John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are dealing with No. 8, engagement with RTE on governance issues. The purpose of this morning's meeting is to engage with RTE in order to discuss governance at the station and the policies and procedures in place in order to ensure political balance in programming and report. On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome back Ms Moya Doherty, chairman of the RTE Authority, Mr. Kevin Bakhurst, deputy director general and managing director of news and current affairs, Mr. Tom McGuire, head of RTE Radio 1, Mr. David Nally, managing editor, RTE television current affairs and Ms Deirdre McCarthy, political assignments editor, RTE news.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.I also advise that any submission or opening statement made to the committee will be published on our website following the meeting.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Ms Doherty to make her opening remarks. She will be followed by Mr. Bakhurst.

Ms Moya Doherty:

I thank the Chairman for inviting RTE to appear before the committee today to discuss governance at the station and the policies and procedures RTE has in place to prevent political bias in our programming and reporting. He has already introduced the senior members of the RTE staff who are with me here today. Mr. Kevin Bakhurst, on my right, is deputy director general and managing director of news, Mr. Tom McGuire is head of RTE news, Mr. David Nally is managing editor, RTE television current affairs, and Ms Deirdre McCarthy is political assignments editor, RTE Oireachtas unit, whom the members will all know well. I hope that between us we can address any questions members may have.

It would be useful to set out the clear statutory and regulatory framework within which RTE must operate and the overarching governance role of the RTE board. I will then ask Mr. Kevin Bakhurst to give members a clear understanding of the editorial structures, policies and procedures that RTE has in place to ensure independence, fairness and impartiality across RTE's output, particularly as it relates to RTE’s political coverage.

This division is deliberate, as it echoes the distinction between the governance role of the board and the operational role of the director general, the executive and line management. The RTE board should not and does not involve itself in day-to-day editorial decision making. While the board must satisfy itself that editorial decision making is being appropriately managed along with other activities in accordance with RTE’s and its obligations, the day-to-day making of individual editorial decisions rests with programme makers, their editors and editorial management. Notwithstanding that the term "independent broadcasters" is routinely used to describe commercial television and radio broadcasters in Ireland, the public service broadcasters, RTE and TG4, are the only media organisations in the country that are prescribed by law, in section 98 of the Broadcasting Act 2009, to be independent in everything they do. Furthermore, as I said to this committee when I was here a few weeks ago, it is the prescribed duty of the board of RTE to safeguard this independence from State, political, orcommercial interests.

As a not-for-profit public service media organisation, RTE is not here to serve the interests of shareholders, wealthy owners or private equity firms but rather the public, with clear statutory obligations and appropriate regulation and governance. This fundamental difference is crucial to understanding the very high levels of trust RTE retains with Irish audiences.

RTE exists to give space to the different shades of political opinion, to be accessible to younger and older people, be they farmers, teachers or technology workers from anywhere and everywhere in the country. RTE is here to give voice to the views of water protesters as much as those of Irish Water. As it clearly states in section 114 of the Broadcasting Act, RTE must be responsive to the interests and concerns of the whole community and, as I said a few weeks ago to this committee, representing the interests of viewers and listeners is the board’s first duty.

Different groups of people and interests will challenge and disagree with RTE's programming and editorial choices from time to time - that is to be expected. RTE would not be doing its job otherwise. What is crucial though is that RTE is not beholden to any group or viewpoint, and that we ensure RTE is as fair, impartial and accurate as possible. There is a range of codes, regulations and processes designed to ensure that RTE maintains these standards, which I will explain shortly, but ultimately it is the public trust we retain with audiences which is so important.

In any given week, 96% of Irish people access RTE's services. Across last year, when surveyed by the independent research company, Behaviour and Attitudes, 87% of Irish adults - that is, those aged 18 plus - indicated that they trusted RTE news and current affairs output. As part of the same analysis RTE came out as one of the most trusted organisations in the country. It is only because of these high levels of trust, earned over a long period of time and countless editorial decisions, that RTE can and does take on the most difficult of subjects.

It is why when a current and a former Government Minister decided to give very personal interviews recently they chose to do so on two different programmes, both on RTE Radio 1. It is why when very significant news events occur, either domestic or international, RTE's viewership, listenership and online statistics grow substantially. It is also why, when RTE made serious editorial mistakes a number of years ago, it was an issue of such concern both inside and outside RTE, leading to a thorough review of all RTE's editorial processes.

Maintaining the trust of the public is the most important measure for public service media. The independence, impartiality and accuracy of RTE's programming and reporting are essential to this trust. The notion that RTE could or would perpetuate political bias in its output, as suggested by the invitation here today, makes little sense, primarily because it would fundamentally undermine the public trust in everything RTE does.

Furthermore, it would not be compatible with the law or tolerated by the regulator. The law is very clear about what is required of broadcasters when it comes to news and current affairs programming. RTE, like all licensed broadcasters in the State, is required by the Broadcasting Act 2009 to report and present the news in an objective and impartial manner and without any expression of the broadcaster’s own views. In current affairs programming, including matters which are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate, broadcasters must be fair to all interests concerned and the broadcast must be presented in an objective and impartial manner and without any expression of the broadcaster’s own views. Should this prove impracticable in regard to a single programme, two or more related broadcasts may be considered as a whole, if the programmes are transmitted within a reasonable period of each other.

There is a series of regulatory mechanisms by which RTÉ must account for how it fulfils these core statutory obligations. Every year RTE must submit to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland an annual statement of performance commitments. Within this process RTE makes clear commitments that relate to maintaining and growing trust in RTE's news and current affairs output and in maintaining public confidence in the impartiality and objectivity of key output. The board recently signed off on RTE’s 2015annual statement of performance commitments.

Unlike other parts of the media, broadcasting in general and public service broadcasters, in particular, are subject to significant regulatory oversight, oversight that is firmly rooted in statute. Such oversight would not tolerate political bias within the country’s primary public service media organisation. I am conscious that I have only recently been officially appointed chair of the RTE board and that this board was only fully complete in February. It has only met twice to date.Nonetheless, I am very clear as to what role the board has in regard to the impartiality and accuracy of RTE’s news and current affairs programming and reporting. Just last week Mr. Kevin Bakhurst gave the board a thorough briefing on the editorial decision making structures within RTE news and current affairs. Such engagements will continue to be a regular feature of the board’s work, but at this point the board and I have no reason to believe that RTE is not discharging its editorial responsibilities correctly and with the appropriate checks and balances.

I will now ask Mr. Bakhurst to give the members a brief overview of RTE's current editorial structures, policies and procedures.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

I thank the Chairman and members of the joint committee for inviting us in. Every week RTE produces more than forty hours of live news and current affairs programming across its radio and television schedules, within which programme teams and editors make thousands of editorial calls and judgments. All editorial staff work to RTE’s journalism guidelines, which were updated only last year.

These provide detailed guidance on a range of journalistic issues and are rooted in overarching editorial principles of trust, accuracy, impartiality, integrity, fairness, public interest and accountability. RTE's guidelines also reflect and take account of the requirements in the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, BAI's code of fairness, objectivity and impartiality in news and current affairs. Prepared under section 42 of the Broadcasting Act 2009, the code sets out the rules, principles and guidance for all broadcasters in respect of fairness, objectivity and impartiality in news and current affairs programming. This code was most recently updated in 2013.

In such a dynamic news and current affairs environment, inevitably we do not get everything right. For the most part, however, we try to correct mistakes quickly, either in the programme in question or soon after in another programme. The BAI provides clear guidance for viewers and listeners if they consider a programme or broadcaster to be in breach of any of its codes and they want to make a formal complaint. RTE is required to have, and has, clear guidance for people who wish to make a formal complaint regarding any of its output. Sometimes, formal complaints are lodged regarding our programming. Relatively infrequently, these are upheld by the BAI. RTE received a total of 114 such complaints in respect of programmes broadcast in 2014. Of those, just two were fully upheld, with four partially upheld.

In the case of political parties and the Government, our editors and programme makers and I are constantly in discussions with party and Government representatives - sometimes very robust discussions - regarding our editorial choices, guests and so on. That permanent tension between the political system and RTE is a healthy thing and one that is experienced by other media organisations.

RTE consciously combines a decentralised editorial structure with clear lines of editorial responsibility and accountability. At a high level, RTE has a number of editorial divisions, namely, news and current affairs, television and radio. Each has its own editorial structures and systems, with high levels of editorial independence at the individual programme level. Each week, the relevant managing director chairs editorial board meetings within his or her division to review the week past and preview the week coming. All programme areas in RTE submit their plans for the next week to the weekly corporate editorial board, which is attended by senior editorial representatives from all areas and is chaired by the director general, who is RTE's editor-in-chief, or by me if the director general is not available. The corporate editorial board's meeting reviews output from the past week and looks ahead.

For the purposes of today's discussion, it is worth going into a little more detail for members on the editorial structures in the news and current affairs division and how they impact on editorial decision making and coverage. Regarding news output, the agenda for coverage, or news list, is drawn up daily by the news editors. This list is informed by material gathered for the news diary of expected events prepared by the news desk, by forward plans given by individual programme areas, by suggestions of possible assignments from the specialist and regional correspondents and by the news editors' own judgment. Regarding political coverage, in addition to the political correspondents and Oireachtas staff, the political assignments editor, Ms Deirdre McCarthy, who is present, makes a significant contribution. The news list is presented to two main news conferences during the day, those being in the morning and early afternoon. From these come the main story assignments. I usually attend both news conferences.

The television news programme editors and the radio news bulletin editors select their material from this list of assignments throughout the day and, in the case of television, often augment it with live interviews in light of unfolding news stories and pre-planned feature material. The content for the radio news programmes, such as "Morning Ireland" and "News at One", is selected by the programmes' editorial teams, often incorporating material from the central news assignments. Any editorial issue relating to coverage is often reviewed at the morning news conferences and at a weekly futures meeting.

Television current affairs, led by its managing editor, Mr. David Nally, who is present, operates as a separately managed unit within the news and current affairs division. Its editorial selections are made by the programme teams within the department - "Claire Byrne Live" and "Prime Time" - and co-ordinated through the weekly editorial meeting, which is often chaired by me and reviews output and discusses future coverage.

RTE's investigations unit operates within television current affairs and leads RTE's investigative reporting. Such reports are typically aired within "Prime Time" specials, in one-offs such as "Above the Law" this week and, on occasion, within radio programmes, for example, "Today with Sean O'Rourke" and "Drivetime". Both of these and the weekend programmes - "The Marian Finucane Show", "Saturday with Claire Byrne" and "Sunday with Miriam" on RTE Radio 1 - are managed by the head of RTE Radio 1, Mr. Tom McGuire, who is also present. He answers in turn to the managing director of radio, Mr. Jim Jennings, who has similar editorial responsibility for the current affairs output of RTE Raidió na Gaeltachta.

Given the nature of much of the programming on Radio 1, there is daily and weekly co-ordination between news and current affairs and Radio 1 editorial management. Similarly, there is co-ordination, typically at the weekly corporate editorial board, in respect of current affairs or political items and guests on "The Late Late Show", "The Saturday Night Show" and documentary programming.

As members will know, during election and referendum campaigns, RTE adopts a more formal structure of editorial management. An election steering group oversees all output, monitors levels of representation across programming and deals with complaints and representations.

It should be clear to members from what I have described that there is no one single editorial direction when it comes to RTE content. In terms of news, the story selection has a variety of editorial inputs from a range of different teams throughout the day. In terms of the programmes that emanate from any division of RTE, programme editors and teams make their independent selections of what to feature and prioritise, often in competition with other RTE output. All output is overseen by an editorial structure that allows and encourages diversity, editorial debate and challenge. While we may from time to time make mistakes, misjudgments or omissions, such an editorial structure would make it virtually impossible for political bias to be present across RTE's output.

I thank the committee and would be happy to answer further questions.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Doherty and Mr. Bakhurst. I will make a general observation before handing over to members. Towards the end of his presentation, Mr. Bakhurst referred to light entertainment shows. He articulated the sense of balance that RTE gives to current affairs programming. I will not mention particular examples, but high profile presenters-----

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

Mr. Jeremy Clarkson.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am talking about RTE.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

RTE got out of that one.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am referring to high profile presenters who would not have their guard up. From some of RTE's current affairs programming, it is obvious that the presenters are conscious of the need for balance. In recent times, though, there seems to have been a trend among light entertainment shows, which are increasingly interviewing political persons, not to have their guard up or a sense of balance as much as they should. What are Mr. Bakhurst's observations in this regard? I have in mind people who also write newspaper columns and make their opinions and pronouncements obvious in politically imbalanced ways. While I agree that an effort is made to achieve a strong balance in current affairs, there is not as much of an effort made in terms of entertainment shows.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

The Chairman raises a valid question for us. It is not a new departure for RTE on some of our main talk shows like "The Late Late Show" or "The Saturday Night Show" to have current affairs or political figures or the like appear on them.

We have kept track in the past 12 or 18 months of the range of people who have appeared on these programmes to ensure a fair range of views across the political spectrum. It has become more formalised. If “The Late Late Show” or “The Saturday Night Show” intends to invite a political figure on to the show, before the bid is made, those involved with the shows will appear before the steering committee, the director general or me to ensure we know where the people to be invited have appeared before. They can make the argument as to why they want to speak to them, about what they want to speak to them and so forth. There is a process, even before the interview bids are made, to make sure there is a balance over time in the people who appear on these high profile programmes.

The interviews on these shows are of a different nature. Someone appearing on “The Late Late Show” or “The Saturday Night Show” will expect to have a different kind of interview than on “Prime Time” or “Claire Byrne Live”. Sometimes it might be more personalised than on a Radio 1 programme, for example. A lot of preparation goes into these interviews, with an input from figures in news and current affairs when they are lined up. There is close liaison between Mr. David Nally and the television division in talking through the interviews and the areas that might be covered.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My concern is that it is not only in interviews with political people but also with celebrities that a particular bias might appear. There is a responsibility on the interviewer in such cases to ensure a sense of balance. I am concerned that in some cases this will not happen.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

We have experienced presenters on all of the main programmes, as well as very experienced editorial teams. Some of these editorial teams have had a period in news and current affairs, too, and their antennae are well tuned. It is an area we monitor very carefully and we review all interviews, but I accept that we do not get it right all of the time.

Michael Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

From the opening statement, it seems RTE has taken umbrage to the claim that there is bias in some of its news and current affairs coverage, but some issues must be teased out. By and large, for generations the public has bought into and trusted RTE’s news and current affairs coverage. I have issues, however, with some of its current affairs coverage and what I perceive as bias and groupthink within the organisation.

What is the entire process for each current affairs programme? Will the delegation explain how the discussion of an idea for a programme on a specific issue starts right through to who is brought in to discuss it? Fianna Fáil has carried out research on RTE's current affairs coverage in 2010. In the six months before the general election in 2011 it was quite clear that every current affairs programme had a Fianna Fáil Minister and three or four Opposition spokespersons. In the six months immediately after the election RTE told us a programme would have a Minister and only one Opposition spokesperson. While I accept that the Opposition is more fractious since the last election, this is not fair. I cannot justify it other than by saying there was a bias in the period in question. In six weeks of the “Claire Byrne Live” programme no member of Fianna Fáil was invited to appear on it, this despite a significant protest by our own media staff. I have received no explanation, other than that there was an agenda.

Deputy Robert Troy produced an excellent policy document on child care in which he reflected the concerns of the main stakeholders, from parents through to workers. However, when it did a programme on child care, RTE did not find his document newsworthy. Instead, the RTE panel consisted of people who did not have as much information as him. This clearly showed a bias.

What percentage of current affairs programmes are produced outside the greater Dublin region? RTE produced a good programme on rural Ireland recently, the first in a generation that delved into the real issues. Why is there constantly a Dublin agenda in programming? It appears that there is groupthink in this regard.

Who is the producer of the “Claire Byrne Live” programme? Have they been involved in producing other political or current affairs programmes in the past?

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

Mr. David Nally can explain in some detail the process for how decisions are made on individual programmes. The producer of the “Claire Byrne Live” programme is Aoife Stokes who worked on the “Prime Time” programme for a considerable time. She is doing an extremely good job on the programme which has made an impact in its first few weeks. I was aware that Fianna Fáil representatives had not appeared on it for a few weeks.

Michael Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For six weeks.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

They have been appearing on it regularly in the past two weeks. It depends on the issues that come up for discussion on the programme. It is trying to do current affairs in a slightly different way from the “Prime Time” programme. Some programmes do not feature any politician, while others are much more politically focused. I know that for several weeks the programme has made a bid for an interview with the leader of Fianna Fáil. It has been agreed that he will appear on it at some point and we are just waiting to be told by Fianna Fáil when he will appear.

The point about Deputy Robert Troy’s child care policy document and the work he had done on it was made to me afterwards. Mr. David Nally might go into it in some detail. It is dialogue that is useful for me to have with the parties across the piece. I was not aware of the detail of the work Deputy Robert Troy had done on the issue of child care.

It is useful that this can feed into news and current affairs. I am sure people in the party will be more aware of the detailed work he has done than I was. That has now fed into me and will feed into future discussions about child care. It is very useful when we have Deputies or other politicians who have a very specific area they have been interested in. We should be aware of this.

As for the percentage of current affairs done outside Dublin, this is something we have discussions about all the time. I did think the farming accidents programme was very good and it is good to get David McCullagh out to present from there. There are cost implications when we do it, to be fair, because we have to use an outside broadcasting unit. We have the studio sitting at base and if we do not use it so much that is an element. We are very well aware and have had a number of reports on "Prime Time" and "Claire Byrne Live" from around the country. The Deputy is right that this is something we have to be very conscious of. The only thing I would say is that there are a lot of people in RTE who do not come from Dublin and are very good advocates for coverage around the country - this can be seen in the line-up here today.

If there are follow-up questions I am happy to take them, otherwise I will hand over to Mr. David Nally now to deal with some of the other points.

Mr. David Nally:

If I could start with an admission, I am from Dublin. I apologise for this. It is true that for the first six programmes of "Claire Byrne Live", Fianna Fáil was not on it. Deputy Barry Cowen has since been on about water charges; Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív was on talking about rural Ireland and if Deputy Micheál Martin had accepted the invitation Fianna Fáil would by now have appeared on the programme more than any other Opposition party. While I understand the concern when a run of programmes goes by and any party does not appear on it, I think it is misleading to freeze-frame any programme over a six-week period and judge the figures on that. These things have to be judged over a long period and if this is done, it will be found that there has not been any bias against Fianna Fáil.

Michael Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be fair now, it was not before we kicked up a song and dance after the first six weeks. That is why there has been a redress, it is the only reason.

Mr. David Nally:

No, that is not the case. While the most important thing is to get the journalism right and communicate the issues well to the viewer, we do accept and take seriously that it is also part of our function to be fair to all of the political parties over time. It is not easy because there are a lot of different considerations, but in current affairs we keep a very close eye on it. If one looks at it from the perspective of any one political party, one will always feel aggrieved not to have been on that particular programme or that week. However, standing back and looking at it objectively and impartially, as we do, I am very happy that the share-out of appearances on current affairs programmes is very fair. I would not be happy if this was not the case.

We keep tabs on this and, since the start of 2014, looking at the two programmes I am responsible for - "Prime Time" and "Claire Byrne Live" - the share-out reflects that the Government would have had close to half, in fact a bit less than half of all the appearances, while the Opposition had a bit more than half. Within the Opposition, Fianna Fáil has had more appearances than any other party, and Sinn Féin has had the second most appearances. The difference between them is significant but not excessive. There has also been good representation for Independents and the smaller parties. Over time, any fair-minded person would say that is a reasonable track record. I can accept that on any given programme or in any given month, a party may have a legitimate view that it ought to have been on but the fair thing is to look at it over time if we are talking about bias. I can assure the Deputy that, over time, there is no evidence of bias at all in the appearances on RTE current affairs programmes.

Michael Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Our party had extensive correspondence with RTE and with the Claire Byrne show prior to its airing that night, so RTE was fully aware of the document we had prior to that programme.

Mr. David Nally:

We frequently have political parties telephoning wanting to be on a programme. That is not what determines who appears on the programme. The most important thing for us is to illuminate the issues for the public and to be fair on the issue.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would prefer if people would ask general questions. I know people want to be specific and we are all from different parties and hold different views. I ask the members to generalise rather than be specific.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

If I may add one thing to Deputy Michael Moynihan's point, there were discussions after a few weeks between me, Fianna Fáil and various other representations. These are typical of the representations we had along the way. They are very useful and sometimes highlight things we have not been aware of. I will then go and question those involved and ask why the decisions were made. In that way I make programme teams aware of these issues. This is not peculiar to Fianna Fáil but is a feature of the ongoing discussion I will have. Often they will raise legitimate concerns to which we will respond. As Mr. Nally says, current affairs are probably the most punctilious in terms of the records they keep of appearances. When I get them they are coloured graphs showing political parties and even which parts of the country the guests come from. We can interrogate that ourselves when the parties come up, as they inevitably do, with complaints from time to time.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the representatives from RTE. I concur with much of what Deputy Michael Moynihan said, perhaps not as regards rushing to the defence of Fianna Fáil.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We would be deeply worried if the Deputy did. We would have bigger problems than just a spat with RTE.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy does not have to call in the doctor yet.

The context in which this issue is being raised is that €134 million out of the €214 million raised by the television licence fee goes directly to RTE. There is another sum of money that goes to RTE through the broadcasting fund, a fund of about €10.6 million allocated for other broadcasters for which RTE can apply for funding. In that context we are right to engage with RTE.

The licence fee is the very same amount as what most people will be asked to pay for an unlimited supply of water, €160 a year. While I was walking in this morning, I was listening to "Morning Ireland" and they were posing the question of how Irish Water anticipates it is going to pursue the non-payers. An Post, the agent for RTE, pursues 16,566 non-payers through court summonses. It is important that we would bear in mind that there is a public service element to what RTE does and people are bound by the law to pay for it. They cannot opt in or out and do not get a broadcasting conservation grant for it.

The issue of bias is important, as is safeguarding independence and learning lessons from the awful "Mission to Pray" programme, which had no editorial oversight whatsoever On top of that there was the presidential election in which, as I have said in this committee before, a person I was never going to vote for - and a lot of people were never going to vote for him - basically had the presidency snatched out his hands by an RTE programme within a week of the election. I know lessons were learned from it but it was too late in that context. I think that programme changed the Presidency, a very serious accusation which I have made before. We are in the run-up to an election now and Mr. Bakhurst mentioned that levels of representation would be monitored around the election. That is important but I think it should happen all the time.

There was a recent episode of the Claire Byrne show where a person who was portraying himself as an independent commentator went out to France to see how it operates. He was sent out by RTE to look at the French economy and social model. He was not independent at all because if one Googles his name and the word "politics", one will find that Eamon Dunphy has openly said that he votes for and supports Sinn Féin.

He is entitled to do that, but I wonder where was the editorial research that went into sending him to France and to putting him up against the Minister of State at the Department of Finance under the auspices of being independent when he was no more independent than any of the people sitting on this side of the room. I would have imagined that if one were to send someone out to appraise the French social and economic model that one would do what was said, namely, to send someone independent. That did not happen, and the incident happened after all of the other editorial gaffes we saw previously. I wonder whether we have learned anything.

Deputy Michael Moynihan referred to regional imbalance. One of the greatest examples of the total lack of balance in current affairs occurred last year in the height of the summer. It was not the fault of RTE in Limerick, it was the fault of RTE in Dublin. Tens of thousands of people were in Limerick for the city of culture events, yet the coverage they received in news bulletins could only be described as an afterthought. However, if two pigs were flying up O’Connell Street at the moment it would be the No. 1 news item on RTE. That is the reason people who are paying their television licence have turned the dial to local and commercial radio stations around the country. On several occasions previously we discussed the JNLR figures on commercial radio stations at local level, community radio stations and regional radio stations. People have switched to tune into them in their tens of thousands. One is more likely to hear the corncrake than to hear a local voice on the national broadcaster between 9 a.m. and 12 noon. Deputy Moynihan is correct. Commercial radio stations across the country provide a public service remit. Does RTE agree that it provides a public service remit? The commercial stations are blocked from getting anything from the fund for public service broadcasting, namely, the television licence because €134 million out of €214 million goes directly to RTE regardless of whether it has any regional balance.

I have two final questions which I asked previously of the director general, Mr. Bakhurst, and of RTE every time it has come before the committee. One relates to the reason the company insists on fixing things that are not broken. "Question Time" is running on the BBC. Mr. Bakhurst has plenty of knowledge of that. The formula is not broken and the programme has been running for years. There was the very same model in this country which showed ample balance. There was no bias. John Bowman was able to weed out the plants week in and week out. He could identify the people who were planted there by political parties of all persuasions, including my own. He was very adept at doing it, yet the programme was axed. That was a big mistake because it was a fantastic programme and it weeded out any potential bias. Why did RTE get rid of the programme given that the BBC has a long history of the very same format week in and week out which goes around the United Kingdom?

RTE recently did a very important job in terms of nepotism in the political sphere. I assume RTE is not in any way guilty of that itself. There was wall-to-wall coverage last week about political nepotism in terms of people who work with Deputies who may have given of their time for nothing in many cases up to the time when the Deputy got elected. I presume RTE would not be guilty of nepotism itself, and that if we were to trawl through the HR files in RTE we would not find sons, daughters, wives and husbands of people working out there.

Why is it that a company that gets €134 million from the public - €160 from every house in the country, which is the very same amount as they are being asked to pay for water - will not disclose what presenters are being paid? Why does that have to be dragged out of the company? We are told that we might find out in two years' time.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

I will try to answer the range of points Deputy Patrick O’Donovan has made. I might bring in Mr. Nally if he has anything specific to add to the point made about “Claire Byrne Live”.

In terms of Claire Byrne and the Eamon Dunphy film, Eamon Dunphy was not portrayed as being independent. He was portrayed very clearly as doing an authored report on France, of which he has some experience. This is part of what we do, namely, to bring different perspectives. So long as we label authored reports clearly, we are not pretending the person is independent, but they do provide a different view. The important thing over time is that we have a range of different views doing authored reports that can bring something different. The report was different. It was provocative. People might agree or disagree with much of what Eamon Dunphy had to say but if I recall, there was a robust debate afterwards.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Bakhurst accept that the report was politically charged?

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

It was designed to be an authored report, which is designed to be provocative.

On the question of Limerick, I spoke publicly at the time on the matter. I think Deputy Patrick O’Donovan is referring to the coverage of the great granny event in Limerick. What was not considered at the time was that we did a full piece on "Six One News" on the Friday evening. In my view the mistake we made is that we should have done a second piece over the weekend when we saw the size of the crowds on the streets. I said publicly that I thought that was a mistake. We subsequently did other things to try to put that right. One of the things we did was a “Nationwide” programme about Limerick which featured the great granny event. “Nationwide” is also part of news and current affairs. The great granny event featured in the news review of the year. However, I accept the lack of coverage was a mistake. We should have done more over the weekend given that there were more than 100,000 people on the streets of Limerick. Even if we did a piece on the Friday night we should have done something more at the weekend on it.

Deputy Patrick O’Donovan referred to local radio stations and asked whether they should get a slice of the licence fee. That is something the Deputy has raised previously. I will go back to what the director general said about it, which is that I am not sure whether it would be appropriate for the licence fee to be given to some of the local radio stations which are run by large multinational companies. In a way, that is a matter for future debate.

In terms of fixing things which are not broken, the demise of "Questions & Answers", which I know had a very good reputation, was before my time. Sometimes there can be a perception about fixing things that are not broken in that one wants to refresh and revise. I am not talking specifically about "Questions & Answers" because I was not here when that decision was taken, but there are some programmes that one does not want to just wither away, but one wants to refresh and change the schedule. On the other hand, one does want to nurture things that are well liked and well respected. There is always a difficult balance to be struck on that one.

On nepotism, from my experience I am very confident there is no nepotism at RTE. We are very public about the competitions we have. They are open competitions. Unfortunately, in recent times due to financial reasons we have not been able to go outside often enough to recruit people but when we have had the opportunity to do that we go outside and open up the process to get the best talent in from wherever it comes. I can only speak for myself but the senior management within RTE would not stand for nepotism. We are funded by the licence fee. We are a public organisation and fairness does not just apply to news coverage, it applies to recruitment policies as well. If ever we were to come across that I would take a very dim of it and I know that is true of the director general also.

As for the last point, Deputy Patrick O’Donovan is correct that he has raised the question of what presenters are paid each time I have been before the committee. We do disclose what the presenters are paid. We do not cover it up. We disclose it with a time lag because it is a very competitive marketplace and if we say what we are paying people now they will be picked off one by one. Our duty is to the licence fee payer to try to get best value when we pay. We do pay presenters a lot of money in the eyes of a lot of people but it is a marketplace out there and we have seen in the past 18 months that we have lost prominent presenters. One of the reasons we have lost one or two of the prominent presenters is because people were very well aware of what figure they should offer. If we put the figure out there too soon we could end up potentially paying more than we do at the moment. Many of the presenters are on contracts and when the contracts come up, they will be subject to other offers, as others have been in the last couple of years, and it is a job to persuade them to stay.

Anything which puts upward pressure on fees is a bad thing for us. As the committee knows, we have managed to bring down presenters' fees by 30% in recent years and that is an ongoing process. We are well aware of political and public concern about the level of presenters' fees and we will continue to try to push that down, but it is in the face of considerable market pressure. Mr. Nally may have more to say about Eamon Dunphy and Claire Byrne since that was one question.

Mr. David Nally:

On that particular "Claire Byrne Live" programme, which was another way of looking at the state of the country and the way our public services work, there was a very balanced discussion afterwards when Eamon Dunphy had one person on his side. There were two people across the table from him, the Minister of State at the Department of Finance. Deputy Simon Harris, and Danny McCoy, who got to make all the points they wanted to make in opposition to Eamon Dunphy. Many members of the audience took part over the course of the programme a great many different perspectives were heard on it. It was a very interesting and robust debate. Most of the commentary I read afterwards said that the Government representative on the night won the debate. The point was made on the programme about Eamon Dunphy having said he would vote for Sinn Féin. I do not believe anybody was trying to cover that up-----

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Not by the presenter.

Mr. David Nally:

----- the idea that you could cover it up would have been ridiculous on our part, but I accept the point that we should have said it ourselves, rather than allowing someone else to say it on the programme. That is something we do try and do but we do not always get it right and it is a good point.

Regarding the people in the audience on "Claire Byrne Live", everyone who applies for a seat in the audience through e-mail or by telephone is asked to say whether they are a member of a political party or a campaigning group. We keep a list and when they arrive on the night they have to sign the declaration on whether they are a member of a political party or campaigning group. It is not with a view to excluding any political party or campaigning group, it is just so we know that if the person puts up their hand and makes a comment, and if they do not say they are a member of a party or group, then we are in a position to say it. We get that. I am not aware of any recent incidents where one slipped by. They can slip by from time to time, but we do our absolute best to not let anyone speak on the programme without declaring their political interest. "Questions & Answers" was a very good programme, but the idea that there was no unfair talk about plants and political bias in regard to it is somewhat rose tinted, if the committee does not mind me saying so. It was constantly being accused of having a biased audience and of having plants in the audience. Political parties across the spectrum were constantly unhappy that the programme was supposedly biased against them. That was also true of "Today Tonight" and of "Seven Days". It has always been the case with RTE.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not accept what Mr. Bakhurst said about presenters' salaries. I never did accept this business that one has to wait two years for fear they are going to be taken away. If people are going to be taken away at this stage, then good luck to them. One would not run any other semi-State company with that lack of accountability and transparency. Given that RTE is getting €134 million from the taxpayer, I believe it has an obligation to tell people what it is paying.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan has made that point before. Deputy Michael Colreavy is next, to be followed by Deputy Eamonn Maloney and Michael Fitzmaurice. That is the order, although I know others wish to speak also.

Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegates who are very welcome. I believed Ms Doherty was being a little defensive when she said it made little sense that RTE could or would perpetuate political bias in its output, as suggested by the invitation. I did not believe that there was any suggestion of perpetuation of political bias but I have to admit that when I hear some of the questions and comments that are being made to the witnesses today, then I must conclude that there is bias.

Ms Doherty was right and I was wrong. I do understand the job RTE is trying to do. Before the meeting today I compared it to somebody cutting up a chocolate cake for three children and trying to leave each child happy that it got a fair share. I know from experience it is a huge job to do that. There would be a temptation to come up with some sort of a mathematical equation to say that the percentages are all there, but in doing so it could stifle real debate and discussion. I believe that would be a huge risk. I believe it is paranoia to even suggest that somebody who is going to participate in a current affairs programme should be asked who they voted for last time out. That is paranoia. It is outrageous.

In the absence of a mathematical equation - I know that as part of its monitoring RTE has said it would look at the broad parameters to ensure some balance of time in terms of fairness - there are other factors. There are regional imbalances. I hate to be parochial but we have a studio in Sligo and I think the term "hardly ever used" would come into play. We have people who would be prepared to talk about current affairs and news items there. There is a studio in Cork and I hope my colleagues here will forgive me, but I believe that every time a report came from the Cork studio last summer, I thought they were going to say, "And now we turn to the Fianna Fáil studio in Cork" because it always seemed to be Fianna Fáil in the Cork studio - not Fine Gael and certainly not Sinn Féin. I believe we need to look at those kinds of regional imbalances.

We need to look at the use of the facilities outside of Dublin. There has to be scope for far greater use. I also believe there is a healthy change coming in current affairs broadcasting and "Claire Byrne Live" is leading that change. It is good that minority views are listened to and debated. We are seeing more of that public-led debate - I describe it as participative democracy - where people who used to sit back, trust politicians to get on with it and not question what they were doing are now watching, listening and studying what the political system and politicians are saying. They are also giving their opinion. I believe that is good and healthy. It could be threatening for government parties, but I believe politicians, organisations such as RTE and others will have to adjust to that new reality.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

I thank Deputy Michael Colreavy for his comments. Regional balance is something we constantly talk about. The Deputy is correct in that we have a Sligo studio. Eileen Magnier is a very strong advocate for coverage from Sligo and from that area of the west. She is very busy and I believe she would quibble with "hardly ever used" for live broadcasts. The Deputy is probably right in that we should be looking for more expert voices from there. As for the Cork studio being the Fianna Fáil studio, I believe that the Minister, Deputy Coveney would probably disagree - but it is a well used studio.

I totally agree with the Deputy about "Claire Byrne Live". Fairness in coverage is about not just the political parties, it is about the full range of voices. It is about giving voices to those people outside the norms. The "Claire Byrne Live" programme has done a lot to try and get people who have a particular handle on, or experience of, a story to participate in the debate, when they would not normally be part of that national debate. I welcome the Deputy's observations on that issue.

Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can recall the final point I want to make about participative democracy and broadcasting. If the platform had been available six, seven or eight years ago those who forewarned the economic crash probably would have been listened to an awful lot more. Those voices did exist but they were smothered by numbers, the media and broadcasting. That will be the value of audience discussions and hearing different views.

Eamonn Maloney (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I shall not go over any of the ground that previous speakers have covered but wish to make two points.

In terms of political bias, I do not torture myself about the subject because it is to be found in every institution on this island. Political bias is nowhere stronger than within this House. It also exists in media which includes broadcast media, newspapers, etc. It is a bit naive of any of us to suggest that, for some reason, we can operate a public or private broadcaster and that everyone who works in it is apolitical or non-political. That is the most naive conclusion for anyone to make because everyone has views whether they are strong, weak, right or left. The vast majority of people hold views on things. I do not think we should lose site of that and take off one section of society by claiming they exercise too much political bias.

It is worthwhile for me to mention the following, given that no one else has done so already. I wish to refer to this country's most recent history. However, I will not talk about and will leave aside the economic collapse of the banking system and part of the economy. Let us touch on other things that have come out in the public domain. They have not come out into the public domain because of what politicians, including myself, have done. The fact that they have reached the public domain is largely the responsibility of what RTE has done and I have only to cite a few examples. Sexual abuse, be it in the church or outside of it, was not brought up in this House; it was done by RTE.

We can criticise broadcasters and I will outline my one criticism in a minute but we should credit broadcasters when they do things right. Unfortunately, there is a lot of hidden history in this country but society has opened up a good deal. Even in more recent times, for example sexual abuse by paramilitaries or members of political parties, the very same thing happened. No one had the bottle to stand up in the Chamber to raise the issues. It was left to the broadcasters to initiate discussion and we should be conscious of that fact.

I do not know to whom I should direct my next query on news coverage on television or radio. I avoid as much television as possible because a lot of media programmes are tabloid stuff. RTE would do us all a great favour if its radio programme called the "South Wind Blows" was broadcast seven nights a week or even all weekend because it would raise the spirit of the nation.

I ask the delegation not to be sensitive about my next comment. I genuinely feel that for a long time an insensitive approach has been taken to the unemployed in news coverage. The delegation can contradict me if they like but I believe there is a complete disconnect between RTE, as broadcasters of the news, and those who have lost the most following the collapse of the economy. Many thousands of men and women have no job to go to when they get up in the morning. RTE still has a responsibility towards them and, in recent times, I was one of those people. Even before one goes to stand in a queue, when one turns on the radio in the morning, irrespective of what the programme might be, the first thing one will hear is a headline like "Coolock has lost 200 jobs". Eight days previously RTE's broadcast would have included mention of 340 jobs being created but that positive news would have only ranked fifth in the news bulletin. Every time jobs are lost RTE, more than other broadcasters, broadcasts the bad news first. I am being straight with the witnesses and they can check for themselves by monitoring broadcasts. I shall conclude by saying that such a policy is insensitive to the unemployed.

As any Deputy will attest, many thousands of people write letters and send e-mails seeking work. The vast majority of people want to work and they will go to great length to get any sort of innings, even as far as taking a part-time job. The national broadcaster should be responsible and give people some hope and I do not mean in a political sense. I do not play the recovery up because it is very modest but it is going in the right direction. I ask the delegation to look at this matter. Please bear in mind that all of these people have families, etc. An announcement of job losses is usually the first item on the news and there have been quite a few such announcements. I have tried to monitor them since 1 January but I know there have been quite a few of them. When one is having a bowl of cornflakes or porridge in the morning the first thing one hears is that the firm down the road has lost another 300 jobs. I know such news has a huge negative effect because people have said it to me. As I represent a constituency that has the largest level of unemployment, men and women have said to me: "I cannot listen anymore, especially to RTE, because the first bit of news in the morning is negative." An announcement of jobs being created is positive and gives people hope. That is all I am saying to the delegation.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

I hope we are not insensitive to the unemployed. All of us know people who have been through unemployment either now or in the past and, therefore, are aware of the pressure it puts on individuals, families and everyone associated with them. Recognition of what it means to people is possibly why prominence is given to job losses because it is easier to say 250 jobs have been lost. The reality is that such news has an impact on 250 people and their families. The sensitivity towards unemployment cuts both ways. Sensitivity to unemployed people is possibly why we rank job losses first.

We have had numerous editorial discussions on the importance of job creation which is equally important to the country. The prominence of the coverage of job creation versus the prominence of the coverage of job losses is something we discuss quite a lot. It features in editorial meetings. My editorial teams could tell the Deputy that I have bored for Ireland, in the past couple years, about this matter - that job creation is an important story. Frankly, it is something that I monitor and my teams know I monitor it quite carefully. The Deputy did make a valid point. I do not think we have always got it right. Sometimes we have overlooked job creation stories and we probably should have done more about them but they are as important as job losses. I refer to framing job losses and demonstrating the very real impact it has on people's lives. The Deputy's point is not lost on us.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the delegates and thank them for the presentations. I wish to make a couple of points and hope not to take up too much time.

I understand from what the delegation said earlier that RTE gets phone calls from political parties that basically say "We want time, we need this and we need that". Does that happen constantly? Does the Government do the same? Is there an onus on RTE to accede to these requests? Where does an ordinary Joe Soap come in, be it an Independent politician or one person on his or her own, who never rings RTE?

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy should talk to his party Whip.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My political group does not use such a process. It seems parties regularly ring RTE seeking to control or wanting to control a lot of the broadcast.

Does RTE adhere to this? We heard about a programme where there was no one from a particular party on it for six weeks. They were then on it for the next six weeks. Basically, it was payback time.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice has done fairly well himself in the past few weeks.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not interrupt the Deputy. Seven or eight months ago I would be at home watching the news on RTE about the situation in Ukraine and so forth. I would then come into Leinster House and speak to other politicians who were on committees and had gone to various countries. They can tell us what is going on in those countries. They are the camera where there is no camera, for example, from RTE. Other stations, in England or wherever, show two sides. They show corruption and problems in European countries which the EU is aiding and abetting and to which it is turning a blind eye. I would have one view of an issue as a result of certain people explaining to me what was going on. My view on an issue would have been based on what RTE were showing. Once investigated and once other stations from other countries that gave a more balanced view were turned on, a whole other story would come out.

Deputy Michael Colreavy spoke earlier about European matters. Six, seven and eight years ago, people were raising a flag and saying that problems were coming down the line for this country. These people did not get the proper chance. People who are critical of Europe at the moment or who are critical of certain countries where things are going on that blind eyes are being turned to are not being given appropriate air time. I would like the delegates' opinion on that issue.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

Do we get telephone calls and representations from political parties in Government all the time? The answer is, "Yes." We also get them from the various Independents. These are the independent voices. I am sure the Deputy has contact with RTE from time to time too.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not have contact with anyone.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

If the Deputy does not, Deirdre McCarthy is around the Dáil all the time and he should contact her. We welcome contact from political parties and Government. It is a useful dialogue to have. We will consider all the points they make and probably disagree with most of them. Sometimes a valid point is made and we should respond to it, be it from any of the political parties, pressure groups or other voices. We are a public service broadcaster and Members should have a dialogue with us. We will consider the points made. Deirdre McCarthy spends a lot of her time having these conversations. She will sometimes talk to me about conversations she has had and whether we need to do anything about them. It is important, but it is also important for people to know that a telephone call does not mean we adhere to it, as the Deputy put it. We will consider it. Ms McCarthy may wish to say more about that in a second.

On foreign coverage, the Deputy is right. A range of broadcasts is now available here. There are a whole lot of different countries which are covered in different ways and we do not have the resources to cover them all. I would love to do as much as some of the bigger broadcasters can afford to do. There are programmes on RTE Radio, in particular, in which we cover things which may go under the radar in terms of day to day news coverage. We have tried to focus on what has been going on in countries such as Russia where there have been political assassinations recently. Could we do more? Yes. Would we like to do more? Yes. However, we are not sure we have the resources to do it. One of the ways of doing it is to do it in radio programmes. This is a cheaper way of doing it and of getting other voices on. It is good that a range of other companies is available and doing some of this as well. There is a range of coverage available to people.

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

Political representation is constant. The political unit in Leinster House is made up of myself, two political correspondents and four members of the Oireachtas unit. "The Week in Politics" team is here also. We are here all the time and we meet Deputies and political party representatives all the time. Separate to that, we are regularly approached by special advisers, departmental and Government officials and a variety of people. An awful lot of it is just to keep in touch. Sometimes a political party might have a particular complaint to make about a programme or about an item which went out on the news. Sometimes it is a question about why a political party or Opposition party did not make the Dáil package on the six o'clock news. It will say another party made it and ask why it did not make it. We consider everything and it is balanced out. If it needs to be fed back into the system and into the newsroom, we do that at the morning meetings and, also, sometimes things have to be changed very quickly. An awful lot of representations are made. Sometimes it is a query. Sometimes it is a complaint, and sometimes it is trying to push a certain agenda. Everything has to be considered. We have to listen. It does not mean that we are going to agree or do anything about something but we must be open.

Mr. Tom McGuire:

I will take the opportunity to pick up one or two things in response to Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice. Deputy Michael Moynihan mentioned the panels earlier. In radio, we seek to have at least "one plus two", that is, one Government and two Opposition representatives on panels. It tends to vary a little depending on whether something is counted as opposition or depending on the issue which is being dealt with as that can change the hue of it . We would like to see this as a minimum.

In terms of the regions and the radio, we did 250 outside broadcasts from Radio 1 last year. I was at a recording in Moate last Sunday. The crew had just left Killaloe on Saturday. Some of that is not seen but it is there and it is definitely there to be heard.

All programmes, whether strict current affairs programmes or programmes of a lighter hue, have the same responsibility in terms of broadcasting and journalism guidelines. All of the presenters and programme teams would be taken through those guidelines. I welcome the telephone calls and I know programme teams welcome the contact. It is not always going to be acceded to. It is robust, as Mr. Bakhurst said in his introductory remarks, but they are there.

I could not leave this without saying I really enjoyed the Deputy's Garth Brooks rendition on Brian Dowling's programme before Christmas.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have one more question. It is about the Galway studio.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice enjoyed his time with Hector in the middle of the by-election.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Staff numbers in the west were cut following the cutbacks in RTE a few years ago. I am not just talking about the west now but the south and the northern part of the country also. Does RTE envisage trying to give equal opportunities to people in all parts of the country?

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

Yes, we do. People are aware we did a lot of work on trying to maintain the regional presence in the face of severe financial challenges. We shut the London operation ahead of shutting any of the regional operations. We now have a different model across the regions. Several of them have re-based and are working in institutes of technology. We are working in partnership with the institutes of technology.

We are in the Hynes Building in Galway. We have a relatively long lease still to go on that. Some programmes have moved out. There are more people from Nuacht working there from time to time as well. Therefore, other people have moved in. We used a little bit of money last year and this year to reinforce the crewing for the correspondents, Pat McGrath and Teresa Mannion. We have quite a strong presence in the west when one considers Galway and the Nuacht crews and newsroom which is there as well. I go down there quite a lot because many of my staff are based in the west. There is a high level of commitment. The Nuacht teams work on both Irish language and English language news output. We therefore have quite a lot of people there. It is an important part of the country to us.

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

I will add one more point on the regional studios. On "The Week in Politics" programme, for example, a lot of the time the Deputies will travel the distance but sometimes we are asked, by different politicians, if it can be done from the regional studio, whether it is Donegal or Cork. We actively discourage that. It is not in the politician's interest to be so remote and to be removed from the presenter and the other guests. It is very difficult for the politician at an outside location to engage in the conversation, pick up on points immediately and to have the interaction that goes with panel discussions. Sometimes, we have to go to the regional studio because we need the representation from the party on what is the issue of the week and we need to hear what it will say about it. We have to use the studios in those circumstances. In terms of panel discussions, we try to have as many of the guests in the studio because it is to their advantage to be in there with the presenter.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Two Deputies wanted to get in, but as I am conscious of the Order of Business, I will let Senators John Whelan and Paschal Mooney in first.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman. I also wish to thank all the RTE representatives for their excellent presentations and for the question and answer session so far.

This is the first opportunity I have had to thank RTE collectively for the decision it took to defer closure of the 252 long-wave transmitter. That important decision was warmly welcomed, as the witnesses will know, both by the reaction within this committee and also from the Irish diaspora in the United Kingdom. I understand, however, that in recent weeks the channel was off the air for three days. In addition, an Algerian station that has been interfering with reception, particularly in the south of England, has strengthened and increased its transmissions.I ask the witnesses to talk to their technical people about the possibility of shifting long-wave 252 to a now free frequency at 261, which has been vacated by Radio Bulgaria. I have received this information from technical people who are monitoring these matters. I understand that the interference is quite significant, which will of course completely upset the decisions that RTE has wisely taken. I therefore ask the witnesses to look into that particular aspect.

The advice that Ms McCarthy has given to politicians is probably the best piece of advice they will hear today. I am glad she mentioned it because she is absolutely right in that to take part in a panel discussion, one is most definitely disconnected. There have been a number of instances down through the years whereby politicians at regional level taking part in panel discussions have come out at the wrong end. It is the best piece of advice ever and, as somebody involved in the media, I would strongly endorse it. If a person is appearing on a one-to-one basis that is fine, but if a person is going on a panel they should think twice about doing it from a regional location.

In the context of the regional locations, I endorse and echo everything that has been said and asked here about regional coverage. Over the past two to three years in particular there has been a growing movement - I use that word in a loose sense - that rural Ireland is losing out and disappearing fast. The witnesses will be aware of it because RTE has covered the closure of post offices and Garda stations, as well as one and two-teacher schools. I know the Government has gone some way to try to address these issues, but they are very real. Wind farms constitute another major issue across the country, as well as the extension of electricity by overhead lines. All of these issues are affecting rural communities. From a Dublin 4 perspective, they may not seem to be that important. Perhaps they are seen as too bitty and not straightforward enough to be grabbed as new items. In the context of regional coverage, however, all I ask is for RTE to become more aware that these are real quality-of-life issues for people who wish to live and remain in rural Ireland.

Despite all the other great programmes on RTE, the "Nine O'Clock News" is the flagship one. The witnesses spoke about the trust that people have in RTE and to a large extent that is based on the way the "Nine O'Clock News" covers events. It is the one that most people watch, apart from "Six One". What are RTE's criteria for deciding on the manner in which the Dáil is covered? RTE covers Dáil proceedings daily when the House is sitting. There is a perception that the old order has gone when there were two and a half parties. It was easy when one had Fine Gael and the Labour Party in government, followed by the main opposition party Fianna Fáil. Independents did not really get much of a look in unless they happened to be like Jackie Healy-Rae, God rest him, and were having an effect or impact on the Government. Over the decades, it seemed to be an easier choice to make. Now, however, it is much more diverse, particularly since the 2011 election.

I was pleased by the statistics Mr. Nally showed, which are quite revealing, on the pro ratacoverage for each party. I was surprised because perception is all, particularly in politics. I am curious about the "Nine O'Clock News" because there have been occasions - I am speaking from a party point of view - where Fianna Fáil is officially the main opposition party and Micheál Martin is the leader of the Opposition, although he is not always referred to as such. It seems to me that sometimes on the "Nine O'Clock News" RTE gets it jumbled up a bit. Is that to do with the impact of the contributions that the Independents or others are making? I would like to know what are the criteria.

There used to be a book of contacts in news and current affairs of people who could be called upon to appear on various panel programmes. Perhaps it was specific to women, but I have it at the back of my memory from my time in RTE. Are the witnesses happy with the diversity of opinion they are getting? Do they have any way of updating that, which would bring in more people not necessarily from Dublin but from other parts of the country?

As regards RTE's international coverage, I appreciate what Mr. Bakhurst said about resources. Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that most of RTE's feed of international coverage comes from the European Broadcasting Union. At a recent exchange in this House with the Chinese ambassador, I was surprised to learn from a number of questions I put to him about my perception of where China stood in the world. It was specifically about their humanitarian contributions on the Ebola crisis in Africa. I was amazed to discover that they have a very proactive approach to what is going on not just in the African Ebola crisis, but also in other international areas. Yet it seems to me that in Europe generally, and I am not referring specifically to RTE, there is a Western view that is perhaps dominating news coverage. Since international issues were raised, I am curious to know if the witnesses have a view on that. Does it concern resources or are there other ways of accessing a broader international view?

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the delegates bank those questions? I will now call Senator Whelan because I am conscious of people wanting to get in.

John Whelan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman and welcome all the delegates. I am glad of the opportunity to speak and I will be as prompt as I can. It is important that we respect each other and do not come in here forearmed with preconceived positions, although we do. We must divest ourselves of those on both sides. It is important to have a healthy strain or tension between both sides. As a poacher turned gamekeeper, and a politician myself, I do not think I will ever get enough or sufficiently fair coverage. That is the nature of the beast. I am a fan of "Oireachtas Report" but it is never good if I am not on it. To be fair to the programme, one would want to be an insomniac, a political anorak or a glutton for punishment to stay up until 1 a.m. to watch it. The scheduling of "Oireachtas Report" is unfair if one is trying to suggest that it is being taken seriously or is a serious presentation of coverage of proceedings in the Oireachtas on the day.

I will now move on to the question of regional bias. There are favourite places in the world for RTE. There seems to be an obsession with some places such that no matter what happens in them it is covered ad nauseam, but what about parts of our own country? As an island nation we cannot be insular and must take a world view. However, I would prefer to see the concentration of resources on regional coverage, which is stretched to say the least. Many events are covered if they take place in the vicinity of the capital, but comparable events elsewhere are not. That situation needs to be examined and addressed.

The comparison between Irish Water and RTE in terms of scrutiny, accountability and the taxpayers' subvention is not an unfair analogy. People pay €160 a year for a television licence so we are entitled to expect the same level of public scrutiny. In the case of RTE, if people do not pay the licence fee they are hauled up before the courts. That is something I would favour for water charges, too. We are entitled to expect the best gold-standard from RTE and the same level of scrutiny.

I support Senator Paschal Mooney's one-man band campaign to preserve and protect long-wave radio. It is a bit rich for the State broadcasting company and for us to be bandying about the diaspora and emigrants and yet cut one of the few links they have with the country in terms of sport and current affairs. The long-wave service is worth the money it costs and it should be protected.

There has been a change, even in the mood in the room. This morning politicians have decided to go forward with the ballot box in one hand and the box of chocolates in the other, rather than confronting RTE head on, with a view to trying to get better results. My biggest crib this morning is with RTE. I am a member of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. The Houses of the Oireachtas communications unit has put huge effort and resources into developing Oireachtas television. If we are discussing political balance, coverage of current affairs and the proceedings of the committees, the Seanad and the Dáil, it is shameful that RTE continues to refuse to provide a platform for broadcasts from the Oireachtas. Let me say to Mr. Bakhurst that RTE is looking for more money. It sought €1 million which has now been reduced to €500,000. Essentially RTE has tapped the Oireachtas, which is essentially the taxpayer, in order to broadcast the Oireachtas TV channel, which is being broadcast by RTE's rivals Sky, UPC and Eircom and is available through the Oireachtas streaming.

Let me put it to the Chair that this is not a good policy decision. I accept that the board does not interfere with day-to-day programming, rightly so, but from the policy perspective, I put it to Ms Doherty that this should be revisited by RTE. As the State broadcaster, contingent on the subvention that the taxpayer pays through the licence fee, it would be great to see the Oireachtas TV channel, which has been developed to a high level in terms of production values by the Houses of the Oireachtas communications unit and staff, made available on SAORVIEW. RTE should not be looking for more money in order to do this.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the delegation and thank those who made the presentations.

In her final comment,Ms Doherty, the RTE chairperson, seemed to suggest that her invitation to appear at the committee was based on a presumption of bias. She stated clearly that such oversight would simply not tolerate political bias within the country’s primary public service media organisation. I support public service broadcasting and I think it is incumbent on us to ensure there is no bias or no perception of bias. I think the purpose of Ms Doherty's presence is to set out clearly the procedures, the policies and the audit mechanism that are in place to ensure this does not become a reality. In the minds of some there is a perception of bias. My colleagues set out the issues and I do not intend to rehearse them as we have had some answers and I would like to have more detailed answers from Mr. Nally on some aspects.

It is appropriate that a discussion would take place when issues arise and concerns are raised. For bias to take hold a lack of balance must exist. Where there is balanced representation on television programmes it eliminates the potential for bias to flourish. My colleague, Deputy Michael Moynihan, has outlined a series of six programmes where the Fianna Fáil Party had no representation. Rightly in the minds of some people, that created a perception that something was going on. I am not accusing anybody of political bias. That is very hard to stand up. It is virtually impossible. It might be easier to take the approach of groupthink and suggest there is a presumption that Fianna Fáil does not have skin in that game because it is not relevant to the particular debate or editorial line in that programme. Therefore, it is proposed to introduce some other actors, external people, and people from outside the political arena with only a representative of Government and some elements of what is perceived to be the Opposition. I do not want to get into that because that is an editorial role and whatever skills I have they are not in that area. That is the basis of the conversation we are having.

From our side, it is about a deep regard and understanding of what public service broadcasting should be so that we do not end up on a slippery slope where the perception ultimately becomes a reality in the minds of some. I would not want the delegates to think that I am casting a slur or that we believe that RTE is engaged in political bias for the wrong reasons, because I do not think any member of the organisation would allow that to happen, but over time there is potential. The concern is evidenced by what my colleague, Deputy Michael Moynihan, has said. I would like this to be discussed.

Mr. David Nally mentioned that had Deputy Micheál Martin accepted an invitation to appear on the programme that would have increased the representation and the issue of balance would not have arisen. Perhaps, but if my recollection is correct, the request was to engage in a one-to-one debate on how the country feels about Fianna Fáil right now. To my mind that does not help to eliminate the potential for a perception of somebody with an agenda. I do not push that, but I will park it and let the delegates comment on it, if they so wish. It does not fill me with confidence when a previous programme pitched the leader of the Labour Party against the leader of Sinn Féin for what was a battle on who will form the next main Opposition party. I do not know what dynamic they were trying to focus on but it seemed to exclude the largest, albeit not by too many seats, political party in Opposition. One can have balance too, but that of itself is not enough to eliminate the potential for a perception to exist of groupthink or an agenda being set from a different viewpoint.

What is at issue is the agenda that is set for a programme. Is it about facilitating debate or creating the debate? I am conscious that I am moving into an area of editorial discretion that I have no role in, nor would I want a role in it. I might have a view but it would not be relevant to have it discussed here. I am mindful of this.

I have another example of groupthink. There was a political position taken by the Taoiseach when he said the next election would effectively be a choice for the Irish people between him, as Taoiseach or Deputy Gerry Adams as Taoiseach. The poll taken that weekend after those comments were made largely did not support that contention but a week or two later, there was a poll on the front page of the Sunday Independent, where Sinn Féin had risen dramatically by eight or ten points and Independents had gone down. For people who track and observe polls, I do not want to suggest it was a rogue poll, but it was certainly well out of kilter with any other polling that was done. Interestingly, for the following two days, RTE headlined that particular position quite aggressively. I throw that out because it adds to a perception in the minds of some, although I am not going to get back into the Robert Troy issue as I felt strongly enough about that, as many did at the time.

It is a question of how one manages the balance. I have taken what Mr. Kevin Bakhurst has said on the updated journalistic guidelines and that is good, but one would like to think there was an audit trail. Mr. Bakhurst referred to the numbers and charts presented but one would like to see a regular mechanism and know that somebody is monitoring it to ensure that the question of balance is addressed. If one has a representation on a programme, he or she can rebut arguments. I am not going into the detail of what my colleagues discussed as to whether Eamon Dunphy constitutes a Sinn Féin representative.

If there is somebody on to challenge it then I am happy that we get our side out. If we fail to do this, if we have a bad interview then that is tough but we need to be in play. I dislike monitoring programmes but I often believe that in the desire to have an element of levity in some of the weekend magazine type programmes there is a political dimension and there can be strong political debate, but it is not balanced. It may involve just a Government representative or whatever. I believe that more could be done around those programmes to ensure RTE strikes that balance and has the opportunity to level it out, particularly in the run-up to an election.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the delegation from RTE to the committee. I have a number of questions for Mr. Bakhurst and his colleagues. I refer to the upcoming marriage referendum. Let me point to the Broadcasting Authority guidelines on coverage, not just for RTE but also for other media outlets. This is important because all the political parties in the Oireachtas are in favour of one side of the referendum and it is my understanding that all too often the McKenna judgement is misinterpreted and misunderstood by some media organs, thereby creating a space for those who are against it. It is opportune that the delegates are before the committee. The McKenna judgment is not about giving 15 minutes to each side, it is about presenting the case in a balanced fashion. Can I ask the delegates what is RTE's intent in terms of coverage, particularly in the run-up to the poll on Friday, 22 May? Can the witnesses tell the committee RTE's plan in regard to affording proper balance and judgement so we do not have a situation where a political party or civic society group proponent on the "Yes" side with a fundamentalist on the "No" side, who is not part of a broader movement but by virtue of a misinterpretation of the McKenna judgement, might find themselves on very fine shows such as "Claire Byrne Live" or "Today with Sean O'Rourke".

How often does RTE get complaints from political parties? Is it generally from the administrator or the Director General, or does it get direct complaints from leaders of political parties? We are very good at thinking we are all victims of a huge media conspiracy to not cover all the important things we are saying. I know the level of significance that we attach to some issues may not be shared, rightly so in some cases, by our national media outlets. Are those complaints logged and how are they dealt with? Are there complaints directly from members of the Oireachtas, Senators or Deputies as distinct from party leaders' offices? As Mr. Bakhurst knows, a complaint has been lodged by our former Lord Mayor of Dublin, Councillor Dermot Lacey, in regard to coverage on "The Marian Finucane Show" last Saturday, and again on Sunday. There were four anti-water charge protestors interviewed on the show on Saturday. The leader of the anti-water charge protest was interviewed on the show on Sunday. There was no counter balance. There was a five-to-none imbalance in terms of that coverage. Can the delegates explain the rationale behind that and how the complaint by the former Lord Mayor is going to be dealt with? At what stage is the coverage of a protest in danger of becoming promotion of the event as opposed to coverage of it?

I am mystified by the numbers, and not just by media outlets but also An Garda Síochána and organisers of groups. Every year the mini-marathon in Cork is limited to a crowd of 10,000 people. They line up behind Páirc Uí Chaoimh and anybody down there in journalistic circles knows what a crowd of 10,000 people looks like. I was not around for the protest on Saturday, I was only feeding into Twitter and trying to get an accurate gauge of the crowd control. Estimates varied widely, from 20,000 to a high of 80,000. I heard one media outlet, I do not believe it was RTE, say it was hundreds of thousands. All these figures cannot be correct. Is there software available where one could guesstimate the size of crowds? Is there a benchmark, like the Dublin City Marathon, where one would have a defined, accurate number of participants enlisted, for example 100,000? Could this be benchmarked to the visual turnout for a protest? Some of the commentary around the inaccurate predictions of the turnout on Saturday was that there were large areas of O'Connell Street that were not occupied by people. Even if they were there, they could have been shoppers going about their business or people employed on public transport waiting to take over roles. I find the figures intriguing, they cannot all be right and they are so wildly inaccurate. I have been guilty myself in the past of overstating a crowd for obvious reasons-----

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy used to understate them when he was in government, too.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The last question for Mr. Bakhurst is about the top earners and the traditional controversy around that. Mary Wilson interviewed an RTE board member a few years back in regard to the top earners. Given what we have been through in the recession and the difficulties meted out, most unfairly in some quarters, is it right that a presenter earning €300,000 to €500,000 a year interviews someone who has undergone a 5% reduction in a salary of €30,000 to €40,000? I am not ashamed that I was a strong critic of the reduction of €1 in the minimum wage by the last Administration. Some of the show presenters covering the reduction would earn more in one hour than the minimum wage could give in one year. Can I ask the witnesses to tell the committee what are the salaries of the top earners and their expenses? It grates with me that someone earning €300,000 to €500,000 per year would interview someone else during a recession about a reduction in their earnings which are a fraction of what the presenters earn. I know the argument is made that if RTE does not pay it then another media outlet might be open to taking them at similar prices but I do not accept that. I believe it is obscene in the extreme for anybody to earn that kind of money, not least because of the economic torture inflicted on many ordinary, hard-pressed households in recent years.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are a lot of questions. I am not sure how many boxes of chocolates were handed out. Mr. Bakhurst might take the questions in order.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

I will take some and bring in people as we get through them. Tom McGuire is much better equipped to answer Senator Paschal Mooney's query on long-wave set up.

Mr. Tom McGuire:

I thank Senator Paschal Mooney for his question. There was a three day outage which I believe ends at midnight tonight. It was planned and announced and was to replace aircraft safety warning lights on the transmitter at Summerhill. The people who know tell me it takes three or four days; I hope, therefore, we will be back on air with that tomorrow. I acknowledge what the Senator says about increased power from the Algerian transmitter on 252 kHz, particularly in southern England, but generally across England. We have had feedback on that issue and it is outside our control but I will take the technical knowledge of 251 kHz or 261 kHz -----

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is 261 kHz, a free frequency which has emerged for no extra costs at all.

Mr. Tom McGuire:

I will pass that on to RTE's technical people.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. McGuire might communicate with me on it.

Mr. Tom McGuire:

I will. Wind farms and rural electricity are two topics which "Today with Sean O'Rourke" and "Drivetime" have dealt with consistently through the year and will continue to do so.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

If I could pick up on Senator Paschal Mooney's point on the regional cover. Coverage of rural Ireland is something that RTE is very well aware of. As Mr. McGuire says, radio has done a lot. There was a Richard Curran programme recently, I believe it was on RTE Radio One, about the future of rural Ireland, wind farms and pylons. Ciarán Mullooly has spent probably half of the last 12 months covering those issues.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We were not the only ones, it was a composite view.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

It is a point well made and is something we cannot just solve here and we will be coming back to it. The 9 p.m. news programme is news driven. On the question of criteria for the coverage of the Dáil, overall we have to strike balance in the programme and a view of political balance across a longer period, say over a week or two. It is primarily news driven and we choose the clips on the basis of the significance of the person who made the statement, the strength of the clips involved and how fairly represented are the major stakeholders in any particular story, whether that is political parties or others.

Deirdre McCarthy would feed into that process. There is very careful consideration put into it. There is quite often a discussion about which clip is used in the headlines of the "Six One News" and the "Nine O'clock News".

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

Let me add that sometimes there may be other stories. For example, Deputy Micheál Martin's clip from the Dáil yesterday was used in another story. It depends on the story. Other parties could be used. The "Nine O'clock News" is a shorter bulletin so if there was a Dáil package or a leader's package of the day which tended to represent one or two of the Opposition parties and, for instance, an Independent or someone from the Technical Group was not on it, it is monitored so that they will be on another day. They are monitored constantly between the 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. news programmes in terms of who is on and from which party to ensure a cross-section is represented.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is reassuring.

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

Yes.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

To address the Senator's point on foreign coverage, we do rely on EBU, which, for people who do not know, is the European Broadcasting Union. We are a member of it and so are most public service broadcasters across Europe. We pay to be a member of it. We get a good supply of material from our partners from all countries across Europe. We also subscribe to Reuters. We get material from it. That is another source of video material around the world and across Europe.

The Senator said he met the Chinese ambassador. I have had the pleasure of meeting the Chines ambassador too and hearing some of his perspectives. I think the perspectives of people like the Chinese are important. This is something that Ingrid Miley brought back from her trip with the President to China recently. She brought back some other stories and did some other coverage while she was there.

Do we have a western view? Possibly we do. I think sometimes we have to try to be careful about that. In our reporting of Ukraine and Russia, for example, we have to ensure that we represent all the viewpoints, whether they are a Western view or a view that is diametrically opposed to the West. That is something we need to be cautious about.

I am sure that Deirdre McCarthy will agree with Senator John Whelan's view on the scheduling of the Oireachtas report. We tried to give it other airings on "News Now" as well as on RTE One. There is an element of whether it is ready but there is also an element of the programming and scheduling decisions on RTE One. I know this is a continual point of discussion when we come here about whether it is for insomniacs but it still gets a very good audience whatever time it runs at.

I agree with what the members of the committee have said about concentration of resources on regional coverage. When there were tough decisions to be made about shutting some of the regions or taking money out of foreign coverage we chose to keep the regions open and do them in a different way in terms of our news bureaus around the country. It is a difficult balancing act because there is an expectation from the audience as well that they get good and comprehensive international coverage and an Irish perspective on international coverage, so we are constantly weighing that up. I would say that certainly my first priority and that of RTE is that we report Ireland properly to the audience and then that we report the rest of the world to the audience. That is a key aim of our coverage.

Long-wave and the diaspora have been touched upon and Mr. McGuire has talked about that a little bit. It is worth making the point that we are constantly finding new ways of reaching the diaspora and, in fact, some of the new ways the diaspora are reached are through the news website; the RTE website; the international player that we have just launched; and GAAGO. These are all new ways of reaching the audience and giving them different products that we have not given them before. The take-up of the international player has been impressive already within the first few weeks. Almost 40,000 people have downloaded the app. There is a real appetite for that and it is a priority, as we have said publicly before, to serve the Irish diaspora, whether they are coming back in future or staying abroad.

On Oireachtas TV, I think Senator John Whelan was slightly unfair on RTE. I know this is a bone of contention. The Senator might shake his head as I shook mine when he was making the point but I think, as he is aware, the pricing on SAORVIEW is not a matter for RTE. We do not have the ability to give the platform to Oireachtas TV. RTE does not have the platform. SAORVIEW has statutes and they govern what people have to be charged to be on there. It is a regulated statute that RTE does not have a concession over. We have been trying, as part of the consortium that runs SAORVIEW, to bring down the cost, because we are big supporters of Oireachtas TV, and we would like to try to have it on SAORVIEW. The reason the cost has come down so far is because there have been other new entrants to SAOIRVIEW, such as UTV Ireland. The more broadcasters who are on there the greater the reduction for everyone who is one there because there is an overall cost of SAORVIEW which has to be divided up and there are statutes to govern that. It is not within the gift of RTE to give it for free. What we can do is try to build up a portfolio which brings the cost down as far as is possible and that is what we have done so far and what we will try to do in the future. We would very much like to see it on SAORVIEW.

John Whelan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am familiar with that point. However, if it is not resolved in reasonably due course I will propose that we change the law.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

That is an option-----

Ms Moya Doherty:

One of the first questions I asked when I took up my role as chair of RTE is why Oireachtas TV was not on SAORIVEW and I was given a paper with everything that Mr. Bakhurst has outlined. I certainly know that the board and I, as chair, very much want Oireachtas TV on SAORVIEW. I have gone back several times to the Director General on that point but it is a legislative issue and the members of the committee are the legislators.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is very welcome because unfortunately the communications around this House about that decision, as the Senator has outlined, have shown RTE as the baddie on this one so I welcome the fact that Mr. Bakhurst and Ms Doherty have clarified that isue.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

I thank the Deputy. I think he is right that perception is important, whether that is six programmes in a row on "Claire Byrne Live" or whether it is general perception about RTE, as I have discussed with various members of Fianna Fáil. I have also had to deal with this with other parties along the way because of various competing perceptions around the coverage of the water protests over the last year. There was a perception from the Government that we were actively encouraging the water protests, there was a perception from the water protesters that we were a voice piece of the State, neither of which are true. However, there are these perceptions and it is important that we tackle them and explore them to see if there is any grain of truth in the issues involved. I believe open dialogue is one way of dealing with that. I encourage people, if there are those perceptions, to bring them to us, to bring them to Ms McCarthy or me, and we can discuss them. If there is a grain of truth in any of them we will try to address them. Perception is important for RTE and perception of fairness is very important. We put a heavy emphasis on the audience's perception of RTE news and current affairs, as the Chairman mentioned earlier. We monitor the level of trust very carefully. It is the same with perception with the political parties and, crucially, with our audience and the licence fee payers.

The phrase "groupthink" has been raised several times by Deputy Timmy Dooley and other members of the committee. This was an accusation that was made a few years ago around the various editorial issues. I do not see it. There is no groupthink in RTE. There is a healthy and robust debate and I have experienced it myself sometimes when I attend current affairs meetings where I sometimes feel I am on the programme when there is a debate about coverage and what we should and should not be doing. There is even a debate sometimes between current affairs and news about what we are doing on coverage so the idea that there is groupthink or one way of thinking about any area of coverage or any way that we cover a story is wrong. One of the things that I try to encourage is robust debate at editorial meetings about any issues of the day because I think everyone should have a voice and it is the only way in the end that there is a proper discussion if people are not afraid to discuss it and raise questions over it. There is a real danger if people are afraid to do that. I would like to try to dispel that and I will carry on trying to dispel it for as long as I can.

Deputy Timmy Dooley asked about the mechanism of how programmes are balanced on a daily basis.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was not asking specifically about how they are balanced on a daily basis, but within reason. I would not expect Mr. Bakhurst to try to do it daily.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

The individual programme makers have to ensure that their coverage of a news item is fair, either across a programme or across time and that political parties are fairly represented either on a programme or across time. It is monitored by editors, the managing editors and by me. Frankly, the communications with the political parties feed into that. Sometimes we miss things. We monitor it very carefully but in the greater scheme things - sometimes individual political parties are keeping a particular view on individual stories and whether they are being properly represented on those stories - they might spot things that we do not. Therefore the dialogue is useful because they will make points that we should take on board. We do take them on board.

Deputy Timmy Dooley asked about the weekend magazine programme and I will pass that question to Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Tom McGuire:

The point has been well made in terms of levity and seriousness, and on a weekend magazine programme one needs both. In terms of "The Marian Finucane Show", particularly on Sundays, where the agenda for the first hour is driven mainly by newspapers, there will be a balanced panel but there may be just one formal political representative on any particular week. There may be more at other times. Generally it is shared out but it is taken into the mix in terms of the balance. That changes in the run-up to elections, as the Deputy said, and as in previous years, once we come into the run-up to the election, the formal political party representatives may not feature. We have done that in the past and we will take a view when we come to the next election. It is important to maintain balance.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sometimes a panellist would have had a political affiliation but no longer be an active participant. His or her view does not always run parallel where the party is at right now. It is important that it is not just a box ticking-exercise also.

Mr. Tom McGuire:

That is very fair. We are always aware of that. If we were to find ourselves in that position, we would tend to balance things as we go along. One does not know how people's attitudes change when they leave political parties. We try to keep an eye on that issue also.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They often change significantly.

Mr. Tom McGuire:

When I am speaking about "The Marian Finucane Show", I will deal with Deputy McCarthy's point on Councillor Lacey's complaint about this weekend's programme, which arrived yesterday. We dealt with it with the media overnight.

Events at the weekend wear a current affairs hat and a news hat at that time. The view taken by "The Marian Finucane Show" programme was that the four people heard on Saturday were reflecting what was going on in the gatherings from different parts of the country for the protest in the city and the show on Sunday was a reactive piece. In terms of trying to strike a balance, let us take the story this morning on the bills that Irish Water will issue and the feedback that people want, which was handled by "Morning Ireland" and was dealt with by people who were on the side of Irish Water, but we never saw the need to have a representative from the water protester side. It was dealt with as news. If "The Marian Finucane Show" had been dealing with Irish Water as an item on Saturday or Sunday, that would have been balanced but it was just reflecting what was happening.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I beg the indulgence of the Chair. Does Mr. McGuire think there was a balance on "The Marian Finucane Show" when four anti-water charges demonstrators were interviewed on Saturday and one on Sunday, without any counter comment? The imbalance was five to none, not five to one.

Mr. Tom McGuire:

I would not look at that from a balance point of view, but ask whether it was reflecting what was happening. It was reflecting what was happening at a major event in the city. It was taking a reaction to that event. It was taking a news point of view of the event rather than having a discussion or a debate on the issue.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does that not venture into the territory of a promotion?

Mr. Tom McGuire:

No, it is reflecting the reality of what is happening in a city on a particular Saturday afternoon.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was an imbalance.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In respect of Irish Water the balance was provided on "Morning Ireland" one morning coming up to a protest when Cian McCormack interviewed members of a group water scheme in Galway and asked the chairman if he would go to the protest. His reply was that those in the group water scheme were paying for water for 30 years and were glad to do so. There are many people in such schemes throughout the country. Those in the "Morning Ireland" studio said they had never heard that perspective before. It was the public who provided a good sense of balance.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

I will pick up on that before I answer the Deputy's other points. I share Mr. McGuire's views that this was a news event. The TV news coverage of the water protest had water protesters' voices in it. The important thing is that over time there is balance and that we have interviews with Government representatives or others. The view we have not heard enough of is the voice of those who are choosing to pay their water charges and are prepared to do that. That should also be part of our coverage across time. When there is a news event, inevitably one gets people who are featuring in the news event rather than bringing in a range of outside voices.

In response to the Deputy's first question on the McKenna judgment and the referendums, there is an ongoing discussion about the nuances of the McKenna judgement, on which we have taken advice from senior legals on the various referendums. The Deputy's core point is correct, that we have to represent in a balanced fashion the debate that is going on. We have done a lot of coverage of both referendums, more on the same-sex marriage than on the other referendum. We have steering groups and we are looking ahead at the coverage. There will be set-piece debates, ongoing discussions and interviews, as there have been in the past.

The point made about the range of voices is a good one. This is particularly problematic for us, and I do not pretend it is not, in that there is a limited number of voices who are prepared to speak against the proposed referendum or the changes to same-sex marriage. It is a problem for us to find a wider range of voices. Part of the difficulty is the heat of the public debate and the response that people get when they are talking about the subject. One ends up falling back on familiar voices. There is nothing wrong with the individuals but a wider range of voices would be very welcome from our point of view.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have been getting a large volume of e-mails from the "No" side.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

Yes, that is true. There are pressures on both sides, but political representatives are well used to dealing with that. Some of the voices on the other side are not as practised as political representatives. There is a problem and it is to do with the nature of public debate on these issues. It is the same in respect of the water protests. Some of the abuse that is heaped on people on both sides of the argument is unedifying. It is difficult but we endeavour to get a range of voices on all the issues. Members are correct, we have to have a balance over time. It is not necessarily giving 15 minutes to one side and 15 minutes to the other side, but it is to cover a fair range of voices and give a fair range of exposure. We weigh that up all the time.

In regard to complaints from the political parties, we get complaints in a range of ways and deal with them accordingly. It depends on how the complaints are made, some may be a telephone call to me or I may hear about them in a conversation withMs Deirdre McCarthy. I also receive more formal complaints and some of them are legal complaints and others are proposed legal actions. How we deal with complaints is a result of the nature of the complaint. Some complaints will be made to Ms McCarthy and if necessary she will bring them to me and we will discuss them. It depends on the nature of the complaint and how it is made.

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

Sometimes the complaint can be dealt with immediately and very effectively. As there are political staff based in Leinster House, sometimes it is a matter of a politician approaching a staff member-----

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Casually or formally.

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

It can be on that level but sometimes it is on a more formal level when a political party wants to raise concerns about topics and issues that are important to the party and whether they are getting a fair representation on RTE. That is done on a more formal level. Sometimes parties or politicians decide they want to go further and they take the formal route.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

The estimation of crowd sizes is a perennial problem. If there is software to estimate crowd sizes I am not aware of it but I would welcome it. Somebody said to me once that one should count the number of legs and divide by two. It is difficult because there are always competing narratives. Nobody is ever happy with the opposing narrative. There is often a disparity between the size of the crowed estimated by the organisers of the events and the size of the crowd estimated by An Garda Síochána or other observers. As a matter of policy we would try to give a range of estimates.

All we can do is put the information in front of the audience by reporting that the Garda said, "this many people were in attendance", and that the organisers said, "that many people were in attendance". The spread-out nature of last weekend's water protests meant that the entire crowd was never in a single place at the same time. It is very difficult to make an estimate in such circumstances. Frankly, it is not something we consider would be the right thing for us to do. One can get a feel for whether the size of a crowd is closer to 100 or 1,000, but it is much more difficult when one is talking in tens of thousands.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also asked about the salaries and expenses of top earners.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

That is on my next page. We have already discussed salary levels. The rationale does not change on that. In light of the level of trust put in our presenters, who are our public face, we need to get good people. Our people are in demand from other organisations. It is a competitive market. We will try to pay the best price. Frankly, quite a few people will work for us for less money than they could get elsewhere because they believe in public service broadcasting. I am aware of several people who have been offered jobs elsewhere in the past 12 months for more money, but have chosen to stay with us because they believe in what we are doing. They are well paid by us but they were offered more money elsewhere. We are constantly working on salary reductions. I would not agree with the Deputy's suggestion that a presenter would have no empathy with the people whose stories he or she is covering because he or she is paid a certain amount of money.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was not my essential point. It grates with me that someone who is on €300,000, €400,000 or €500,000 a year would interview a group, an organisation or a person affected by the imposition of a cost of €1.50 per week. I am not saying interviewers do not have empathy - I am sure they do - but it grates with me personally that people earning that type of money would be involved in facilitating a debate about something at the lower end of the earning scale.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

Our presenters are paid to cover the full range of stories. I would not want them not covering those kinds of stories.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Paschal Mooney wanted to make a point. The clock is ticking.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be very brief. I want to raise a parochial issue on behalf of all Senators.

A significant amount of legislation is initiated in the Seanad. In many cases, it is not discovered by the media until it emerges in the Dáil three or four months later. I will use the Irish Water debate as a specific example. There were 44 hours of debate on the matter in the Seanad. The political legacy of that was that there was no debate of any significance in the Dáil. A great deal of legislation is amended in the Seanad. Could the point be made at RTE's weekly editorial meetings that journalists who are on the Oireachtas beat should acquaint themselves with legislation that is going through the House? Senator John Whelan and I have spoken about this. We accept that the Seanad will always be the second House anyway. We are not looking for parity, as such. As my late father, God rest him, used to say, journalists should do a little bit of research. I am not speaking specifically about RTE here. I am referring generally to the way the media approaches Seanad business. Topical items that are discussed in the Seanad at great length are discovered for the first time by the media when they go to the Dáil. At one of RTE's weekly editorial meetings, perhaps Ms Deirdre McCarthy could ask the journalists covering the Oireachtas beat to acquaint themselves with the origins of legislation, rather than focusing exclusively on the Dáil. As journalists are the mirror on our world, they should help to make people on the outside aware that contrary to what the perception might be, the Seanad does business. I am sorry for going on, but it is a matter of great irritation to me. Deputy Michael McCarthy would know from his time in the Seanad that it irritates Senators to read about legislation three months after it was debated at great length in the Seanad. We might even have amended it to improve it, which is what our role is, but that kind of context, history or background is often unreported.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We know that Senators do a great deal.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is a former Senator also.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Michael McCarthy and I used to sit there.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. The Deputies would know about the general point I am making. I have taken this opportunity to make the point in the presence of people who effectively dilute and transmit news.

Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

It is a point well made. I ask for open communication with Ms Deirdre McCarthy, in particular. If Senators think that an important or significant debate is particularly worthy of being covered, they should highlight it to Ms McCarthy just in case we have missed it.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think the input of the Seanad should be mentioned as part of the background and context to the legislation when it hits the Dáil. It should not have to wait until it reaches the Dáil to be discovered. Background information, such as the fact that it was debated in the Seanad as part of the legislative process of the Upper House, should be mentioned as well. The impression is regularly given that a Bill being discussed in the Dáil has been newly discovered.

John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to bring the debate to a conclusion by thanking the witnesses from RTE for attending this morning's meeting. I think it has been a useful exchange. It is important for representatives of RTE to hear the views of Members of the Oireachtas, whose role is to articulate the views of the public, in many respects. It is important from our perspective that we understand the sense of balance and trust that RTE wants to continue to bring to its operations. The levels of trust, independence and balance that are associated with RTE as the State broadcaster need to be maintained. RTE's public service remit was illustrated in a sporting context last Saturday. Another debate about the Six Nations rugby competition will have to be held in the future. I would like to pay tribute to RTE for the way it reacted to the women's match the following day. It was important that RTE showed its flexibility by covering that match. If it had not done so, we would probably be asking the officials today why the match was not shown. I congratulate them in that regard. I thank all of the delegates. We look forward to continuing debates and discussions.