Seanad debates

Wednesday, 18 June 2008

Broadcasting Bill 2008: Committee Stage (Resumed)

 

9:00 am

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)

I support my colleagues on this issue although I will not choose between the amendments. The Minister of State has a couple to choose from. I strongly support the objective of the amendments. Statutory provisions were made some years ago in the television sector and they led to an efflorescence of talent in drama and other programmes. One need only look at TG4 and some other stations to see the remarkable dramas, documentaries and so forth that were produced as a result.

It is clear that the funding outlined in the Bill for the radio sector will not be sufficient to have the type of effect the Minister of State desires. All Members have been lobbied by various sections of the independent radio broadcasting sector seeking the type of changes my colleagues have proposed in the amendments. I strongly support them. It is instructive to discover that, as Senator Alex White pointed out, up to 70% of the moneys could be used internally in RTE for the administration of the unit. That would leave very little; it would be pathetic to let that happen. As I said earlier, to avoid this there should be a type of sifting process which could be related to the committee on broadcasting.

Is it correct that there is no provision for financing recurring strands? If there is a successful programme, it should be encouraged and not ruled out automatically simply because it was an artistic or other success. I might have misunderstood but there appears to be some type of inhibition on the funding of recurring strands, recurring programmes and so forth.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.