Mr. S?amus 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.