that all journalism is respected.

Under the Sound and Vision Fund, 7% of the licence fee is available to produce programming on private and publicly-owned stations has been important, but news and current affairs programming is excluded. This exclusion means that the 20% news and current affairs statutory requirement on privately-owned stations, which is public service content, receives no licence fee support. That is deserving of consideration by the committee. It is a shame that the broadcast charge has gone off the agenda. Nevertheless, in the short term, the committee and the Minister can make huge advances by looking at evasion. The evasion rate is approximately 15% whereas it is 5.5% in the UK. Database access to digital television services is hugely important. That legislation has been long promised and it should be acted on. A commercial licence fee alongside a residential licence fee is worthy of consideration and I refer to that in the submission.

RTE also has to take responsibility for its own finances. It is curious to say the least that it reported that it had its finances in order but that by the end of 2016 they have deteriorated to such an extent, notwithstanding well-flagged events this year. While the new DG bears no responsibility, the mess that is now again RTE's finances is hers to clean up. RTE needs to cut its cloth to the resources available. The committee should pay attention to the singular asset available to RTE to make a dramatic impact on its finances. Just as the arrival of television in the 1960s meant a departure from the GPO in Henry Street, serious consideration should be given to RTE exiting its current campus in Donnybrook. This was referenced in the NewERA report in 2014. Much of the site is not used for broadcasting purposes with 21% used for car parking and 20% underdeveloped. There is a resource available to RTE to deal with its own capital investment needs alongside having the ability to put aside a significant sum for programme commissioning.

These issues are dealt with in greater depth in the submission and the background research we have produced in DCU is also available to members. Private broadcasters are sometimes referenced as the "competing commercial sector". This limits their value and fails to acknowledge that RTE is a ruthless commercial entity, especially in how it chases ratings and advertising. The Broadcasting Act 2009 needs to be amended to recognise that public service broadcasting is no longer the preserve of RTE and TG4. Dealing with evasion and introducing a commercial television licence fee would be positive advances. RTE should be encouraged to look at its own campus as an asset in addressing its own funding needs. If a percentage of licence fee revenue is made available to privately owned stations to support, in particular, their news and current affairs programming, it is vital that updated broadcasting legislation is more explicit in requiring increased public service obligations from them.

I would say the same about RTE. The committee has many items on its agenda, but if it can broaden the discussion on what we refer to as public service broadcasting, it would be a significant advance. I thank members of the committee for the invitation to speak here this afternoon. I am available to take any questions.