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

I appreciate the selection of this issue for debate and acknowledge the presence of the Minister.

Over the past number of years, I have been a member of the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications and from time to time we have had the pleasure of discussing the future of broadcasting, its funding and structures and what constitutes a public service broadcast. In the past 20 years, the advent of commercial radio stations, particularly in provincial Ireland, has revolutionised broadcasting across the country. Until the advent of commercial radio stations, the local voice or the voice of somebody outside of the M50 was probably as rarely heard as the corncrake. In my part of the world, the advent of commercial radio stations has brought local news into the hearts of homes and into kitchens.

Over and above this, we have seen the creation of independent television stations, all of which I believe provide a public service broadcast remit. However, there is no acknowledgment of that. I am disappointed that at a stage when the Government is heading into an election, we have not considered reform of this area. We have not looked at defining what we regard as public service broadcasting or at supporting those people engaged in it. I will defend RTE when it needs to be defended and have no problem in doing that. It produces high calibre programmes. However, I will also criticise RTE when it needs criticism. The fact it is getting in excess of €180 million from the public every year means there should be some accountability for that money.

In the recent past there has not been the required accountability with regard to the TV licence fees. We need a greater level of scrutiny and oversight. We also need a greater determination of what is considered public service broadcasting. Let me cite two examples. The Fr. Kevin Reynolds situation was a scandal because his reputation could have been absolutely destroyed. The other example concerns the debate broadcast in advance of our most recent presidential election. I was never going to give Seán Gallagher a vote and do not make any bones or apology for that. However, I believe the programme broadcast on that night played a major part in the determination of that election.

From the point of view of a person who pays €160 for a television licence for a public broadcasting service - there is no significant coverage given to the cost of the television licence in comparison with the coverage given to the cost of another commodity, namely water - I am interested in ensuring the service is properly funded and regulated. We need to examine the level of oversight and accountability in this regard. I do not believe that in 2015 it is acceptable that it is only three years after somebody takes up a position in a semi-State company, that the salary details on that position are released. Can the Minister imagine this happening in other companies that fall under his remit, whether Bord na Móna, the ESB or whatever? Can he imagine the outcry there would be if he, the Minister, appointed somebody as CEO of ESB and told the people he would only reveal that person's salary in three years time? That is not acceptable.

Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Government policy is to encourage and support a diverse media that serves all the people. Public service broadcasting is provided for by Part 7 of the Broadcasting Act 2009. The Act sets out the principal objects of the public service broadcasting corporations, RTE and TG4. These statutory objects and requirements encapsulate national policy in terms of public service broadcasting.

Licence fee funding for public service broadcasting provides an independent and reliable income, which allows the two public service broadcasters to meet their public service objectives with a high level of editorial independence. Under the dual funding model, RTE is statutorily obliged to use its commercial revenues to further subsidise its public service obligations. Commercial broadcasters, while bringing choice and competition to the market, are privately owned and funded companies that have entered the market on the basis of a commercial proposition.

All public, community and independent commercial broadcasters can access public funding from the broadcasting funding scheme, which encourages programming on Irish culture, heritage, adult literacy and global issues. Funded by 7% of net TV licence fee receipts, Sound & Vision II funded 477 projects, worth over €3.6 million, from commercial radio stations. This represented 40% of the total radio allocation. By contrast, allocations to public service broadcasting stations in the same period were worth less than €1.6 million, or 18% of the total allocated.

I fully recognise the contribution that the commercial sector makes to broadcasting in Ireland, but the question of further distribution of public funds to independent commercial broadcasters, beyond the supports that already exist, would constitute a major change to broadcasting policy, would have to be justified, and would of course require legislation. The net effect of such a move would be to reduce the amount of funding available to all other broadcasters, community and public.

It is my intention to put forward a number of proposals for amending the current regulatory framework for advertising. In regard to commercial radio advertising, I propose to give the BAI oversight and control of the amount of advertising minutes allowed to such broadcasters. I will also bring forward amendments to ensure that the BAI’s reviews of public service broadcasting funding will always take account of the impact of its recommendations on the broader advertising market. I believe that these proposed changes, along with others I intend bringing forward in respect of licence fee collection and the database, will lead to a more sustainable advertising regulatory framework for all broadcasters, which in the context of an improving economy should assist in delivering a viable future for everyone in the sector.

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

I thank the Minister for his response.

The Minister is correct that the sound and vision fund represents 7% of the total licence fee. However, half of that 7% went to RTE and TG4 last year, which increased the amount going into that area to well over €180 million, with less than half of it available to all broadcasters across the country, commercial, community and everybody else. The sound and vision fund is currently wholly inadequate in terms of the amount available to those who are not protected under the €179 million that RTE gets.

This is not an anti-RTE thing. What I want is fair play. I welcome the fact that the Minister is going to look at the amount of advertising minutes allowed because it is something which has been raised with us continuously in terms of fairness and the level of the playing field. Contrasting, for argument's sake, RTE's situation with that of the BBC, there is no advertising in the BBC. I know there is a smaller population base here and that the licence fee base is smaller, although the level of expectation in terms of the service is the same. That level of service is the same for every commercial radio station as well. The commercial stations are competing against RTE in a very competitive market, while RTE has a cushion of €180 million.

It is not beyond reason that we start a national conversation. I do not know what the great panacea for the future of broadcasting will be, but there is a discerning market. The joint national listenership research, JNLR, figures show that the public has moved away - across all age profiles and in the tens of thousands - from the traditional, established radio and television stations of RTE and towards a different market. Those who are paying their €160 a year have a right to know that what we regard as public service broadcasting is properly funded. Whether the news is on a commercial station or a publicly-owned station, it is still a public service. I am asking that we start a conversation, using the Oireachtas committee to lay out a definition for 2015 of what we expect our public service broadcasters to do in return for what is a substantial amount of money.

Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would be very much in favour of having that conversation. One of the difficulties with the notion of what constitutes public service broadcasting, in terms of a programme, is that when one analyses practically any programme or programme strand, there are very few that could not be defined as a public service programme. For example, sport, which attracts very high commercial interest and can very often bring in huge income to a broadcaster, is also essentially a public service. Would we be analysing each and every programme broadcast by every station and trying to define whether it is public service or commercial? How would we determine the threshold between the two? It would actually be extremely difficult, although the conversation is still worth having.

The traditional approach has been to fund the public service broadcaster rather than funding individual programmes that are regarded as public service. That has been the case right across Europe. I am quite happy for that to be opened up and for us to have a debate about what constitutes public service broadcasting. I think the independent broadcasters have a good case, particularly those very strong, vibrant local radio stations outside the main cities which do struggle. There is a financial issue for many of those stations and they perform a huge function, particularly but not only in rural Ireland. Can we find ways to assist the independent sector?

The other question which I would ask the Deputy to consider, and which I am not going to answer, concerns the 20% requirement for news and current affairs that was introduced in the 1989 Act for the commercial sector. Is it desirable or necessary for that to continue? I remember being involved in the debate at the time. There was a concern that commercial radio stations would just be pure, wall-to-wall music. If there is a demand for music stations, why would there necessarily be a statutory requirement for them always to have 20% news and current affairs? That is an issue which we could debate.