JOINT ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE debate -
Wednesday, 21 Apr 2010

I welcome Mr. David Harvey of City Channel. I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Mr. Harvey to give us some background information on City Channel and to let us know the amount of coverage the Dáil, Seanad and committees currently receive and the possible level of increased coverage. Members can then ask questions.

I was invited at short notice, so I will speak off-the-cuff. I thank the committee for the opportunity to attend today's meeting. I was interested to see the deliberations of last week's meeting. I was somewhat disappointed although not surprised that we did not get an invitation to attend.

City Channel is a privately funded organisation that is in the process of creating a small local television network. We are four years in operation since October 2005 and the business is making some inroads in the television industry in this country. That is against a difficult commercial backdrop and against serious competition. The landscape has been totally dominated by the national broadcaster for the past 50 or so years. There are significant players in multichannel land in the shape of companies such as Sky and the domestic commercial network, TV3, which appeared before the committee last week. The State also supports the TG4 operation. As we see it, the landscape is dominated by State-funded or taxpayer-funded operations which we also see as a mandatory tax on individuals in this country regardless of one's circumstances. One has to pay for a television licence irrespective of whether one watches RTE. The bulk of that fee, save for a small amount of money which goes to the sound and vision fund, goes to RTE for it to run its business. The sound and vision fund equates to approximately 7.5% of the licence fee. A total of 51% of that goes on programming that ends up on RTE. That in itself is ludicrous.

The broadcasting of the deliberations of the Dáil and Seanad is interesting. We do not have, or as yet have not sought access to the feed of the Dáil and Seanad. The Chairman can correct me because I may be wrong but if we do so we have to supply the method of getting it to our channel and take on the opportunity as to what commercial activity we could do to put it on our channel. We would be happy to broadcast selected transmissions from the Dáil and Seanad.

What we do voluntarily and without receiving a State subsidy of any kind is to transmit the deliberations of Dublin City Council. On a monthly basis we receive recorded highlights of the council meetings. We put our own presenter in at our own expense. We edit those highlights and we transmit the deliberations virtually every second day until the next month. We have made a similar proposal to Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council for our Dublin Channel and we intend to make the same proposal to Cork City Council and Cork County Council for our Cork transmission which is called Channel South. We feel it is important that information channels such as ours, as well as entertainment channels, should carry those deliberations on a voluntary basis. It is extraordinary that an operation that is funded by the taxpayer and controlled to a great extent by the Minister does not comply with a correct standard of transmission of Oireachtas programming.

David McRedmond made a good point. When he was asked whether Oireachtas transmission made for entertaining programming he said, "not in the slightest". I am not being in any way personal or trying to cast a different light on it in saying it is not particularly an entertaining programming and in the context of what TV3 tries to do it does not sit comfortably. However, it is important from a democratic point of view that all of the deliberations of committees, the Dáil and Seanad should be available to the wider public when they take place.

I do not know how much the Dáil and Seanad vote to record and transmit on a narrow-cast basis and on the Internet the deliberations of committees such as this and the Houses but I can only imagine it is a substantial amount of money. For a very insubstantial amount of money the Oireachtas could have its own channel on cable, be on UPC's two channels, NTL and Chorus and, for a modest amount of money, be available on Sky. It is beyond my comprehension why there has not been a C-SPAN style channel in this country for some time. The content is available, it is only a question of putting it up there. It is a very inexpensive thing to do. Anyone who tells the committee differently is leading it up the garden path.

There is a simple, non-technically difficult way for the Oireachtas to have its own channel. The former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, famously said it would be better than some of the rubbish that is currently available. That is a separate issue. With the right level of investment, which, believe me, is modest, and access to the networks, which is utterly achievable, and with the intention to do so the Oireachtas could have its own output within the space of six months. It is beyond my comprehension why no one has attacked that in the correct manner.

If one examines the electronic programme guides, EPG, 101, 102, and 103 are all taken up by RTE, TV3 and other channels. How one would drive traffic into what probably would be a less accessible channel number is another story, but the Oireachtas has the benefit of national communication and the fact that people are interested to some degree in what it has to say. The Oireachtas has the content. It is my recommendation to the committee that it should seriously investigate the possibility of putting its deliberations directly onto television on digital, cable and satellite.

I made the suggestion some time ago and it was picked up by a newspaper that jumped on the bandwagon and asked an advertising agency whether it would raise advertising. I said that was not the point. It is not about raising advertising; it is about providing a public service. There has to be a meeting of minds on a body such as this. Possibly a part of the RTE licence fee could be stripped away to make this happen. When one looks at an organisation such as RTE that has its cake and can eat it, which is funded by the hard-pressed citizens of this country to the tune of €160 per household per annum, and is allowed to take as much advertising revenue as it wants, it is only in difficult times such as these that one can see the insecurity of the model when the advertising falls away.

The committee has the opportunity to make a recommendation to consider the feasibility of setting up its own channel. It could be done extremely easily. I am speaking about something which complements, not replaces, what is already being done on the Internet and programmes such as "Oireachtas Report" or the coverage of stations such as TG4 or TV3. It is about having the means to disseminate what I consider to be valuable information on a four to five day a week basis and to get the deliberations of the Dáil, Seanad and committees out there, and to do it within an affordable scale at which the public would not baulk because they would see it as another potential waste of taxpayers' funds. I recommend that the committee should do this, if it could be done within the context of existing budgets and what is already available, namely, the valuable content.

I estimate that in terms of putting the Oireachtas content on to a platform such as a UPC combined platform of NTL and Chorus, it would take no more than €10,000 per month or €120,000 a year. Satellite would probably cost €30,000 or €35,000 per month. In total, for under €500,000, one could have both channels operating, namely, satellite and Chorus NTL. One could have universal coverage.

To cover the proceedings of the Dáil.

Let me refer to a story in circulation. RTE pays €5,000 for the use of a facility here. Windmill Lane offers a facility and it is also very expensive. A commercial operation is prohibited from using such a facility because of the cost. I am not referring to that of Mr. Harvey but to others. We have done everything we can under the broadcasting legislation with a view to facilitation. However, there has been some criticism by members but it may not be relevant to what Mr. Harvey is saying.

I welcome Mr. Harvey. Local radio stations can feed indirectly into the Oireachtas feed and are invited to do so. It is very useful for us to be listened to by constituents. People can offer feedback. Oireachtas proceedings, including committee proceedings, are live on the Internet, which is becoming increasingly important to people.

I am not sure about Mr. Harvey's figures on the cost of broadcasting. We already received a report on this and I am sure it could be made available to him if he were interested in looking at it. It was produced by international experts who considered BBC Parliament and its broadcasting arrangement. The figures were substantial.

One will always get an international expert group to come back with substantial figures. If one wants to compare like with like and to create a channel on the scale of BBC Parliament, one needs to be prepared to pay for it. I am talking about something very different. Looking at the output from the Dáil, I believe there is no reason a decent scheduling system, or even some scheduling from here, could not put out a live feed at any time. It is not rocket science. I am not talking about having studios, massive amounts of commentary, opportunities to do this and that, Ludovic Kennedy and "Prime Time" but simply about getting the output of proceedings in the Houses on to the televisions of hundreds of thousands of people.

We are interested in that also and that is one reason we are having discussions with the various providers. The issue is that we are going digital very shortly. At least that is the commitment. There is an opportunity for us on foot of going digital because there is a channel available for us. We do not know how long it will remain available. The cost could be €750,000 to €1 million per annum.

Yes. That is a substantial amount of funding in this day and age and I am not sure whether the Oireachtas could justify it considering the budget and the state of the national finances.

I am sure Mr. Harvey has seen the transcripts of our past few meetings. To make the Oireachtas more interesting, we must bear in mind the way we do our business, which involves Members reading scripts to each other in a virtually empty Chamber. I am very interested in hearing the views of people such as Mr. Harvey on how we can change in this regard and make the proceedings more interactive and interesting for viewers. Am I correct that if proceedings were more interesting or interactive, various channels would be more interested in transmitting them? One former member of the committee described watching the proceedings as looking at paint drying. A Member reads a script for 20 minutes and there is no way in which any other Member can interrupt, interact or ask a question. When the Member sits down, somebody else reads another script for 20 minutes. This is happening almost all the time. I have been pushing for Dáil reform for a long time to change that.

Quite often there is an event in the country about which everybody is talking but the Oireachtas cannot talk about it because of Standing Orders and procedures. It is extraordinarily difficult to raise a current issue.

I am very familiar with it. The Deputy is dealing with a completely separate issue. The ability to broadcast is completely separate from what is being broadcast. In this regard, Mr. David McRedmond's points were very valid. The proceedings are not entertaining but are not meant to be. What occurs is the Chambers is very serious and this is pretty much the same the world over. Reading statements into the Dáil record will be dreary in any event but I would imagine it has a certain logic and legality. Perhaps it does not but one does not want to create a pantomime just for the sake of the viewers. The footage that is played over and again, such as certain outbursts late last year, is what drives YouTube and other such crazy phenomena. My simple point is that the Oireachtas has an onus in this regard.

On the matter of going digital and how the multiplex slots split out, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources should reserve a channel for the Oireachtas. There should be no charge for that and it should be part of the structure. RTE is taking one of the multiplexes. On it, it will put RTE1, RTE2, TG4 and TV3 and it will then come up with something to keep others off it. One of the channels should be for the national Parliament. Why should it not be?

We are really concerned about the coverage. Senator Cassidy is always making the point that coverage of the Oireachtas shows empty Chambers and that the editing is not done correctly. This shows the Houses not working and gives them a bad image.

Mr. David Harvey could get the live feed and get the story as it is leaving the Houses.

I will discuss that with members afterwards and how we could get the feed and make it available.

Deputy Stanton made a point on getting on DTT and I have made a point on how the Oireachtas might get on cable. The process of getting on cable, into 400,000 or 500,000 homes, is very straightforward. I do not understand why the Oireachtas has not investigated that in a real sense because the Oireachtas coverage could be in virtually every home in Ireland.

With regard to what the Chairman is saying about how footage is shot and what one sees, the punters do not want to see the coverage dressed up such that one would just see small spaces with two or three people while the rest of the House would be empty. There is not much one could do about that. I do not know what would occur if proceedings were shortened. I have been in the Gallery late at night when only two or three Members were present. That is the nature of the business. One runs that risk if one wants full-time broadcasting and one runs the risk when one puts coverage on the Internet, which effectively involves full-time, 24-hour broadcasting. What one sees is what one gets and what one gets is what has happened. This just comes with the territory.

I do not have any comment to make on how the Oireachtas runs its business, which is an entirely different matter. My contribution is really on the fact that one needs wider dissemination. In the longer term, the Oireachtas has an opportunity available to it because of the switch to digital. In the shorter term, it has the opportunity to broadcast its deliberations on a channel somewhere and to promote it. It is not an expensive business if it were taken off the licence fee. There is plenty of money already going into RTE's coffers. The station is overmanned, overstaffed and over feathered-bedded. If someone can tell me what is a public service in buying and wasting public funds to show "Eastenders" when I can see it on BBC, then I might be prepared to sit back. The output that goes out on RTE 1 and RTE 2 is a scandalous waste of licence-fee money.

I thank Mr. Harvey for attending the committee. Obviously, he is making some points today. I would rather see him putting down on paper his proposals for broadcasting funding. Up to now, the big question was the cost of a televised parliamentary channel but Mr. Harvey claims this can be reduced dramatically. If a proposal were to be made to the Minister for Finance for a new parliamentary channel, then all the costings must be included.

I see such a channel as an organised one with personnel commenting on the various aspects of the proceedings. Mr. Harvey just wants a running channel with shots of the Houses. From Mr. Harvey's position, there are various pros and cons concerning the TV licence fee. The committee wants suggestions and costings to make the best proposal for a final consideration by the Minister for Finance. Mr. Harvey made some interesting points that should be included in the brief to the committee's consultants for the determination of the final report on the matter.

I thank Mr. Harvey for attending the committee. Deputy Stanton made some good points from the Members' end about what we can do to make proceedings more TV friendly. Hopefully then, we could link in with Mr. Harvey and his direct experience with a low-cost option rather than a BBC Parliament format which would involve a studio and the serious high costs attached to that.

Mr. Harvey raised some interesting points about tackling the perception that people are uninterested in parliament. There is the famous quote about the people who watch "Oireachtas Report". There may, however, be people who wish to tune in during the afternoon to Leaders' Questions or want to listen to legislation being debated. Senator Cassidy regularly says the Order of Business in the Seanad is the most interesting business in either the Dáil or the Seanad.

I thank Mr. Harvey for raising some stark points. It might be worthwhile for him to put them down in writing.

I thank Mr. Harvey for attending the committee and for his interesting presentation. He was getting his points out so fast that I was not able to take them all down. I go along with Deputy Wall that it would be better if Mr. Harvey presented us with a paper on everything he said today. He has made me feel that broadcasting the proceedings of the Oireachtas could be much easier than did the two previous attendees who addressed the committee on the matter.

It is positive that City Channel can highlight Dublin City Council's proceedings and is hoping to do the same with Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council and Cork City and County councils.

The lovely line that I picked out was that if RTE can put on "Eastenders", damn it, then we should be able to get a slot in which the Parliament would be projected. It is about how we are going to bridge the gap between the Parliament and the public. We are failing in this regard. The work in here is not being acknowledged. There are many slots that can be used. The Order of Business in the Seanad is a golden opportunity to see how business is raised, topics of the day are discussed and brought to the Minister's attention for further discussion.

Mr. Harvey has brought us hope again that broadcasting the proceedings at a low cost is a possibility. If he puts his points down on paper, the committee could then take it to the next stage.

I welcome Mr. Harvey to the committee. He is a professional to his fingertips and his reputation preceded him. We all know how successful he has been as a broadcaster. He certainly provided a new viewpoint to the committee. I say that as one who has served on this committee for a long time.

The Dáil and the Seanad are covered on "Oireachtas Report" with the Order of Business in the Dáil carried two mornings a week on TG4. We want to see how we can enhance all of this. This is all free TV. Is it possible to have these shown on a Sky platform? Does one have to pay Sky for using this?

Fine. The broadcasting unit is under the control of the Houses but is on contract to Windmill Lane Studios. The recorded proceedings, made on our behalf by the unit, are then made available for editing to RTE which broadcasts them on "Oireachtas Report".

We could take on board Mr. Harvey's proposals on a pilot basis for six months if we were to get a written submission from him. To make available the recordings of the proceedings of the Dáil, Seanad and the committees to Mr. Harvey for six months would enhance the proceedings.

As Deputy Stanton said, it is only a short time down the road before the digital challenge presents itself. We now have a small window of opportunity. The professionals in the industry have attended the committee for the past three weeks. It is time for the committee to examine the written proposals from them. I am interested in the low-cost model as outlined by Mr. Harvey to bring the proceedings of the Houses of the Oireachtas to the people as has been done with the proceedings of the US Congress. As part of my work with this committee down through the years, I have been to many countries but have been always impressed by the televised proceedings of the US Congress because it is lively and available to everyone's home. We want to make the proceedings of the Oireachtas available to the people in their homes. It is their choice: they can switch off the channel if they do not like what they see, or leave it on if they like it.

As my Seanad colleagues have said today, the committee's priority this session under Deputy O'Keeffe's chairmanship is to ensure that we pilot the broadcast of one hour of the order of business in the Seanad. It will run on the same format as it does in the US Congress. There will be one question from one member for one minute, two minutes for the leaders at the start and seven minutes for the leader of the House to respond at the conclusion. It will run on a pilot basis each week for - we hope - six months.

Mr. Harvey said - perhaps I took his comments the wrong way - that there was lack of co-operation in the responses to his questions and that he felt he was not making progress. We should make available to all those who have appeared before the committee - whether they are from TV3, TG4 or RTE , or whether it is Mr. Harvey and his group - the information on everything the broadcasting unit is doing. Mr. Harvey can come in and view the facilities, and then come back to the committee.

We, as the lay people, are the conduit from Government to the industry. The industry consists of the professionals, who will make presentations to us as Oireachtas members on the committee. We will then deliberate on the matter under Deputy O'Keeffe's chairmanship and decide what to do.

I will reply to all members. First, I refer to Deputy Wall's comments on his vision for how such a channel would operate. I subscribe to his view, but the problem with it is twofold. If the Oireachtas decides to support a channel, it does that at its own risk. It might not hear what it would like to hear.

I am not saying there should be censorship; I do not mean it like that. However, to give the channel credibility and integrity it must be handed to a third party that can comment dispassionately and with integrity. That would perhaps require a full channel run by a body such as RTE.

The channel does not have to involve people speaking to camera; it can involve audio commentary. A live voice-over can be used to let people know that at 4 o'clock the channel will go to the X,Y and Z committee, which will be followed by the A,B and C committee, before it returns to the Dáil. That can be done simply and inexpensively. Methods of editing can be discussed with the people who work in that field.

To clarify, content is not the issue. The content from the Dáil and the Seanad comes in fully formed through the Windmill Lane contract, which is great. The problem lies in disseminating that content and deciding what to do with it. It is currently sent - by tape or otherwise - to RTE, which does what it wants with it, or it is put on the internet. I am talking about sending the content to a headend facility and redistributing it via live television, while adding in elements such as graphics, a voice-over, other programming and perhaps some public service messages. That is a channel.

We run four channels for under a million quid, and we employ 20 people in one building. It is not rocket science. The channels are run on digital servers, using broadband and proper scheduling systems. It is about using technology, and it is dead simple.

I want to clarify the issue about Sky and NTL, as it is important. Sky and NTL - which is now part of UPC Ireland - are paid-for systems to which people subscribe. By and large, apart from the cohort of people who receive their television via old-fashioned analogue aerial, which will be replaced by the digital system, most people subscribe to one or other of those systems. I suggest the channel should run on both of them.

I agree, but the committee is obliged to take the Oireachtas proceedings to the people. That needs to be done in the most cost-effective manner possible. Deputy Stanton came up with various figures, and mentioned consultants. The consultants' world is full of that sort of cash, but we do not subscribe to that approach.