Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

That is the reality. I joke when I refer to "mere politicians". That process also provides an important counterbalance between the Fourth Estate and ourselves. That is recognised as important.

Deputy Dooley also suggested the need to widen the base of funding. The working group considered the option of moving completely to a form of licensing that is independent of the device used.

That would be a big step and I outlined the difficulty with it earlier. There are actions that could be taken to add to the existing definition and to broaden the base of those that would contribute. That has been considered in the past and it is something we can discuss on Committee Stage.

Deputy Dooley envisaged that wherever any additional money would be generated, 30% of it should go to the sound and vision sector. It might be difficult to define what the additional money is and to set that out in law, but there is scope for considering what percentage should go to different areas as we grow the base.

Deputy Dooley also dealt honestly with the challenges facing RTÉ and the difficulties it has in making some of the changes that are recognised as being necessary. We recognise the challenge that faces the director general and the board in managing that change. RTÉ has to transform itself to become attractive to an audience that is changing its consumption habits dramatically, particularly among the younger generation. The younger one goes, the more radically people have changed their consumption habits. The valid concern Deputy Dooley raised is that we have conventional State-owned public broadcasters needing more resources and we also have pressure on local broadcasters that need more resources. We have a finite capacity to expand the fund that might be available to them and that poses challenges for us. A device-independent approach has been adopted by Government but it is recognised we will need a number of years to both gain public support for it and to define how it would be set and collected.

Deputy Cullinane raised a number of issues that we will discuss on Committee Stage, such as whether we should be more proscriptive in the legislation about the BAI in its application of levies. One area where we can something is in the extent to which some community broadcasters could get caught up in levies, simply because they have revenue but that revenue is coming from another area of public spending, such as that relating to Pobal or community employment schemes. The safest way to do that might be to lift the threshold on their income because it would be tricky to define what public bodies would be exempted whereas other revenues already go from public sources to, for example, RTÉ or TG4, and we would be treating those public monies differently from other public monies. That could give rise to inequity in the legislation.

Deputy Cullinane also raised considerable questions about the accountability to the BAI and the corresponding accountability to the Oireachtas. The matter is somewhat puzzling in that many of us are of the view that while bodies such as RTÉ should be directly accountable to the Oireachtas, they are primarily accountable to the BAI as their regulator, and that changes the relationship. On the other hand, the BAI has set out its expectations. It has annual performance commitments that it expects RTÉ to meet. It does not have a service level agreement of the type to which the Deputy referred but it looks at matters such as overcompensation of public funds to RTÉ in respect of certain activities it is undertaking. To some degree, the BAI acts as a buffer between the Oireachtas and RTÉ. Some of the analysis Deputy Cullinane wants to see can probably be more properly directed at the BAI. It would be hard to shape changes in legislation that would make a public broadcaster more accountable to the Oireachtas directly, without crossing over lines we might regret crossing in the long-term.

Deputy Cullinane also raised concerns regarding the blacklisting of journalists. It is not my understanding that the BAI has any control over that. Such behaviour is certainly something with which this House would not concur. Whether legislative change should be made in that respect or not needs to considered.

Deputy Sherlock asked whether we should extend bursaries to print journalism. That raises a wider issue. This is broadcasting legislation. It is not our intention to deal with much wider issues. It is a matter for another day to decide whether there should be a public policy on print journalism that would involve the BAI carrying out different elements of that. We have probably not got to that point.

Deputy Sherlock also expressed the view that there is an appetite for pushing ahead with the household charge. Even at a political level, it comes down to the point that occupiers would be charged. Local authorities would then have to collect licence fees from individuals. We need to think through how this might work and we need time to do that.

Deputy Mattie McGrath raised a number of issues regarding the perceived unfairness of RTÉ towards particular interests, such as rural Ireland, the greyhound industry and others. The same avenue lies open to anyone who is not happy, namely, to complain to the station in the first instance, and if he or she is not happy, to pursue the complaint with the BAI. There is a code on fairness and impartiality and it is open to anyone who feels aggrieved to pursue that. Maybe I heard the Deputy incorrectly but he seemed to be suggesting that he would advocate people not paying their licence fee because of the perceived bias of RTÉ. That would be the wrong advice to offer people. Pursuing avenues of complaint through the BAI is the route to go.

Deputies Connolly and Ó Cuív raised concern about whether the provisions of the Bill are strong enough on commercial broadcasters on the Irish language. I understand the obligations of commercial broadcasters are set out in a contract that exists between the broadcasters and the BAI. That is a public document and it provides details of commitments. It is a document that people should be able to peruse. I will draw the attention of the BAI to the concerns Deputy Connolly has raised. She was thinking in terms of changing provisions in the Act. I do not know whether that would be warranted. We need to hear the views of the BAI itself, which will be implementing those provisions, before we would consider such an issue.

Deputy Ó Cuív raised these wider issues, particularly the question of how the balance should be struck between the State-owned organs and the private sector. That is provided for in the Act because 7% goes to sound and vision and the balance goes to the State broadcasters. The Legislature has set that and we have the opportunity to change that if we wish. The one thing we do not have the opportunity to do would be to provide State aid to the administrative functions of a commercial company. We would have the capacity to define public goods we want to deliver, tender for them, and allow private companies to benefit under a fair and objective scheme. That is the basis of the sound-and-vision model.

I agree with Deputy Ó Cuív in his commendation of the TG4 model. There is no doubt it is innovative. It is slimmer than others and it does a lot more commissioning than others. Perhaps it is fulfilling a different role than that of RTÉ, which has a much broader remit, but there is no doubt TG4 uses the money it gets very effectively.

He also commended TG4 on its support for the ladies Gaelic football and camogie finals. I am told that in 2017 our own Department added a designation order to make these events free-to-air, so we are claiming some of the credit there.

I look forward to the Committee Stage debate on this legislation. We are on a journey and have not arrived at a destination. It is very challenging to define how to move prudently to protect the qualities of public service broadcasting. None of us can doubt the value of public service broadcasting and its ability to provide an objective arena for debate. Other Deputies have commented on the extreme nature of broadcasting in the US, where diametrically different views are presented by different camps within the media. That is not a direction in which we want to travel. We have to protect what we have and recognise the immense value of local broadcasting, which is currently only recognised to a limited extent in our legislation. I look forward to the debate on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context