Mr. Eamon Ryan:
I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I give it a guarded welcome as I have a number of concerns with regard to its introduction. I hope the Minister will be able to take some of these concerns on board on Committee Stage and amend certain aspects of the Bill.
Nobody would disagree with the overall purpose of the Bill. We are entering a broadcasting world where we are faced sometimes, in the words of a song, with “52 channels and nothing on”. We do not want to take a direction in broadcasting where we have a plethora of satellite and other television services available with nothing other than bland international programmes of no relevance to the Irish market.
The market will probably sort this out. Irish people will always want a media which is relevant to them. There is a market, regardless of State intervention, for good programming which is relevant to Irish people alone. It is right and proper that the State should assist that process by means of direct funding. It is probably appropriate that some State funding will go beyond the confines of RTE to other terrestrial broadcasters. I welcome the broad purpose of the Bill in that regard.
I would like to highlight some of my concerns about the Bill. I am concerned by some of the programmes that have been designated as appropriate for funding under this Bill. Having read the Bill, it seems that we are looking backward rather than forward. The Minister of State said that the purpose of such programmes will be to examine “who we are, and why we are what we are”. I fear, however, that the Bill’s provisions are more likely to cause broadcasters to examine what we were, or why we were what we were. Section 2(1)(a) of the Bill states that funding will be provided for programmes about “historical buildings”, “folk, rural and vernacular heritage” and “traditional and contemporary arts”. I am slightly concerned that we are narrowing it down slightly too much in an attempt to preserve an Ireland that is going or has gone. If broadcasters have to produce this heritage television, they will be constrained when making editorial decisions about what is contemporary or relevant to Irish people.
It is important to note that the Bill mentions that programmes about “traditional and contemporary arts” will be supported. We had a good debate about a similar matter in the House when the Arts Bill 2002 was being discussed. I congratulate the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism for amending the Bill, which initially drew a distinction between traditional and contemporary arts. I give credit to the Minister, Deputy O’Donoghue, for recognising that it is nonsense to try to create such a distinction. I do not know of any living traditional arts which are not also contemporary. I am slightly concerned that the State may be too prescriptive in trying to define good public broadcasting. It may adopt a conservative vision of the good programming that is required. I enjoy programmes about traditional music or other traditional arts, but they are not different in any way to contemporary arts. I would not like programmes about traditional arts to be treated differently from programmes about contemporary arts.
I have a slight concern about the fact that the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland will make decisions about schemes for the granting of funds for certain forms of programming. I have nothing against the commission per se, but I am concerned by the possibility of a bureaucratic Civil Service approach to decisions about fundamentally artistic matters. Such an approach may lead to a more conservative interpretation than would be the case if broadcasters, or companies whose sole remit relates to broadcasting, were directly charged with making decisions. I am slightly concerned that the BCI, which has a regulatory function in respect of licences, essentially, may not be the appropriate body to make decisions on some of the subjective artistic matters that will arise when schemes are being set up.
The concerns I have outlined are minor by comparison with my greatest problem with the Bill. Under section 2(6), the Minister will be able to direct the BCI, which will be responsible for the scheme, “to support in a scheme a television or radio programme”. The provision that the Minister will be able to say to the commission, in effect, that he does or does not want a particular programme is a highly dangerous one. It is unfortunate that the Minister is not here to respond to me, as he may be able to say to me that there is a good reason for the provision. It may be the case that the commission will have to be directed in certain circumstances. This Bill almost gives the Minister direct control over the distribution of broadcasting funds. Regardless of the best intentions of the Minister, a highly dangerous precedent is being set because it will be possible for him, or a future Minister, to direct broadcasting funds to particular areas.
It does not matter which Minister or which party is involved because a bad principle is being set. There should be a clear distinction between politicians and broadcasting policy. This Bill will bring the Minister far too close to decisions about how funding will be carried out. I fear that broadcasters will have to look over their shoulders because they will be concerned about what the Minister will think. Such a system will lead to bad programming. I hope that the Minister will facilitate amendments in this regard on Committee Stage. A reputable broadcaster with whom I discussed this matter at lunchtime said that this Bill, if it is passed in its current form, will represent the type of provision that Ray Burke would have loved during his time as Minister for Communications. This is not a good Bill.
The third concern I would like to mention is that we have missed an opportunity to review the way in which broadcasting is funded. I regret that the Bill does not include a broader review of the funding of broadcasting, particularly in respect of the way in which funds are raised. I note that the Bill relates to the net licence fee receipts. Historically, 8% of the licence fee receipts have been accounted for by An Post’s collection costs. It is a very expensive cost. Just 92% of the sum of over ?100 that we pay for a television licence will be expended on broadcasting. It is something that we have to address seriously.
I propose a much simpler system of funding which is guaranteed by the State through the general taxation system on an index-linked basis. The fund would be set in stone and would not be open to political interference in the budget each year. The moneys would be provided from central Exchequer expenditure. The fundraising and allocation aspects of such a system would be more efficient. One would not have the huge cost of collecting the licence fee and the endless television advertisements would not have to be paid for. Such advertisements remind people, for example, that they have to have a licence for their fourth television in their country home. The incredibly cumbersome present licence collecting system would no longer be needed.
The system I propose would be much fairer. Under the present system, an unemployed person or a person with a very low income, for example, has to pay the exact same licence fee as their next-door neighbour who might be earning ?500,000 per year. The licence fee is a regressive stealth tax. The Government should try to claw back some of the taxes which are applied across the board because they affect the poor and the rich in the same manner. It should try to insert a new measure into the tax threshold system so that different incomes can be recognised. At a time when legislation is addressing broadcasting funding, it is regrettable that we are not conducting a major review of how we collect funds for broadcasting.
I wish the Minister well regardless of the main concerns I have outlined. I support the provisions of the Bill, in general. I hope the Minister will appreciate the strength of some of the arguments we are making. He should make the necessary amendments to ensure that this Bill is not seen as an attempt by politicians to interfere with decisions about editorial policy. We should not restrict the ability of those involved in broadcasting to decide what programmes they consider to be contemporary or relevant. We should not narrow it down excessively to historical analysis.
The final concern I would like to mention follows on from the comments made earlier by Deputy Coveney. At a time when a new broadcasting levy is being introduced, it is deeply regrettable that we are not taking the opportunity to ensure that there is a much greater level of subtitling of television programmes. A huge opportunity has been lost, particularly in respect of those broadcasters that have failed to rise to the challenge. RTE has led the way on this issue. If we are to raise ?8 million each year to be provided for such broadcasters, it is incumbent on us to put in place conditions that will ensure that programmes are subtitled. Television stations should be compelled to have a certain percentage of subtitled programmes. We will never again have such a good opportunity to cater for those who rely on subtitled programming to be properly involved in society. I hope that the possibility of amendments in this area can be examined so that we can copperfasten the rights of people who are hard of hearing. We should recognise that we are obliged as legislators to meet such people’s special needs.
I will confine my contribution to the comments I have already made. I look forward to the remaining Stages of the Bill
