JOINT ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE debate -
Wednesday, 14 Apr 2010

We have two delegations, one from TV3 and one from TG4. I welcome Mr. David McRedmond and Mr. Joe Walsh from TV3 and Mr. Pól Ó Gallchóir, Mr. Pádhraic Ó Ciardha and Mr. Michael Lally from TG4. I draw the attention of the witnesses 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 a person outside the House or an official, by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I also welcome the newly appointed Chief Whip and Minister of State, Deputy John Curran. I wish him success in his efforts to keep the show on the road. We regret the departure of Deputy Pat Carey, but he has gone to higher office and greener pastures. We wish him well in his new post. I also congratulate Deputies Mary Alexandra White and Ciarán Cuffe on their recent elevation to higher office. Deputy White was a member of this committee and made many contributions here. She will be missed.

Senator Cassidy, did you wish to say something?

I thank you, Chairman, and the committee for inviting us here. Our news editor, Mr. Joe Walsh, and I have read the transcripts of the committee's previous meetings, particularly with RTE, to understand some of the issues you are raising.

In introduction, I will make four points about the coverage of the Oireachtas on TV3 and the issues we face in that regard. The first is the general issue of funding. TV3 is entirely commercially funded.

We do not receive a licence fee. News and current affairs is prohibited from being sponsored, under broadcast regulation. On radio, current affairs may be sponsored. This is something of an anachronism. RTE is also involved in the advertising market. It is our view that because it is heavily subsidised it sells advertising at below cost, which sets a price for the market. In terms of the commercial funding area, there is a ban on political advertising. All of this means there is absolutely no commercial viability for news and current affairs unless they get huge audiences on commercial television. That is a fact. It is not something we like or dislike, in fact we dislike it, but it happens to be the situation.

The second area that impacts on coverage is the existence and role of RTE. We contend that the Oireachtas has its own channel, which is RTE. In 2002, it approved a 40% licence fee increase, which is equivalent to approximately €40 million per annum. We would run ten Oireachtas channels with that type of funding. As I stated, RTE also sells advertising which is contrary to the trend in most EU countries where it is realised that dual funding does not work. This is pertinent to the committee in the following way. The Oireachtas awards a licence to RTE to undertake public service broadcasting. However, because RTE has advertising it needs to concern itself with ratings just as does TV3. We contend that what happens is that the Oireachtas does not have its public service remit fulfilled because RTE is concerned about ratings for advertising and the advertisements are not fully priced owing to the subsidy, which impacts on what we can do.

Senior politicians appear on RTE apparently at will and RTE covers them apparently at will. We are not going to compete in the same way. Our job is to provide choice for our audience. I am sure we will hear during the questions and answers session some of the issues we have in terms of politicians' willingness or unwillingness to travel the six miles from here to Ballymount in west Dublin. The third area of concern to the committee is TV3's audience. After RTE1, we have by far the largest broadcast audience. Last month, TV3's audience was larger than the combined audience of RTE2 and TG4. In other words, it was larger than the combined audience of BBC1, BBC2 and UTV. Typically, our audience is younger than RTE's audience, is more female and is less professional ABC1 and editorialising. In this regard I mean it is not the chattering classes which may explain the reason politicians so under-estimate the value of that audience. It is precisely that audience which was identified by Euromonitor as the floating vote that voted "No" to Lisbon the first time round because they were largely ignored in terms of their views. Politicians were on RTE1 and they were watching TV3. Euromonitor states that audience gets its news almost entirely, not from press or radio, but from television. Our job is to provide that audience with news which is relevant to and interests them and not to provide a platform for political speeches. I urge Members to watch programmes such as "Midday" a female programme for women at home who miss the daily chat in terms of what is going on. It has far more political influence than many political speeches or coverage in the Dáil. We regularly have politicians on that programme. Members will be familiar with "Tonight with Vincent Browne" and "Ireland AM". Our approach is to mix in the coverage of politics with our broader programme, which we believe has a much bigger impact on our audience because it is more relevant.

My final comments relate to the Oireachtas, in particular to the Dáil. I commend the committee on inviting us to attend this meeting. I will confine my comments to how the Dáil functions. It comes across as archaic, male dominated and long-winded or, in short, not relevant. I will not pull my punches. While that may not be how it is, it is how it comes across. It is of no interest to our viewers. Not once in the three years since I joined TV3 have I received a single letter or comment from a viewer looking for more coverage of the Oireachtas. When the Oireachtas is relevant, it is hugely relevant and our audience has a significant interest. The best example I can give is the budget which was presented by the Minister for Finance last December. It was clear it was the most important in the history of the State and people took that message on board and tuned in on television in their hundreds of thousands. Therefore, politics can be relevant if the message is delivered in a punchy manner that connects directly with our audience. We want to support the Oireachtas in doing this.

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a thabhairt daoibh as an gcuireadh teacht go dtí an comhchoiste seo inniu. I will make just two points and will then be happy to take questions. The two issues relate to the TG4 commissioning and production structure and the coverage TG4 provides of Tithe an Oireachtais.

TG4 has always provided live coverage of Dáil Éireann every Wednesday and Thursday morning from 10.30 a.m. for an hour or so, approximately two hours each week in total. We also cover live some joint committees hearings. For example, two or three months ago we covered the committee which was debating the Irish language, while in the past we covered the Committee of Public Accounts. We also sought to cover other committees live such as the hearings on the Abbeylara case but we were prevented from doing so. Most of the coverage is in our "Nuacht" bulletin which is broadcast every day at 7 p.m. for half an hour. We provide coverage on a permanent basis from Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann. We have a full-time political correspondent and other people covering Tithe an Oireachtais. We also broadcast a current affairs programme, "Seacht Lá," every Tuesday which may cover issues related to the Oireachtas. For example, a member of this committee, Senator O'Toole, featured on last night's programme.

TG4 is a commissioning rather than a production house. Therefore, we do not produce many in-house programmes but commission programmes from the independent sector. It is more difficult for us to provide live coverage because the station does not have the resources or manpower to do so. We will be happy to answer any questions asked.

It is interesting to hear Mr. McRedmond say we are not well perceived and that the Oireachtas is seen as male dominated and irrelevant. Many of the issues raised here are relevant and I am surprised to hear the audience feels differently. We would be inclined to take exception to that comment. The Whip who is present would be interested in hearing how we could make the Oireachtas more relevant. The purpose of the meeting is to find out how we can secure more coverage for the Oireachtas on television. TG4 provides good coverage on Wednesdays and Thursdays, for which I understand there is a good audience.

I thank the delegations for their comments. There is much thinking to be done on the issue of coverage. Mr. McRedmond suggested the Oireachtas was archaic, male dominated and long-winded. We should be able to avoid the long-windedness by providing coverage of the Order of Business in the Seanad when relevant and important issues are raised. There is no time to be long-winded because Senators only have two minutes to have their say. It would be a golden opportunity to publicise the Seanad on television. A significant amount of work is done in the Seanad, but it does not get air time. As a result, the question has arisen as to whether the Seanad should be abolished or reformed. Some fine Senators speak on relevant issues, but we get no mileage from this on television.

I welcome the delegations and thank them for their contributions. Mr. McRedmond's contribution was certainly thought-provoking. The Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources may be the forum in which to talk about the commercial aspects and the licence fee. This committee is focusing on Mr. McRedmond's point about the audience and the relevance of Oireachtas proceedings, in particular what happens in the Dáil. I take his point about long-winded speeches and the relevance of speeches. I disagree with the Chairman because Mr. McRedmond's point is valid. I am interested in his views on the socio-economic groupings who watch TV3 and the fact that they watch TV3 and do not watch the other stations. He referred to the size of the TV3 audience which is a younger one. This is the audience with whom we need to engage when discussing political ideas and policies. It would be good if we could work together in order that more people in the country could engage with us and our ideas and thus facilitate a proper debate.

I congratulate the new Minister of State, Deputy Curran, on his appointment as Chief Whip. He has the job of putting forward the Government's view on Dáil reform. What Mr. McRedmond said was relevant. The Standing Orders of the House allow only one person to speak at a time and for approximately 20 minutes. Proposals have been made for many years to allow proper debate and engagement. Am I correct in presuming this is what TV3 wants to see, that it would prefer more engagement and debate between speakers and more discussion of ideas? This is not possible under the Standing Orders of the House, except if one breaks the rules to have interaction with a speaker across the floor, as happens from time to time. If the rule is broken, this is what attracts coverage and there have been recent examples. However, if a Member makes a serious and well thought out contribution, this is not given any coverage.

I ask Mr. McRedmond to deal with the issue of sensationalism and the role of tabloidism. If I went into the Dáil and abused one of my colleagues on the floor of the House, I would be certain to receive front page coverage in all the newspapers and be headline news on television stations and Facebook-----

-----whereas if I put a great deal of thought into expressing detailed policy proposals on some issue which would have a significant impact on people's lives, I would be given virtually no coverage. These committee rooms are called the dungeons and a lot of good work is carried out here, yet committee proceedings are rarely covered by any television station. There is an issue of the responsibility of all stations to reflect what happens in a fair manner and not to dramatise the dramatic and sensational event.

Mr. McRedmond has said news and current affairs programmes are not permitted to be sponsored. However, "Tonight with Vincent Browne," is sponsored. I ask how it is categorised. It is a good programme, on which I compliment TV3. It brings forward very challenging ideas and issues and is very close to the edge at times, but that is what we need.

Mr. McRedmond said has many people, especially younger voters, get their news and views from television. He referred to the “Midday” programme as having a lot of political influence. What are the audience figures for the programme? He referred to the importance of delivery style used in the Dáil. I have been saying for some time that the Dáil is boring in its proceedings. People read scripts at each other. I have often said we may as well e-mail each other and save the expense and bother.

I am very pleased to see TG4 represetatives present. The live coverage of two hours each week is very welcome. What are the audience figures for this coverage? I have conflicting information. A lot of people at home tell me they watch TG4 frequently and are interested in it.

I am anxious to know what both delegations think we can do. This is a two-way street. What can we do to make the Oireachtas more interesting for the broadcasting organisations as they transmit what happens here? We need to get our house in order also. Grappling with that question will soon be part of the Chief Whip's job.

I welcome the delegations. Deputy Stanton covered much of what I had intended to say. The Chairman and I have been in agreement for 20 years that the Dáil needs to be reformed. We have to engage with this. When one puts one's case to a Minister, he or she usually reads a script written three hours earlier by a civil servant. That is not debate and is very frustrating for Members. Serious issues are raised in the Oireachtas. Rather than looking at how speeches are presented - their length, etc. - a proper editing approach needs to be adopted in order that there is a focus on the key issues.

I often speak about issues such as mental illness and suicide. Matters of that nature cannot be presented in soundbite form. As people do not understand them, they have to be developed by the Members of Parliament. The broadcasters seem to want 20 or 30 seconds of soundbites. The contradiction is that the points we need to make cannot be made in that length of time. That is our dilemma. Our campaigns on issues such as suicide can be followed by our colleagues and the members of the press, even if they are not present, because they will have their monitors on. The media should act as a conduit between Deputies and the citizens who comprise the electorate. We are frustrated by the dilemma of trying to present issues in a detailed, logical and easily understandable manner, while meeting the demand for change. That cannot be turned into a 30-second soundbite. I do not know how Dáil reform can overcome that dilemma.

I suggest the interaction that takes place at Question Time in the Dáil is not covered as much as it should be. I refer, in particular, to the priority questions asked by spokespersons and responded to by Ministers. The debate on each priority question, including the interaction, takes a total of six minutes, but it is not being covered. It would be difficult to move an ordinary debate to that level. If the short debates that take place at Question Time are not being covered by the media, what are the chances any new form of interaction or debate will be covered?

I thank the delegations for their presentations. I want to pick up on a point made by Mr. McRedmond and reiterate some of the comments made. If one looks at the Dáil Chamber at a particular point such as in a Second Stage debate, it looks drab and boring. We are not just talking about the activities in the Dáil Chamber, we are also talking about the activities of the Seanad and the various committees. A significant amount of activity takes place during the normal Dáil term. Most of us are concerned about the media's failure to portray the sense of activity in the Oireachtas at such times. I accept it is difficult to turn serious business into light-hearted entertainment. However, if one were to broadcast a gardening or cookery show in real time, it would also be quite boring. It is a question of the manner in which it is packaged and presented. I do not think long speeches or hour-long discussions on amendments make for interesting television, particularly in the absence of a narrative to explain what is going on and a focus on the pertinent clips. While I acknowledge that reform of the Oireachtas is necessary, in general terms, considerable activity is taking place. The issue is how this activity is portrayed. A cookery or gardening programme broadcast in real time would be boring. It is, therefore, a question of improving the programming. In that regard, as many of my colleagues noted, much more takes place in the Oireachtas than Second Stage speeches. Dáil business includes Question Time every day and one has significant interaction, especially in committees. We are trying to get across the relevance of what we are doing.

Mr. McRedmond stated the budget was relevant and that people were aware of it, but the media had a significant role in creating this awareness. On the day in question the Minister and main Opposition spokespersons each delivered a speech lasting for roughly 40 minutes. Their contributions were not shown in their entirety on most of the broadcast media. Rather, the relevant sections were broadcast, interspersed with commentary and so forth. We need to consider the issue in that context, rather than showing ten minute speeches in their entirety. Editing and narrative are necessary. A programme must set the scene, as well as showing the relevant clips. To show the relevance of the Oireachtas, we must see more than a clip of the Dáil Chamber.

I welcome the delegations. Neither TV3 nor TG4 was in operation when the Chairman and I first became Members of the Oireachtas. Both channels are to be complimented on their achievements and providing alternative viewpoints in the media. TV3 has been an outstanding success and I congratulate it on what it has achieved. That it is a commercially driven company which does not receive funding from the State makes it even more successful. Having said that, the weakness in the case presented to the committee and the sincerity of the claim that the channel is committed to the Oireachtas - I say this constructively as one who was involved in marketing for some time - is that, in contrast with its competitors, TV3 does not have an office within six miles of Leinster House. All Members of the Oireachtas, with the exception of the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach, would be delighted to participate in any programme of relevance to our constituents. I am a supporter of TV3, as I have always been of RTE, on which I had a radio programme for four years at a time when Ireland only had one radio station. One of the planks of my candidature for the Oireachtas in 1982 was to have local radio and television stations licensed, as they were unlicensed at the time.

I am proud of the success of TG4 and have congratulated Mr. Cathal Goan on his wonderful achievement in starting the channel. I took an advertisement on the all-Ireland series for two years to show my commitment, as a Gael, to the channel and assist it when it started. That is my background.

I am the Leader of the House in Seanad Éireann which earned its name as the Upper House not from a line in a poem or song but from the hard work done by our predecessors and the total commitment they showed to the Oireachtas structure under the Constitution. However, the great work done in the Seanad is a secret. The House protects the taxpayer and the Constitution and calls to account the Dáil on behalf of the people. Under my leadership in the period since 1997, the debate on not one Bill has been guillotined in the House. All legislation is discussed in minute detail, section by section and line by line, which is not the case in the Dáil. The value of the Seanad is that, unlike the Lower House, it has time to do this.

The committee wants the Order of Business in the Seanad to be broadcast for one hour on a trial basis. A decision would then be taken on whether it should be broadcast on a permanent basis. Our research on the issue is taken from Congress in Washington. The challenge of attracting an audience to television programmes is probably greater in the United States than anywhere else in the world. In the Seanad every Member has one minute to ask one question and the Leader responds for seven minutes. It would be a question on something that has happened in the past 24 hours and certainly not any more than in the past 48 hours. It would be highly topical and community-driven and it would be of great interest to various pockets of the country that we feel are not being covered at present, as our Dáil colleagues have correctly said.

The Order of Business in the Dáil is completely different. In the main it is a case of the party leaders asking questions of the Taoiseach of the day. In Seanad Éireann it is not so. Every day the Seanad sits, one has at least 20 Members asking me relevant, urgent questions for one hour on which they need a response on behalf of the Government.

We are interested to hear what the witnesses have to say. The Chairman correctly invited the television channels that operate in this country to give them an opportunity to make a commitment and to see who is interested in the national interest. The national interest has to come to the fore at some stage in national broadcasting. It is crucial to be commercially driven but the national interest is also of great importance. The people acknowledge that as well. We are where we are and that is the perspective from which I am coming.

I am anxious to see how we can assist both TV3 and TG4 in any way we possibly can. They are the professionals. The committee could be used as a conduit to Government to help and assist them in any way it can. This is a two-way process. We need assistance to let the people know the good work we do so that they can see we are giving value for money. That is the most important thing as far as we are concerned, especially in the current climate where everything is being considered in terms of value for money.

-----both stations. With respect, the Dáil should change its Standing Orders and model its Order of Business more on the Order of Business in the Seanad because in general in the Seanad one has shorter, crisper and more constructive contributions. It makes for good television as we see occasionally on "Oireachtas Report". TG4 is aware of that and perhaps TV3 could learn from it.

As other speakers have said I very much welcome what the stations are trying to do. I accept that more could be done. In common with everyone else I like the "Tonight with Vincent Browne" show very much but I am not so sure I would like to be on the programme. He has a reputation for-----

There have been many contributions but I am not sure many questions were posed. I have been a Member for 28 years and things have not changed a great deal. At the end of the day the Houses of the Oireachtas are the Legislature that makes the law of the land. Second Stage speeches are made in the Dáil. The only change is on Committee Stage. Committees are relevant. My colleague, Deputy Stanton, referred to the committee rooms as dungeons. We have crossfire on Committee Stage and the system works successfully. We get much coverage of Committee Stage on radio stations and television stations at night if the subject is relevant. Report Stage goes back to the Dáil Chamber.

Much of the legislation passed is heavy in nature. It is not the punchy material required by the television stations. It is not the drama Mr. Vincent Browne gets involved in at night. People turn on his programme for the humour and drama. He is a great actor. He has a great time without guzzling up Deputies and Ministers. Legislation is a different scene. To take up the points made, it is difficult to make it relevant for television. We are never on the stage. Now and again we might make an attempt but we do not get very far.

I shall make a few points in response to what was said and then hand over to my colleague who is much more sympathetic to Oireachtas coverage and news.

I can understand that what I have said could be misinterpreted as meaning it has to be light-hearted entertainment. It is actually the opposite. What we are looking for is something that is utterly relevant, serious and really matters. Let us take what the Deputy said about suicide, for example. I would argue that we have covered that for more hours, more extensively and more broadly than almost any media outlet. It is an issue that is very relevant and important for our viewers. That is what we are largely talking about - relevance and importance.

Again I have, perhaps, been somewhat misleading in saying it has to be punchy. It helps if it is punchy but we are not just looking for soundbites, tabloidism or that type of thing. We are on the side of the Oireachtas to the extent that we want to get an audience. That is all we want to get and all the Oireachtas wants is an audience. There is no point in us covering the Oireachtas if it gets no audience.

On the issue of why "Tonight with Vincent Browne" was allowed sponsorship, the answer is that it is not, really. The regulator is arguing that it should not be sponsored. We are pushing the envelope – and I make no apology for that – because we are doing everything we can in the most difficult recession to raise funds to cover serious issues seriously. Occasionally we cover politics in an entertaining way, but seriously as well. Consequently, Vincent Browne gets anywhere between 100,000 to 200,000 viewers a night, equivalent to five or six times what he got on radio, so we are broadcasting politics in a way that is really interesting, relevant and occasionally entertaining. I believe this fulfils our remit to that degree.

In reply to the Senator about an Oireachtas office, we would love dearly to have one. Our view is that if the politicians will not come out to Ballymount, we will come to the Oireachtas. Our problem is that when we come here, we get charged hefty fees by the Oireachtas. For example, we do "Tonight with Vincent Browne" from here as an experiment. We have been using the Dáil studio, for which we are charged €5,000 each time. That is almost impossible for an organisation in the middle of a recession. We believe it is very strange that the Oireachtas should be charging us for covering its Members when they want to get on air. In terms of working with the Oireachtas, we would very much appreciate if it could be made easier for us to come in and cover Leinster House without our having to pay millions in fees all the time. We would love to do that.

I will run through some of our Oireachtas coverage, because I would not like the impression to be given that TV3 is not firmly committed to it. We kick off the morning with "Ireland AM", six news bulletins every morning where previews of Oireachtas events are covered. There are at least five slots on that programme per week which are politically based, in which we do analysis of upcoming events and the proceedings of the day before, covering the Dáil, Seanad and committees.

We have midday news, the first lunchtime bulletin of the day, which typically deals with Leaders' Questions, generally the most popular Oireachtas event of the week. It will generally lead our midday news bulletin every week. We do a quick turnaround on it and package it every Wednesday. Again, time allowing, if a committee is sitting, say, by 11 a.m., we will have a turnaround of those events for the midday news bulletin.

We do the political wrap of the day on the 5.30 p.m. news bulletin, with live guests and analysis from our political editor, Ursula Halligan. We wrap up the whole thing on our nightly news bulletin. Everybody has said how much they like Vincent Browne's programme. More politicians are willing to come out to Ballymount at 10.30 p.m. to sit down with Vincent and face robust questioning, and there they get the chance to sell the story of the Oireachtas.

Deputy Stanton asked how the Oireachtas can help. We have gone through several interesting questions, but there was no connection between his question and our answer. There were too many questions and not enough immediate answers from our side. For good television, if the Deputy is asking how he and his colleagues can be more relevant, we should be answering immediately rather than 20 minutes later. From a television point of view, it is a nightmare to edit this format. If the Deputy asked a question and I answered him straight away, it would be a lot more immediate for the audience and would represent much better television.

We cover the Seanad. Senators come into Vincent Browne to explain on his show what is going on in the Seanad, that it does not get enough coverage and to highlight the issues being raised there. We would look at giving more coverage to the Seanad, but there are obvious difficulties for a commercial broadcaster that does not get State funding to do something like that.

Deputy Neville asked how we handle bigger issues like suicide and spoke about soundbite news coverage. We have covered that in documentaries-----

Our main objective in debating something is to persuade the Minister and his officials of our views. The impression being created is that we are broadcasting to the nation. That is part of it, but our main objective is to influence those who make decisions, namely, the Minister before us and his officials. We are not going in there specifically to appear relevant on television. If we go down the tabloid route, the Minister will not listen to us because we are not making our case. That is our dilemma.

I talked to my colleagues on "Ireland AM" about that very issue in the past 24 hours. They have come to a point where it has become very difficult. There are some politicians who are more than willing to come out, while some are not, but it would not be fair to name and shame them. Many politicians are unavailable to come out to Ballymount at 10 a.m.

Mr. Ó Ciardha will talk about possible future coverage of Tithe an Oireachtais and Mr. Lally will talk about coverage on "Nuacht TG4". The Deputy asked a question about the audience figures. Depending on the day, the context, the topic and what is on other channels, one could have anything up to 20,000 people watching on a daily basis. About half a million people have watched the current Dáil on Wednesday and Thursday morning on TG4.

Television is a visual medium and not everything that happens in the Chambers and committee rooms is visually appealing. It is very important that both sides remember that. Sometimes television is doing a favour by not providing coverage. I do not say that glibly but seriously. It might seem superficial to make the point that how a place looks and whether it is populated is of great importance. It creates a bad impression if there are two large rooms with very few people sitting in the chairs. Seanad Éireann is a flat surface and this does not make for good camera angles. There is also daylight, which is wonderful in one respect, but how sunny the day is makes a difference. To non-professionals these points may seem superficial and unimportant but they are of great importance to us.

TG4 is a public service broadcaster, reporting and providing coverage of the institutions of the State throughout the island and, via the Internet, throughout the world. This goes to the core of what we do. Since our first week on air we have carried live coverage of the Dáil. This brings me to my next point, which is different strokes for different folks. Our channel motto is "súil eile". We try not to replicate what others are doing. In our case that means bringing coverage to those who are not lucky enough to live near Ballymount, Donnybrook or other leafy parts of Dublin. These are people who cannot take a bus to see what is happening in Dáil Eireann but they can turn on our channel. We prefer to carry coverage of what is happening as it happens. Other, better resourced broadcasters can edit and package proceedings as Senator Cassidy pointed out.

The Broadcasting Act provides for a parliamentary channel to be set up. As broadcasters, we see what we do as being complementary to that rather than replicating it. There are many opportunities for the future but we must keep doing what we do well and serve the Parliament as it serves us. We must also talk to one another.

As part of the licence fee commitment, RTE provides the nuacht service to TG4 and produces the "Nuacht" programme on RTE. The question of audience is always interesting. On average, as of last week, there are 135,000 viewers of "Nuacht" on RTE at 5.40 p.m. and the TG4 nuacht at 7 p.m. from Monday to Friday. That is a significant audience. In the history of the State we have never had every party leader in the House capable of speaking Gaeilge. We have the highest incidence of Irish speakers at Cabinet level in the history of the State. From a nuacht perspective, if that was reflected by people using Gaeilge in the House it would have a significant effect. I am sure it would be great for TV3 audiences.

I refer to Mr. McRedmond's earlier point. If I send a camera crew to Strasbourg with Mr. Rónán Ó Domhnaill, our full-time political correspondent based in the Dáil, the European Parliament will provide me with a camera crew, full editing facilities and a fully-manned studio to allow for a five person debate. We have never had so many Irish speaking MEPs. This can be fed back to Baile na hAbhann and it will not cost me anything. If Rónán Ó Domhnaill decided this evening that he wanted to take the actuality of the Dáil and back it up with one or two interviews we must have a camera crew here. I am not questioning whether this is right or wrong I am merely presenting the facts. There would also be editing and the cost of feeding it back to Baile na hAbhann. There are matters that can be examined.

With regard to Gaeilge, I have often thought about how we can encourage more people. I am not a native speaker but I am proud of my Irish and I think that if people had as much French as Gaeilge they would think they were fluent. How more of the language can be used in the Houses is a challenge for us all. I will return to my starting point which is that there is an audience. If one adds up what goes out as Gaeilge from Monday to Friday, on television there are 40 minutes of nuacht chuile lá and on radio there are 28 minutes. There is much air time to be grabbed.

With regard to us working with the committee, I would like to make one proposal. In the UK, leaders' debates have been introduced into the election with one on BBC, ITV and Sky. Each debate will deal with a different topic with the debate on the BBC on the economy, the ITV debate will cover domestic issues and the Sky debate will cover international issues. It is a fantastic idea for politicians to realise, accept and respect that there is a multiplicity and a plurality of media and audiences. There is very much a quid pro quo here; if politicians are willing to take that type of step we are more likely to be willing to work with them in coverage of all of the issues, whether it be in the Seanad, Dáil or committees. I do not know whether it is in the committee’s remit to consider leaders’ debates on different issues being broadcast on RTE, TV3 and TG4.

We have heard the submissions and the questions asked, which were mainly contributions rather than questions. The witnesses are here because there is dissatisfaction with the coverage the Dáil and Seanad receive from television stations throughout the land. If that could be improved we would be very thankful. From what Mr. McRedmond stated we will have to get more enlightened and perhaps dress differently. We will accept in writing any proposals the witnesses have. I thank them for attending and I wish them well. We will have to brush up on our Irish.

As the delegates are the professionals and may have a bunch of proposals perhaps we should give the delegation an opportunity to return to us with serious proposals. Some of us were members of the former committee that dealt with broadcasting. It could be that what is happening in the United States could be happening here. We are open to suggestions.

Yes. We have heard the views on finance but our financial situation is not great either and we must be realistic. As Chairman of this committee I must mind the pennies also. Money does not go very far. A point was made on the availability of facilities here. It is easy to compare us with Strasbourg and Brussels in terms of the size our Parliaments. We will take on board the witnesses' suggestions and proposals in regard to the facilities. I thank them for attending.