Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill 2006 - Report and Final Stages - 13th February 2007

Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill 2006 - Report and Final Stages - 13th February 2007.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I remind Senators that they may speak only once on Report Stage, except for the proposer of an amendment, who may reply to the discussion thereon. Each amendment on Report Stage must be seconded. I welcome the Minister of State to the House.
Mr. Norris: I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, line 42, after “television” to insert “and digital radio mondiale”.
I am happy to welcome the Minister of State back to the House and regret I was not present on the previous occasion. I spoke extensively on Second Stage and tabled many amendments, which my colleague Senator Henry moved on my behalf because I was detained at a symposium in Trinity College.
I am being helpful and in this regard I have tabled one amendment on Report Stage as a test case to provoke debate. I hope the Minister of State will take on board and include in his speech the point that, but for the Seanad, the radio broadcasting element might not be included in the legislation. It was certainly not in the Bill until the amendments were tabled. It is very important that we have the most efficient and technically advanced form of broadcasting for our citizens abroad, who also include deaf people. The radio system is very important. The BBC, for example, would probably consider the radio broadcasts of the BBC World Service to be at least as significant and powerful as the television broadcasts, and probably more powerful in terms of altering public opinion.
My remarks concern a kind of conflict between the digital audio broadcasting, DAB, system and the digital radio mondiale, DRM, systems. I must be open and lay my cards on the table in that I am simply not technically proficient in this matter. I am therefore putting on the record of the House what I have been advised about the broadcasting systems and what may be regarded as the advantages of the DRM system over the DAB system. The first is that DRM is a cost effective solution delivering free-to-air digital community radio. There is particular value in reviewing this option to create affordable opportunities for small-scale service on digital platforms, especially for targeted audiences. The DAB system is 25 years old and is really designed for large national services. It has not been available to small-scale community stations because of its prohibitive cost and its multiplex nature. This means that coverage for a single service is difficult to target effectively.
My advice indicates that many in the industry regard the DAB system as already out of date. As I am sure the Minister of State and his advisers are aware, what we used to call “wireless receivers”, in other words, radios or “trannies” or whatever they are now called, are not equipped for DAB1 and they certainly will not be equipped for DAB2. They will not get the updated system, as has happened elsewhere. DAB1 has already been replaced by DAB2. The two systems are not compatible and new receivers are required for the latter, which is now coming on stream.
DRM is an energy saving upgrade for the medium, long and short wave bands, giving near FM sound both day and night. It complements DAB rather than competing with it. DAB2 is more efficient and allows better sound quality and more stations. Like broadband, DAB creates a deficit for those who live away from large towns. I presume this makes a significant difference to a scattered population abroad and implies that its receiving capacity is reduced.
DAB carries many stations grouped on a multiplex and transmitted from a common mast. A centralised mast is remote from existing target areas of small stations. DAB duplicates in that each station’s programme is carried into the service areas of others to uninterested listeners, thereby producing a scatter effect. Many rural areas have too few stations to form a group and fill a multiplex so they cannot be served by DAB. Does this imply that to receive DAB, one must create a group and subscribe or be near a re-broadcasting system? Does it mean isolated people will be excluded under DAB?
I am also advised that if DAB is to be used in Ireland, it should have broadcast quality at least equal to FM, which is not the case in the United Kingdom. DAB2 will improve fidelity. RTE’s FM signal is three times stronger than that of our UK neighbours and this will make it very difficult to convince the public that DAB1 is relevant at this late stage. It other words, it is being suggested that we leapfrog and go straight to DAB2. However, we must tell consumers that their receiver equipment is out of date.
Radio Denmark has advised would-be DAB radio purchasers that DAB2 has been adapted by the world DAB body. Existing radios now being sold in Ireland will not work with this new system. Micro-power DRM, using near CB channels, can provide a solution. In other words, provision could be made for small-scale stations. It would be important for RTE as a public-service broadcaster to inform its listeners that existing DAB radios do not meet the new standard and will be obsolete in future years.
The Minister of State should acknowledge the problem. Let me refer to a quotation by the Australian Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, who I am glad to see is both a Senator and a woman.
Ms O’Meara: Imagine that.
Mr. Norris: Imagine that. Could it happen here? It might even be Senator O’Meara, if she manages to squeak into Dáil Éireann.
Mr. Coonan: Then she will not be a Senator.
Mr. Norris: She will not but she could be quite effective in the Lower House. One never knows; Tipperary, look out.
The Honourable Helen Coonan——
Mr. Coonan: Hear, hear.
Mr. Norris: ——Australian Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, states:
Let’s face it, adoption now [this is the Australian view of what we are doing] of a standard that is already 10 years old and may well be superseded, for implementation in another 2 to 3 years, would, in my view, be irresponsible.
Mr. Mooney: About what standard is she talking?
Mr. Norris: She is talking about the DAB standard.
Mr. Coonan: Senator Mooney should leave the Coonans alone.
Mr. Norris: We will have no frivolity, please. Senator Norris without lewd interruptions from what should be his own side of the House.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Norris without interruption.
Mr. Norris: The Danish have had experience in this matter. A newspaper, Politiken, quotes Mr. Paul Samsøe, the head of engineering from the Danish equivalent of BBC Radio — or Danish state radio:
[W]hen asked whether owners of DAB receivers would have to replace their DAB radios in five years time, Paul Samsøe replied: “Yes — just like you’ll also have to get a new television set and a new mobile phone.” ... Denmark is the only other country in the world apart from the UK where DAB has actually started selling — like in the UK, DAB has started selling only due to heavy advertising — so with someone like Paul Samsøe saying this, and taking into consideration that previously he’s been a big supporter of the DAB system, it makes you wonder about whether everybody will have to buy new DAB receivers in the UK as well.
In other words, by taking this system, virtually every radio in the country is rendered obsolete.
The Minister of State has a well-satisfied little smile playing at the corner of his lips. Perhaps he has just been passed the full, complete and definitive technical answer to this, and I look forward with some interest to his reply. Could he confirm something that came not just from me and the Independent benches, but from other colleagues on this side of the House? There was significant interest on the Government side as well. The Government tabled its own amendments, but only after I had tabled those amendments in the first place. The Minister of State might, perhaps, because he is a gracious man, acknowledge that the Seanad has played a significant role in ensuring that not only television images, but also radio broadcast material is made available to the Irish diaspora.
Ms O’Meara: I second the amendment. Senator Norris has eloquently set out the case for it. Towards the end of his address he indicated the desire and intention, as provided for in the Bill in terms of television, to ensure that the Irish abroad have full access to what is available, using the technology. We should now use the opportunity contained in this legislation to extend this through the radio as well as the television network. In that regard, I am happy to second and support the amendment.
Mr. Kenneally: At least Senator Norris did not have to distribute most of his contribution because we already have it. We all received what he got and what he said.
Mr. Norris: I acknowledge that I was briefed and that, to a certain extent, the technical material is beyond my capacity.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Kenneally, without interruption
Mr. Kenneally: Senator Norris was speaking about being interrupted, but it did not take him long to start interrupting somebody else. I realise he did not have the benefit of being in the House on Committee Stage and hearing what the Minister of State said. He indicated, and Senator Norris is saying, that this would not have come about as regards radio broadcasting were it not for the amendments tabled by him and others. That is not the case, however, because the Minister of State made it quite clear that it was not necessary to put it into the legislation since RTE already has a remit to broadcast——
Mr. Norris: It is no wonder the Government tabled those amendments to cover the situation.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Kenneally, without interruption.
Mr. Kenneally: He is off again. RTE already has a remit to broadcast and is already doing this on long wave. However, the Minister of State agreed — and Senator Norris is correct in saying this suggestion came from all sides of the House — that he would include it in the legislation. The Minister of State came forward with the amendments on Committee Stage, as agreed by the House.
The Bill is not concerned with digital radio mondiale, DRM, versus digital audio broadcasting, DAB. It is not technical legislation as such. It enables RTE to do certain things as regards television and now radio. The Minister of State quite clearly made the point on Committee Stage that if this were to be included in the legislation, it would basically force RTE or whoever into broadcasting only through one particular mechanism. I am not sufficiently technically minded to be able to say which is the correct one. None of us knows whether in two, three or five years’ time any of these systems might be obsolete. However, if we stitch it into the legislation now, we are stuck with it. It would mean the legislation would have to be changed again to be compatible with the technology of the day. That is the point the Minister of State was making, above all else, on Committee Stage, and I believe the legislation would be better if it were left out.
Mr. Mooney: Senator Kenneally put it very well what the Bill is about. I share his disappointment that Senator Norris was not in the House for what was a very interesting debate on all sides.
Mr. Norris: I understand that it is pestiferous and in violation of the rules of the House to refer to a Member’s absence. I am sure my elderly colleague, Senator Mooney, and my even more elderly colleague, the other one whose name I have forgotten, will remember this in future.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: That is quite correct. Senator Mooney, without interruption.
Mr. Mooney: It was not meant with any sense of malice. It was just that it was unfortunate that there was not an opportunity. I am sure the Senator had perfectly good reasons for not being in the House. I said this because I do not believe it is fair to the House to go into all the arguments again. Senator Kenneally has pointed out that in the context of the amendment tabled by Senator Norris, it is not a case of either-or. The question arises as to the motive behind Senator Norris tabling an amendment specific to a particular type of radio technology which Mr. Enda O’Kane, through his very active lobbying of all sides of the House, has been promoting when there is no reference in the Bill to the alternative type which the Senator has been very much against.
To try to sum up matters, more than 800 radio stations in Europe operate the DAB system. On the references in the documents to the Danish engineer, my information is that at the highest level in Radio Denmark there is no question of DAB no longer being used. RTE’s position is that it is attempting to have what is generally referred to as the industry norm. It does not want to be out of step with the European norm, which in effect means that more than 800 stations operate the DAB system.
As Senator Kenneally has said, and it bears repeating, we are moving in a technological environment that is evolving very quickly. There is no guarantee that even what is referred to in Senator Norris’s amendment will be the industry norm in three, four or five years’ time. Mr. Enda O’Kane has focused to a large extent on the question of community radio somehow being terminated. In other words, if there is the adoption of a particular technology, community or local radio will not be available. We must remember that the Bill refers to the setting up of various structures. There will be a new Broadcasting Authority of Ireland which will be responsible for regulating both the introduction and maintenance of the spectrum as well as the regulation of radio in this country in the digital age. To suggest at this point, in line with the doomsday scenario being put forward, that the existing radio service will no longer be available because of the adoption of a particular technology, which is not in the Bill anyway, is mischievous. I do not for a moment doubt the motives of Mr. Enda O’Kane. He is a former distinguished member of RTE’s engineering staff and knows what he is talking about.
I will share with Senator Norris the fact that I do not always know what I am talking about in terms of technology. This is real technical stuff. I would love to be eavesdropping on all the so-called techies when they talk about the benefits of DAB1. DAB2 or DRM. However, in last week’s Radio Times, the British equivalent of the RTE Guide——--
Mr. Norris: It is the other way around. The RTE Guide is the Irish equivalent of the Radio Times. It existed long before the RTE Guide. The Senator should not be parochial.
Mr. Mooney: I was only attempting to put on the record what it is.
Mr. Norris: I know that is the attitude here.
Mr. Mooney: I still believe the Radio Times is the British equivalent of the RTE Guide.
Mr. Norris: The Senator has got it the wrong way around.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Mooney, without interruption.
Mr. Mooney: A letter was sent by a listener from Watford in Hertfordshire, whose name I +++++++
Mr. Norris: Even more important than the Senator.
Mr. Mooney: ——given that it is to him Senator Norris directed his amendment. +
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Before I call the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, to reply, I am sure he and +
Mr. Norris: Hear, hear.
Mr. Mooney: He is very welcome.
Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Browne): I am only too pleased to acknowledge the contribution made by Senators on the Second Stage debate here. As Senator Norris pointed out, a strong recommendation and argument was made that the proposed legislation should require RTE to provide this radio service as well as a television service to Irish communities abroad and, as a consequence, section 3(1) was amended on Committee Stage to require RTE to provide such a service.
Primary legislation in the main outlines principles rather than specific technologies needed to support such principles. As a consequence, the amended wording sets out the principle that RTE must provide a radio service to Irish communities abroad but does not specify the broadcasting technology to be used in delivering such a service. In essence, the Bill entrusts RTE with the task of considering the most appropriate technological and financial means of addressing the broadcasting needs of Irish communities abroad and, importantly, to account for the public funds expended in such provision.
The amendment, as proposed by Senators Norris and Henry, would tie RTE to using the digital radio mondiale standard. This amendment might prove to be unnecessarily restrictive in terms of current and future technology solutions and, as such, I am unable to accept the proposed amendment.
With regard to some of the issues raised, DAB1, DAB2 and DRM are all fine choices but we should give the broadcasters the flexibility to let them best decide how to reach their audience. New radio sets would be required to listen to DAB and DRM. There are 200 types of DAB sets available ranging in price from €50 upwards. DRM sets are only coming on stream and are priced at €220 upwards.
The current text of the Bill allows RTE the flexibility to use both DRM and DAB. RTE’s current position is that the DAB is the preferred digital alternative for national FM coverage and the DRM may be a digital alternative for its international long-wave services. RTE is upgrading its long-wave transmitter in Meath and will begin night-time DRM transmissions for RTE Radio 1 later this year.
We did not specify in the legislation covering the setting up of RTE in 1960 the technology that was to be used at that time. Therefore, I consider this amendment to be unnecessary.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is the amendment being pressed?
Mr. Norris: I understand that as the proposer of the amendment I have the right to make a brief reply. I thank the Minister of State for his reply which was gracious and generous, unlike that of first spokesperson for the Government whose contribution reflected the usual snotty dog in the manger Government attitude.
Mr. Kenneally: I did not realise the Senator was so offended.
Mr. Norris: On the other hand, it was refreshing to be patronised by my old friend Senator Mooney. It took me back to the old days and I felt that I was really at home.
I shall explain myself and why I did this. I was not in the House at the time as I was chairing a symposium in Trinity. The Senator on the other side of the House knows only too well that one goes where the voters are.
Mr. Mooney: That is true. There was no reflection on the Senator.
Mr. Norris: There are not that many voters here. There are one or two but their votes are already sewn up. I went where my voters were.
Mr. Mooney: The Senator was right. There was no reflection on him.
Mr. Norris: I was perfectly right. We are going to save a planet so that the Senator’s old airwaves can go whizzing through it.
Mr. Mooney: Is that where the Senator was throwing a Frisbee?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Allow Senator Norris to continue without interruption.
Mr. Norris: To be a little bit more serious, I say this because I show respect for this House. I originally tabled an amendment, which did not get on to the yellow list of amendments but appeared on the white list that came out during the holidays, simply because I spotted that provision was not made for sound broadcasting. I accept absolutely that I am not technically proficient and I received briefings. Subsequent to my tabling of these amendments, I was contacted by Mr. O’Kane and he gave me a great deal of technical information. The Government then tabled its amendments, which was a good move. I agree with what the Minister of State said in the sense that he is offering a series of options and that this proposal would narrow and restrict them. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable, logical and non-exclusive answer.
In response to the attitude I got from the opposite side of the House, I tabled only one amendment. If I wanted to be difficult, I would have tabled 258,000, but I knew that would be aggravating, stupid and a total waste of time. I wanted to table this amendment because although I had an idea about what the Minister of State said because I glanced through the documents, I had received a second briefing, having sent the Official Report of the proceedings to Mr. O’Kane. Out of deference and courtesy to a man to whom Senator Mooney, who is involved in the radio business or profession or whatever he wants to call it——
Mr. Mooney: No, that was a gracious comment.
Mr. Norris: I thought the Senator was sulking because I deprecated his trade. After all we are in the duke’s ballroom so we will not have any trade here.
Mr. Norris: He is involved in the profession. I tabled that amendment. I note that while a large number of stations use the DAB system, the Swedish Minister for Culture recently turned down a proposed extension of this system in Swedish radio.
The Seanad has done a good job in opening up this area of radio broadcasting. We collectively as Members of the Seanad should say we did a good job, we took on our brief and this is one of the things Senators are supposed to do. I am glad we did it. We also put on record some of the concerns of people who are more technically proficient than I am. I make no apology for tabling one sample amendment, getting the updated information on record, having the opportunity to hear what the Minister had to say and getting his detailed reply to the amendment.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is the amendment being pressed?
Mr. Norris: No it is being graciously and well-temperedly withdrawn.
Mr. Mooney: In the Senator’s own inimitable fashion.