David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Bill for its content but also because it provides an opportunity to have a wider discussion on public broadcasting. The Minister has taken the opportunity, as has Deputy Dooley, to set out many of the challenges we face. There is no secret that we have to face what some would describe as a "crisis" and others a "challenge" in public broadcasting. This plays out in many ways in funding, production and broadcasting itself. So many reports, analyses and policy documents have been done on public broadcasting, that they could be used to wallpaper my and the Minister’s living room. What is really needed is action and a political consensus on how we fund public broadcasting. The starting point must be what constitutes public broadcasting. Once we agree what that is, the discussion should be on how we pay for it.

There are different views as to what constitutes public broadcasting. Both the Minister and Deputy Dooley spoke of the changing face of the media and communications. People interact with television productions in a way they did not five, ten, 20 or 30 years ago. People have much more choice. It is not just TV stations. They have Netflix, Amazon and other streaming content providers which are competing with public broadcasting.

In many countries, including Ireland, we have difficulties and challenges around the ownership of the media. We have issues with billionaire owners of private radio stations who do not like hard questions being asked of them. They draw up blacklists of journalists who are to be banned from the airwaves. I do not believe that is a healthy situation for any country. We have to be conscious of perceptions - some positive, some negative - that people have of our State broadcaster. However, I would not want to see a situation like in the United States with channels like Fox News which are anything but fair and balanced. Public broadcasting and the responsibility that RTÉ has in terms of impartiality is central to underpinning the essence of public broadcasting.

Local radio stations do likewise. Hand on heart, most of the coverage that I get to communicate with the people I represent is through my local radio station. Those of us outside Dublin are privileged to have local radio stations which provide a forum for political discussion. Local radio stations provide a significant public service in broadcasting but do not get paid for it. They do not get any subsidy in the way that RTÉ does. It certainly provides what many of us would see as a core public service. Many local and community radio stations provide that service but are struggling to survive, as is much of the print media. Local newspapers are equally struggling to survive. There are ways and means to help them.

Sinn Féin gives qualified support to this Bill but on Committee Stage we will table several amendments. The Bill amends and extends the power of the BAI to impose a levy on certain broadcasters. It allows the BAI to amend provisions concerning exemptions, deferrals and refunds. It provides for payment to the BAI of a portion of fees from television licences. It amends provisions concerning content provision contracts. It provides for schemes of grants for the promotion of professional journalistic practices in certain sound broadcasters. It amends the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000.

The BAI levy on broadcasters, as with any levy or taxation, should be progressive and equitable. While the Bill gives the BAI extra scope to impose different levies on different types of broadcasters, it seems from the Bill’s wording that the BAI may not be compelled to do this. The Minister said that this will be the case but the wording, as it stands, suggests otherwise. The Bill states, "the authority may make separate levy orders for public service broadcasters, community broadcasters." It gives the BAI the potential to charge differently and then sets out the criteria for that regime. Basically, the BAI will calculate the levy in accordance with income from public and commercial streams. While the BAI is compelled to calculate levies based on income, it is not compelled to make separate levy orders for public community or for private operators. This appears to be a loophole through which community broadcasters may fall.

While the Bill gives the BAI the freedom to grant exemptions to the levy, it is not compelled to do so. Neither does it explicitly demand that community and non-profit broadcasters are exempt from the levy. It really is left to the hand of the BAI. A community broadcaster may apply for an exemption and the BAI may grant it, but nothing is guaranteed. As we have exemptions from income tax for low-paid workers, Sinn Féin believes we should have the same for low-income broadcasters.

It is counterproductive, in my party's view, to do otherwise. The same applies for local radio broadcasters who operate on a different scale and playing field to RTÉ, Virgin Media, Newstalk or Today FM. Local radio brings a different angle to public broadcasting, one that complements rather than opposes RTÉ. This is merely a concern that I have with the way the Bill is drafted, and I look forward to Committee Stage where it is hoped we can tease this out further.

Of course the BAI must be funded, but I cannot understand why its funds must come from the television licence. Given the crisis in funding for public broadcasting, why is this the case? The crisis is not only in RTÉ, although it is the national broadcaster that grabs all of the headlines when it comes to the challenges of funding for public broadcasting. The crisis is also for Irish independent producers, who have seen funding slashed over the past ten years by up to 50%.

On that, when we are looking at how we fund public broadcasting, we must look also at the principles that should underpin it. We should have greater enforcement because it is unfair that between 15% and 20% who do not pay are being subsidised by the 80% or 85% who do. Nobody accepts that is fair. There needs to be better enforcement and changes in that area. There are different views on how that is done, but we all accept that principle.

One of the principles that should underpin any change in how we fund public broadcasting, if we are to increase the pot, is that there should be more independent production. I met representatives from RTÉ recently and they accepted that is a considerable challenge. They accept that the amount they have spent on independent production has dropped from €80 million to €40 million over the course of the past ten years. That has a real impact in local communities where many of these independent production companies are based. A number of them are in my constituency and I have seen at first hand the work they do. There are many of them throughout the country that do splendid work. That is where the increased investment needs to be. We need to support independent producers in a much greater way than we have done.

A principle that should underpin reform of public broadcasting and funding to RTÉ is better accountability and transparency. While I recognise that we must protect the impartiality of RTÉ and its separation from political interference, which everyone wants to see, there is greater scope for accountability. The director general of the HSE is accountable to the Oireachtas in a way that the director general of RTÉ is not. I am a member of the Committee of Public Accounts and, last year, the committee had the Secretary General of the relevant Department come before it to explain the amount of money that transfers from the Department to RTÉ. The Secretary General was not in a position to answer any questions in terms of any transparency regarding that transfer of money. There was not what could be understood as constituting a proper service level agreement. There was a service level agreement of sorts, but different from what would be understood as a service level agreement. RTÉ is not compelled to be held in any way accountable for the money that it spends. My point is when the ask from RTÉ is that it needs more taxpayers' money, surely the quid pro quomust be better accountability and better transparency because everybody who spends taxpayers' money must be fully accountable for it. I refer not only to publishing reports, but full public accountability in a way that we do not have at present.

I spoke earlier of the positive impact of independent production. It has a knock-on effect in terms of jobs. It also has an effect in terms of exports. We should not forget that well-produced radio and television programmes are sold around the world. The content made by many indigenous radio and television producers should be one of our greatest exports given the wealth of talent on this island. The fact that it is not is as much an issue of resources as anything else. Only last week, the Taoiseach was in Los Angeles trying to drum up business for the film tax breaks we offer for international companies. As far as my party can see, this is merely the application of our tax haven model to film production. The real investment needs to be in talent at home. We need to increase the funding to independent production.

I asked earlier whether we should have a discussion on what constitutes public broadcasting. Because of the challenges that RTÉ faces with its finances, there has been an increased amount of syndicated content coming from the United States and Britain that might be cheaper to broadcast at certain hours and that has essentially replaced many of the independent production programmes that were made in the past. That is not public broadcasting or the best way for a public broadcaster to provide a service and to spend taxpayers' money. There are questions that need to be asked. There are greater challenges for RTÉ that it needs to face up to as well. Sometimes when this is raised, people raise the issue of the salaries at the top, and that is one of the issues. If one were to change the salaries, the amount of money that would be generated would not solve all the problems, nor would not solve the significant challenge that the organisation has. For many people, however, perception is reality. When people look at the six-figure sums that some of these presenters are on and them availing then of companies that are set up to ensure that they do not pay proper income tax and a portion of their money is allowable for corporation tax, that rankles with people. They ask if they as taxpayers are paying for this. It is not conducive to an appetite among the public for paying more. We must look at this, and not just from the point of view of doing the right thing, which we should.

I value public services. I value public broadcasting. I do not think a person who believes in public services cannot support public broadcasting. I genuinely support it. I genuinely believe it has to be funded. I genuinely believe that citizens and taxpayers have to make that contribution. The opposite of that is it in the hands of the private sector only and us not having the plurality and impartiality that we need in public broadcasting. I also accept that there are perceptions that people have that need to be addressed. Some are not real. Some are perceived but some are real. It is up to the organisation to deal with many of these challenges.

There is much more that I can say about the State broadcaster. An all-party report published by the Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment last year set out a broad agreement on what should be done. It is a frustration, not only for RTÉ but also for other radio and television stations, when they do not see those recommendations being implemented. They ask why. What is the difficulty that is holding us back, including the Government, from doing the right thing to make sure that the basis of public broadcasting is sustainable? I would like the Minister to articulate some of that.

I want to deal with grants for journalists. One element of the Bill that is easily welcomed is the provision to allow the BAI to approve a number of schemes for the provision of funds towards annual grants to be awarded to local or community sound broadcasters for the purposes of supporting good professional journalistic practices and standards. The use of academia as the main route into journalism these days is a double-edged sword. This, coupled with the use of unpaid internships, has tended to privilege those who can afford to become journalists rather than those who want to become journalists. We need more working-class voices providing content. The one place where this happens is in local and community radio, and these grants will aid that process. I look forward to this scheme being rolled out across the State, including in my county of Waterford. Such schemes matter. Not everyone can afford to work and not get paid. The professional sectors are now cursed with this practice. Indeed, if I can make the point about the practice of employing people on if-and-when contracts that has become more evident in this sector as well, that is not good practice either. There was an independent report carried out into RTÉ that showed that a large volume of staff who should have been directly employed were on such if-and-when contracts.

That also causes unease. These are the things to which I am referring when I talk about the quid pro quoand accountability. When a large amount of taxpayers' money is being given to organisations, we should be able to set standards and at least have an accepted base for how they treat employees and the types of contract put in place.

Although we will be supporting the Bill, it can be improved. It is deeper than a technical Bill and could go further in many ways. We will, therefore, be tabling amendments. We need to ensure the BAI, as regulator, has real teeth. Unfortunately, the Bill does not touch on that issue. For example, as I said, in the past week we have seen that there is a blacklist in operation among certain radio stations. There should be universal condemnation across the House, including by the Government, of the fact that there are a number of radio stations and print media publications owned by a billionaire who can take a decision to blacklist journalists because he does not like what they say about him or his company. It is not acceptable for radio stations to do this as they have obligations to maintain impartiality. It makes it all the more difficult for those who do not engage in such practices and rightly say to us, whether it be a national or local radio station or even a private television company, that they also provide an element of public service and should be rewarded for it. It makes it very difficult for us to be able to say that is the case if we have companies like Newstalk and others that can blacklist journalists. That is not going to cut it when it comes to changes that would be of benefit to all of the others.

This is a welcome opportunity for us to have a wider debate. Because I am new to this brief, as the Minister knows, I would welcome an opportunity to meet him specifically to discuss the issue of public broadcasting. I have met Virgin Media, RTÉ and independent producers and want this issue to be addressed in the best possible way. I do not think there is acceptance by all parties of what all of the solutions are. I genuinely request a meeting with the Minister in order that we can discuss some of these issues. This is a useful debate. I will be supporting the Bill in principle but with the caveat that we will be putting forward amendments in a number of areas.

See this speech in context