Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

While these issues are of consequence, it is important to remember that television is primarily about content. What is important is what people actually have available to them to listen to and to watch. It matters little to viewers whether radio and television services are delivered from a satellite, over a wire or by terrestrial means. Audiences are interested in programming. The core aim of the broadcasting fund is simple. It is to provide Irish audiences with more high quality programming. Recent experience in the case of the development of digital television is worth considering. The most striking aspect of digital terrestrial television has been the explosion in the number of channels on offer to viewers. Unfortunately, this has not resulted in an equivalent increase in the choice of programming available to viewers. It is true that many new channels provide more choice. There are specialised news, sports, history and music channels, for example. These channels meet a demand that exists for such specialised services. However, as they are generally only available on a subscription basis, access is restricted to those who are willing to pay and can afford to do so. It is also true that many extra channels just offer more of the same. There is a genuine concern that the digital era will result in fragmentation. This could result in viewers being offered more channels while being offered less real choice as broadcasters increasingly move towards a generic schedule in pursuit of the most economically advantageous audiences. In that scenario society would be the loser. Having regard to these developments the introduction of the fund is timely. The aim of the fund is to encourage broadcasters, who cater for Irish audiences, to include in their schedules additional programming of a high quality that is of interest and relevance to Irish audiences.

The Government decision to introduce the broadcasting fund was taken at the same time as the decision to significantly increase the public funding available to RTE through the television licence fee. These two measures should be considered together. The decision to substantially increase the level of public funding for RTE was a clear indication of the Government's commitment to the principle of public service broadcasting. It was also a clear indication of the Government's resolve that the people of Ireland should continue to be guaranteed a minimum level of high quality programming that is of interest and relevance to an Irish audience. I am of the view that as we move increasingly to a digital era there remains a compelling case for providing the national public service broadcaster with adequate funds to continue to deliver the type of service that Irish audiences deserve and expect.

RTE's services must continue to be available to all of the population and delivered without charge. As RTE is owned by the people, it exists to serve the people and it must be available to all the people for free.

I fundamentally disagree with those who argue that with the explosion in new services there is no longer a need for intervention by the State. Nor can I agree with those who suggest that State funded broadcasters should be limited to delivering a restrictive range of outputs. RTE's mandate requires it to provide radio and television services for all the people. I see no justification for revising this legislative mandate.

RTE should not be restricted to providing niche programming for a small proportion of the population. I have no doubt that the shape and range of services provided by public broadcasters will continue to be adjusted as these broadcasters react to changes in the environment in which they operate. Decisions on what to include in schedules should continue to be based on how best to serve the person who pays the licence fee. It would be over simplistic to expect that decisions would be based simply on whether the same service was already being provided by other broadcasters. Many other factors would have to be considered, including whether the service is available free of charge and available to all of the population; does the broadcaster need such a service to engage with certain elements of its audience; the impact of the programming in attracting the audience to other parts of the schedule; and remaining relevant to the audience.

Decisions on scheduling are complex and are best left to the broadcaster. Such decisions should be driven by a consideration of how to best serve the audience and should not be influenced by the commercial concerns of independent broadcasters. The decision to establish the broadcasting fund should be seen in the context of the Government's commitment to ensure Irish audiences continue to have access to high quality programming that is of interest and relevance to them.

The Government has acted in two ways. It has increased the level of public funding available to RTE. It has also proposed the creation of the fund to encourage all broadcasters serving Irish audiences to include additional high quality programming in their schedules that would be of interest to Irish audiences.

The emphasis on additionality is central to the fund and it will be a fundamental criterion of eligibility for funding. Programmes funded must be in addition to the existing requirements on broadcasters and in addition to their existing outputs. The scheme will also be used to fund the development of archiving of television and radio programme material. This is a follow-up on one of the recommendations of the forum on broadcasting which reported to me last year. The forum highlighted the lack of a co-ordinated approach or overall direction to the archiving of programme material at present, and the variety of agencies already involved in the archiving of audio-visual material generally, including for example the National Archives, the Irish Film Board and the Irish Traditional Music Archive.

The Bill provides the legislative framework for the scheme, which will be prepared and administered by the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland. It does not set out the detail of the scheme itself, such as grant rates, allocation of funding to various categories, or assessment criteria and procedures. That detail will be developed as the scheme is put together, and the final scheme or schemes will be subject to my approval, and will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

It may be useful to Senators to have some idea of the timeframe envisaged for the scheme. It is my hope that the legislation will be enacted before the end of the year. This will enable 5% of the net television licence fees for 2003 to be allocated to the scheme. It will also enable the Broadcasting Commission to begin preparation of the scheme in the new year. I envisage the scheme, because of its complexity and the intention to consult widely, will take some months to complete. It will then have to be put to the European Commission for approval as a State aid. Following such approval and my formal agreement, the scheme will be published and applications will be invited, hopefully early in the second half of 2004. Time must then be allowed for interested parties to develop and submit proposals, and for applications to be assessed. I hope audiences will begin to enjoy the new programmes on radio and television in 2005. Once the legislation is enacted the fund will come into being. In the period in which the detail of the scheme is being decided and applications sought the fund will continue to grow.

I turn to the detail of the short Bill, which has nine sections. It sets out the framework for and objectives of the scheme, the amounts to be paid to the scheme, the details of the scheme to be included in annual reports and accounts of the Broadcasting Commission, and it provides for the contingency of the winding up and dissolution of the scheme.

Section 1 is a standard provision which gives definitions for the purposes of the Bill. Section 2 provides, as I have already mentioned, that the Broadcasting Commission will prepare and submit for my approval a scheme or schemes to support new television or radio programmes on Irish culture, heritage and experience; new television or radio programmes to improve adult literacy; programmes under both of these categories in the Irish language; and the development of archiving of programme material.

With a view to ensuring the widest audience within the State, television programmes may be funded only if broadcast on a free television service which provides near universal coverage or on a cable or MMD system, as part of a community content contract. Radio programmes may only be funded if broadcast on RTE or on services licensed by the Broadcasting Commission. This means the fund may support additional programming on the three pillars of Irish broadcasting. It will be open to the fund to finance programming carried on national, local and community services. As an effort to increase the range of broadcast programmes, funding is specifically not available for news or current affairs programmes.

For reasons relating to EU legislation, it is not possible to construct the legislation so that the scheme is available only to broadcasters based in Ireland, such as radio and television services licensed by the Broadcasting Commission or to RTE services. The important aspect is that as a result of the scheme, more high quality new programmes will be widely available to Irish audiences. The fund is not for broadcasters but for the audience.

Section 2 also provides that I, as Minister, may direct the commission to amend or revoke a scheme. This could arise, for example, where the operation of a scheme turns up particular anomalies, difficulties or unintended effects. The Bill also provides powers to direct the commission to prepare a particular scheme, if for example it had not put forward for approval a scheme covering any one of the categories previously mentioned. The section finally provides that any scheme approved by me will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

Section 3 sets out the objectives of the scheme. In regard to programmes on Irish culture, heritage and experience, these are to develop high quality programmes; develop these programmes in the Irish language; increase the availability of such programmes to audiences; represent the diversity of Irish culture and heritage; record oral heritage and aspects of heritage which are disappearing, under threat or which have not been previously recorded; and develop local and community broadcasting.

The objective of the development of archiving of programme material is to develop an integrated approach, including the development of suitable storage processes and formats and the accessing of material by interested parties. An objective for adult literacy programmes is not included in this section as there is already a specific reference to it in section 2. My colleague the Minister for Education and Science will be closely involved in this particular aspect of the scheme, in regard to the national adult literacy strategy under the national development plan.

Section 4 provides for annual payments to the scheme of 5% of net television licence fee receipts. This will amount to an annual payment to the scheme of approximately €8 million. At present the full value of the licence fee receipts, less collection costs, goes to RTE to fund its public broadcasting service. The 5% payment will be for the purposes of the scheme and any administration or reasonable expenses relating to it. Costs to the Broadcasting Commission of administration are estimated at about €400,000 per year.

Section 5 requires the Broadcasting Commission to review and report on the operation, impact and effectiveness of the scheme every three years, or at such other time as may be requested by me. If necessary following such a review the scheme can be amended or revoked under section 2, either on the commission's own volition or on my direction, and the ultimate option of winding up the scheme is provided for in section 7.

Section 6 provides that details of the scheme will be provided in the commission's annual report and in a special account in its annual accounts. The Radio and Television Act 1988 referred to is the primary legislation relating to the commission.

Section 7 provides for the winding up and dissolution of the scheme. This is included as a last resort provision, in that once the scheme is wound up and dissolved by order it ceases to exist and cannot be revived. Section 2 already allows for the fine-tuning of the scheme over time by means of amendments or revocations. Winding up the scheme will require the consent of the Minister for Finance and the dissolution order will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

Section 8 is a standard provision that the expenses incurred by the Minister in the administration of the Act will be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. Section 9 sets out the short title of the Bill.

This concludes the run through of the Bill's provisions. Senators will, I hope, see it as straightforward and non-controversial and give it their support. I look forward to hearing their observations on the Bill in the debate. I commend the Bill to the Seanad.

It is interesting that 5% of broadcasting licence fees was projected as funding when this Bill was first mooted. Following the review on broadcasting, as far back as December, the Minister stated he was in favour of this 5%. I compliment him on that because he came under pressure from the head of broadcasting division in his own Department who said it would probably be contrary to normal broadcasting to have this money diverted. This is a first time decision. While it is probably healthy to have certain exchanges within the Department, I am glad the Minister is not to be labelled as a "yes Minister" type of person but is an independent thinker. RTE at the time disputed the decision that 5% of the considerable largesse raised by the television licence fee should go elsewhere. It felt it might go to commercial interests outside the country.

In recent times there has been a growth in community radio throughout the country. In my own area, we recently had a successful pilot project local radio station in Newcastlewest. Many volunteers and others worked on the project which ran for a period of time. There have been discussions with the BCI to continue with the project and it has moved on to the oral submission stage. I hope that next year west Limerick will have its own community radio covering many areas.

It is all very well to have community radios on a voluntary type of basis as opposed to the profit-making private radio stations I mentioned earlier. However, many of them face impediments to their survival. In many cases community radio stations only exist because of volunteers. A major impediment to their success is that the level of advertising they are permitted to broadcast on an hourly basis is considerably less than what the private radio stations can broadcast. Also, the funding they are allowed to raise on a commercial basis is limited to 50%. How can a radio station survive on a community basis and set up base stations with the prohibitive set-up costs involved if it has to rely on quizzes and other types of exercises and sponsorship to sustain its viability?

While the Bill refers to the type of activities for which funding will be provided, community stations offer the particular type of programmes that conform to its objectives. The Minister has said that the funding could probably be increased to €8 million per year. However, by the time legislation goes through and the Bill is enacted, it could be in excess of that because it goes back to the time when the increased funding was applied to RTE. In that context, if the Minister truly wanted to promote community radio – and he mentioned in the forum on broadcasting that he would try to encourage community involvement and community radio – it should be possible in this Bill to ring-fence an amount of funding specifically for community radio. This would conform with the objectives of this Bill, whether cultural or historical and with the other activities which it embraces.

There is a big difference between local radio stations and private radio stations. The private radio stations pump out music continually and probably only about 20% of their output relates to news and public affairs etc. Quite often they do not capture the type of audience community radio captures. Community radio around the country, whether in Connemara or west Limerick, spans the activities of what may be a small geographical population and is often just sustained by a community employment scheme within the area. If restrictions are imposed on community employment schemes, which is happening, we lose the potential manpower base which helps keep the community radio company viable. My main reservation is that while the Broadcasting (Funding) Bill is going in the right direction with 5% of the licence fees, it could go further in trying to ensure that community radio here gets off the ground. It is interesting that the Minister said in the forum on broadcasting that he wanted to foster and promote community radio. Now he has the chance to do so.

The forum also refers to the future of RTE and the susceptibility of young people to advertising. This issue was aired at the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. I know that BCI is taking steps in this direction and is examining the type of advertising going on. I remind people that if they sit and watch any children's programme at this time of year, and I know the Minister has children himself, they will notice a huge level of advertising of toys. While this is understandable coming up to Christmas, which starts early on television, there is constant pressure from children of three, four or five years of age who want everything they see. This insidious type of advertising is geared in a certain direction. One should look at the Scandinavian model. In Scandinavian countries that type of advertising is done late at night so that parents rather than children are the arbiters of whether they wish to get the toys for their children. I look forward to the BCI addressing this issue.

I look forward to the Minister's return to the House on Committee Stage. We have often seen Bills in the Seanad, for example, a recent Bill dealing with marine matters, where the number of amendments on Committee Stage exceeded the number of Schedules in the original Bill. When the Minister returns to the House, I hope that the community radio aspect will be addressed seriously and that he will talk to his officials about it. They may have reservations that he is breaking the original spirit of broadcasting by going ahead and taking 5% of the revenue from RTE. However, it would establish credibility within the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if they advised in favour of this course of action and argued that this would encourage community radio around the country. I speak very strongly on behalf of community radio having heard it in practice. The objectives of the Bill would be better realised by local community radio stations. That is my main reservation about this matter.

It was stated at the forum that the Minister was very committed to community radio. I do not see much mention of community radio in the Bill. I do not see where the Minister states that a certain amount of revenue will be ringfenced. I would like a certain amount of money earmarked for what would be regarded as community content for community radio stations.

Why does the Bill not make any provision for start-up funding? The start up process for radio stations can be expensive. I do not refer to private radio stations, which exist on a profit basis, but to community radio developments. In many cases, prohibitive start up costs are involved. If a sum of money is available and one sees that an effort is being made at local level, the Department should be able to top up that income to sustain and make a local community radio station viable. If this is not done, the energy and enthusiasm which is often displayed in these type of ventures will dissipate because of the costs over time. Rather than enhancing community radio stations around the country, we will see them going in the other direction. I would not like to see that happening because they answer a need in a local area and address all the different groupings there. They can produce very interesting programmes.

Radio, like television, is a broadcasting medium for the transmission and reception of communications and associated services. As a technology led service, past service providers, such as RTE, were given the responsibility to produce and supply a universal range of broadcasting services throughout the country. Broadcasting is a powerful force for influencing, shaping and directing public opinion in areas such as citizenship and democratic participation in society. This is recognised throughout the relevant legislation from the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926 to the more recent Broadcasting Act 2001.

Regulation, which naturally followed on from Acts of Parliament, attempts to ensure that access to different voices and viewpoints can be realised through fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory behaviour in the market. For example, RTE's radio and television stations are accessible free to air and I hope that they stay that way for the future.

I am not certain that RTE realises the responsibility it carries in ensuring and guaranteeing free speech in broadcasting and that the licence fee is one way of ensuring that it is financially independent and generally free of the influence of vested interests. Since the passing of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926, the regulation of radio broadcasting rested with RTE. Up to the launch of Radio 2, RTE Radio 1 was the only legal radio station in the country. In the mid 1960s, several illegal radio stations began to pop up in many urban communities. The legal station, Radio Luxembourg, broadcast wall to wall pop music in Britain and Ireland for decades. In the early 1960s, Radio Caroline broadcast from a ship of that name anchored near the Isle of Man. They were bound to whet the appetite of the public for their own non-stop music shows, instead of the mix of talk radio, sponsored programmes and céilí music which was the then staple diet of Radio Éireann.

Pirate radio stations arrived in Ireland. These unlicensed operators broadcast a range of mainly music oriented programmes, not available from Radio Éireann, which had a wider remit than just one target audience. The growing popularity of these stations was reflected in the surge of new pirate stations in operation around the country. By the mid 1970s, there were approximately 25 illegal stations broadcasting across the country, while ten years later, this figure had risen steeply to almost 100 locally based stations. This was not too difficult to understand. The ability of the pirates to respond to their audiences' tastes and interests was quickly rewarded by high audience figures and advertising revenue. This occurred in the post 1960s boom and everyone wanted access to the airwaves and freedom of expression. Above all, they wanted a continuous stream of the type of music they had come to love and espouse. It was the type of music the national broadcasters rationed out in small doses. Now, instead, there could be a never-ending supply.

People also wanted access to the airwaves. The rather conservative, musty, dusty Radio Éireann could never conceive of ordinary mortals on the radio, particularly as the practice of divulging the names of the resident programme presenters had not yet arrived. "The Liam Nolan Hour", which actually ran for an hour and a half at one stage, was the first radio programme in this country to use the name of its presenter in its title. This was a major shift. In addition, there was a perception among the sharper members of the entertainment industry that there was money to be made in local broadcasting and one recording manager famously described legal local radio as a licence to print money.

During the early 1980s, the Fianna Fáil led Government decided to publicly support the campaign for the legalisation of local radio and it subsequently passed the Radio and Television Act 1988. In order to acknowledge the historical role of news and current affairs in national broadcasting, all contract holders were obliged to devote at least 20% of their output to news and current affairs, or at least two hours of speech content between the hours 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. each day. Access to current affairs had to be given fair and reasonable prominence beside music on entertainment services. This commitment to a range of features is further expanded by this legislation.

I congratulate the Minister on his foresight in establishing this fund to ensure that Irish culture and language, the environment, our history, etc, are not forgotten. This will be seen in the future as a huge milestone in Irish broadcasting, where, for the first time, part of the licence fee will go to the private sector. This is something for which it has campaigned for a long time and now that it is to be achieved, I hope it will make a success of this new opportunity and properly fulfil its responsibilities towards programme making.

We do not adequately acknowledge the role which RTE, formerly Radio Éireann, had in the development of broadcasting in this country. For all its faults, most of which only seem to be apparent with the benefit of a further 50 years of development, it laid down exacting standards for the medium in this country and set a headline which the stations of today, including itself, might do well to study again. We have come a long way since the mid-1970s when there was talk of providing a second television channel in Ireland. There were those in the Labour-Fine Gael coalition at the time who favoured the handing over of this resource to re-broadcast BBC 1, on the basis, no doubt, that whatever was produced in Britain had to be better than anything which could be produced at home. Whatever its faults, and faults there are, RTE has done a remarkable job over the last 40 years of television, and three quarters of a century of radio. Its productions have been identifiably Irish and we can be justifiably proud of it.

Without sounding too prudish, I wish to take broadcasters to task for some of what they produce and offer to the viewing and listening public. There is no doubt that standards have fallen sharply across the industry in the last few years. Programmes which would never have seen the light of day a decade ago are now mainstream fare, which is very unfair to today's audiences, to parents trying to maintain reasonably high standards and to young people who are given a grossly distorted picture of what is acceptable. One constituent of mine who supervises teenage discos tells me of the continuing drop in standards of moral behaviour of a percentage of our teenagers. He is not critical of them, and he would not say that today's young generation is worse than any which has gone before. I believe that too and am proud of the young people whose standards in many areas of life are higher than those of previous generations. Unfortunately they see examples of behaviour, day and night, from a variety of TV channels, which have desensitised them and convinced them that liberal behaviour is quite acceptable and that sexual freedom should be their most important aspiration.

This is unfair to a generation which has great potential and which is assaulted through all senses at a most vulnerable age. It will be difficult to roll back the damage which is being caused, particularly through the medium of television, but also through radio. Coarse language is now a regular and unremarkable feature in the media, with the use of words best suited to the locker room. The use of what the Christian denominations refer to as "the holy name" is widespread and one wonders if broadcasters would trespass on the sensitivities of other religions as lightly. There needs to be a clean up of radio and TV and a raising of standards again in the interests of our children. RTE is far from blameless in this and even last night, a programme was aired which drew the wrath of reasonable and balanced individuals. I understand the content, which was unnecessarily lewd, could be described as unsuitable viewing for anyone other than very broad-minded adults. Surely this "arty" material is not necessary and must appeal to and be watched by only a minority of viewers? There is no need to labour this point, as those who have a reasonable outlook will have had the same experience and seen the kind of content to which I object.

The provisions of the Bill before us today are simple, straightforward and highly commendable. If we are not to further loosen our grip on our heritage and culture, we must provide incentives, and make possible the creation of good and appropriate programming all over the country. This incentive is designed in the terms of the Bill, "to develop high quality programmes based on Irish culture, heritage and experience". There are large untapped reserves of material all around the country which would prove very interesting, not only to those of a more mature age, but to young listeners who might be exposed to them. Local radio and television must be encouraged to make such programmes and funding is the best incentive. The best vehicle would probably be local radio stations to which young people listen most.

One only has to listen to "Sunday Miscellany" each weekend to realise the kind of stories there are all over the country, which would transfer effectively from 600 words to half hour documentaries. One of the most popular home-produced programmes last year on RTE Radio was "Hurling's Top Twenty" and this year, "Football's Top Twenty", the excellent documentaries of Colm Keane. Most of these are based on, made in and represent rural Ireland, yet they are popular with all audiences. The possibilities are endless and one never knows what hidden talents would be thrown up by this incentive. I sincerely hope that it will not turn out to be a Dublin-based fund as local radio has proved that there is abundant talent and material in the provinces.

I warmly welcome this Bill with all of the possibilities it will open up. Some clarifications on the fine detail will be required from the Minister and I have no doubt they will be forthcoming during the course of this debate. This Bill will prove to be a watershed in Irish broadcasting legislation and I am pleased to support it wholeheartedly.

Senator Kenneally mentioned hurling and football as if they were rural experiences whereas both games, particularly football, are an urban experience today and both have a modern context. Colm Keane's documentaries, to which Senator Kenneally referred, are not only documentaries on past heroes of the games but are excellent examples of commentaries on a major leisure activity and part of social and cultural life in modern Ireland. Those programmes are part of the modern experience, not the historical experience. As a public service broadcasting organisation, RTE is fulfilling a major mandate in ensuring that it reflects our heritage and modern culture. It also reflects the changing nature of modern Ireland and the drama programmes in particular attempt to do that, although not always successfully.

The fund and its aims must be applauded, but they do not go far enough. I would like to draw the Minister's attention to several comments which were sent to me, and which I am sure he too received. Dublin Community Television has been lobbying the Minister and has been in discussions with his officials regarding the terms of this legislation. It raises an important point, which I hope we can explore further on Committee Stage, namely, the notion of community media being a distinct strand of broadcasting that should be supported. This was discussed in the context of the report of the forum on broadcasting and it is timely that we look at this. It arose in the context of local radio, particularly in the last licensing round. The Minister might know that I prepared a report for the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources on the experience of local radio stations with the Broadcasting Commission and the licensing process. Out of that has emerged the whole definition and experience of community media, which is also clearly being referred to by Dublin Community Television. Community media, which does not necessarily mean small or local, is entirely different from independent media. Community radio or television does not have to be on a tiny scale. Neither does it have to be based in a small local area. However, it is non-profit making and obviously not commercial, but "community" gives it a whole different dimension and introduces a distinct brand of broadcasting, which if developed could be an extremely rich vein of broadcasting both in radio and television.

It is disappointing this Bill does not potentially create the environment in which that could be generated and supported, except in a very small way. I will be tabling amendments on that and I hope the Minister of State will consider them carefully and use this fund and this legislation for the opportunity it provides to begin the process of supporting community media. That would mean funding would have to be available for infrastructure and investment. It is necessary to invest initially in not-for-profit television in particular, which is expensive particularly in the start-up phase, from a public service and community viewpoint as it does not rely on commercial funding and advertising, which completely undermine the whole principle. In the same way, for instance, that community activity in the arts is supported, it is well worth supporting community media and it is timely to do so, particularly in the current era, as the Minister of State has indicated.

We are in an era of globalisation in the media and of digital television. As he pointed out, we might have a multiplicity of channels, but that does not mean we have quality or diversity. Sometimes one sees the same stuff on all the channels. One of the disappointing features is the area of children's television. As a parent I try to keep an eye on what my daughter is watching. It seems to me we are just getting a diet of awful American teenage stuff and we need to counter that with good quality home produced programmes centred in our own cultural and social experience.

I am not saying we should cut off the American experience. It represents the dominant culture in the world and it would be wrong of us to totally cut off from that and not allow our children to experience it. However, to have that as the only experience is a difficulty. There is also a need to encourage diversity. The greatest diversity one can find is at local and community level. The reflection of community in television would be a very powerful statement. I am not saying that could happen in all parts of the country. However, there is a critical mass audience for community broadcasting, in Dublin at least and in some of our larger cities. That would require infrastructure along with a commitment to invest. It is a pity the Bill does not go far enough towards creating that environment and allowing it to happen, and it is important that is addressed.

They are the main points I wish to make as regards this Bill. My final point is with regard to RTE. This is the first time that some part of the licence fee has been ring-fenced for something other than RTE's needs. It is important that this should be monitored to see how it is developing. It is possible, for instance, that within the context of the national broadcasting station, better value for money may be achieved by allowing it to carry out some of these functions, such as archiving, rather than having a separate infrastructure to do so.

I fully agree with the emphasis of other Senators, particularly Senators Finucane and O'Meara, on the importance of community radio and the potential the provisions of the Bill have to give that extra degree of support for community radio stations. I am somewhat concerned, and have expressed this on a number of occasions in a Tipperary context where the local radio, which was commercial in status but community in character, will have its status changed to "community" from next February. There are real concerns about the ability to maintain employment and the quality of programming. I am not entirely satisfied that a sufficiently level playing field exists between the commercial and community sectors. I suspect Senator O'Meara may be right when she says this Bill does provide the ability to help, but in a fairly small way. I certainly hope that as the Bill goes through the Oireachtas, close attention will be paid to that to see if any means may be found to strengthen the content of support for community radio. This is not really quantified at the moment. As the Minister of State said, much of the detail has still to be worked out. I would like to see community radio stations given the freedom at least to break even, and to collect whatever advertising and other revenue they need to do that rather than being overly hamstrung.

I said I agreed very largely with the concerns Senator Finucane expressed. We are both well within range of Tipperary Mid West Radio. To come back to RTE, I am neither paranoid nor hostile to it. In most respects it provides a magnificent service. Given we are a small country, with a much smaller population and much fewer resources, RTE keeps its end up well compared to the public service broadcasters of some larger countries.

The long journey to and from Tipperary has been made much more enjoyable by the introduction of Lyric FM. It is a minority taste but it has been a great success. Having been in the Minister of State's constituency, however, I am concerned about the continuing stand off between the Wexford Opera Festival and the RTE Symphony Orchestra. I wrote about this in The Irish Times on Saturday because a festival needs commitment and flexibility, not rigid adherence to union rules. I hope that RTE will continue to cover the Wexford Opera Festival in the way it did in the past, this problem notwithstanding.

I have two specific concerns that are not to be seen as critical of RTE overall. Since I became finance spokesman for Fianna Fáil in this House, I have been concerned about the way the monthly inflation figures are covered by RTE. I complained two months ago about a broadcast that struck me as overly politicised. The Broadcasting Complaints Commission did not uphold my complaint and I accept that, but it seems to me that analysis of the statistics does not take adequate account of the contribution of social partnership. Social partnership is not visible in a fall in the price of vegetables or housing, it is spread over all the indicators. Sometimes broadcasts attribute these falls to all kinds of external factors when a central factor in our economic strength in the last year is the way the most recent social partnership arrangement has broken the potentially dangerous rising inflationary expectations.

I spent the bank holiday weekend with a delegation of 160 parliamentarians visiting the Middle East for political purposes and I was disappointed to hear later of the contribution of "Liveline" about the Oireachtas. I am absolutely astonished that it would try to see what offices were occupied. When Parliament is not sitting, be it the US Congress, the House of Commons or the Oireachtas, the place of public representatives is in their constituencies.

Even at that stage, in the early days of RTE, we had looked more to the BBC, particularly BBC2, where quality was already established. Programming, particularly news and current affairs, was not just about entertainment, it was about artistic creativity and literary excellence, the goals to which any right thinking community would aspire, although it is for others to decide if we succeeded, and we must assess RTE in that context.

I salute the contribution made by RTE to Irish culture. Looking back on the history of 2RN and RTE radio, we can see that great work was done in collecting Irish music and folklore and some of those involved, such as Séamus Ennis, Seán Mac Réamoinn or Ciarán Mac Mathúna, became icons in their own right, developing a unique archive of material. When Donncha Ó Dulaing went out to the highways and byways, from which his programme took its title, it is impossible to overestimate the sense of importance he bestowed on the communities which would never get to recording studios in Donnybrook but had a story to tell nevertheless, creating a sense of balance.

I do not want to go over the top in praising RTE because if one does not keep setting goals to improve the service provided, then there is a grave danger that the lowest common denominator will be reached. It is easy to pinpoint areas where RTE could successfully improve and expand its service. Ironically, it was through such a concept that it created local radio. The first local radio was actually organised by Paddy O'Brien. RTE provided the outside broadcasting unit, went into towns and villages and brought together a local team to produce the programmes for a week, while providing technical assistance and backup. That was the taste of local radio left throughout many communities, which indicated that people themselves could be empowered in this area.

By expanding that particular role, local radio became firmly established. Some might say it was in competition with RTE, but I say it was complementary. Local radio's achievements to a large degree are in the very areas in which RTE missed its opportunities. If only RTE had focused on those areas on which local radio is now focusing, where there is a sense of community and aspiration. I welcome the provision that part of the finance from the licence will come back to the local community, as it will create new partnerships. People involved in prospective community television broadcasting believe they will be sidelined and not involved in future developments. I am not sure that this will be the case.

As far as commercial broadcasters are concerned, one of the great strengths of what is now being proposed, is that it gives them an incentive to broadcast programmes they would not otherwise tend to. This could also be made a condition of the broadcasting licence in the first place in order that they could leaven the lump of their commercial offering with, other, less crowd-pleasing programmes. There is room for both approaches – the carrot and the stick.

I hope this new approach to funding will not encourage commercial broadcasters to think that they have no additional public service responsibilities except under this scheme. I am aware that this Bill is enabling legislation and it will be up to the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland to devise a detailed scheme for the Minister's approval. In an area like broadcasting, it is impossible to forecast what will and will not work. There must be room for a certain amount of learning as we go along. I am not sure if there is sufficient flexibility in the Bill to allow subsequent changes in the scheme approved by the Minister. If there is not, then we can look at it on Committee Stage.

The exact basis of the funding for the programming that will be supported is not spelled out in this Bill. It is easy to overlook the fact that a broadcaster incurs two kinds of costs in creating public service broadcasting. The first is the actual cost of making the programme itself. However, this is not the end of the matter. In arriving at the total cost for the broadcaster, the income foregone by broadcasting that particular programme, rather than a popular one that can raise more advertising revenue, must be taken into account. This is an issue since the Bill specifically provides that the programmes funded be broadcast at peak viewing or listening times. I approve of that proviso. Otherwise, we will be paying good money to have programmes aired when half the country is asleep, a little like "Oireachtas Report". However, by insisting that they go out at peak times, we are putting a cost on the broadcasters. If they are not recompensed for that cost, the incentive to compete for this funding will be greatly reduced, if not removed altogether. Under this scheme, we are paying to make things happen that would not otherwise happen. We have to make sure that sufficient money is paid to the broadcasters.

One of the more welcome aspects of this scheme is the opportunities it will create for independent production companies, as commercial broadcasters will outsource the actual production of such public service programmes. I expect that the broadcasters will be inundated with new programme suggestions from independent producers. This is exactly as it should be. The independent production sector is one that we want to encourage as much as possible. It must be remembered that after the broadcaster has paid the production company for the work, something must be left over for the broadcaster to make it worth its while to give up the valuable air time for the programme. It is vital that in drawing up the scheme, the BCI allows for this factor. If it does not, all the money will go to RTE because it would be the only broadcaster looking for them. There is hardly much point in passing an Act of the Oireachtas and setting up an elaborate scheme, if it only results in RTE getting back the 5% of the licence fee that was taken away from it. There will be no problem in getting RTE to apply for the funding. The main problem is to prevent it from drawing on the fund to make programmes it should make. I term this the "lottery effect". We know how much former Government spending was diverted to lottery funds. While this was always denied, we all recognise it happened.

Public service broadcasting is at the heart of this issue. However, the actual range of programmes set out in section 2 of the Bill is a good deal narrower than would be covered by any normal description of public service broadcasting. In particular, there is a specific exclusion of programmes relating to news and current affairs in section (2)(2)(d). I have no problem in excluding news, but I question the wisdom of excluding current affairs from the scheme's remit. One of the major merits of public service broadcasting lies in programmes of an investigative nature. These are the programmes that tend not to be made because doing so properly is inherently expensive. The long-term, in-depth research needed for investigative documentaries is precisely the activity that tends to be squeezed out of the agenda of commercial broadcasters. However, from a national point of view, such programmes are extremely valuable to the point that they are a necessary part of democracy.

Is it possible to ring-fence some of the fund to support community broadcasting? Throughout the Bill, the word "community" is linked with the word "local". In some cases, it states "community or local" and in others, "community and local". However, community can be different from local. For example, FM104, a Dublin radio station, is a local one. However, community, in my understanding, refers to a not-for-profit community medium. We should be encouraging that community link in broadcasting.

I wonder if part of the fund that has been accumulating since the licence fee increased could be allocated to the cost of setting up community television. I was contacted by DCTV, which makes a very strong case for separating community and local broadcasting. This group finds the Bill disappointing in that it makes no provision for the start-up fund or operating costs that community content producers such as Dublin Community Television will face. It states:

There is no recognition of the added costs, the lack of investment and infrastructure that will undermine any programme production by community television. It is doubtful that start-up or operating costs will be recognised in the scheme that the BCI will eventually present as the mechanism for drawing down what is the only funding that mentions community broadcasting.

It further states:

Community television provides much better value for money. Community television around the world has succeeded in harnessing the creativity, energy and resources of communities to create their own programmes across a huge range of issues, from inter-cultural experience to community development to local government to adult education. Coupled with the falling cost of high quality production equipment and low overheads of community television, communities can produce innovative formats and quality programmes for a fraction of the cost of commercial or public service broadcasters.

It also states:

Five hours of community based programmes using popular studio and mixed formats can be produced for anything from €25,000 to €120,000 depending on the format. This compares to at least €25,000 that RTE pays for half-hour mainstream production. The fund's potential impact is multiplied through community television.

I am making the case for community television on the basis of the efforts being made by North East Access Radio in Dublin, which is anxious to encourage this area. I believe it has a case and I urge the Minister to give it serious consideration.

While the Bill is very worthy of support, before coming back to us on Committee Stage, I urge the Minister to remove the exclusion of investigative programmes to which I referred earlier. Doing so will greatly improve an important measure that I have pleasure in welcoming. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.

It is important that Irish culture, heritage and the experiences of the past are covered by the Bill. The legislation also sets out to improve adult literacy skills and the archiving of programme material. This will be vital in the future, particularly when considering the change in culture that takes place each decade and even each year. A considerable amount of our culture has changed in the past ten to 15 years, as it does on an ongoing basis and it is important to record this for future generations. While at the time it may not be commercially viable or considered necessary by the current generation to put such programmes in place, as Senator Ó Murchú mentioned, much of the programming done by RTE in the past has provided a great historical bank for our generation.

I compliment the Government on its work in this area. This Bill follows on from provisions in the Arts Act, with which Senator Ó Murchú is very familiar, in particular the Minister's commitment to establish a focus on the traditional arts, by ensuring that traditional Irish music and culture is properly funded through the Arts Council. It shows that the Government recognises that our culture, heritage, traditional music and practices should be recorded. It is important to record the change in our culture. Many practices, including farming practices, that would have been part of rural Ireland have now changed dramatically and will change again in coming years, particularly in the light of developments in Europe. At this time of change it is important to record those practices in television and radio programmes.

The funding of the adult literacy element is of critical importance. On their own, such projects are not commercially viable but they create huge benefit. Research has shown that many people who have difficulties with general literacy are unwilling to address this general problem directly. They find that using a radio or television at home allows them to overcome their difficulties. It helps them develop better literacy skills without the necessity to mention to others the difficulties they have.

Archiving is critical for retaining and cataloguing information. The free to air provisions are also important to allow such events to reach the widest audience possible. I would not want some broadcasters attempt to use this fund to ensure that they get to continue with the news and current affairs element, which is relatively commercial in its nature.

During the debate many speakers suggested the Bill should specifically ring-fence some of the fund for community radio and television. It was also suggested that the fund could be used to meet the set-up and operating costs of community stations. The Minister will consider these issues and will discuss them further on Committee Stage.

The debate has been worthwhile and useful and I thank those Senators who have contributed. We politicians have a keen interest in the subject of broadcasting but this is an interest that is shared by the wider public. The people have been very well served by both public and independent Irish broadcasters and the aim of the fund is to build on this. The legislation is designed to provide a framework for the scheme which will balance both accountability and flexibility and ensure that public money is well used and that the scheme can be relevant and effective in the longer term. The legislation is not complex and the main detail of this initiative will be the scheme. The Bill specifies a yearly allocation and sets out clear parameters for accounts, reporting and regular reviews. Molaim an Bille seo don Seanad.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 11 November 2003.