Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media debate -
Wednesday, 9 Nov 2022

European Media Freedom Act: Discussion

Chairman

This meeting has been convened with officials from the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media. I welcome Mr. Adam Larragy, principal officer, and Mr. Luke Devoy, assistant principal officer, from the Department. I will invite our witnesses to deliver their opening statements, which are limited to five minutes. This will be followed by questions from members of the committee. The committee may publish the opening statements on its web page.

Before I invite our witnesses to deliver their opening statements, I wish to explain some limitations regarding 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 of those who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of that person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise, comment on 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 remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of Leinster House to participate in public meetings. I cannot permit a member to attend where they are not adhering to that constitutional requirement. I would also like to ask members when contributing via MS Teams to please identify themselves when contributing for the benefit of the Debates Office staff preparing the Official Report and to mute their microphones when they are not contributing to reduce background noise and feedback. I remind all those joining us today to ensure their mobile phones are on silent mode or switched off.

I call Mr. Larragy for the opening statement from the Department.

Mr. Adam Larragy

I thank the committee for its invitation to discuss the proposed European Media Freedom Act, EMFA, today. I am the principal officer in the media policy and development unit of the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media. I am joined by my colleague Mr. Luke Devoy, assistant principal officer. On 16 September 2022, the European Commission published a proposal for a new regulation, the European Media Freedom Act. The core objectives of the proposal are to strengthen the Internal Market for media services and to protect media pluralism and independence. The proposed regulation seeks to accomplish this by harmonising different national rules and procedures relating to media freedom and pluralism. The proposal builds on the findings of the European Commission's annual rule of law reports and on the regulatory frameworks established by other EU legislation, namely, the audiovisual media services directive and the Digital Services Act.

I will provide a brief summary of the key provisions of the European Media Freedom Act. The proposal aims to ensure the editorial freedom of media services providers; the protection of journalist sources; and the independence of individual editorial decisions within media service providers. It includes, for example, safeguards regarding the use of spyware and other forms of surveillance of journalists. The proposal also provides for a range of specific protections for the independence of public service media. This includes provisions aiming to ensure stable and adequate funding for public service media providers and transparent appointments to key positions in those providers. To strengthen co-operation between national regulators, the proposal provides for the establishment of a new European board for media services comprised of national regulatory authorities. This would replace the existing European regulators group for audiovisual media services, expanding its powers and formalising co-operation between regulators.

Regarding media access through online platforms, the proposal includes safeguards against the removal of media content produced by providers adhering to minimum regulatory or self-regulatory standards. Large online platforms that intend to take down legal media content from such providers will have to inform them in advance of their reasons for doing so and prioritise complaints from such providers. The proposal also requires members states to assess the impact of media mergers on media pluralism and independence. Member states must also ensure that any legislative, regulatory or administrative measures they take which might affect the media are duly justified and proportionate. Finally, the proposal seeks to improve the transparency of media ownership; audience measurement systems; and the allocation of State advertising to media.

The Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin, met with Commissioner Jourová, the Commission Vice-President leading on the proposed regulation, last month. The Minister took the opportunity to broadly welcome the Commission's proposal and to emphasise that Ireland has a strong constitutional and legislative foundation for the freedom of expression and safeguarding of media independence. Various measures proposed through the European Media Freedom Act such as a robust media mergers regime and the legislative protection of the independence of public service media are already important elements of our existing domestic framework. However, the Minister also noted that some of the detailed provisions of the EMFA will require careful and detailed consideration. In particular, the Commission has proposed that the European board for media services would have the power to issue opinions as to whether national regulatory bodies are taking necessary measures to enforce obligations on video-sharing platform services. In Ireland, this could see the board issue an opinion on the manner in which the new Irish regulatory authority, coimisiún na meán, regulates major video-sharing platform services, many of which are based here. Negotiations on the proposed regulation commenced among member states at official level in the audiovisual and media working party last month. Member states have raised a number of important queries regarding the European Media Freedom Act both on individual provisions and on the legal basis of the proposed regulation itself. Given the complexity and novelty of what has been proposed by the Commission, these negotiations are expected to continue well into 2023. I thank the members of this committee for inviting us to appear here today. We welcome any questions members may have.

Deputy Imelda Munster

Article 4 of the European Media Freedom Act establishes rights for media service providers. Will Mr. Larragy provide detail on what kind of rights are included?

Mr. Adam Larragy

I thank the Deputy. As she said, a number of rights and duties for media service providers are set out. In Article 4(2), there are three in particular, which aim to prevent member states from interfering with or trying to influence editorial policies or decisions by media service providers. There are two other rights that relate to the exercise of criminal justice powers. The first is around protections for journalistic sources to prevent the revelation of journalistic sources or compelling the revelation of journalistic sources. The final piece is around placing limitation on the deployment of surveillance technologies, in particular spyware, which is also aimed at protecting journalists. The final provision provides for the designation of a national authority to which complaints can be made, for example, if spyware was deployed and any of the rights referenced in the article were violated.

Deputy Imelda Munster

Will that be a function of coimisiún na meán or will amendments to the Bill be needed? Can functions of this type be designated without legislation?

Mr. Adam Larragy

We have not looked in detail yet at how this would affect national legislation but on our first reading of this article, the body designated here would be closer to the Garda Ombudsman because it would exercise oversight of a criminal justice matter.

It would not be appropriate for coimisiún na meán to exercise any oversight in respect of such a matter. This is something we need to continue to bottom out with colleagues in the Department of Justice and with other member states as the negotiations continue.

Deputy Imelda Munster

Will Mr. Larragy revert to the committee with additional clarification on that matter if that is possible?

Mr. Adam Larragy

Yes.

Deputy Imelda Munster

Does the Department foresee any friction between the legislation and the European Media Freedom Act? Will additional legislation be needed down the line?

Mr. Adam Larragy

I do not foresee that happening immediately with the Bill. We have identified two areas. First, is the independence of public service media. This is provided for in Article 5 of the regulation. Part 7 of the Broadcasting Act 2009, which deals with the independence of public service media, broadly covers that, but we need to look at the matter in further depth. Second, the media mergers regime is not provided for in the Broadcasting Act or the Online Safety and Media Regulation Bill . Rather, it is dealt with in the Competition (Amendment) Act 2002. What is in the proposed regulation from the Commission broadly reflects what we already have in our national regulatory regime. As the negotiations progress, we will need to continue to examine whether any small amendments to the Competition (Amendment) Act are needed.

Deputy Imelda Munster

Again, that needs further scrutiny.

Mr. Adam Larragy

Yes. As the Deputy will be aware, we are conscious that during the negotiations, whether it is among member states on the Council or as we go to the Parliament, the instrument is likely to change. If it diverts further from our national regulatory regime, it will increase the likelihood that we would have to make some amendments down the line.

Deputy Imelda Munster

Will the Department keep the committee briefed on the process as it moves along?

Mr. Adam Larragy

We will.

Deputy Imelda Munster

There are some concerns about Article 17, with some people saying that it might enable the spread of disinformation and harmful content. Given that the Minister will not be including disinformation in the Bill, should we be concerned that there do not appear to be any moves by the Government to address disinformation?

Mr. Adam Larragy

On Committee Stage, the Minister indicated that disinformation will be addressed through the Digital Services Act. As Deputy Munster will be aware, the EU published an updated code of practice on disinformation in the summer. The European Commission's idea is to put that code on a co-regulatory basis under the Digital Services Act.

Deputy Imelda Munster

Is the Department satisfied that it will be sufficiently covered under the Digital Services Act?

Mr. Adam Larragy

I cannot speak to that. Article 17 is trying to protect bona fide media service providers. The Commission intended to protect print media from having legal content unduly taken down by large online platforms. I am not sure it will necessarily add to the spread of disinformation. At least it will not from the perspective of the European Commission that was, in fairness, trying to protect what we probably all consider to be bona fide media service providers.

Deputy Imelda Munster

Can Mr. Larragy state with absolute clarity that there will not be a need to include disinformation in the Bill?

Mr. Adam Larragy

At this stage, as the Minister stated, because it will be dealt with under the Digital Services Act, there are no plans to include disinformation in the Bill. As I understand it, our colleagues in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment will bring forward legislation at a later date to ensure that it will be contemplated in the Digital Services Act.

Deputy Imelda Munster

Okay.

Chairman

I thank Deputy Munster for her participation. Does Deputy Cannon have any questions?

Deputy Ciarán Cannon

I thank Mr. Larragy for his presentation. What impact will the legislation, as currently proposed - and Mr. Larragy mentioned that it is evolving and changing all the time as it moves through the Commission and Parliament - have from a commercial or editorial perspective on national and local commercial radio stations broadcasting in Ireland? There is an effort to scrutinise mergers of independent media outlets. From an editorial perspective and in the context of the obligation to include significant amounts of public service broadcasting elements within overall broadcasting output, does the Department foresee any negative connotations for national or local commercial radio stations?

Mr. Adam Larragy

We would not necessarily see any impact. The two big areas where there could potentially be impact. The first is the provisions on media mergers that have been proposed by the Commission through the regulation. They are broadly similar to our domestic provisions. For a transaction or an acquisition of an independent radio station, we would not see the process being very different or different at all to what we are doing now. There would be no impact there. Article 6 provides a requirement for separation between the ownership, if we want to call it that, and editorial decisions. There are robust enough self-regulatory codes in place that mean that will not be major issue in Ireland. Again, we do not expect it to unduly impact.

Chairman

I do not have any questions for the Department, so this is going to be a brief hearing for the witnesses. I thank them both for coming before the committee and for making their presentation. It is very much appreciated by me and my colleagues. Senator Malcolm Byrne had hoped to attend but he seems to have been detained at another meeting. He said that he would be late but, unfortunately, he has not been able to make it. That concludes this session of the meeting.

Sitting suspended at 1.57 p.m. and resumed at 2.35 p.m.

Chairman

This meeting is being convened today with representatives from the Dublin City University, DCU, Institute of Future Media, Democracy and Society and the National Union of Journalists to consider the European Media Freedom Act in furtherance of the committee decision to undertake further scrutiny of COM/2022/0457 and the European Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and European Council establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market and amending Directive 2010/13/EU.

On behalf of the committee, I welcome Mr. Séamus Dooley. He is a regular visitor to our committee and is the Irish secretary of the National Union of Journalists. From DCU Institute of Future Media, Democracy and Society, I welcome the principal investigator of the media pluralism monitor project and the euromedia ownership monitor project for Ireland, Dr. Roderick Flynn. That is some title.

The format of the meeting is that I will invite our witnesses to deliver their opening statements, which will be limited to five minutes. This will then be followed by questions from members of the committee. As our witnesses may be aware, the committee may publish the opening statements on its webpage.

Before I invite our witnesses to deliver their opening statements, I wish to explain some limitations in respect to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the House in regard to reference they may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or of those who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of that person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be asked to discontinue their remarks.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that that they should not criticise, comment on 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 remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of Leinster House to participate in our public meetings.

I propose that we proceed with opening statements from Mr. Dooley and Dr. Flynn.

Mr. Séamus Dooley

A Chathaoirligh and members of the committee, I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to discuss the proposed European Media

Freedom Act. The proposed Act comes at a time when media freedom is in peril on a global scale, where journalism is undermined by lack of investment, regulatory failures to protect media diversity and plurality, and by persistent attacks on journalists and media organisations aimed at inhibiting the conduct of their professional duty. Against this backdrop, the NUJ strongly favours the principle of global action to protect and defend freedom of expression. National governments alone cannot be relied upon to protect media freedom. International threats to the fundamental principles which underpin democracy must be addressed at European and indeed international level.

As a mission statement, the European Media Freedom Act serves as a useful starting point but as currently constituted does not adequately address the key issues which serve to undermine media freedom in Europe. The European Media Freedom Act is a landmark initiative aimed at strengthening the free and pluralistic media system and the commitment to protect journalists and editorial independence within the European Union and we have provided the committee with a summary of our key concerns.

The European Media Act is a landmark initiative aimed at strengthening the free and pluralistic media system and the commitment to protect journalists and editorial independence within the European Union and we have provided the committee with a summary of our key concerns. It is not an exhaustive list. If the Act is to make a meaningful contribution to guaranteeing media pluralism, protecting journalists’ rights, and ensuring editorial independence from the impact of vested commercial and political interests there will need to be genuine transparency regarding media ownership and cross-ownership; an end to the reliance on soft laws and informal dialogue; a courageous approach to powerful tech giants, which is very timely at the moment; and a more strident approach to the independence of national regulators. From the National Union of Journalists, NUJ, perspective far more needs to be done to deal with the scourge of surveillance against journalists while we seek unambiguous guarantees for the protection of sources as a fundamental tenet.

My union has a proud track record of defending the right of journalists to protect sources of information and the landmark Goodwin case, which is central to any discussion on this topic, was taken by the union on behalf of our member. Names like Ed Moloney, Geraldine Kennedy and Colm Keena are also linked to that commitment. We have a major concern with the provisions of Article 4; the protection of confidential sources of information is at the heart of journalism. The form of words deployed regarding protection of sources in Article 4 of the proposal does not correspond with the protections under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR, and the case law of the ECHR guaranteeing the right of journalists to protect their sources. Indeed Article 4 could be a step backwards in the protection of journalistic sources. The actual provision does not guarantee the level of protection that all EU member states should already respect with regard the protection of journalistic sources in application of Article 10 ECHR as developed and reflected in the well-established case law of the European Court of Human Rights. We also share the view of the European Federation of Journalists, EFJ, that the guarantees of source protection at the level of media service providers, producing and broadcasting news and journalistic content, should not be less than the guarantees of source protection that can be invoked by individual journalists in the application of Article 10. In other words, media organisations as well as individual journalists should have protections. Under Article 4 there is a targeted safeguard against the deployment of spyware in devices used by media service providers or journalists, building on protections provided by Directive 2002/58/EC, the privacy directive; Directive 2016/680/EU, the law enforcement directive; and Directive 2013/40/EU on attacks against information systems. However, the proposal should protect journalists from surveillance techniques in general, not only specifically spywares, as reflected in recital 16, Article 4(2)c. We need to protect journalists from eavesdropping and ensure their encrypted communications remain secure from all spywares. The NUJ is opposed to a reliance on voluntary codes of best practice to protect editorial independence. The response of publishers’ organisations to the proposed European Media Freedom Act is instructive. The European Press Publishers Association has described the Act as a “Media Unfreedom Act”, but their concern is not at a perceived threat to editorial independence by the EU but to the right of publishers to dictate editorial content.

In 1955 a US Democrat politician, Roger Branigan, declared: “I never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel.” I suspect that in the coming months there will be many arguments by owners, who are usually men, who used to buy ink by the barrel but European policy on media freedom is not just about cash transactions or the generation of profits. On that note we welcome the Act but in an unoriginal sentiment, I would say, there is a lot done and more to do. I thank the Cathaoirleach.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Dooley and invite Dr. Flynn to make his opening remarks.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

To begin, I should establish my interest and competence in this area. For around seven or eight years, working under the auspices of thae DCU Institute of Future Media, Democracy and Society, FuJo, I have been working as the Irish principal investigator on a number of European research projects. These research projects all relte to the European Media Freedom Act. One of these which is probably the best known is the media pluralism monitor project which directly informs the framing of the proposed Act. I have been principal investigator on the European Commission-funded and European University Institute-led media pluralism monitor since 2015. This assesses actual and potential threats to media pluralism in Ireland under 200 headings. I am also principal investigator on the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, BAI-funded Media Ownership Ireland website which currently allows the public to identify at a granular level the ownership and control of Irish-based and Irish-facing print, broadcast or online media outlets. I was in Salzburg last week and we have just commenced work on the Irish element of the Euromedia Ownership Monitor, EuroMo, led by the University of Salzburg and funded by the European Commission. EuroMo adopts a deeper but narrower approach to understanding how editorial content may be influenced not merely through direct ownership and control but also indirectly through, for example, informal associations between media owners and non-media actors in for example politics, business, trade unions and civil society organisations.

All of these projects put together illustrate how just much attention is being paid to matters of media pluralism and concentration for some time now and how much concern there is internationally, and particularly at EU level, about the manner in which the changing political, technological and economic climate in which media operate is challenging their capacity to fulfil their constitutive role in the operation of a healthy democratic polity. In considering the Act itself, many of articles address risks to media pluralism which our research on the media pluralism in Ireland have identified as relevant to the local situation. I want to draw attention to five articles in particular, but we can talk about more, which may require some significant legislative and regulatory change in Ireland if we adopt the Act in its current form.

First is Article 4 which Mr. Dooley has referred to and this emphasises the importance of editorial independence for media service providers and insists that states shall not subject journalists to surveillance. In this regard the fact that the update of the Communications (Retention of Data Act) 2022 makes no special distinction between journalistic communications and all other forms of communications effectively means that journalists, like all other citizens, potentially remain subject to surveillance. This has been identified as an issue in 2017 by a report by former Chief Justice John Murray and has not been addressed in the update of the Act.

Article 5 emphasises the need for transparent, open and non-discriminatory procedures for appointments to public service media chief executive and board positions, for example RTÉ and TG4 here. Currently appointments to both of these boards are exclusively determined by the Minister with responsibility for communications, albeit partially subject to the advice of this committee with regard to four of those appointments. While I am not suggesting that those boards are populated by political allies of the administration which appointed them, I can see little or no transparency surrounding how such individuals are selected for appointment. The last set was appointed in July 2021 and I can find no record of a public debate about who these people are and why they should or should not be appointed. For the record I am not saying they should not have been appointed.

Article 6 requires media service providers to make the names of their beneficial owners easily accessible. This is the ultimate controlling owner of a media company. In practice this data is available in Ireland in nearly all cases through the auspices of the mediaownership.ie website which I look after. However there is no absolute requirement in Irish law for media owners to make this information available. In fact not all Irish media which could be on the media ownership website are there because I do not know and cannot find out the information, at least not through legitimate means.

Article 21 requires that national legal systems assess media concentration on a “transparent, objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory” basis. This would seem to imply setting quantitative limits to market dominance within a given media market or across a number of media markets. Such limits are simply absent in Irish legislation as it stands. It has been argued by the BAI, as the relevant regulator, that there is no objective basis for such limits and that the impact of specific media mergers on media market concentration should be considered on a case-by-case basis. While it is important to retain some scope for flexibility in these matters, it is questionable whether such an essentially ad hoc approach can be compatible with admonitions in the European Media Freedom Act to be ““transparent, objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory”.

The last one I will point to - and it is the one we have been pointing at in the Irish Act every single year for the last seven years - relates to state advertising.

Article 24 argues that public authorities should make annual declarations of how much money they have spent on advertising, and which media service providers received such advertising revenues. In this regard, Ireland is particularly lacking. According to Nielsen Media Research, spending by Government, social and political organisations now constitutes the third largest category of advertising expenditure in Ireland. It was worth €69 million in 2021. Covid conditions, admittedly short-lived, saw the HSE alone become the seventh largest advertiser in Ireland in 2021. However, there is no publicly available database of how State advertising is allocated to media service providers. The data are simply not collated by Departments or public service institutions. Although there is no evidence that advertising expenditure is allocated in a discriminatory manner, nor is there evidence to the contrary, not least because we know, and this is important, there are EU member states where state advertising is precisely deployed in this manner, which is intended to secure editorial support for the government of the day. These are the key points I would draw to the committee's attention.

Chairman

Lots of food for thought there. I will hand over to my colleagues.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I welcome the witnesses. I direct my first question to Dr. Flynn. He flagged there were no limits in Irish legislation around national legal systems assessing media market concentrations. Does he think legislation will be needed to fulfil this requirement? What would he like to see the Irish Government do to address the issue, which has clearly been problematic for us in the past?

Dr. Roderick Flynn

In some respects we are in a healthier situation at the moment in that, ironically, there is less concentration in 2022 than there was in 2015. However, the issue has not gone away. The relevant Act at the moment is the Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2014, which in section 4 governs media concentration. This deploys responsibility for assessing media mergers across the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, CCPC, the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications and the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, BAI. All three of these may be brought to bear, or maybe just the Minister and the CCPC. The BAI only comes in if requested by the Minister. At present, the only quantitative limit, even in a regulatory code, is in a BAI code that relates to sound broadcasting service, specifically radio broadcasting services. This states no single company should be allowed to own more than 25% of the total number of radio stations in the country, so no more than a quarter of the total. That number takes no account of the nature of those individual stations.. It does not matter what your market is or what your audience share is. This is why we had a situation where a single company, a single individual, simultaneously owned both national private broadcasters for a long time. They owned Today FM and Radio Ireland while also owning a number of regional stations. They had not breached the limits because the number of stations they owned was well below whatever the figure would have been. In other countries there are limits. For example, in Germany there are specified market share limits. I think it is something like no more than 20% of the print market can be controlled by an individual or by a newspaper group, although Mr. Dooley might know more about this.

The short answer to the question is "Yes". There is nothing to prohibit us in European law from writing this into legislation, and while acknowledging the BAI's points about seeking flexibility, the idea is that we should at least have some number in there to prevent a situation. At the moment in theory there is no legal prohibition on one company owning everything and having 100% market dominance. Even if the number is 50% or 30%, and we can debate what that might be, there should be some number in law.

Mr. Séamus Dooley

I support Dr. Flynn. Concentration of ownership is a very real issue in the regional press sector. As a result there is a dominant owner within mid-Leinster and the mid-west, which means that a significant number of newspapers are in the ownership of one company. At a minimum, we think there should be an automatic investigation of what is called phase 2, on the editorial and diversity phases. It should not just be a market dominance issue. We have a concern, reflected in my report, that the new body replacing the BAI, this all-singing, all-dancing body that is going to be hugely powerful, will not have either the legal powers or the resources to interrogate that adequately. The result is there are many newspaper offices that now have shared editors and shared editorial resources. The regional media is a unique part of the landscape, as is the relationship between the resident editor and the resident reporters. There are vast swathes where local democracy is suffering as a result of that, and competition law in Ireland just does not adequately address the democratic deficit arising from it. While it is less of an issue in the national newspaper sector, I would claim it is a growing concern within regional print in particular.

Deputy Imelda Munster

This question is for Mr. Dooley and Dr. Flynn. Are there areas that are lacking in the provisions of the Online Safety and Media Regulation Bill? Are they satisfied that coimisiún na meán will be independent and transparent? Will they comment on the powers proposed for the commissioner?

Dr. Roderick Flynn

It is such a huge Bill, I am not even sure I would know where to begin. One thing does stand out to me. Part of what that Bill is supposed to do is to transpose the 2018 update of the audiovisual and media services directive. That actually has some comments about media concentration and ownership. There is no reference to ownership in the online safety Bill. It is literally absent, and it struck me as a notable absence at the time. That is probably the most obvious one.

In terms of powers, it depends on how well resourced that institution is going to be. Even when the BAI transitioned from being the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland, it took on much greater responsibility. This was about 15 years ago at this stage. Suddenly, RTÉ came within its purview as well as the independent broadcasters. I did not see huge evidence at that stage that the resourcing, in terms of staff numbers at least, went up in a way I would have thought was concomitant with the new responsibilities that were placed within it. To a certain extent it is a person power kind of question. However, that remains to be seen. It is a human resources question.

Mr. Séamus Dooley

I agree. There are a few issues here. The problem may not lie in the legislation but in how the word becomes flesh. Currently, the BAI has fewer than 40 employees, and while the commission does not exist, I think the figure might be 38 full-time posts. The powers of the commission are vested in the BAI. We welcome the Future of Media Commission report and we welcome the budget provision of funding for local democracy reporters and those various schemes. However, to be honest it is a bit of a dog's dinner in that, in the absence of any structure to administer these funds and put in place many of the recommendations of the commission, they are being thrown into the mix with the powers of the media commission but with no resources and no clarity. One of the issues arising is that funding news and current affairs is specifically and correctly debarred from funding under the sound and vision scheme. However, funding for news and current affairs is provided for in the budget. There is a lack of clarity around these issues.

The NUJ favours the commission having fewer powers and there being a separate training and development organisation. The notion of one all-singing and all-dancing body responsible for regulation, compliance, training and development and promotion of equality is such that no single body could do that. It would be almost like a mini government in itself. It also speaks to the media freedom Act and the appointment of boards and bodies.

I do not think that any one body should have that level of power. There has not always been the level of clarity around appointments to the BAI or to the regulatory bodies that are going to be involved. These bodies are going to be really powerful and will have huge power in deciding how money is allocated and what the rules of these funding schemes are. There will be no consultation with stakeholders in relation to any of that. The problem may not so much lie in the Bill itself but how it is worked through.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

In looking at the manner in which people are appointed to RTÉ and TG4, we make exactly the same point about the appointments to the BAI. I am not suggesting that these are political apparatchiks who are exclusively populating them but it is entirely a political appointment. There are other ways of doing this. At the very least there could be discussion, perhaps in the confines of this committee, when candidates are brought forward. Any potential issues could then be identified. It is surprising to me that we do not do this. It is done differently in other European countries. As I case in point, I was in Salzburg, Austria, last week. They have 36 people, which is a lot of people, admittedly, on ORF, their equivalent of RTÉ. Civil society groups, trades unions, universities and arts organisations are all allowed to nominate individuals. The automobile association in Austria, because it is a very powerful group, has a representative on it. There are ways of doing it that dilutes the focus on exclusively political appointees.

Deputy Imelda Munster

Does the witness think that the recommendation of the Future of Media Commission on changing the licence fee should have been accepted by the Government?

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Absolutely. I think the rejection of that was an act, not just of folly but of cowardice. I feel very strongly about it. I reject the argument that it in some way opened up the way for political interference. My view is that the lack of funding and the lack of action on the collection of the licence fee is itself is a form of political interference. Political indifference or inaction has had consequences. I was a bit confused by the concept of appointing a commission. I recognise that you do not have to accept all of the recommendations but you appoint a commission of experts to do a job. They made a key recommendation and the response was to appoint a committee of experts to find an alternative recommendation. I thought we entered into "Alice in Wonderland" territory on that one. The problem with it is that every day of delay brings uncertainty in relation to the prospect of the development of public service broadcasting in this country.

There is a lot in the commission report, including a lot of very positive developments. It is a very useful framework. However, on the issue of public service broadcasting, it was a significant disappointment. I also think that it is disappointing that the Government would not have confidence in its own ability to put in transparent structures to ensure that interference does not occur. Interference can take many forms.

Deputy Imelda Munster

Is it the case that the NUJ has no fears about the commission's recommendation for Exchequer funding in terms of how it would work in Ireland and that there would be trust in the Government that editorial independence would be protected?

Mr. Séamus Dooley

There are various models throughout Europe which prevent interference. The reality is that RTÉ and TG4 are dependent on State funding and support at present. Depending on one's political views some people may say there is interference but I would say the current funding system has not resulted in interference. At the end of the day, the choice here is the protection of public service broadcasting with all of the values involved in that. The Government has a right to demand that independence criteria are met. The real guarantee of independence is financial viability and that is the challenge which I see at the moment. The European Media Freedom Act stresses the importance of the protection of public service broadcasting. While this is a national committee, it obviously has a European remit as well. What we have to look at is that this measure seeks to protect the principles of public service broadcasting. These principles act as a bulwark against totalitarian regimes and are under grave threat in some other European states. As well as looking at this from a parochial or national interest, we must also look at the ability of the European Media Freedom Act to protect democracies within Europe.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

I agree. It was baffling to me that the recommendation was not followed. It has been recommended for 13 years by various committees, including this committee, back in 2015, with the idea of the introduction of a household broadcasting charge. I have heard no remotely rational reason one would not get rid of the licence fee, which is a 20th century concept. It bears no relationship to current modes of consumption and delivery. We changed the licence fee system back in 2002 under the former Minister, Dermot Ahern. Two things happened. RTÉ finally got an increase in the licence fee that brought it somewhat close to European norms but they also introduced the idea that it would be index linked, subject to the consent of the Minister. Between 2002 and 2008 there were a number of increases in the licence fee. It went to €160 where it still is, 14 years on. This is bewildering to me. I talked about this to my colleagues and we could not believe it. I hear the political rationale within the wake of the furore over water charges and local property tax that this would feel like one more additional tax if it was done in the mechanism of a household broadcasting charge. I do not understand that argument. It is not a new tax. It is the same level as the licence fee. It will be left at €160. Who could possibly complain at exactly the same system, the same price?

The point about political interference is a very valid one and there are certain European countries where this is a concern. But if index linking is automatic and is not the subject to the approval of the Minister, then there is no scope for political interference.

Senator Annie Hoey

This is fairly hefty legislation. I am not afraid to say that I struggled to parse it and I found it very hard to work my way through it. The phrase, all-singing, all dancing, was applied to the commission. If it was to be structured differently, as opposed to this all-singing, all-dancing, monolithic structure, how would it look?. Is there an international example of how it is better?

Mr. Séamus Dooley

I would agree in relation to the European media Bill. There is what I might call a high fog density. But that is inevitable. It is at a very early stage. It has to go to the European Parliament. It is not even certain at the moment what committee it will go through. We have been relying on European legal advice and working with the European Federation of Journalists. This is going to be a slow burner and will take some time.

My concern with the media commission in Ireland is that it will not have sufficient resources to do properly all of the jobs that it has been charged with. The budget, which is by and large fairly positive, and the commission report dovetail reasonably well. Many of the measures, like the democracy reporter scheme and court reporting protect public interest journalism. To go back to Deputy Munster's point, there was some concern that it might be politicised but I trust that as a State and in a modern Republic, we should be able to put those structures in place. What I would do is move the administration of the sound and vision fund, the local democracy funding, training and the promotion of gender into a media training and development agency, which would be separate.

The manner in which people are appointed to RTE and TG4 in looking at this question in the media role as a monitor we make exactly the saim

I suggest this because no one body can do that. I am nervous that this is the same body that would decide who gets money for training and development and that allocates funds. There is no structure or indication as to what role there would be for the NUJ. There is no consultation with industry in relation to any of this. I have a concern that the same body that has all that power to give grants has the power to decide who gets a licence for a radio station, to decide who is allowed to buy other radio stations and to investigate media mergers. I do not believe that one body should have all that power. That is not to say that I do not have huge respect for the personnel within the BAI but I do not believe that any one body has the capacity or the competence to do that. I also think that the vesting of that level of power is a concern and that it does not reflect the spirit of some of what is in the BAI, although Dr. Flynn may have a different view.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

It is a good question and I wish I had a neat answer to it. The BAI is a regulator and it is also a funder, as things currently stand. How the Future of Media Commission envisages the new commission sees that role being extended, but in a way that is much more problematic. At the moment, the BAI is the administrator of the sound and vision fund. Some 7% of the licence fee is top-sliced for that and is given to the BAI to in turn distribute to any broadcaster on the island of Ireland that is producing public service content. The way that system works is that an applicant says that he or she has a piece a content that is either for radio or for TV and asks if it is worthy of funding. It has done some really good work. TG4 probably relied on it for quite a long time. It has put some great work into the Irish cinema, as a matter of fact.

One enters into a slightly different realm when one talks about a body that might be funding news and current affairs, however. The BAI sound and vision fund has, as Mr. Dooley points out, prohibited from doing so up to this stage. It brings up two issues, one of which is a practical one. News and current affairs work on a 24-hour cycle. We cannot have journalists wandering in and asking if it is okay to cover a story and whether the commission will fund it. That will not work; it will have to be a completely different system. Second, the nature of the content is different. It is more politically significant on a day-to-day basis.

It is in that context that I should state an interest here. I have been employed as a consultant to assess the sound and vision scheme in the past, when we spoke with recipient producers who are broadly happy with the idea that the BAI would administer the sound and vision scheme. It was specifically suggested that perhaps Screen Ireland might take that over instead. On the whole, producers said that they would prefer if it were to stay with the BAI because it gives them some choices. If Screen Ireland says no to something, for instance, maybe the BAI would say yes. However, it is a different situation when one comes to news and current affairs. There, I do think it will be an independent body. What that will be I do not know. It may be a media training body but the conflict of interest seems significant here, because this is also the body that looks after broadcasting complaints. Therefore, the body might fund a piece of work that it then has to adjudicate on as the complaints commission. This seems very problematic and I would take that particular aspect out of it and set it up separately. Nonetheless, we are where we are for right now.

Senator Annie Hoey

When Dr. Flynn says it like that, it does seem somewhat overarching and a little too all-encompassing. It seems that there is a great possibility for the conflict of interest to arise. When Dr. Flynn lays it out like that it seems like a silly proposal to be funding-----

Dr. Roderick Flynn

It is a little unusual by international standards. I am not aware of anywhere else that does it in quite this way.

Mr. Séamus Dooley

It would also be the body under legislation that investigates mergers, takeovers and acquisitions by some of bodies that it would inevitably also be funding and with which it would have an ongoing relationship in that way. That is therefore requiring a lot of a large body.

Senator Annie Hoey

It seems to be an immensely powerful body. Dr. Flynn has said that there is not an international example of it being done in this way.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

We usually look to anglophone countries. We look to the FCC and Ofcom. The responsibilities of those institutions are enormous, but I am pretty certain that neither Ofcom nor the FCC put any funding into content production, whether this is in the area of news and current affairs, drama, or whatever it might be. In the United States there is for the most part no state funding at all, but in the UK it is the responsibility of the UK Film Council or something else. It is not part of Ofcom’s remit.

Senator Annie Hoey

I am not saying that there are sliding scales of conflict but that would seem to me to be almost an extreme example of conflict, where the body would be adjudicating something and funding it. At least at a minimum, those should be separated out. However, I feel based on what Dr. Flynn has said there is an opportunity for a lot more dispersing.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

I have looked for an example of where this has happened already. It turns out that it has not. To some extent, that might be because of the nature of the material the BAI funds, which must be public service in its nature. This tends to make it safer, although that is not quite the word I am looking for, but it is probably less likely to be controversial in its nature.

Mr. Séamus Dooley

I want to be positive here and say that many of the powers in relation to the idea of funding the public interest journalism and of broadening the base are all good things.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Séamus Dooley

Yet, the possibility of it being mired in organisational chaos is a concern because that could be a deterrent to its achieving some laudable aims.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

I just have one other point to make. What I really liked about the Future of Media Commission report was that front and centre in that report - in its very basis - it states that news and current affairs are the bedrock of democracy in Ireland. This is not just in the abstract, but specifically in Ireland. I cannot remember seeing that in an Irish report in quite such blanket terms. It builds from that and says that the funding model that has supported that for approximately 200 years is maybe not entirely broken but is certainly challenged. Those are the two issues. It acknowledges that this is really important and the way we have financially supported this until now is not sustainable and that we should work on that basis. That is great. Philosophically, I like where we are at. It is maybe just a matter of how we figure out how we can apply that.

Chairman

I call Senator Malcolm Byrne.

Senator Malcolm Byrne

I thank the Chair and our witnesses for their presentations. At the start, I will make a general comment, which is that the issues we are talking about are fundamental to our democracy and to our society, namely, that we have a free and fair media and that we have freedom of expression, which must be balanced with responsibilities. We have broadly got right the principles that underpin both our national legislation and what is happening at a European level. Our arguments are very much around structure. I want to challenge some of what the witnesses have been saying first before coming on to some specific questions.

I think Mr. Dooley is right. If we were here I would not necessarily have started with coimisiún na mean’s overarching responsibilities. It will be the most powerful regulator in the State, particularly when it takes on some of the responsibilities under the Digital Services Act. Increasingly, there will be more regulatory responsibilities. I therefore think that Mr. Dooley is correct. We have been speaking with the BAI over the past few years, which will need to move from 40 to more than 400 staff. In many cases, these will be specialist staff that will be required in a relatively short time. It is right, however, that we should have a powerful regulator. Some of my criticisms, as colleagues in the committee will know, are that we possibly did not give them enough teeth in certain areas to be able tackle some of those ownership questions. This is especially the case on the social media side. The first issue I would like to raise is not the issue of resourcing, but the level of teeth the body has to be able to take action.

Second, I will challenge Dr. Flynn on the issue of appointments to the board. The Chair, the clerk and I will recall process of appointments to the board of RTÉ and our colleagues in the Oireachtas comhchoiste na Gaeilge will recall appointments to TG4, both of which came through the Public Appointments Service. There was a short-listing process and an interview process etc., so it was very open and transparent. The clerk can correct me on this detail but I think there were 52 applicants for the four appointments to RTÉ. That was therefore quite an open process. I am not quite certain that I would move to the idea - as I know happens in other jurisdictions like in the case of the FCC - that we could have people here and they could be interviewed in a public fashion or whether we could go down that road.

With regard to the new commissioners, they are accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts for the expenditure and finance, but there is a case on some of their decisions. I will touch on some of those issues first before I go into some specific questions and perhaps the witnesses will respond to the arguments I have made.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

On the public service management, PSM, appointments, I am aware there is a process and they have to go through the process. I went back through the minutes of this committee over a couple of years just to see if there had ever been any mention of the subject. The process is not public in the sense that if I cannot find out - and this is what I do for a living - what criteria and what questions were asked of those individuals, then who can? Where can I-----

Senator Malcolm Byrne

A booklet was published as part of the advertising process.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

Okay, that was the criteria. Then when we actually come to the process of the specific individuals, how do I find out what went on? For example, why was one person allocated to a position over the other 52 candidates? Here is the thing, which is sometimes forgotten about with regard to the people who are appointed to PSM boards, de facto the people who are appointed to the boards such as TG4 and RTÉ historically have ended up sort of becoming defenders of those institutions. That is the polar opposite of what they are meant to be. They are meant to defend the public interest, in a way, against the threat that those institutions might step out of line. I am really interested to know what kinds of criteria those individuals who are appointed to the boards might bring to bear in those kinds of conversations. I do not have any way of knowing how that would work or what they might think. I do not really know now. I could Google the individuals, and I have done that, but it still does not tell me very much about what I might expect to hear from them about, for example, protecting the public interest in the relatively unlikely situation that RTÉ or TG4 just goes off the wall and starts acting in a way that is manifestly contrary to the public interest.

In some respects I am in heated agreement with the Senator about, for example, the regulator having teeth. I am absolutely on board with this. I also do accept that there is a process. I just believe that the process is not very transparent actually, and not public. Saying that these are the criteria we will be seeking does not tell me what these particular individuals bring.

Mr. Séamus Dooley

I am not at all opposed to a powerful regulator. My concern is that the regulator would have so much to do that it may not be powerful enough in some areas, and actually being powerful but having more focused power - if that makes sense - would be a better way of doing it.

Also, the Senator has rightly mentioned the issue around the digital services directive. The Senator referred to the issue of regulation. The largest department will be the legal department. They would be regulating bodies and international companies, some of which have budgets far in excess not just of the commission but in some cases probably of the Irish Government. They would be doing that in their spare time, in between advising on media mergers, funding, and all sorts of other things. That is my concern.

On the issue of appointments and transparency, I do not have a difficulty with public hearings for the chairs of public bodies. A new chair is about to be appointed to RTÉ. That Chair has an influence on public service broadcasting and public policy in Ireland. I am relying only on The Phoenix magazine, which might or might not be published, about who might get that chair. I absolutely have no difficulty-----

Senator Malcolm Byrne

If that is Mr. Dooley's source I would not always rely on it.

Mr. Séamus Dooley

No. I am being slightly tongue in cheek, but I still think they should get the VAT exemption.

The reality is that I do not have a difficulty with a public hearing for the chairmanship of some public bodies. I am aware there is a concern that there might be a deterrent for suitable applicants to apply but there is a balance to be struck there. The role of the chair of these bodies, and the potential power that they exercise is such that I believe the public does have a right to know. A greater public hearing would probably be a good idea. I absolutely see where the Senator is coming from and that we also want to make sure people are not inhibited from applying.

Senator Malcolm Byrne

Our committee has been quite proactive. We have had the chair of RTÉ, the chair of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland and we have-----

Mr. Séamus Dooley

I am saying it would be fair to require-----

Senator Malcolm Byrne

I get the point. I have a couple of quick questions, including that general question; we will disagree on the question of the experts on the Future of Media Commission report. The Government accepted 45 of the 50 recommendations. It is up to the Government to make decisions, whether one agrees with them or not. It is the Government that makes decisions. We can argue back and forth about the model that would be used but it leads to the question about whether we believe it more appropriate that RTÉ should look at becoming a publisher-broadcaster model, which may be more effective also in terms of accountability and its finance side, rather than its existing model.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

I have given it some thought. Rather than just thinking in terms of the publisher-broadcaster model, I will suggest another model. I have not worked through the maths of this, and when RTÉ hears this it may say "Oh sweet Lord, let him not speak any further". Imagine a world where RTÉ was told, as TV3 was told back in 1998, that RTÉ can no longer have commercial funding, and that RTÉ was given exclusive access to a properly gathered public source of funding, for example a household broadcasting charge. I did bother doing the maths on this part of the piece to try to figure out what this would mean for RTÉ. The back of the envelope estimate is that RTÉ would take, in a properly collated and collected situation, about €250 million per year. Now imagine that RTÉ is not thinking like a commercial broadcaster as well as a public service broadcaster, as it has to do at the moment. This would probably mean that it would stop doing some things it does now that we think of as fundamental to its identity. It would probably mean that it would stop going after a large sporting events, for example. This might be a terrifying concept but those large sporting events are going to be made available on a free-to-air basis because they are protected under the Broadcasting (Major Events Television Coverage) (Amendment) Act 2003, and because other broadcasters are going to want them. There will be demand for them. This would mean that RTÉ would probably focus on news and current affairs, which arguably is already its specific mandate. It would go into drama, which is expensive, such as local drama, but sometimes it is hard to financially recoup those resources from the local market. It would also do children's content, more broadly, and also arts and culture. It becomes something a bit more like-----

Senator Malcolm Byrne

Like BBC 2 or Radio 4.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

I do not hold these up as absolute models, but something a bit more like that. This then leaves the commercial market to the commercial players who can do what they will in that space.

Senator Malcolm Byrne

I will look forward to having RTÉ before the committee in a few weeks and hearing their response to that.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

This is if I was king; that is what I would do to see what happened. There may be financial considerations that I am simply unaware of in this respect. Why not let the public service broadcaster just be a public service broadcaster?

Mr. Séamus Dooley

I am firmly wedded to the concept of public service broadcasting. One way of looking at the alternative is to say that RTÉ should do what is perceived to be important public interest. i.e. the boring bits, and that the commercial sharks, owned by investment companies and all the rest, do the profitable bits. I believe there is a danger there. The remit of RTÉ goes way beyond the news and current affairs. There is language, culture, drama, the orchestras and archives. That work is really important. Funding RTÉ to ensure that all of that survives is really important. If we dismantle public service broadcasting, we will not miss it until it is not there.

Senator Malcolm Byrne

I have two final questions on that broader question of media freedom.

Part of the challenge, particularly in the new, very diverse media environment which exists, is around media literacy and how that is going to be addressed. I would argue that the responsibility lies as much with media outlets as the education system. What are the witnesses' views on how we can enhance media and digital literacy?

While there is the challenge of ensuring fact-based news, there is also a challenge around our defamation laws. They have been in need of reform for a long time. The witnesses might speak generally to this but also to the question of politicians who look to take legal cases against media outlets and whether that has a chilling impact on those media outlets.

Mr. Séamus Dooley

I agree in relation to literacy. Media literacy is enormously important. The NUJ published a news recovery plan and one of the issues it talked about was a levy on tech giants. I know their financial position is viewed as precarious now but one precarity of that situation is a matter of perspective. The issue of how funding would come through is important. I do not think it can be left to the education system. It is important that people differentiate between social media gossip and informed news and current affairs. People need to be educated. There needs to be clarity around what are independent, verifiable facts and what is the equivalent of what used to be a late night discussion in a pub. That is a very basic definition in regard to media literacy but I agree with the Senator.

The defamation laws are chilling. Every citizen has a right to use them. I have always been opposed to both politicians and journalists using defamation where there are alternative mechanisms they can use. Defamation laws were originally designed as a platform for people who effectively had no other way of seeking redress. Every citizen has a right to their good name and reputation. It would be very wrong to say that because one stands for elected office or because one has a public profile that one cannot use the defamation law. At the same time, I would prefer if those who played a public role used other means of complaint. If I were a politician I would, in the first instance, seek the right of redress of the Press Council, in the case of print. That is the appropriate way, but one cannot, in a democracy, make that compulsory. One cannot say that because someone has a public profile they cannot exercise the right that other people have.

Having said that, no one has a right to automatically appear on a radio station or on television. No one has a right to promote themselves, so I would be careful about getting too excited on the basis of individual incidents. The Sunday Independent was going to do an exposé of my expenses but they were so poor that they were not worth exposing.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

Media literacy is something that we look at in the media pluralism monitor project and our general assessment is that Ireland still has a nascent policy in this regard. I have two secondary school kids and it is apparent that it is not fundamentally built into the curriculum at the moment. It very much depends on whether the teacher is interested in the topic. I am not saying that there is no media literacy. It exists at junior certificate but it is not that in-depth. At leaving certificate level it is possible just to do traditional poetry and prose and to go through English having never studied media. It is increasingly unlikely but still possible. One of the concerns I have is that there is a tendency to treat media, because it is being done through the prism of English, as a written text, not as a visual text. We have not quite reached that stage yet.

As for literacy in broader social media, that is still very much at a nascent level. My feeling is that this is a curriculum development issue. It is an urgent one because this is their reality, especially for younger kids. I say that it is their reality but some of those kids are now in their 20s and 30s because we have had Facebooks of this world for almost 30 years.

Deputy Malcolm Byrne

Kids are often more attuned to the digital reality than older generations may be.

Dr. Roderick Flynn

They are certainly far more defined by it. I remember 20 years ago in the school of communications in DCU we all thought that our new students were going to be digital natives and they would know more than us about media. This turned out not to be true. Ironically, the more invisible the interface became, the less understanding there was of what lay behind it. They do not see the code, as it were. That is where they live. They live online.

As for defamation laws, they are chilling. We have external European Court of Justice confirmation of this. The Independent Newspapers v. Monica Leech case took eight years to finally get to the European Court of Justice. The court came back and said that Irish defamation laws, as they stood, were a problem because there is essentially no limit on the amount that might be awarded in the case of a successful defamation action. The single largest defamation action in Ireland actually does not relate to a newspaper but the Leech case was interesting. I think the original award was €1.25 million, or was it even more? Was it knocked down to €1.25 million by the Supreme Court? It might have started at €1.75 million. That is enough to close some newspapers. Certainly if it was a regional title, that would be the case.

There has been quite a bit of discussion about this. There are some fairly obvious recommendations that it should be entirely taken out of the responsibility of a jury to make this allocation and that it should be left to judges. There has been some improvement in that judges now make recommendations to juries about the appropriate level of an award. It would appear to me that the only sane way forward is to leave it entirely to judges and to have a very clearly defined set of criteria about how much can be paid out.

Chairman

That concludes our business. I want to thank our witnesses for being present today. I has been a great learning curve for us all. I thank the witnesses for the time and effort they put into their presentations. The committee very much appreciates their work. I want to thank the Clerk and all the staff for making everything run so seamlessly.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.38 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Thursday, 24 November 2022