Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

I was struck by Deputy Higgins's contribution. Not blowing too much sunshine his way, he is one of the last great orators in this House. We got an example of that today when we heard his views and passion for public service broadcasting. I have many proposals and views on the detail of the Bill that I would like the Minister of State to convey to the Minister. I understand the reason he is not here, with which I have no difficulty. However, it is appropriate at the start of a Second Stage contribution to focus, emphasise and reflect on the fact that we are asked why public service broadcasting and regulation of broadcasting outside the public service sphere is important. The answer to that question is that as a country changes, grows and transforms, as Ireland has done during the past ten years, if we respect a core value system for a people, country or community, we must figure out ways of keeping that value system alive, supporting and cherishing it and informing new people and communities as they join this country and our people about what Irishness and Ireland are all about.

Broadcasting is the most effective media by far to do that. That is why public service broadcasting is so important in Ireland today. As our country has been transformed during the past two decades, we need to use the tools available to us to keep in perspective what is important in this country. Public service broadcasting, in particular, plays a hugely valuable role in that regard.

On Committee Stage, perhaps we might tease out what we want from organisations such as RTE in respect of how they spend public money in the pursuit of an agenda which relates to cherishing what Ireland is and to our future aspirations for it. We might also consider how we could support this in a non-commercial way. We must, however, take into account the commercial realities and acknowledge the competition RTE faces from other broadcasters and from the other technologies that can inform people and influence their views.

I welcome the Bill, which will bring about much needed change in the area of broadcasting. The new structures it will introduce, namely, the broadcasting authority of Ireland, BAI, and the two sub-committees relating thereto, make some sense. If, however, we were starting afresh — we are not doing so — it would make sense to consider creating the post of communications regulator rather than having ComReg and a broadcasting regulator. Ofcom, the communications regulator in Britain, deals with matters such as the roll-out of broadband facilities, IT infrastructure, telecommunications, mobile telephone technology etc., but it also deals with broadcasting matters. Such a model makes sense.

Many people watch their televisions or are informed, in a broadcasting sense, via computer screens, mobile telephones or some form of personal digital assistant, PDA. There is going to be a great deal of co-operation and links between ComReg and the BAI. It would have made sense to consider creating a super-regulator for the area of communications, under which those two organisations would have been united, rather than establishing an entirely new structure. My remarks are particularly relevant in the context of trying to streamline matters by reducing the number of quangos and State-sponsored bodies in existence.

I wish to comment on the effect the Bill will have in respect of a series of areas and perhaps the Minister can reflect on what I have to say before Committee Stage. I appreciate from where the Minister is coming in respect of appointments to the new boards of the BAI, RTE and TG4. I welcome the fact he is recognising that the way the Government appoints members to State boards is wrong, inappropriate, overly political and, at times, corrupt. It is often a reward system for people who have supported a particular political party in government. I am not stating that people who have been appointed to boards relating to broadcasting in the past have been corrupt. I am merely highlighting that the principle which allows a Minister to make decisions on appointments without any form of oversight is inappropriate. The Minister, Deputy Ryan, recognises that in the Bill. However, his proposed solution will not solve the problem.

It is not the role of an Oireachtas committee to put forward nominees to be appointed to the board of the BAI. It is the responsibility of such a committee to interview a panel of people whose names have been put forward by the Minister. That committee should vet these individuals, ensure they are suitable for and capable of performing the duties to which they will be appointed and have some say in approving those who will serve as the members and chairperson of the board. If this does not happen, the status quo will remain. There will be Members who will know individuals with whom they have relationships and whom they believe might like to be on the boards of the BAI or RTE. That will come through the system.

I would prefer if the Minister chose people in a non-partisan or non-political way and then charged the relevant committee with assessing their suitability to serve. If they come through this process, such individuals could then be appointed. That is the kind of structure with which Fine Gael would be more comfortable. It is the job of the Government to fill State boards; that is what it is elected to do. However, it is the job of the Oireachtas and its committees to offer oversight and ensure Ministers do not abuse their position. That is what the committee should be charged with doing. Fine Gael will table an amendment on Committee Stage to try to change the position in this regard.

I welcome the section relating to enforcement and sanctions, which is extremely sensible in nature. The Broadcasting Commission of Ireland cannot sanction a broadcaster if it breaks the rules, breaches codes of conduct or whatever. The only sanction it has, namely, that it can revoke a licence, is nuclear in nature. There must be a system of lesser sanctions by means of which fines can be imposed and the necessity of going to court can be avoided. That is a sensible proposal and it will be receiving our support on Committee Stage.

I wish to make a number of points regarding the codes and rules. Members who are involved in dealing with this legislation have been the subject of much lobbying in respect of it. They have been lobbied by the industry with regard to threatened bans on junk food and alcohol advertising and various other matters. Fine Gael takes an uncompromising approach to protecting children, young people and adults from irresponsible advertising. We should not, however, be attempting to introduce heavy-handed measures, such as bans or whatever. We should instead be conferring power onto the new broadcasting authority of Ireland to be heavy-handed if the necessity arises. The authority should be obliged to come before an Oireachtas committee or seek ministerial approval before introducing new measures relating to codes of conduct, punishment etc.

Will the Minister equip the proposed broadcasting authority of Ireland to introduce those measures that are necessary in respect of alcohol advertising, junk food advertising or any other form of advertising, be it relating to children's toys or whatever? If he does so, we will be able to assess, from year to year, the abuses taking place through the medium of advertising on television and address them in as tough a way as is necessary in order to force change within the industry. It would be far more suitable to proceed in this way rather than try to legislate in respect of bans. The Minister probably recognises that. As matters stand, the Bill only proposes that the BAI will have the capacity to introduce a ban on the advertising of unhealthy foods. It must be more broad-ranging than that. We should apply to alcohol advertising the same value system that applies in respect of junk food and other irresponsible forms of advertising.

It is completely hypocritical to insist on a ban on all religious advertising when also allowing the Angelus to be shown before "Six One" or permitting "A Prayer at Bedtime" to be shown at night. Is Ireland becoming so politically correct that it is not possible to allow someone to advertise the sale of a crib at Christmas? That is the point we have reached. I accept the need to ensure there is not incitement to hatred through advertising or that the aggressive promotion of any one religion does not occur. Ireland is a secular state, but it is also Christian, Celtic, multicultural and multi-religious. It is an open, liberal country and it should permit advertising by any church as long as such advertising is tolerant and reasonable. Let us try and adopt a sensible approach rather than take the politically correct attitude that we are secular and therefore cannot allow any promotion of Catholicism, religion, or Islam for that matter. Let us try and introduce some flexibility that will allow sensible, tolerant advertising where appropriate.

A number of elements of the Bill relating to licensing have been welcomed by independent radio licence holders in the context of introducing a pragmatic sensible measure that will fast-track the renewal of licences. The current system is ridiculous in that anybody who has had a licence for ten years must, despite the fact nobody contests that licence, go through a long, expensive procedure to renew the licence. Even though it is only a formality, it costs the radio station a fortune. I am glad this Bill will get over that.

There are issues with regard to the length of time for which new licenses will be granted and there is deliberate positive discrimination in favour of broadcasters who will offer a digital radio platform. I understand what the Minister is trying to do in this regard, but I am not sure he is doing enough. We need an honest debate about digital radio. Currently, unless I am misinformed, digital radio is going nowhere. If we want to promote digital radio here, we will have to consider promoting it more aggressively than in the Bill.

I welcome the section that allows a right of reply to someone whose good name is called into disrepute on a radio or television programme. However, I want the Minister to go further. The right of reply should apply with regard to people who have died. There is an anomaly in Irish law with regard to the defence of the good name of someone who is dead. Obviously, dead people cannot defend themselves, but neither can their family defend their good name in law. We have an opportunity to address this issue from the broadcasting point of view in this legislation. In other words, if someone dies in tragic circumstances and the media gets the story wrong — unfortunately, we had such a case when a member of the Government party died some time ago — the family should automatically have the right of reply. The family should be allowed reply on the programme of the broadcaster that abused its position. I urge the Minister to deal with this issue.

With regard to the proposed new television stations, this plan has not been thought out or costed and is unworkable as proposed. A new Irish film channel and an Oireachtas channel are proposed. The transmission of each of these channels would cost €750,000 alone, not to mind production and other costs. We need to rethink this plan. If we are to have a film channel, that I anticipate will cost more than €1 million annually, we must consider how we can fund it. We do not want Oireachtas and film channels that cost a fortune and that nobody watches apart from a small group of people involved in the sector. That is nonsense.

In the case of film, public service broadcasting must be about bringing Irish film and how it is made and Irish talent to the masses. We can discuss the Oireachtas channel another time, but if we are to have a film channel we should get RTE to use one of its digital channels as an Irish movie channel. Let us allow RTE show blockbusters and a set quota of Irish films, documentaries and animated programmes. In that way we could introduce large audiences to Irish film. We should also allow advertising for it. It makes sense in terms of paying for it and in terms of getting bigger audiences, rather than having a cult 24-hour channel watched by a few thousand people. I am a fan of Irish film and want to see it on our screens, but it must be done properly.

The current method of funding public service broadcasting is flawed. It is flawed to link television ownership with the funding of public service broadcasting because it is only a matter of time before a television screen is also a computer screen and a vehicle for tele-conferencing and computer games. It is an entertainment and communication system. Public service broadcasting needs to move with that. We sponsor it, therefore, we cannot have a situation where we have an army of people knocking on doors around the country to check if there is a television in the bedroom and whether it is licensed. This system of funding is inefficient and expensive. It costs €14 million a year to collect €220 million. This is not good value. Up to 15% of people evade the television licence fee, which is unfair on those who pay.

Let us examine a more pragmatic way of dealing with the situation. I suggest we should have household and business broadcast levies so that, for example, hotels with a television in every room would pay a reasonable set charge. All homes in the country, whether they have a television or not, should pay some contribution towards funding public service broadcasting. People who do not watch television will use computers or listen to radios. We must get real about the licence and ensure people pay their fair share, there is no evasion and it does not cost a fortune to collect. I have serious concerns with regard to how it is proposed to fund the broadcasting authority of Ireland and how the levy will be paid, but will return to that on Committee Stage.

On advertising standards, the focus in this debate has been on the quality of advertising and, in particular, abuse of children during advertising time. We must also consider the programmes to which children are exposed. How many cartoons or animated films broadcast during children's programme time are from Ireland? The answer is very few, yet we have some of the top animation studios in the world. They export cartoons and animated films across the world, yet our broadcasters import the major part of animated programmes from the United States. The Minister must not look just at advertising, but must also consider the content of the programmes to which Irish children, teenagers in particular, are exposed.

See this speech in context