Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

That is a good example so I will dwell one minute longer on the IPCC report. I was a little concerned when Ms McCarthy mentioned that people prefer "positive" stories and "solution-based" stories. That may be very true in some of the programming pieces but when it comes to the news the fact is there is very serious news. We get breaking news about wars that are happening around the world all the time but there is breaking and ongoing news about the climate. It is a crisis story; it is not an academic story. The IPCC report literally has everything is in it. All human life is there. If you care about health, it is there. If your care about child endangerment, it is there. If you care about biodiversity, farming or the sea, it is there. All of these things are in an IPCC report. There are multiple stories in an IPCC report. So when RTÉ simply has a report that there was a report then it strikes me that it does not seem that editorially there is an attempt to dive in. Maybe that is partly, as mentioned, because it is pretty hard news. The contents of an IPCC report make for a tough story. I was struck by mention that RTÉ might do a deep dive. The IPCC report is the deep dive so it strikes me as the kind of report that has five or six stories that are specifically of great interest to different constituencies within our country. Maybe it is just an example where a different editorial approach can be taken, which is somewhat different from something like programming. I am thinking of many stories where we get updates all the time with very little change and yet, with the IPCC report, there is a huge body of important breaking information in such a short period.

The delegation from Irish Doctors for the Environment has given a really good example and I have some questions for them. Dr. Nordrum spoke about the coverage piece and then the advertising piece. Am I right to believe that you are saying that there needs to be a similar approach to the one we have taken to combatting alcohol, gambling and the use of tobacco products? This is a pertinent time to raise this issue because Coimisiún na Meán is looking at its regulations, as was mentioned, and there is other legislation. Deputy Paul Murphy was unable to be here today and I believe he has put forward legislation that tackles this issue. From the perspective of the Irish Doctors for the Environment, is this an area that needs not just regulation but also prohibition in respect of certain forms of advertising?

My next question is for both delegations. The climate impacts do not just concern content. So it is not just around the fact that RTÉ advertises SUVs and fossil fuels but the question of how advertising is done. There is the area of certain kinds of content where prohibition may be required in terms of fossil fuel advertising. There is also the argument, possibly as the regulator looks to what he or she is going to be doing, for much stronger regulation on how advertising is made and that is something I would appreciate from RTÉ as well. I know the RTÉ delegation has spoken about the albert certification code. That is now getting transferred over to Coimisiún na Meán but I understand that that is around the mechanics of advertising.

As well as the question of the content of advertising it is about the mechanics of advertising and the choices made around how things are advertised, including on digital platforms and RTÉ's digital platforms. In the context of that code, I would like to know if this is being applied just to RTÉ's programme making or is the Albert code being considered in relation to advertising and the kind of advertising options available within RTÉ's digital platform as well as broadcast? We now know that the area of artificial intelligence, AI, is intensifying the carbon impact of advertising as an industry in terms of the how of advertising, as they say. Content is one issue and the mechanism is another. Perhaps the witnesses will comment a bit on the mechanisms in relation to advertising and the need, potentially, for regulation there. I am conscious that I will get in to engage only once again. I too am concerned, and I put it to Mr. Mullen that it is not sufficient to simply say, "We do not know what we are going to say." This issue has been well flagged and this committee flagged it two years ago. It is not a game of poker, I would hope, in relation to the engagement with Coimisiún na Meán, or that we must have our cards close to our hand.

In the context of the public service broadcaster, it is interesting that reference was made to the mandate for commercial earning. I believe this is something we need to look into in all of our semi-State and public bodies. I have tried to change the mandates of Coillte and Bord na Mona so they do not let the commercial short-term considerations override other responsibilities they should have, for example, around the environment. Similarly, RTÉ has a public service mandate that should require it to give leadership in relation to this discussion. I would have expected that. The witnesses mentioned that RTÉ is in competition but the great advantage of regulation from Coimisiún na Meán is that it will apply to all actors. Surely if RTÉ has been disadvantaged by these high standards the witnesses have been telling us about it would be in RTÉ's interest for there to be actual regulations and actual legislative requirements placed on all actors in the sector. Is that not a position RTÉ should be taking, for public service responsibility and to ensure it is not disadvantaged by these if it seeks to apply higher standards?