Joint Committee on Arts, Media, Communications, Culture and Sport debate

General Scheme of the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill: Discussion (Resumed)

An Cathaoirleach

Apologies have been received from Senator Ní Chuilinn. The meeting has been convened today with representatives from Independent Broadcasters of Ireland, Local Ireland, NewsBrands Ireland, Community Radio Ireland and DCU's Institute for Future Media, Democracy and Society for the committee's second public engagement as it undertakes pre-legislative scrutiny of the revised general scheme of the broadcasting (amendment) Bill. I warmly welcome the following witnesses: Mr. John Purcell, chair, and Mr. Michael Kelly, chief executive, Independent Broadcasters of Ireland; Mr. Bob Hughes, executive director, Local Ireland; Ms Deirdre Veldon, vice chair and Ms Sammi Bourke, chair, NewsBrands Ireland; Mr. Brian Greene, chair, Community Radio Ireland; Ms Jackie O'Neill, compliance and development co-ordinator, Community Radio Ireland; and Dr. Roderick Flynn, associate professor and chair of school of communications studies at DCU, on behalf of DCU's Institute for Future Media, Democracy and Society. They are all very welcome.

The format of today's meeting is that I will invite our witnesses to deliver an opening statement, which is limited to four minutes. That will then be followed by questions from members of the committee. As the witnesses are probably aware, the committee may publish the opening statements on its web page, which we propose to do. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Before I proceed to questions from members of the committee, I would like to clarify some limitations with regard to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege in respect of the presentation they make to the committee. This means that they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege, and it is my duty as Chair to ensure that this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory with regard to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I propose that we now proceed with the opening statements in the following order: Mr. John Purcell, Independent Broadcasters Ireland; Mr. Bob Hughes, Local Ireland, Ms Sammi Bourke, NewsBrands Ireland; a joint statement from Mr. Brian Greene and Ms Jackie O'Neill, Community Radio Ireland; and Dr. Roderick Flynn, DCU's Institute for Future Media, Democracy and Society. They have four minutes each, and we will be pretty precise on that. We will begin with Mr. Purcell.

Mr. John Purcell

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. Independent Broadcasters of Ireland welcomes this opportunity to give our views on this Bill, and we are very grateful for members' time. I am the chair of Independent Broadcasters of Ireland. I am accompanied today by the chief executive of IBI, Michael Kelly. I will open with our introductory statement and hand over to Michael.

Independent Broadcasters of Ireland constitutes 34 radio stations deeply embedded in the social and cultural fabric of the nation, broadcasting locally, regionally and nationally. We are a hugely successful sector and vibrant in terms of listenership. Today, we were delighted to note that our members are among the most trusted media brands in the country.

The independent radio sector has a combined share of 70% of all time spent listening to radio in this country, which is over 2.5 million listeners every day. Our member stations provide huge employment and hugely valuable services to listeners. We provide a hugely diverse range of high-quality public service programming including news and current affairs, local and national sports coverage, a range of music and factual and information programming. We play a key role in our members’ lives. We are unique in Irish media. We are regulated, free to air and we have a unique connection with our listeners.

The work of our stations has been hugely impressive during recent emergencies, but we are on the air 365 days of the year for emergencies, elections and day-to-day life. The work continues every single day of the year. I will now hand over to Michael Kelly.

Mr. Michael Kelly

Independent radio stations remain hugely popular in Ireland. However, the advertising landscape in Ireland has undergone major disruption. Tech giants and social media platforms now extract approximately €1 billion in advertising revenue from the Irish market each year. Unlike traditional broadcasters, they face minimal obligations when it comes to curbing harmful, misleading or false content. In contrast, we in radio are committed to quality journalism in a world, unfortunately, full of misinformation. We have highly trained and professional people. We take our responsibilities with regard to fairness, accuracy and balance extremely seriously and have a proud record of protecting and serving listeners.

Our members have responded to the undoubted economic challenges by investing and innovating and as SMEs, we are agile and nimble. We wish to play a continued role in providing high-quality news and current affairs information, and we want to provide a platform for proper exploration of issues. However, we do face undoubted economic challenges. Our sector’s key requirement is a level playing field, along with a fair and proportionate support scheme to strengthen news and current affairs. At present, independent stations receive less than one third of 1% of the total annual Exchequer funding allocated to the media.

We broadly welcome the Bill and the promised funding for news and current affairs. However, there are some improvements we consider critical. I first refer to the need for the ring-fencing of funding for the uniquely regulated independent radio broadcasting sector, so that the role of our sector is recognised by changes to the one-size-fits-all or platform neutral nature of journalism schemes currently. Instead, we propose recognition of the special and differing responsibilities of our sector. The second point is about removing the impossible obstacle of additionality, currently seen in restrictions of funding to narrow or new categories, which excludes our experienced newsroom teams involved in core news and current affairs in favour of temporary contracts. What additionality or confining funding to new or restricted output means is an arbitrary concept that means all of the excellent work currently done by our journalists, editors, current affairs presenters and producers, researchers, and others in our sector bringing top class services 24-7, 365 days per year, are not deemed to qualify for any support whatsoever.

Our members are already required to provide news and current affairs content as part of their services. The facts are that they consistently exceed those licensing requirements. The members will be familiar with the amount of airtime dedicated by their own local stations to the most recent local, European and general elections. In the local elections last year, for example, a total of 436 hours of election counts and results coverage took place across our 34 independent stations. We believe any review of public service content must include proportionate representation for our sector. We hope the review can be brought forward and could also include emergency information during crises, which is what we do so well.

An Cathaoirleach

We have to stick to four minutes.

Mr. Michael Kelly

No problem. I will be very quick. Proportionate and meaningful support would enhance the delivery and quality of news and current affairs. The upside is that if proportionate funding is put in place, we believe we can preserve, sustain and enhance public service content. I thank the committee, and we will be delighted to take questions.

Mr. Bob Hughes

I thank the Cathaoirleach, Deputies and Senators for the opportunity to address them today. I am the executive director of Local Ireland, the association that represents 36 print newspapers and their digital channels across the country. The regional news publishing sector continues to face serious challenges with circulation continuing to fall at 8.3% year-on-year between 2023 and 2024, while advertising revenue is flat after catastrophically plummeting more than 50% over the past 15 years. Employment has fallen at the same rate over that period. Ironically, it is important to state that despite those challenges, our readership and relevance has never been so great thanks to our digital presence, which has seen significant growth year-on-year. Our importance for local democracy, the administration of justice and promoting cohesion and identity for our communities was recognised by the Future of Media Commission. As a result of its recommendations, several schemes have either begun or are in train under Coimisiún na Meán, which are now available to support regional news publishers for the first time in the history of the State, where previously supports of this kind were only available to broadcasters.

While the Bill deals mainly with broadcasting, it contains some important measures, in particular the media fund, which will replace the broadcasting fund. It is welcome that this Bill plans to put the media fund on a statutory basis. However, there are concerns that the allocation of 7% of the licence fee as a basis for the media fund is insufficient given that more media organisations, both print and digital, will be applying for funding under the schemes. The local democracy and courts reporting schemes are welcome, but the first round was heavily oversubscribed. Equally, the forthcoming scheme for digital transformation is likely to be insufficient to meet the needs of all media that it seeks to serve. The Bill states that the Minister will have the opportunity to augment funding for the schemes beyond the 7% but clearly this could be subject to the vagaries of the economy and available budget from the Department of Finance. It does not make sense that if funding via Coimisiún na Meán has been broadened to include news publishers, and more media organisations are competing for the same percentage allocation as before, that it remains at 7%.

Local Ireland strongly supports other aspects of the Bill, particularly those designed to promote inclusivity around gender, race, minority communities, people with disabilities and the Irish language. We also welcome the inclusion of geography as a key criteria for supporting underserved communities. We also agree that public service content providers in print and online should be subject to editorial codes and standards, in our case the Press Council, and that user-generated content should always be subject to an editorial process. Professional, credible and trusted media needs to be supported. For Local Ireland members, it means support through the provision of schemes via the coimisiún and a fair share of Government, State agency and local authority public information as opposed to political advertising. That is not always happening. There should also be fairer remuneration from the big tech platforms for the use of our content both as a source of content creation and as the basis for AI learning and we want to see the reform of defamation legislation enacted as soon as possible. I thank the committee for listening and I am happy to answer any questions members might have.

Ms Sammi Bourke

I thank the Chair and members of the committee for the opportunity for myself and Ms Deirdre Veldon, vice chair, to address them today on behalf of NewsBrands Ireland, which is the representative body for Ireland’s national news publishers.

We welcome the opportunity to contribute to consideration of the revised general scheme of the Bill. NewsBrands Ireland is committed to a free and independent press, the sustainability of public service journalism, and a fair, competitive media landscape. NewsBrands is a founding member of the Office of the Press Ombudsman and the Press Council of Ireland, and our members adhere to the council’s code of practice and uphold the highest standards of journalistic integrity. We invest heavily in quality, fact-checked, multiplatform journalism that benefits the wider news ecosystem, with our content used by national and local broadcast services and search and social platforms.

In November 2024, we submitted our view on the original general scheme. While we welcomed elements of the proposed Bill, we raised concerns, particularly about the proposed media fund. It is disappointing to see that these concerns have not been addressed in the revised scheme. It is important for this committee to understand that, since our original submission in 2024, the pace of change in digital media has accelerated. News publishers now face existential challenges due to the widespread appropriation of our journalism by major tech and AI companies. Our content is being harvested without consent or compensation, undermining the commercial viability of journalism and threatening the public’s access to reliable information. It is against the backdrop of a highly fragmented and threatened media landscape that we share our views on the revised scheme. We welcome the broader definition of "public service content providers" and the shift toward a platform neutral media fund. However, we remain concerned that the allocation of just 7% of net licence fee receipts to the fund is inadequate, especially given the wider scope of eligible applicants. There is no guaranteed Exchequer support to supplement this fund. This is a gap that raises real concerns about the predictability and adequacy of financial support for public service content.

We support the revised scheme’s commitment to transparency and accountability in the administration of the media fund, including regular reporting and independent audit. However, further clarity is needed on eligibility, conditionality, application criteria and assessment procedures. These should reflect the essential role of independent news publishers, without creating unnecessary regulatory or administrative burdens. We note too references in head 23 to promoting media plurality and sector sustainability. In Ireland’s relatively small advertising market, the State broadcaster’s dual funding model raises concerns. As a publicly funded broadcaster, RTÉ can unfairly compete for digital advertising, leveraging content partly or fully funded by the State, while independent publishers must invest heavily in original content. RTÉ’s free-to-access digital platforms compete directly with publisher websites and apps, making it essential to introduce robust safeguards to prevent public funding from further distorting a market that has been disseminated by big tech platforms.

We must raise a critical concern regarding the scope of regulation. Any suggestion that video content hosted on news publishers’ websites could fall within the remit of Coimisiún na Meán is deeply problematic. News publishers are already regulated under the Press Council code of practice, which includes video content. Extending statutory regulation on this content would create a dual regulatory regime and undermine editorial independence. While we believe it is not the intention of the legislation, we strongly urge the committee to provide an explicit clarification on this point. We respectfully ask that the final legislation reflect these concerns and supports the continued viability of independent, trusted journalism, which remains a cornerstone of Irish democracy.

Mr. Brian Greene

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members for the opportunity to speak to them today. Craol is the network of community radio stations in Ireland.

We have 21 full-licence stations and 14 aspirant pilot-licence stations. The main objective of community radio is to provide social benefits for the communities we serve through community development using media as a tool to achieve this. We are in 11 of 26 counties with 40% national population reach. The staff and voluntary boards of management facilitate more than 2,100 volunteers broadcasting more than 175,000 hours of unique local community radio content each year. We provide QQI levels 3 and 4 training in media production and free radio training as an introduction to the more than 15,000 volunteers who have come through our doors over the past 35 years. We are strong in the area of media plurality - we are 100% community owned and all of our programmes come from within our community.

In February 2025, CRAOL published a major survey conducted by Amárach Research to measure the impact of community radio in Ireland. Findings include that four in ten adults, 40%, reported listening to at least one community radio station in the previous week. Compared with the general adult population, community radio listeners, particularly frequent listeners, are more likely to be male aged 18 to 34, a very hard demographic to reach and which we are reaching. Nearly half of listeners, 46%, have participated in an activity with their community radio station, with engagement rising to 64% among frequent listeners. Frequent listeners and those aged over 55 from the C2DE socioeconomic group are another hard group to reach. Community radio audiences do not hear any public information notices funded by the Government to advance services and campaigns of national importance. CRAOL calls on the Oireachtas to help level the playing field and ensure Government advertising is also served to audiences that often most need to hear messages from Government agencies. I will hand over to my colleague, Ms O'Neill, compliance and development co-ordinator with CRAOL.

Ms Jackie O'Neill

CRAOL welcomed the 2022 recommendation by the Future of Media Commission that a community media fund be established. We eagerly await the implementation of this fund in 2025 for a 2026 start. We ask that budget 2026 has the necessary allocation of funds to begin this much-needed funding. We must mention the social benefit funding under Sound and Vision 4. This funding has been a lifeline since Covid-19. To have this small but regular source of funding has helped community radio reach the social benefit markers we are measured on since 2020. Community radio is not in every community, but imagine if it was. We will celebrate national community radio day on Friday, 20 June in Newcastle West with West Limerick 102FM. We invite members to tune in to craol.ie and hear more about the great work happening across the CRAOL network of radio stations.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

We already submitted a written document offering a detailed response to the proposed Bill. However, we want to emphasise a few points. The first is to point to the glaring omission of a new long-term funding mechanism for the public service media institutions, RTÉ and TG4, in the legislation. Replacing the licence fee with direct Exchequer funding was a key recommendation of the Future of Media Commission. Given that the proposed legislation implements several commission recommendations, the decision to retain a funding mechanism, which has been repeatedly identified by a number of bodies, including an earlier version of this committee, as inadequate and inappropriate for a 21st-century media environment, is remarkable. The failure to do so undermines some of the changes introduced by the new legislation. Amending the operation of the Sound and Vision Fund, which will become the media fund, and RTÉ’s commissioning of independent programming while leaving the basis on which both activities are funded seems problematic.

Moving to what is in the Bill, we are concerned at the decision under head 6 to narrow the definition of “connected person” to the spouse or civil partner of a commissioner. I may be missing something but this appears to allow a commissioner in Coimisiún na Meán to adjudicate on a media outlet owned by their parent, brother, sister or child. The rationale for excluding those relationships from the conflict of interest provision is not clear. The new Chapter 1A introduced under head 19 replicates existing section 124 of the Broadcasting Act, insisting that RTÉ and TG4 are subject to external review. The only difference is to increase the frequency of such reviews from every five years to every three years. Between 2009 and 2023, these reviews saw the BAI, the predecessor to Coimisiún na Meán, repeatedly recommend increases in the public funding made available to RTÉ and TG4. These recommendations were consistently ignored by every Administration in that period, raising the question of the value of introducing more frequent reviews if a given Minister in an Administration will continue to ignore the expert recommendations.

There are a number of issues with head 23. The key issue is the decision to exclude RTÉ and TG4. The rationale is they are already in receipt of public funding. This misses the point that the fund has never supported public service institutions; it supports content production. It seems illogical to bar institutions notionally dedicated to the provision of public service content from accessing a fund designed to support the production of such content. TG4 is a publisher-broadcaster. It does not produce content. Why would one prevent it from accessing production funding? It does not seek production funding.

Finally, head 30 removes Coimisiún na Meán’s authority to levy broadcasting and video on-demand services to support the production of European works. A Nordicity and Saffery feasibility study commissioned by Coimisiún na Meán on the introduction of the levy suggested it would raise approximately €20 million per annum. That is more than the current Sound and Vision Fund spends. The stated rationale for taking this power away from Coimisiún na Meán is a concern that the levy will be an intolerable burden on consumers. To do some maths, Netflix currently charges €16.99 per month for its standard package. If this was increased by 3% - the levy Nordicity and Saffery recommend - it would increase by 31 cent to €17.30 per month. This does not seem like an onerous increase for what is a discretionary household budgetary expenditure. Furthermore, the streaming market, in contrast with the cable and satellite markets, is quite competitive in Ireland and streamers and other audiovisual providers may have a strong incentive to absorb the cost internally. Given this, we counsel against proceeding with head 30.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the witnesses for their presentations; well done. I thank them for their work. We got a lot from their presentations. We will go through speakers, starting with eight minutes. We may get to round two depending on who is around. I call Deputy Carrigy.

Deputy Micheál Carrigy

I welcome the witnesses. In the previous term, I had a lot of engagement with a number of the organisations. I look forward to continued engagement. All of the witnesses said the news and content produced is tried and trusted and it is correct information. That is extremely important. I ask the witnesses to provide short answers as I have eight minutes. What can be done to improve the legislation to ensure news and current affairs are enhanced, sustained and that we provide an alternative to the disinformation on social media? There is a restriction in some of the schemes, particularly for local and regional radio and newspapers because county council meetings and courts are already covered. Some of the funding is for new works. If an organisation has already been doing that, they cannot access some of that funding. With regard to radio, is there an indicative figure of how much money in advertising income social media companies take from regional radio stations? To be local, Midlands 103 and Shannonside are the two radio stations in my area, Longford-Westmeath. What funding is currently available for them? That is a lot of questions.

Mr. John Purcell

We can address the radio questions. I thank the Deputy for his previous support. It is much appreciated. Regarding how to improve the Bill from a radio point of view, platform neutrality does not work for us. Radio has a special status; we are regulated and we pay a levy to the broadcasting regulator. This is the broadcasting Bill - the particular duties and responsibilities of broadcasters should be recognised. Platform neutrality does not work. We would like ring-fenced funding for broadcasters and independent radio and for additionality, a key stumbling block for us, to be addressed.

Mr. Kelly might take on the loss of advertising revenue to the platforms.

Mr. Michael Kelly

To summarise, social media platforms such as Google and Meta are currently taking €1,000 million out of the Irish advertising market. Both RTÉ and the independent radio sector are only getting €165 million out of the same advertising market. Obviously the social media firms have gone from zero to 60 in about ten years in grabbing this huge share. The difficulty is they do this without putting anything back in - no fact checking, no monitoring, no editorial, no journalists, none of the things we do. That makes a terribly unlevel playing field.

Mr. John Purcell

It is fair to say that not only are they taking it from radio but also newspapers and so on. Ms Burke’s proposal that the tech giants would have to pay some form of levy is something we also support. It has been done in other countries.

Deputy Micheál Carrigy

That relates to funding seeping down to regional radio stations. What is there now?

Mr. John Purcell

The last budget announced a fund of €6 million for broadcasters which would be independent TV and radio. That funding has not made its way through to the stations yet because of the additionality question. We did receive special funding during Covid which was based on the emergency circumstances around it. We would advocate that the situation around news at the moment, and on the flipside of that misinformation, disinformation, bad actors and so on, is such that it should be deemed an emergency and special funding provided through the Sound and Vision scheme on that basis. We think that would be an ideal way for accountable funding to be used for public service ends. It has been done before and we think it could be done again.

Deputy Micheál Carrigy

There is a restriction regarding new or additional coverage as part of some of the schemes. Locally, the vast majority were doing that work already.

Mr. John Purcell

The key disadvantage is if you are doing the work already you cannot be supported in continuing to do it. A quirk in the additionality provision is if for some reason you stopped doing the work you would be in a position to then do it. We maintain that allowing a situation to develop where news services wither, weaken and ultimately disappear from view before appropriate funding is provided is inherently wrong and needs to be addressed.

Deputy Micheál Carrigy

It needs to be changed.

Mr. John Purcell

Yes.

Mr. Michael Kelly

The Deputy asked about funding coming through to any local station including Shannonside Northern Sound. In the 12 to 18 months until now, the funding that came to our sector through Sound and Vision only was €845,000. In the same period the amount given to other sectors was obviously hundreds of millions.

Deputy Micheál Carrigy

It was €845,000

Mr. Michael Kelly

It was €845,000 divided amongst 34 stations. That gives the Deputy an idea of how much Shannonside Northern Sound would have received.

Deputy Micheál Carrigy

All right. On the written media, are the witnesses happy with how it is designed? Do the funds meet their needs going into the future?

Mr. Bob Hughes

As I said in my opening statement, we have seen that the first round of the local democracy and courts reporting scheme was heavily over subscribed. That was the first of six schemes that will flow from the Future of Media Commission’s recommendations to the Department and then Coimisiún na Meán. We are concerned that 7% of the licence fee will not be enough and particularly when there will be more players involved. We are very grateful we are being funded. We have had an opportunity for funding for the first time in the history of the State. Obviously Sound and Vision has existed for quite a long time for broadcasters and we have never had anything equal to that and now we have so that is an opportunity. However, we have suffered massively from the tech giants taking the advertising, as all legacy media have. A levy would be another option for the Government. I know politically it might be challenging.

Deputy Micheál Carrigy

I agree. From previous work I have done, my view is 25% of the licence fee should be ringfenced into a larger Sound and Vision fund to allow both written and community radio apply.

Mr. Bob Hughes

I would add that additionality is a challenge as Mr. Purcell outlined. However, I was at a Reuters Digital News Report event in Galway this morning. Dave O’Connell from the Connacht Tribune spoke about how many council meetings there are in Galway City Council, Galway County Council, the joint policing committee and health committees. There is a little bit of an opportunity there to do more.

Deputy Micheál Carrigy

Can I get a quick answer from NewsBrands?

An Cathaoirleach

Sorry, Deputy Gibney is in now. The Deputy will have another round.

Deputy Sinéad Gibney

I thank everyone for being here. It is a really interesting session to have so many disparate voices and different voices from across the sector. I am really enjoying the discussion so far.

I want to build on some of Deputy Carrigy’s questions. On some of the advertising funding that has shifted into big tech, do the witnesses support the view of platforms as publishers? I will first put that to Mr. Kelly and Mr. Purcell. This is around platforms and publishers and the idea that big tech should be regulated in the same way.

Mr. John Purcell

Undoubtedly. I am personally the legally responsible person for everything that goes out on my radio station and I do not see why somebody like the chief executive of Facebook or any other publisher should be any different.

Deputy Sinéad Gibney

Does Mr. Purcell see scope within this legislation for that?

Mr. John Purcell

I would not consider myself adequately qualified to answer that in detail but where there is a political will there must be a way because the damage being wrought by the fact these people can wash their hands of responsibility for what goes out and the damage these platforms do has to be tackled. It is an obscenity in this country where publishers online have chosen not to respond or engage with the organs of the State. It is ultimately a question of the sovereignty of this country and legislation in this House is the place where that needs to be addressed.

Deputy Sinéad Gibney

I thank Mr. Purcell. Does anyone else have a response?

Ms Deirdre Veldon

On advertising revenue, 87% of advertising revenue previously owned by the media market is now with big tech -----

Deputy Sinéad Gibney

Yes. My question is specifically around platforms as publishers. For transparency, I used to work in the tech sector. It was a long time ago. I worked in Google for eight years so I am well aware of the advertising shift that happened. It was during the years that was mostly happening. Would Ms Veldon see platforms as publishers?

Ms Deirdre Veldon

The legal framework does not really support that point of view. I guess they have the best of both worlds -----

Deputy Sinéad Gibney

That is my point. Would Ms Veldon like to see them legally categorised as publishers?

Ms Deirdre Veldon

What I would prefer to see is them discharging their responsibilities in relation to offering proper compensation to publishers and broadcasters for the use of their content. That would be preferable.

Deputy Sinéad Gibney

I appreciate that.

Mr. Brian Greene

I think Coimisiún na Meán does have new powers when it comes to regulation and content in this area -----

Deputy Sinéad Gibney

But nowhere near the same standards that we would hold traditional press to.

Mr. Brian Greene

No, but rather than the content it is the power of the suggestive algorithms that are suggesting things that need to be looked at more than the content. They have this extended common carrier status but they are serving content to lots of people but it is probably the algorithm that is doing more damage than the content which can be regulated, or the more harmful ends of it at least.

Deputy Sinéad Gibney

Does anyone else want to comment? In that case my next questions are for the radio folks, specifically Mr. Purcell and Mr. Kelly. Their opening statement spoke strongly on the need to address the core funding as well as funding of additional new outputs. How is that balanced in the context of independent radio which also operates as a commercial enterprise?

Mr. John Purcell

The section we are seeking funding for is the 20% news and current affairs which is part of our broadcasting licences which we are required to do. News cannot be monetised. The 20% news and current affairs cost a disproportionate amount to produce. The precedent of providing public money for support of broadcasting is well established. It has been done through Sound and Vision for years. RTÉ receives funding for its news output.

We think the principles are well established so we just need to see it transferred. I point out that independent radio stations command in the region of 70% of time spent listening to radio. We have seen in the Reuters report today the role of radio as a news source and also the trust in which it is held. We have also seen that Ireland is far ahead of other jurisdictions in relation to this. We feel the time to act to preserve and expand on it is now rather than waiting until we start going down the tubes at which point the additionality allows us to be funded.

Deputy Sinéad Gibney

I appreciate that. Mr. Purcell has explained it very clearly. In its opening statement the community radio group made an interesting point about how younger people are listening to more community radio and the potential of young people who get a chance to have a show, for example, on community radio. How can we best nurture new and young broadcasting talent, particularly through this Bill?

Mr. Brian Greene

It is somewhat misunderstood that community radio is a starting point for careers in broadcasting. The majority of people stay in community radio after joining it. It is through involvement that we have got these young people. Young people, those aged between 15 and 24, are leaving radio at a rate of 3% per quarter in the JNLR. I am sorry but it is happening. It is not great. It is a bad story. It is called the "youth quake". They are, however, surviving in community radio because they are coming in as practitioners themselves. They are getting trained and their peers are listening to them. They are usually in college and they are taking an interest in media through studies. Through that they get to practise it and then consume it, both they and their peers.

Deputy Sinéad Gibney

Excellent. My next question is for both groups. They are such an important mechanism for reaching communities and sharing information. This Bill has provisions on the production of public service content and alterations to legislation that provide for online clips and podcasts. What will this mean for the ability of the groups to create public service content and to expand their reach through those online platforms or online tools?

Mr. Michael Kelly

The production of public service content could be aided if this Bill would allow funding for our sector. The difficulty is that the Bill, as it stands, would not allow any funding for our sector because it would exclude us on the basis of ring-fencing. In other words, the platform-neutral aspect would exclude us because you cannot really compare our media as we have so many different challenges and operations. The additionality requirement also excludes us. That is the challenge for this Bill. If it could be amended, there could be huge change and improvements. At the moment, it really is not doing what it sets out to do.

Mr. John Purcell

We would not have any difficulty in regulation extending to other areas of our operations. For over 30 years, we have operated as a regulator of the sector. Our concern is towards a level playing field. We feel we are uniquely regulated in the media landscape so we just want equity.

Deputy Sinéad Gibney

Yes, that sounds good. I will give my remaining time to the community radio group if its representatives would like to answer the same question.

Mr. Brian Greene

It is somewhere that we can grow. For us it is not to generate revenue from it, but through our QQI level 3 and level 4 training we have young, middle-aged and older people making podcasts as part of their training syllabus. They are taking a step into how to do it and then sharing that with people. There are wider platforms available to radio and it has to innovate or die. Going into those spaces is a must for radio.

Deputy Sinéad Gibney

I thank all the witnesses.

Deputy Peter 'Chap' Cleere

The witnesses are all very welcome. I thank them and all the groups they represent for the unbelievable public service they give. It is very easy to come here and give out about X, Y and Z but I have observed at first hand the impact they make to so many households around the country, in particular in Carlow and Kilkenny where I come from. I just wanted to acknowledge this and thank the witnesses for the service they provide.

I know the witnesses come from different backgrounds, whether independent broadcasting, community radio or local radio. I will try to vary my questions as best I can. The one common theme that seems to come through from everyone is the importance of trust in media. This message has come through loud and clear to me. The two things I am most passionate about are news and current affairs, and sports. All of the organisations here put phenomenal work into both of those areas. I note with interest the level playing field elements and the ring-fencing of funding, and we will get to those in a moment. It is important to acknowledge that role, including in respect of the Kilkenny People, KCLR and community radio down my way. The difference this makes to families is fantastic. Everybody is interested in something. I know people who tune in just to get the death notices. Rip.ie is probably taking funding away from local radio.

To get in to the specifics, I will start with the IBI. Reference was made to the new media fund in the legislation. How can it be improved to make it more accessible and suitable for independent broadcasters and local radio?

Mr. Michael Kelly

We believe the changes that could be introduced would be relatively simple. In addition to all the other types of content that can currently be supported, changes are needed to allow the Bill to specifically name "core news and current affairs content on radio" as an area where funding can be provided. Areas already in the Bill include digital transformation, new coverage and so on but we feel that excludes us. We ask that this be changed to specifically set out that our sector can be covered.

The Bill refers to public service content providers in a very general way. By doing that, it does not recognise the unique, highly regulated sector we operate in. We meet standards of regulation that are only met by RTÉ, Virgin Media and us. This is a very high level for us to reach and we believe it makes us exceptional and qualifies us for some proportionate, moderate but special treatment.

Mr. John Purcell

If I may add something that people may not be aware of, there is another aspect that probably makes us unique among the groups gathered here this evening, namely, that members of Independent Broadcasters of Ireland pay in the region of €2.5 million each year to the regulator to be regulated. We are regulated but we pay €2.5 million to be regulated. To put this in the context of the amount mentioned by Mr. Kelly that is provided through Sound and Vision, which was approximately €800,000 over three years, during the same period, we paid €7.5 million to the regulator. That is a unique factor that must be borne in mind in relation to our business model.

Deputy Peter 'Chap' Cleere

I will stick with the IBI and then move on to the others. As a politician, I am especially interested in local media coverage. I will speak specifically about independent broadcasters' election coverage and out-of-the-norm events. For example, some of the witnesses will be aware that there was a flood in my home town of Graiguenamanagh in 2016. It was devastating for everybody in the town. The lads from KCLR and the Kilkenny People were out on the ground, interviewing and getting the story out. These were really good, honest and trusted stories. On the election coverage, or one-off storms, flooding or whatever the case may be, will the witnesses talk about how they manage this with their journalists? I will give an example. In the general election, I was elected at 4 o'clock on the Monday morning and Sinead Burke from KCLR was there. Edwina Grace has been there at 9 o'clock on the previous Saturday morning doing interviews. How do the witnesses manage and balance that?

Mr. John Purcell

I have to say it is built on the dedication of fantastic people who are motivated by a huge sense of public service. Mr. Kelly mentioned the hundreds of hours that were done at election counts. Relying on the goodwill of people and their passion for their job as a basis for continuing to sustain those kinds of services is not fair or possible. I know many people like me running stations around the country are struggling with continuing to provide that, both from a financial point of view and from the point if view of the pressure it puts on people. A new element is the amount of abuse journalists now get. This has been mentioned at this forum previously. Online and on social media, journalists are a target. There is a bit of news weariness and news avoidance creeping in too. The perfect storm is news services under huge pressure for viability matched with people deciding they have had enough of politics and do not want to hear any more about it.

There is also the lack of proper resourcing, particularly where a radio station becomes unsustainable, which is a threat. The levels of coverage provided during elections are phenomenal, not just in Carlow-Kilkenny but throughout the country.

Deputy Peter 'Chap' Cleere

The witnesses might convey that back to their respective radio stations and newspapers.

Ms Jackie O'Neill

From a community radio point of view, most of the radio stations were in situ until that hour of the day. We have no payments to give to our people locally because the funding does not go that far. Mirroring what Mr. Purcell said, it is about the goodness of what people are doing. When it comes to funding and the legislation, all of that needs to be looked at more closely.

Mr. Brian Greene

In the most recent elections, when the paid journalists' shifts were over or there was no funding to keep them there all weekend, volunteers in community radio were given business cards and told to contact RTÉ and local radio. There is great co-operation at local level, and we should do more of it. The people who can stay there longest are those who are not being paid, namely, the volunteers in community radio. That is the anecdotal evidence I have from what I saw happening around the country.

Deputy Peter 'Chap' Cleere

I am conscious of time, but I have one more quick question. On the additionality element, what is the position regarding a programme which is running and for which funding cannot be obtained being brought to an end and then restarted when funding is obtained? That seems to be a real anomaly.

Mr. John Purcell

If a radio station is doing coverage of county council meetings as part of normal, run-of-the-mill services, it cannot get support to continue to do that. If it ceases to do so, however, it can get support to restart that coverage.

Deputy Peter 'Chap' Cleere

That is something we should look at.

Mr. John Purcell

Not only that, but regarding the provision of additionality as it relates to the medium of radio, there is only a certain amount of time in the day. To provide additionality of coverage in radio, something else must be displaced, whereas, as I understand it, in newspapers, there is always the option to do additional pagination or add to the website. Air time is a finite resource, however.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

It is great that the practitioners are here to help us work our way through the challenges they have. Some of those challenges have been well outlined and I will not go back over them.

The point regarding the allocation of 7% of television licence fee funding is well made, but I wonder whether anybody has a magic figure for what is needed. We will have to argue the case with the Minister that the allocation should be proportionate. Should it be 10%, say, or 20%? All the witnesses will say 10% is at least better than 7% but has anybody looked at what type of increase would help to sustain the different media represented here today?

Mr. Bob Hughes

There is a challenge in that the schemes are being rolled out. We only have the current experience, the first big schemes being the courts reporting and local democracy schemes, which, as I said, are oversubscribed. The digital transformation scheme is next and is unlikely to meet everybody's needs. After that will be the news reporting scheme but, as yet, we do not have any sight of how it will be structured or what it will deliver.

On the digital transformation scheme, our members have been told there is no money to create employment as part of it. One of the editors in Local Ireland was interested in this and made the case as part of the consultation that if the money was there, an extra half a position or a full-time position could be created to increase specialist staffing for digital.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Are people expected to go outside the organisation to get expertise for the digital transformation?

Mr. Bob Hughes

Certain things are included but others are excluded. They are excluded, as usual, for reasons of budget.

There is no magic figure in terms of what the proportion of the funding should be, but it seems absolutely logical that if 7% was covering the broadcasters, then 7% will not cover broadcasters, publishers and the online channels. It does not make sense that there would be no increase. Although there is discretion for the Minister to give additional funding, the performance of the economy and international factors may affect that beyond all our control, which means the funding becomes more vulnerable and more discretionary.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

The Future of Media Commission, which provided the most recent opportunity to have a good look at public service broadcasting and what is needed in that regard, was not asked to address the question of what a healthy public sphere needs in terms of a radio, broadcasting and media sector. It just accepted the established status quo. We do things backwards in that we start from the position of having a certain amount of money and then we figure out how to spend it. That is a mistake. I am not blaming the Future of Media Commission for this because it was not tasked to look at it. If I were king for a day, I would start with the question of what a healthy public sphere needs and what the role of the media would be in that regard. When I answered that, I would ask how much it would cost to implement. Then we would have a number and I would work backwards from that. The number might be terrifying. It could be €500 million.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

We would love to be in a position to do that. We are lumped with dealing with it in what we might call the Irish about-face way.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

We do things in the way I have suggested with social welfare, education and health. I acknowledge that those areas do not have infinite budgets and that they must operate within some kinds of parameters, but that is the overall approach. However, we do not do so with media. It reflects the fact that we, as a society and politically, do not take media and their role in the public sphere seriously.

Mr. Brian Greene

On the 7% allocation, the last Minister to increase the licence fee was John Gormley, which is going back quite a bit. It went up to €160. Public service media need funding to defend against the onslaught of negative stuff that is coming from online. The licence fee has been set at €160 for 17 years now. Community radio, local radio, RTÉ and Virgin Media all take money from that licence fee revenue, albeit with only 7% going to everyone other than RTÉ. The fee has to be looked at. Increasing it was one of the recommendations from the Future of Media Commission that was not accepted by the Government. Keeping the fee at €160 for 17 years is crazy.

Mr. John Purcell

On Mr. Hughes's point about the local democracy and courts reporting schemes being oversubscribed, that was without any radio stations participating in those schemes. As a result of the schemes' design, the additionality provisions I have spoken about and other factors, no stations took part. The design of the schemes as they were rolled out was that there would be one amount of funding in each county or local area. It would have involved newspapers and radio competing for the same funding in a winner-takes-all scenario. That was how we understood it to work. An either-or scenario in which only one out of radio and newspapers is supported is not appropriate. That is one of the weaknesses at the heart of platform neutrality as per my understanding of how the schemes were rolled out.

Mr. Brian Greene

There was a platform-neutral fund but no broadcasters received funding under the two parts, that is, the €6 million in funding for local democracy and courts reporting. The recipients were all press. Apart from some link-ups with broadcasters on three occasions, every other recipient was a non-broadcaster.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I have only one and a half minutes left in this round, in which I will ask about the impact of AI. Earlier, Ms Bourke stated, "Our content is being harvested without consent or compensation, undermining the commercial viability of journalism and threatening the public's access to reliable information." Other speakers have expanded on that. What is needed to ensure journalists or those who create content get proper remuneration? It is a challenge I have seen in dealing with copyright legislation. This is a big question and we need to grapple with it now, as well as all the other questions.

Ms Sammi Bourke

It is certainly a massive issue from a copyright perspective,and one we face day in and day out. It is changing the way we have to operate our businesses. AI is harvesting our content, and we are not being compensated for that.

However, there are also opportunities within our business from an AI perspective. Ms Veldon may wish to comment it from on her perspective.

Ms Deirdre Veldon

AI is a huge problem for us, in particular, recently we have seen that AI will ultimately take out search. Search is a big referrer for us for all of our digital services. While we resent the harvesting of our content by big tech, we are into a completely different sphere with the advent of AI, which will now effectively replace search with its services, leaving people no direction to our website. How do people confront that? How do publishers actually get in front of people with the content they are offering if AI is there as a kind of mediator?

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Do the witnesses have any ideas as to what we can do with this Bill to improve the situation?

Ms Sammi Bourke

In this Bill, from an AI perspective, under the digital transformation scheme, I echo what Mr. Hughes was saying in that there is no ability for investment there in AI tools or technology as it is currently.

Deputy Brian Brennan

I thank the witnesses. I find this very engaging. I will point my questions mainly at broadcasting but I would like a reply from everybody on the following points. We had a meeting here last week and I left with a few more questions than answers. I wish to get clarification on a few key points. First, I am fully behind everybody in this room and what they are doing. They are broadcasting about community and are independent broadcasters. They are getting into every sitting room, getting into every nursing home and getting right into the core. They have their finger on the pulse. I often wonder what we would be like without them. Sometimes we talk about independent broadcasting. Newstalk and Today FM are independent – not too many feel that. I am not just naming them but they are giving us a choice. We have a choice. If we are in the car and we do not like what we hear on the national broadcaster, we can turn on something else. If we do not have that, we are in trouble. That is my number one concern.

My second concern is, if the witnesses do not get the funding we are discussing now, will that dilute the quality of the product they are giving us? I want to be clear on this. Some €21.1 million was given to Coimisiún na Meán, and less than €850,000 went to broadcasting. That is roughly just over 6% - between 6% and 7%.

Mr. Michael Kelly

The Deputy is absolutely right. That €845,000 is divided among all of those 34 stations.

Deputy Brian Brennan

Hear me out and then I will let everybody come in. It is directed at broadcasting but it is important that everybody gets their answer in it. Based on what I studied, there are 1,069 people working with the witnesses. As somebody coming from the private sector and a business background, they are providing a free service. They are being absolutely hammered with costs, like every other business in Ireland, between wages, energy and insurance. They are haemorrhaging money with advertising based on social media. It has increased and has tsunamied in on top of us. If they do not mind me saying, rightly so, the cord has been cut on any income arising from gambling and alcohol. Those alone are four hits, and then lobbed on top of that is the whole additionality factor. Whoever put that in place was simply wrong and unfair, in my opinion, and I would like to get the witnesses’ opinion on it. How are the witnesses surviving and, more importantly, how will they survive in the future unless we are happy with this Bill that is going through? I honestly fear for the future of the people in this room, of who they are representing, unless something strong is done. They simply have to get a higher percentage of the pot or else it is not commercially feasible to continue to do what they are doing. Every statistic I outlined there will increase rather than decrease. They will lose more revenue in advertising and because of cost increases. I apologise, I did not want to go on too long but that is where I am coming from. I would like to get a feel from everybody on that.

Mr. John Purcell

The unavoidable direction of travel for news media on a local basis but also for people trying to provide an alternative on a national basis is the diminishing of the amount and quality of provision unless support is given. I am saying that for Ireland. It has not happened quite yet. Looking at the UK, the US and Europe, the levels of local news are nothing like the levels here of local news, and indeed the diversity of national talk and alternatives to state broadcasting in terms of broadcasting. We have a healthy ecosystem currently, which is, as I indicted in relation to election coverage, provided on the back of outstanding commitment and dedication by our teams, but we are at breaking point and we have been for quite a while, and have said it repeatedly. I was in at the Future of Media Commission more than five years ago and we said it. Not a cent has yet come from the funds allocated by the Future of Media Commission more than five years ago to independent broadcasting. We are a bit like broken records. Mr. Kelly outlined the money from Sound and Vision, which is a small amount in the overall scheme of things. Some €7.5 million, which was specially provided during Covid, was provided on an emergency basis. I would suggest that we are facing an emergency. One need only look at what is happening around the world in terms of misinformation, disinformation and so on.

An Cathaoirleach

Can we just throw it around a bit there?

Mr. John Purcell

Sorry about that.

Mr. Brian Greene

What we are looking at is volunteering in community media hubs, meaning coming together with other media in our areas, not just radio but also with television.

To the Deputy’s mathematics question about the €21 million and the €850,000, the fund would have given large amounts of money to television. Television costs eight times more to produce than radio, so that was just a purely-----

Deputy Brian Brennan

RTÉ and Virgin.

Mr. Brian Greene

RTÉ, Virgin and community television.

Deputy Brian Brennan

And the people who are supplying RTÉ as well.

Mr. Brian Greene

Yes, so a lot of that money would have gone there. However, we have operated for many years on very small amounts of money in community radio. To those who have business models, they should look to how we have done it. There is good virtue in being very linked-in with, beholden to and supported by your community. There might be subscription models and funding models within that to see how their future might be.

Ms Deirdre Veldon

We are in the unusual position of being involved with a radio station, WLR, and we have seven regional titles and The Irish Times as well, although I am obviously here on behalf of NewsBrands. We decided not to avail of the schemes because of the additionality factor. In the case of WLR, we did not feel in the position to do that. In the case of the regional titles, we were successful in our application for a considerable amount of funding and we are working through the issues on that in order to try to finalise. The issues we have are around the design of the schemes. Rather than asking the question, “What is the quantum of funding?”-----

Deputy Brian Brennan

Can we come back on that?

Ms Deirdre Veldon

Yes.

Mr. Bob Hughes

That support is absolutely vital for local newspapers. These seven titles Ms Veldon talked about are members of Local Ireland. They are very much aligned with the rest of the titles – the newspapers – that are members of Local Ireland. We have lost 15 paid for, recognised, trusted, credible newspapers in Ireland over the past 15 years. They have closed.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

I will add two things. First, I stress that the money that goes to television does not go to TG4, Virgin Media or RTÉ. It goes to independent producers, for the most part. It rebounds to the benefit of those stations. It is an important clarification. It does not go to TG4.

Deputy Brian Brennan

I understand that, but the majority goes to the supplier rather than-----

Dr. Roderick Flynn

On the Deputy’s second question about additionality, I can tell him where additionality does not come from because it is usually pointed this way. It is not the European Commission and not state aid rules. It is being presented as such. My understanding is it comes from the Department of public enterprise. Finally, this has to be approved by the European Commission. That is what got sent to the European Commission by us, with additionality baked into it. You would have to go back to the European Commission and ask it to do it again.

Senator Alison Comyn

I thank each and every one of the witnesses for coming here to make their presentation this evening. I hear their pain and I have felt it. Before I was a Senator, I spent three decades working in broadcasting and journalism and I have worked a lot of that time in regional news. I read out the death notices on LMFM and started in Navan community television all those years ago. I know exactly where the witnesses are coming from.

I will probably concentrate on the financial aspect of this issue and how they can maintain their integrity and independence when they take part in this Bill. Many people have mentioned the additionality and I would like to drill a little more into that and look at the solutions we need. How can those obstacles be removed? Mr. Kelly and Mr. Purcell mentioned it first but anyone else can come in on that if they wish

Mr. John Purcell

Additionality is often seen in terms of quantity of output but it needs to be seen in additional quality of output to enable people to employ staff to work on existing formats and content, not just quantity and ticking boxes. Quality is one way to do that.

Mr. Michael Kelly

As it has been pointed out, the additionality really came out of nowhere. It is an unusual concept, which does not normally apply and certainly does not apply to the media. The idea that we would be forced to shut down services to qualify for additional funding is an anathema. It is just wrong.

Of course, some people will say we could not shut down our services because we have licence obligations but we are going way above our licence obligations at present. It is not that we ever do the minimum but we are being hampered because we cover a wide range of stories and all the areas included in the schemes. Punishing our stations and their staff is wrong.

Senator Alison Comyn

Would anyone else like to address the removal of those obstacles?

Ms Deirdre Veldon

To understand exactly what additionality translates to in reality when trying to make these schemes work, the impact on our PNLs is neutral and the impact on our output is marginally increased. We are in a situation where we are looking at everything we do and questioning it to try to decide what to stop doing because we cannot afford to keep everything. To find ourselves in a situation where we are being effectively corralled into coverage of a particular type is in some ways an assault on our editorial independence and ability to select what we want and need to do. The requirements to backfill positions for people who might be filled internally to work on projects is hugely onerous and virtually impossible for us to work. In addition, all those contracts are 12-month contracts. We are finding as employers with an obligation that is mounting every month that goes by to individuals and at the end of that time, we will have no certainty about what will happen.

Mr. John Purcell

The audience may become used to the particular type of content and if you are unsuccessful after a year, that person on staff is let go and you cannot continue to provide the content. This happened to us in relation to Sound and Vision funding linked to gender, equality, diversity and inclusivity. We were able to do certain measures but then following year we could not.

I will give a further example of the absurdity of some of the additionality. I could have two regular journalists working in a radio newsroom, one gathering the news and the other reading it. A local court reporter is also funded under one of these schemes. If one of the staff goes out sick, the person doing the court reporting is not permitted to fill in for the other person and read the news. This is just not practical. I have faced situations in the newsroom whereby both people were out sick at the same time and the person recruited under these schemes could not be assigned to cover the other work because their funding is only for a defined additional role.

Senator Alison Comyn

It appears the Bill, as it stands, does not recognise the public service the witnesses are all providing. Is that a fair comment?

Mr. Michael Kelly

Yes.

Mr. John Purcell

Yes.

Mr. Brian Greene

Yes.

Senator Alison Comyn

We will talk about bringing in more revenue. It has been mentioned a couple of times - I am not sure if it was Newsbrands Ireland or Local Ireland - the introduction of a levy on global streaming platforms and tech companies to support domestic public service media. How would the witnesses propose to introduce that and implement it?

Mr. John Purcell

Decide to do it first and then allocate it to an appropriate body to collect. I do not know if that sounds too simple.

Senator Alison Comyn

Should the new legislation-----

Dr. Roderick Flynn

I wish to distinguish between two things. The Senator has put streamers and platforms in the same category.

Senator Alison Comyn

Yes, either-or.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

As things stand, the current legislation permits Coimisiún na Meán to impose a levy upon streamers. The legislation we are discussing proposes to remove that power.

Senator Alison Comyn

Does the Dr. Flynn feel that should be there?

Dr. Roderick Flynn

Absolutely. Why would someone not want €20 million to be thrown specifically public service content production? That seems like a good idea to me. This is mom and apple pie. The other issue is a separate question regarding the platforms. That is a digital services tax, which we have had a decade of saying "No" to for reasons I presume have something to do with Grand Canal Dock and what is sitting there.

Mr. Bob Hughes

One of the challenges we have faced is the copyright question and the appropriation and use of our content for AI learning. Various countries have attempted to take on the tech platforms and some have partially succeeded, such as Australia, Canada and France. The UK has used the EU model, despite Brexit, to try to bring in a digital market unit within the equivalent of its department of trade and enterprise. This is another way in which platforms can be brought to the table to properly remunerate us for the content, which they are currently not doing. There is a big debate on how much value news brings to their traffic; we believe it brings a lot. There are many studies, including those in America, which support that.

Senator Alison Comyn

How does Mr. Hughes feel the proposed amendments will impact the financial sustainability of local news?

Mr. Bob Hughes

Removing the opportunity for a levy is problematical because it is an obvious quick fix.

Deputy Malcolm Byrne

I thank the Chair and all our witnesses, several of whom I met the last time around. Many of the same issues are coming up.

I will come back to Dr. Flynn's point on what the role of media is, which is the starting point. It is a critical underpinning of our democracy and we need to see it as a public good in the same way we see health and education. That is why some of us favour a particular funding model that we have funded in the same way rather than an antiquated one. I accept the boat has sailed but I want to specifically deal with the streaming levy, which relates to Dr. Flynn's point is about cost.

Regarding streamers, I am probably correct that the streaming charges in Ireland are generally higher than in most European countries. Their ability to absorb should be greater. I would like the committee to make a recommendation to maintain the current position with regard to streaming levies. It is important we try to maintain that. In the context of Dr. Flynn's point, and as everyone else has said, it was a foolish move not to allow that to go ahead.

Moving onto the general question, the quantum is not big enough but there is a debate on the funding through 7% of the licence fee and the question of whether RTÉ and TG4 should be allowed to access it. The witnesses are correct; TG4 is a publisher-broadcaster. RTÉ will be increasingly going down the publishing-broadcasting route, particularly if there is a requirement for at least 25% independent production. If we were to propose to allow RTE and TG4 to compete for the media fund, would we do it by increasing the 7%?

I will put the question: are people happy to have it at 7% with RTÉ and TG4 excluded, or with the 7% was increased, allowing RTÉ and TG4 to come in?

Mr. Michael Kelly

In our proposal to the committee, we suggested that whatever amount is going to be allocated should be split in such a way as the production companies would only be able to secure a maximum of 50% of the funding from Sound and Vision. The remaining 50% would be to support actual broadcasters and would be divided between Virgin and the independent sector. We suggest that would be a fairer way. The current situation where the production companies, whether they are supplying RTÉ, TG4 or Raidió na Gaeltachta, are able to come in and take the vast majority of the funding is really problematic. We are getting maybe 5% or 6%-----

Deputy Malcolm Byrne

Forgive me, but ultimately the concept of "broadcaster", for me, is almost gone. People are looking across different media. In the case of print media, much of print is online. Most of my newspaper subscriptions are online at this stage. Is content not critical? Content is king and what we are funding is content.

Mr. John Purcell

Did the Deputy say broadcasting is gone?

Deputy Malcolm Byrne

I mean the concept of the "broadcaster" as a traditional broadcaster. My point is the witnesses are content creators.

Mr. John Purcell

Saying the concept of broadcasting is gone to a platform-neutral scale is, to me, as as a broadcaster, by and large-----

Deputy Malcolm Byrne

I am being provocative.

An Cathaoirleach

It would not be like him.

Mr. John Purcell

The phrase "baby with the bath water" comes to mind, and what were are in danger of doing with platform neutrality is undermining broadcasting. While platform neutrality is an important part of what we do, it is not the majority of what we do. While platform neutrality is very appealing, I think it is something like the high 80s in terms of percentage of the population that listens to radio, whether it is RTÉ or independent.

Deputy Malcolm Byrne

The media fund is going to be competitive, in any event, but if we were to look at recommending an increase from 7% to, say, 10% or beyond but if we allowed RTÉ and TG4 to compete, would Mr. Purcell be happy with that or would he prefer the 7% to remain?

Mr. John Purcell

No. When radio is competing with television for funding, it is disproportionate, given that an hour of TV is eight times more expensive. I would say it is even a multiple of that. It is probably 80 times more expensive to produce than an hour of radio. That is why we call for ring-fenced funding for radio.

Deputy Malcolm Byrne

I am conscious of time and want to move on to the whole area of artificial intelligence. It is interesting, when people are being asked about what the heads of Bill say about different aspects of it, that I just asked Copilot what the Bill says about it. It is quite interesting as it relates to performance commitments and so on.

This relates to the issue Ms Veldon and Mr. Hughes raised around AI. The response of media organisations has differed, from the Australian tech tax to The New York Times suing OpenAI and so on. What should be the response of the State? Should it be leaving it up to the witnesses' private organisations to deal with that €1 billion-plus coming out of the State? Should we be looking at taxation measures? What is the more effective approach?

Ms Deirdre Veldon

The thing to understand is that we have no power in this relationship. If we had power in the relationship, we would be able to assert our rights and entitlements and to get adequate compensation and attribution. We very much need the State, and the EU for that matter, to help us. We need help from the international publishing community to assert our rights. We are looking at what is going on elsewhere. A number of different methods are being adopted, with varying degrees of success.

This relates to the levy as well. Where there was success in taking on some of the platforms - under competition law, for example, with the likes of TikTok paying over €500 million - those platforms look at that now as the cost of doing business. They are happy to do that.

Deputy Malcolm Byrne

Yes.

Ms Deirdre Veldon

We need to cotton on to that and say we can assert our rights here. We can do it with the help of Government institutions.

Ms Sammi Bourke

We need a clear framework to work to in order to be able to open up and have those discussions.

Deputy Malcolm Byrne

I agree. My worry, being blunt, concerns the discussion about the streaming levy, which was just €20 million, and there is almost a fear about that. A lot of it was cited as geopolitics. That is what I am asking. What should be the approach by the State? Should we be doing it, and what can be done at EU level? I get the witnesses' point about, with respect, the minnows competing with some of the giants, and they will need the State, but who is best placed?

Ms Deirdre Veldon

If we look at the transposition of the copyright directive, I think it has an application here. We now have ten years of experience of the copyright directive not really working effectively to bring big tech to the table, to get the data from big tech, to get forced arbitration or some kind of compellability for those companies to get involved with it. For AI, it is pretty similar. We have the EU AI Act coming down the tracks at us. We can assert our copyright in the current framework without getting into the business of the complications that the EU AI Act introduces for us. A discussion is ongoing at EU level to look at that again, and there is talk that a pause may be put on it.

An Cathaoirleach

Okay. We will go around again, if people want. I thank the witnesses. This has been great. It has been very informative, with different perspectives. The directness and bluntness of the commentary and evidence is quite good, and refreshing as well.

I have a few questions and observations about a whole load of different areas. First, there are some things I think we can take out of the evidence here that we are going to have to recommend as part of our deliberations. There are some things that are glaringly, ridiculously obvious. Does anyone have an alternative view on the issue of the streaming levy? I have said publicly that it is crazy that it is gone. Is there anyone with a different or alternative view or can I take it as given?

I was very much taken by what Dr. Flynn said about the EU, and that the scheme was sent to the EU for approval.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

I want to make a quick correction. I think I said the Department of public enterprise. I meant the Department of public expenditure and reform.

Deputy Brian Brennan

No, that is okay. I was not going to pull Dr. Flynn up on that.

An Cathaoirleach

That is not abnormal in this country. That Department is the filter system for everything.

Dr. Flynn also referenced the EU, unless I am losing it. Was the scheme sent to the EU?

Dr. Roderick Flynn

I know this, Cathaoirleach.

An Cathaoirleach

Dr. Flynn might inform the committee of what he knows because we do not know.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

It is state aid. State aid has to be approved.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes, I understand.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

That would be true of Screen Ireland. It would be true even, to a certain extent, of funding public service media directly. Coimisiún na Meán would have drawn up the rules for the journalism support schemes, which are also known as the local democracy and court reporting schemes. They would have been sent to the European Commission, which would have looked at them, run the rule of over them and asked if it matched its internal rules relating to state aid. These are not hidden rules; they are publicly available.

An Cathaoirleach

I know. I used to be an MEP.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

The Commission would have said, "Yes, that is grand, away you go". If we were, for example, to deal with additionality by saying we were going to take that out of the Irish rule, we would have to send that back in. I am not a lawyer - I know policy but I am not a lawyer - but my understanding is that there is nothing in the state aid rules as they relate to this that demands additionality should be there. My feeling is that we would have a good chance of just taking it out again.

An Cathaoirleach

That is important because the issues around additionality seem to be bananas.

Mr. John Purcell

The legal advice that I got previously was that state aid would not apply if you were performing the said service on foot of a requirement for your licence.

We are compelled to do the news and current affairs.

An Cathaoirleach

Okay. Do you have another point to make, Dr. Flynn?

Dr. Roderick Flynn

No.

An Cathaoirleach

We need to tease this out because it seems to be a big area. A number of members have referred to the issue of AI and where we are going to go with it. We can never fully future-proof legislation. That is impossible but we have to make our best stab at it and also allow it to be reviewed pretty quickly and changed, if necessary. On the basis of the speed with which AI is moving, is this legislation as currently drafted going to allow for flexibility as regards how the State will manoeuvre in the context of changes brought about by AI?

Ms Deirdre Veldon

On the funding question, the State can be very helpful in assisting companies to cope with the threat of AI. What we need to do is accelerate our adoption of AI tools so that our businesses become more efficient. We need to incorporate AI into our production processes and use it to help us with the distribution of our content. On the other side of the equation, we are looking at the end of search, as I said, so media companies are going to need to be innovative in order to respond to that threat. We will be relying on being able to build up, for example, a direct relationship with our users, customers and subscribers. We do that by investing in our product, by being innovative around our products, by creating good apps-----

An Cathaoirleach

Adding value----

Ms Deirdre Veldon

We create added value. Funding can be very helpful if it is directed towards companies attempting to adopt AI.

An Cathaoirleach

I was very taken by what Deputy Gibney said in relation to platforms. How we use language and what we are going to report on in this committee are going to be critical. On the digital services tax, what is going on down the road here? What is the best methodology? Is it something that we should be making recommendations on? Whether it is going to be covered in this legislation is a completely different question. How are we going to deal with platforms into the future and their complete pilfering of content left, right and centre? As a State, should we be one of the movers and shakers and be innovative in dealing with this? What are the witnesses' views on that?

Dr. Roderick Flynn

We would not be the first to do it. Others have done it. France has done it.

An Cathaoirleach

I know others have done it but as a State-----

Mr. Bob Hughes

I think we should not be intimidated from doing it.

An Cathaoirleach

I think we are being intimidated.

Mr. Bob Hughes

I think we are-----

An Cathaoirleach

I could not agree more.

Mr. Bob Hughes

-----but we are not talking about a massive percentage of their financial interests. It would be a drop in the bucket-----

An Cathaoirleach

It is Mickey Mouse stuff-----

Mr. Bob Hughes

-----for them but it would make a huge difference to all of us.

An Cathaoirleach

I just wanted to put it out there so we can have it on the record for the committee when we do our deliberations.

I come from a rural area and want to mention Tipp FM and Tip Mid West radio. I should mention KCLR as well because it broadcasts to about one eighteenth of my constituency. I will not say what percentage of my vote because it is a lot less than that. I want to talk about the different schemes that are going to be rolled out before the end of the year. Are the witnesses satisfied with them? Do they need to be tweaked or is it all in their execution?

Mr. Michael Kelly

If they are done in the same way as the two previous schemes were done, unfortunately they are going to be problematic and will contribute-----

An Cathaoirleach

What changes would Mr. Kelly recommend?

Mr. Michael Kelly

Those schemes need to be handled exactly the same way as I was recommending for the general funding. There has to be no restriction on additionality for those schemes. They need to actually fund the really good work that the journalists are doing on the ground already. In addition, they cannot be on the basis that everybody can come in for them without taking into account the obligations that certain people have that are higher than others.

An Cathaoirleach

I accept that point.

Mr. Brian Greene

They are platform neutral by design so there is an opportunity to distribute them across the platforms but it seems from the courts reporting and local democracy schemes, which are the first two of the six out of the traps, that that is not the way it went. One platform seemed to get all of it. There are four more to come, namely, digital transformation, news reporting and then next year, media access and training and the community media fund. We hope they will serve us well. Maybe findings should be taken from the first running of the first two schemes to see if they can be tweaked so that the next four are improved before they come out of the traps.

Ms Deirdre Veldon

There is a requirement that the content be free to access, which is problematic. While it is not an issue for the regional titles which are, by and large, not charging for digital subscriptions, in time to come they may be and they will not be able to put the content that is generated behind a paywall.

An Cathaoirleach

That is an interesting point for many reasons.

Ms Sammi Bourke

One issue is the suitability of the design of the funding schemes and whether they add value to the businesses. As our businesses evolve and develop, are they in line with what we need to invest in?

An Cathaoirleach

Deputy Gibney is next.

Deputy Sinéad Gibney

I want to echo some of the earlier comments. This has been very informative and as a new member of this committee, it has been really helpful for me. I thank all of the witnesses for their contributions. I want to zoom in on the issue of workers' rights. I understand some of the challenges that Mr. Purcell in particular outlined for employers in terms of the schemes and restrictions. Obviously journalism, both broadcast and print, is increasingly a difficult place to get any decent terms and conditions as a worker. Do the witnesses support legislation that brings about greater compliance for employers in this sector? How do they think we should deal with that? Bogus self-employment is obviously being looked at in RTÉ but I would love to hear the witnesses' thoughts on it from the perspective of the independent sector.

Mr. Michael Kelly

In terms of this legislation, probably the best way to address that is by ensuring that there was some kind of multi-annual funding and to remove the specific requirement that people can only be employed as a freelancer or on a one-year contract. That would actually be a diminution of the terms and conditions in our sector. They would be less than the standard terms and conditions because our sector would tend to employ permanent staff. We just cannot agree with that because it is a gig economy solution to a very serious problem.

An Cathaoirleach

That is a fair point.

Deputy Sinéad Gibney

Does anyone else wish to comment?

Mr. Brian Greene

In the context of community media and community radio, there are people employed full time so there are rights to be respected there. All of the stations, through their licence, are signed up to the community radio charter for Europe, the AMARC charter. Workers' rights are enshrined and supported in one of the ten clauses of that charter. There is a variety of funders but workers' rights are carried through the ethos and governance of the stations, such that they must be protected.

Mr. Bob Hughes

We understand, hope and expect that the schemes will continue as they are, with new schemes coming on stream as well. That would be vital in terms of employment. Again, we would employ people on permanent contracts.

Ms Deirdre Veldon

The Revenue guidelines on contract or freelance workers are proving very problematic for us. The lifeblood of journalism has been freelance workers and the ability to employ people just to do a particular task while they go about their business in other ways in the rest of their lives. If we find ourselves, as employers, needing to employ the vast majority, then we will, de facto, shrink the freelance market and employers will be very reluctant to take on freelance workers.

Deputy Sinéad Gibney

That is interesting. I thank Ms Veldon.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I was very interested in the feedback on the schemes. The conversation has been very enlightening. There are a lot of questions running around in my head on how media works and that. The witnesses have managed to figure it out for me by their presentations so far and in answering the questions quite honestly and in an upfront way. As well as thanking them for their service, I thank them for that.

Is there any expectation of any input from those present today into the design of the schemes or will Coimisiún na Meán just present them and they will be told "off you go" with whatever difficulties there will be? It sounds like nobody bothered asking them-----

Mr. John Purcell

We have been consulted but the underpinning since the first meeting has been the additionality, which is a fundamental issue for us. We pointed out since the initial stages that we felt it was entirely inappropriate to have it platform neutral. We think there should be ring-fenced funds for local newspapers, independent radio and so on but those have been non-negotiable in our interactions because they were recommended by the Future of Media Commission. The Future of Media Commission was three, four or five years ago. We think that in today's fast-moving world, those things need to be revisited.

Mr. Bob Hughes

There has been quite a bit of consultation. The additionality issue was very problematical but I suppose the counterargument is that additionality means additional job creation.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

A job for a year.

Mr. John Purcell

Obviously, if you are being funded for doing what you are doing, there are no new jobs.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

It is a core recommendation of the Future of Media Commission that there should be consultation before any of the schemes are introduced. Now, that did not quite happen with regard to the journalism support schemes. De facto, the schemes were sort of copper-fastened really before there was a change to ask what would this be in the ideal situation. There was consultation. I say this because I was the person who was paid by Coimisiún na Meán to lead a team to do one of the consultations. I have talked to most of the people sitting behind me here in that regard. By that stage, the die was cast. The thing is, that has not happened yet with the new schemes so there is an opportunity.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

So for us, hopefully they will be listening to this conversation tonight and might-----

Dr. Roderick Flynn

That is my understanding. I am open to correction from anyone sitting behind me here.

Mr. Bob Hughes

There has been consultation on the digital transformation scheme. We have not got there on the new supporting scheme yet so we do not know how that is going to be constructed.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I have a brief question which the witnesses will not be able to answer in the brief time. It is to deal with the pluralism in the ownership of the media. That is probably a big huge question for some other stage so I will leave it at that.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Deputy Ó Snodaigh. I appreciate that. Next is Senator Comyn.

Senator Alison Comyn

One of the things I found very frustrating in the last couple of years of working as a journalist was the misinformation and disinformation online. It is just such a battle. The facts are just not juicy enough for people anymore. I know there is a lack of trust which has come from that, which is really frustrating because obviously we have rules and regulations we are trying to adhere to. Do the witnesses think the Bill is going far enough in trying to address the issue of disinformation and online misinformation? If not, where do we need to improve?

Mr. Brian Greene

I would add to that by saying we need to look at it from another angle. The receiver of information - the television viewer or the radio listener - needs a literacy so that they can better consume the content from the vast array of places it is coming from. Through the QQI training we do at Craol or the induction into community radio, people learn media consumption skills but the wider world needs to learn through school, youth clubs or college how to consume media better.

Senator Alison Comyn

Yes. Dr. Flynn looks like he is about to burst there so please come in.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

I have been writing about this for years for the Media Pluralism Monitor. Media literacy is not built into the primary or secondary school curriculums. It is done in both situations but it is largely - especially at secondary level - done because of the interests of a particular teacher. It is part of English but it is an option. They might do some media literacy. It is bizarre to me that it is not a core subject. I have had conversations with people who are involved in curriculum design. Their argument is "Well, what would you take out?". I do not know the answer to that question. As Mr. Greene says, it is at the point of consumption where disinformation or misinformation has its impact. Incidentally, we need to be teaching people to be able to make a distinction between misinformation and disinformation in all media; not just in social media but also in legacy media. Newspapers sometimes make mistakes. Radio sometimes misleads, consciously or otherwise. It can happen. In bringing a consciousness of that, we need to be not sceptical but careful and alert to how meaning is made. That has to be taught from four years of age.

Senator Alison Comyn

Does Dr. Flynn feel there may need to be State intervention in trying to provide that?

Mr. John Purcell

Perhaps the best way to combat misinformation and disinformation is to have sources of information that people can trust. What the Reuters report showed today is that there are great levels of trust in radio, newspapers and indigenous media. We need to support that because of what will happen if we do not. I have seen AI proposals for newsrooms where the AI device will plug in to press releases and websites and will generate both the scripts and the voicing for the news bulletins and you can subscribe to those devices. That is not the way to go.

Senator Alison Comyn

From my point of view and I think from everybody's point of view, the service that you provide while embedded in the community and the level of trust there are both completely invaluable. We have to protect this at all costs.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

Agreed.

Mr. John Purcell

Perhaps schools can be told that if they hear that something is going on in their local area, they should check out their local newspaper or local radio.

An Cathaoirleach

I have taken another point there for what we need to recommend.

Deputy Brian Brennan

I am hearing loud and clear that unless funding is ring-fenced, the broadcasters are in trouble. It is as simple as that. That is what I am hearing. Additionality is the elephant in the room that has to be taken on and dealt with head-on. Hopefully we can do it without going down the whole legal route. We have to try to protect. We do not want to lose more titles or more radio stations so they have to be protected. The only way we can do that is by ring-fencing funding. I stand corrected on that but that is what I am hearing loud and clear here today.

Mr. Michael Kelly

I think the Deputy has the correct analysis on that. We have to address those issues. If the ring-fencing and the additionality issues are addressed, there is a chance to protect trusted media and to keep away the news deserts that have developed in so many countries. One of the questions the committee asked was what will happen if no funding comes through to our sector.

Deputy Brian Brennan

Or not enough.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

Obviously, the result of no funding to our sector is going to be erosion and further pressure, and eventually that has to tell.

An Cathaoirleach

Finally, I call Deputy Malcolm Byrne.

Deputy Malcolm Byrne

I want to come back to slightly different issues within the Bill. We have not touched on the question of podcasts. This is an example of how media is changing. Broadcasters are not just broadcasters. I probably listen to more The Irish Times podcasts than I spend time actually reading articles. Obviously, a lot of the provision within this is around that. It is a critical way of media being covered. Our question is around how we define what podcasts can be covered. Related to that, my question is around a provision that applies more generally to those who would adhere to the codes or standards set by a widely recognised self-regulatory body such as the Press Council of Ireland. There would be concerns that the press council is almost letting anybody in at this stage, although not everybody. How do we deal with the situation whereby we have either platforms that are funded by individuals for very political purposes or those that adhere to particularly extreme political views that are recognised by the press council? Should they be allowed to be funded? I ask about podcasts and whether self-regulatory bodies should be allowed to proceed.

Mr. Brian Greene

Podcasting is here 21 years. It is very hot at the moment and getting hotter as regards its content, as was said earlier. What we have learned today is that on the regulated side it is trusted. If it can be somewhat regulated rather than a free-for-all, people would be able to trust it more.

Mr. John Purcell

I think podcasts and non-linear radio listening can make a huge contribution.

On a local level, however, the economies of scale are very challenging. We operate a couple of podcasts ourselves, but-----

Deputy Malcolm Byrne

Within this legislation, what about exclusive podcasts which use no other medium and are up there? I would argue the political-----

Mr. John Purcell

There needs to be some equity, which is the key thing. It is possible to listen to podcasts from outside the State where the presenters will absolutely give shameless plugs, endorse products and so on and so forth.

Deputy Malcolm Byrne

I listen to Matt Cooper and Ivan Yates who regularly do shameless plugs.

Mr. John Purcell

Consistency in a world gone mad is what is required.

Deputy Malcolm Byrne

I am conscious of time because I want an answer from somebody on the question of the Press Council. This is very specifically provided within the legislation.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

I have asked that question of several Press Ombudsmen. We know who we are talking about here. There are bodies in there that would not be formally thought of as media, news and current affairs outlets. The Press Council's response to that is basically that it does not have a criteria for exclusion. To move into that space, you would be talking about changing the nature of the Press Council from essentially a self-regulatory body to a statutory Press Council. That is a major move.

Deputy Malcolm Byrne

I realise that but I will just make this final point. This is why it is crucial in regards to misinformation and disinformation. If the Press Council is admitting purveyors of misinformation or disinformation or those who are pursuing a particular political agenda - whether this is coming from the far left or far right, to be blunt - this is critical to this because this is what the legislation-----

An Cathaoirleach

Let us make a recommendation on that as well.

Mr. Bob Hughes

The criteria for Press Council membership are under review at the moment.

Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan

That was one of the questions I was going to ask. I apologise for being late; I had a few other meetings. When it comes to independent broadcast media, we are in the era of citizen journalists. Who is the next Tucker Carlson in Ireland? I am not sure. In terms of funding for independent media or independent citizen journalists, are there any limitations or what is the bar or threshold for that?

Mr. Michael Kelly

I am very grateful to the Deputy for raising that because it comes right to the core of the issue. At the moment, there are blockages that are preventing the funding of local radio and independent radio. Those blockages are unfortunately currently built and baked into the Bill. That is the reason we are delighted to be here to explain that. One of the two blockages is the additionality issue, or the fact you can only get funding if you either stop doing something and start doing it again or if you never did it in the past. Of course, that is hugely unfair to us because we have always covered a wide range of news and current affairs. Therefore, we cannot apply for additional categorisation and we cannot get any funding.

We are fully regulated and we are regulated in a much different way than self-regulation operates - a very different way. Our regulatory obligations are huge and very stringent and yet we do not qualify for any kind of ring-fenced or bespoke funding, even though the obligations of RTÉ and Virgin Media are the gold standard obligations for regulatory coverage. They are the two things. If those are not addressed, we go down the disinformation operation.

Mr. John Purcell

The key thing with our news and current affairs output is that it is governed by a range of codes, to which we are held by Coimisiún na Meán, which govern impartiality, balance, fairness, prevention of harm and so on. We are amenable to those.

Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan

To give an example, we had an issue of balance on a local radio station a couple of weeks ago. I will not name the radio station. The people who went on air for the sake of balance, just because the Lord Mayor of Cork was on giving a certain point of view - fair enough, he is entitled to it - were not people I would consider balanced in any way, shape or form.

An Cathaoirleach

That could be another recommendation.

Ms Deirdre Veldon

It would be a sad day if the response to the proliferation of misinformation and disinformation was to, in effect, take away the voluntarily code to which Press Council members adhere. Surely we can find criteria that are suitable to qualify people for membership.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

I would have no problem with podcasters who only do podcasting being supported. The point about the scheme is that it is meant to support quality content, not necessarily quality institutions. You will probably get quality content from quality institutions - I get that - but what the Sound and Vision fund used to do was look at the proposal for the specific project that was in front of it that was about to be funded. What ended up coming out of the journalism support schemes was more support for individual journalists to produce that kind of content. The goalposts have kind of shifted and I will not dwell on this because it would take 20 minutes to figure it out.

An Cathaoirleach

Okay. Thanks very much. Timing is everything.

This was an excellent meeting and the contributions were fantastic. It gave me a huge amount of food for thought, and I think it gave that to the whole lot of us. I thank the witnesses for their contributions and directness. It will certainly have a big influence on our deliberations, given the way the committee reacted as well.

The joint committee adjourned at 7.56 p.m. until 12.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 18 June 2025.

Joint Committee on Arts, Media, Communications, Culture and Sport debate - Tuesday, 17 Jun 2025

General Scheme of the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill: Discussion (Resumed)

Mr. John Purcell

Mr. Michael Kelly

Mr. Michael Kelly

Mr. Bob Hughes

Ms Sammi Bourke

Mr. Brian Greene

Ms Jackie O'Neill

Dr. Roderick Flynn

Mr. John Purcell

Mr. Michael Kelly

Mr. John Purcell

Mr. John Purcell

Mr. John Purcell

Mr. John Purcell

Mr. Michael Kelly

Mr. Michael Kelly

Mr. Bob Hughes

Mr. Bob Hughes

Mr. John Purcell

Mr. John Purcell

Ms Deirdre Veldon

Ms Deirdre Veldon

Ms Deirdre Veldon

Mr. Brian Greene

Mr. Brian Greene

Mr. John Purcell

Mr. Brian Greene

Mr. Michael Kelly

Mr. John Purcell

Mr. Brian Greene

Mr. Michael Kelly

Mr. John Purcell

Mr. John Purcell

Ms Jackie O'Neill

Mr. Brian Greene

Mr. John Purcell

Mr. John Purcell

Mr. Bob Hughes

Mr. Bob Hughes

Dr. Roderick Flynn

Dr. Roderick Flynn

Mr. Brian Greene

Mr. John Purcell

Mr. Brian Greene

Ms Sammi Bourke

Ms Deirdre Veldon

Ms Sammi Bourke

Mr. Michael Kelly

Mr. John Purcell

Mr. John Purcell

Mr. Brian Greene

Mr. Brian Greene

Mr. Brian Greene

Ms Deirdre Veldon

Ms Deirdre Veldon

Mr. Bob Hughes

Dr. Roderick Flynn

Dr. Roderick Flynn

Mr. John Purcell

Mr. Michael Kelly

Ms Deirdre Veldon

Mr. John Purcell

Mr. Michael Kelly

Mr. John Purcell

Mr. Brian Greene

Mr. John Purcell

Dr. Roderick Flynn

Dr. Roderick Flynn

Dr. Roderick Flynn

Mr. Bob Hughes

Mr. Bob Hughes

Mr. Michael Kelly

Mr. John Purcell

Mr. John Purcell

Mr. John Purcell

Mr. John Purcell

Ms Deirdre Veldon

Ms Deirdre Veldon

Joint Committee on Arts, Media, Communications, Culture and Sport debate -
Tuesday, 17 Jun 2025