Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)

To respond to Senator Bradford, I do take the spirit of it in the sense that we need public sector broadcasting to present programming to the various publics, and to ensure that it is not always on the basis of commercial return and it looks after specific audiences. I also have the sense that programming which dips into the our heritage, especially archive programming, would make very interesting viewing, not just for the elderly but also for younger people who are often at home during the summer holidays or at other times. It is not being prescriptive in terms of the age catered for by such heritage programming.

If I outline the evolving framework as I see it and where any such programming or channel, as one might call it would fit in, it would explain why I would not at the same time accept the amendments. We are developing a new digital television platform. Within it, the structures which we are following involve a MUX, to use the technical term. The MUX is a platform for public free-to-air programming. Separately, we will have three platforms, probably working on a co-ordinated basis, which will be commercial programming or certainly provided by an operator or combination of operators who will have a VICS, a variety of pay-per-view and free-to-air programming.

The first public free-to-air platform will include stations such as RTE 1, RTE 2, TV3, TG4 and also two new channels that are prescribed in the legislation, an Oireachtas channel and a film channel, but it does not end there. There is the space within that digital platform for an estimated further two platforms, depending on the technology of the transmission equipment. Within that, there is real scope, for RTE in particular, to see what additional channels it might provide.

There is a fundamental difference between our film channel and the Oireachtas channel and any such additional services. First, the archive in the case of the film channel is held by the Irish Film Institute. It is far more appropriate that it is not an RTE managed service and that it is separately managed by an agency such as the film institute which has access to the resources, has or could develop the facilities, and which is the instigator of the concept. I am legislating to allow the film institute to introduce such a channel.

Likewise, the Oireachtas channel will be different from the type of channel RTE might decide to evolve using archive material. The broadcasting material available for it is available here. The channel would be fundamentally directed and developed under the guise and aegis of the Commission of the Houses of the Oireachtas rather than any broadcaster. It recognises that it is for that reason we are legislating for the Oireachtas and the film channels.

Development within the wider range of channels available, either on a commercial or a free-to-air basis, is for public or commercial broadcasters to decide. It is not appropriate for us to legislate for the detail of such additional channels which may be provided within this new digital area. RTE already seems very active in terms of providing programming which reflects the interests and needs of various demographics. I understand 62% of the over-five demographic watch public service broadcasting channels during peak hours. It is not that it is not providing a service for those people.

I hope the Senator will at least be pleased to note the proposed amendment No. 79 which gives the audience council the power to survey elderly people from time to time to ascertain their views and interests as regards public service broadcasting. We are not ignoring that audience but are specifically allowing for the audience council to do what is most appropriate, namely, to survey to find out what people want.

On Senator Joe O'Toole's question on some of the textual changes, we are of the view that our amendment is better English than the previous one. That alone is the reason for the change in the wording. However, we are open to anyone else's interpretation of the language. On amendments Nos. 21 and 23, which propose to mention the word "Irish" specifically in regard to additional broadcasting services, I do not regard this as necessary as the current provision does not distinguish between languages and is all-encompassing.

I appreciate the debate we have had. Other than amendments Nos. 77 to 79, inclusive, which I propose, I cannot accept the Senators' amendments.