Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Tuesday, 8 July 2025
Joint Oireachtas Committee on Arts, Media, Communications, Culture and Sport
General Scheme of the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill: Discussion (Resumed)
2:00 am
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We have received an apology from Deputy Ó Snodaigh. The committee is meeting today with two representative groups in two separate sessions to resume its pre-legislative scrutiny of the revised general scheme of the broadcasting (amendment) Bill. In our first session this evening we will hear from GAA+ and LOITV. In our second session on the same topic we will hear from the NUJ, RTÉ Trade Union Group, SIPTU, and UNITE The Union.
I welcome Mr. Noel Quinn, head of GAA+ and GAA marketing and Ms Niamh McCoy, GAA media rights and museum director. Here on behalf of LOITV I welcome Mr. Mark Scanlon, League of Ireland director; and Mr. Richard Webb, director of operations at Premier Sports. The format of today's meeting is such that I will invite our witnesses to deliver an opening statement which is limited to three minutes. This will be followed by questions from members of the committee. As you are probably aware, the committee will publish the opening statements online. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I also wish to clarify some limitations relating 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 in respect of 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.
We shall proceed with the opening statement of Mr. Noel Quinn for GAA+, to be followed by Mr. Mark Scanlon for LOITV. I will have to leave the Chair for approximately 30 minutes and the Leas-Chathaoirleach will stand in when I do.
Mr. Noel Quinn:
The GAA thanks the committee for inviting it to make a submission regarding the revised general scheme of the broadcasting (amendment) Bill, particularly as we have taken steps to become a fully fledged live match broadcaster in our own right in the form of GAA+. Our owned and operated streaming platform is a move that mirrors global best practice and ensures the long-term media exposure befitting of our players’ skill and commitment. The service addresses the growing demand from our members for additional live and on-demand content, enables greater control of our own broadcast schedule and generates perpetual commercial revenue that is vital in sustaining the association’s overarching goal to foster lifelong participation in Gaelic games.
The association endorses many of the proposed key pillars of the revised scheme, acknowledging the evident ambition to provide greater value for money to Irish TV, radio and digital content consumers, many of whom are committed GAA members. Countless independent Irish production companies and freelance creatives work regularly with the GAA at national, provincial and club level to great effect. Positive changes to existing legislation that provide greater opportunity, nurture a broader talent pool and grant financial support to such parties will no doubt lead to greater diversity of Gaelic games storytelling and a fairer distribution of public funded moneys. We view the proposed obligation on RTÉ to spend 25% of public funding on independent productions, something that Coimisiún na Meán may increase pending ministerial approval within the three-year review period, as a mechanism to unlock greater diversity of thought, voice and storytelling about our games. As a client to many of Ireland’s fantastic home-grown production companies, the GAA strongly endorses change that seeks to nurture and provide additional support to the creative sector. Local stories told by local people are the bedrock of everyday Irish culture and should be a mainstay in our programming schedules.
The GAA is proud to generate employment for a substantial number of people operating within the industry throughout the year on both a facilities and freelance basis. In a submission that focuses on legislative change to support smaller independent companies, GAA+ is proud to state that it provides employment to up to 70 people over the course of the season. The association currently mandates additional Gaelic games programming, outside of live match coverage, within its current media rights contracts. This mandate has seen many fantastic GAA documentaries produced by the likes of Loosehorse, Nemeton, Coco Television, Crossing the Line and Poolbeg Productions aired on RTÉ and TG4 in recent years. Any proposed legislation that unlocks much-needed funding for the independent sector to deliver such Gaelic games narratives will always be strongly endorsed by the association. RTÉ and TG4 are key partners to the GAA. They provide thousands of hours of coverage to its membership across 300 matches and 80 highlights shows annually. That commitment on their part must be lauded, while also welcoming any new governance and operating regulation that seeks to improve efficiencies and greater transparency. In relation to the content levy and a circumstance which sees it introduced, the GAA respectfully suggests careful consideration of how it is imposed. Specifically, the disparity of ethos and resourcing between indigenous self-perpetuating organisations like the GAA and global content behemoths should be treated accordingly in how they may be levied. The GAA looks forward to continuing its long-standing relationship with RTÉ, TG4 and the Department in their shared journey towards providing a greater offering for the Irish population thanks to the revised general scheme of the broadcast (amendment) Bill.
Mr. Mark Scanlon:
A Chathaoirligh, a chairde, agus a bhaill an choiste, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address the committee on behalf of LOITV and our clubs across the country. I am addressing the committee in my role as League of Ireland director. I am joined by Richard Webb, who is the director of operations of Premier Sports, with which we work in partnership with to deliver the LOITV service. All committee members will have received an information pack from us ahead of the meeting. I am happy to answer any questions they may have.
While we support the concept of the Bill overall and welcome its introduction, we would like to use this opportunity to outline the impact of any potential industry-wide levies on small Irish streaming services and the effect this could have on the future growth of LOITV and the League of Ireland. For those who are not familiar with the service, LOITV is the official streaming platform for the League of Ireland. It streams over 550 games per season across the three League of Ireland men’s and women’s senior divisions, the men’s and women’s FAI Cups and the women’s All-Island Cup, as well as selected LOI academy fixtures. In July 2020, WATCHLOI was launched in partnership with RTÉ to live stream men's Premier Division games during the Covid-19 pandemic. The following season LOITV was established as a joint venture between the League of Ireland and its member clubs to ensure that fans who were still unable to attend games due to the pandemic did not have to miss a minute of the action.
LOITV was originally operated by a small number of staff within our League of Ireland department and by club volunteers. The platform has since evolved and established itself as an essential part of the League of Ireland and has been a significant factor in the League’s well-publicised recent growth.
Ahead of the 2025 season, LOITV entered into a four-year partnership with Premier Sports, an Irish-owned and operated business, to help to elevate the service through its professional expertise and resources. As well as being available via Internet browsers, LOITV is now available on a range of apps on smart televisions, mobile and tablet devices. The production of each stream is done through independent contractors based in Ireland via a UK streaming company, 247.tv, with commentators provided by each of the participating League of Ireland clubs on a largely voluntary basis.
The League of Ireland and Premier Sports would like the committee to consider the following points. All profits from the service are redirected to the participating League of Ireland clubs, and thus directly back into Irish football. Alongside independent contractors who broadcast the fixtures, many of the productions are provided with assistance through volunteers at each club with the majority of commentators, media officers and digital media assistants working free of charge on behalf of their club. LOITV has given aspiring camera operators, commentators, pundits and digital media enthusiasts an opportunity to showcase and develop their talents and provided a platform which has led to future part-time and full-time employment in the industry, thus creating employment and economic benefits. There is a significant public service element to the platform. A total of 63% of the games involve teams from the men’s First Division and women’s Premier Division, but these games only account for 9% of the revenue generated through LOITV. This is part of the League of Ireland’s commitment to growing regional clubs and women’s football in Ireland.
Although it has grown in recent years, the LOITV subscriber base of the service is still significantly lower in comparison with international competitors. LOITV has enabled the League of Ireland to compete for coverage among its peer leagues. Domestically, we operate in a highly competitive sports broadcast market. The League of Ireland has historically struggled to get regular and consistent linear TV coverage. However, LOITV has enabled the League of Ireland to create its own home and ensure that every club has regular and consistent coverage. LOITV has also been a significant enabler in the growth of the League of Ireland through its ability to provide real-time access for supporters to live clips online which promote our clubs, players and coaches and encourage attendance at League of Ireland fixtures, which are experiencing record-high numbers.
When making any future decisions on levies for streaming services, we urge the committee to consider the potential impact on smaller platforms such as LOITV, which is operated through independent Irish providers and club volunteers. They provide an important public service in growing domestic football. We believe any such levies should be benchmarked against areas such as subscriber or income levels, profit levels, number of staff or contractors based in Ireland and the public service impact. We also request that the threshold for any such contributions to be set at a figure that means small indigenous operators are not facing the same levies as large international corporations.
LOITV has proved to be hugely successful since its inception and has been a pivotal part of the growth of the league. For the first time in its long history, every League of Ireland game is now available for supporters to view worldwide, and this has radically changed the trajectory of the league and improved the fan experience exponentially in Ireland. We thank committee again for the opportunity to participate in the committee’s work on the Bill and hope that our points will be considered in any future decisions. Gabhaim míle buíochas le baill an choiste as an deis seo labhairt inniu.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Mr. Scanlon. We will now move to our committee members. We do not have as long for this meeting as it is a split meeting. We will be here until 9 p.m. Members will have four minutes each for the first round of questions with this group. We will commence with Deputy Joanna Byrne.
Joanna Byrne (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I give a very warm welcome to all our witnesses this evening. I thank them for taking the time to come before us.
Everybody here is aware that I am more partial to the League of Ireland than to the GAA because of my own connections and work outside of politics. I will start with some commentary on that. It is great to have Mr. Scanlon and LOITV here. It is something I became very familiar with through my own role with Drogheda United FC. I have seen LOITV grow and evolve from something very small five years ago to something really crucial for our fan experience. It covers a multitude of different viewers, including vulnerable fans who cannot attend games for whatever reason, such as ill-health, sickness, personal or work commitments or whatever it may be. Fans may also be unable to attend due to the fact that many of the stadia throughout the country sell out on a weekly basis due to the unprecedented support the League of Ireland is getting at the moment. It has been growing in recent years. A service such as this one is really crucial to the continued evolution of the game. It is great to have LOITV before the committee in order to inform those who might not be so au fait with its benefits.
On a personal level, I have watched partnerships grow through our local radio stations and volunteers commenting on LOITV on a weekly basis. I have seen first hand the opportunities that LOITV affords people in our community and volunteers in all of our clubs. We all know that our volunteers are the heartbeat of League of Ireland clubs throughout the country. I am a huge supporter of the service. Long may it continue to grow.
I have a couple of questions. First, I want to ask about the impact a streaming levy might have on LOITV. I note Mr. Scanlon has urged caution on a couple of parts of it in his opening statement. How would it impact LOITV directly if a streaming levy were initiated tomorrow?
Mr. Mark Scanlon:
A difficulty for our clubs is that the current service runs on a break-even basis. All of the costs are being covered at this moment and any profits generated go directly back into the clubs to help them with the production costs they have on the ground and for commentators. Any additional levy would impact our ability to be able to deliver the service in the current way. Hopefully the levy would not lead to any price increases. This year, owing to our partnership with Premier Sports, we had the expertise to help with some economies of scale and reduce the price of our season pass. We know the cost-of-living crisis is very difficult for lots of people throughout the country. By being able to reduce the costs this year, we are in quite a unique position when most of the prices for consumers are increasing. Any levy would leave us under pressure with our current pricing structures.
Joanna Byrne (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
On the flipside, if LOITV had a funding platform or funding stream, could anything else be shown on the platform? Does Mr. Scanlon think the service would remain stagnant?
Mr. Mark Scanlon:
As I mentioned in the statement, there is a significant public service element to what LOITV does, particularly regarding the men's First Division and women's Premier Division, both of which would have had very little television coverage before LOITV existed. We would love to continue to expand that coverage. There are also opportunities. If the media fund were available for services like LOITV to tap into, we could have a lot more documentaries on clubs, be that at academy level, to cover the volunteers mentioned by Deputy Byrne, or to cover the history of the league and clubs and to provide an insight of what happens behind the scenes on the day-to-day basis of running football clubs throughout the country. There are a lot of opportunities to be able to create some more content that showcases all the work that goes on in the league.
Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I welcome the witnesses. How much has the FAI made out of LOITV since its inception?
Mr. Mark Scanlon:
Nothing. When we launched WATCHLOI in 2020, it was partnership with RTÉ. Since we developed LOITV in 2021, the FAI has not taken any money from LOITV. It has been purely a service that we have provided for the clubs and in conjunction with the clubs. Any profits that have been made, as small as they have been, have gone directly back into the clubs to help their day-to-day operations. That has mostly just covered the cost of their own production levels to get all of the games up and running. As I mentioned, commentators and camera operators have been working on a largely voluntary basis, particularly in the lower divisions. The FAI itself has not made any money from the service.
Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I see the advantages of it. Longford Town plays matches every week but fans cannot travel to Ballybofey or Cork. The service is available for them to watch. I think both witnesses mentioned that there are opportunities within the media fund both for GAA+ and LOITV to do more programming to promote Gaelic games and League of Ireland soccer respectively. What opportunities do the witnesses see for giving the public a greater offering and being able to access that fund?
Mr. Mark Scanlon:
As I mentioned to Deputy Byrne, it would provide an opportunity for LOITV to develop a documentary-style series on what happens at academy levels for the boys and girls and their journey and pathway. It could also include the volunteers and the community work that goes on. More recently, people may be aware that our League of Ireland clubs have done a fantastic job in two areas of our community work. We had a Down's syndrome futsal festival a couple of weeks ago, in which 12 League of Ireland clubs participated. This was followed up on a month later by a walking football festival for older fans within the clubs to represent their clubs. Both of them were fantastic community initiatives. We would love to be able to broadcast them and bring the story of participants with Down's syndrome and from the walking football community to a wider audience.
Right now, we do not have that opportunity to develop that due to the cost impact. Programmes like that on our side would be brilliant from a public service point of view.
Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Before I ask Mr. Quinn to answer the same question on behalf of the GAA, I congratulate Ms McCoy on the opening of the sensory area at the GAA museum. That was something I was involved in going back a number of years. Well done for taking on that initiative at the museum in order that it is available for supporters and families at games.
Mr. Noel Quinn:
From a GAA+ point of view, live sport is live sport. While the appointment of view will always attract a big number for the live matches, we know from research and general trends that people are craving more midweek programming between Monday to Friday. We are trying to address that at the minute with additional analysis shows and evergreen Gaelic games talk shows during the week. The more Gaelic games storytelling per week, the better it will be for the association, for the membership and for the 700,000 people who want to access more stories about the LGFA, camogie and Gaelic games.
With regard to the benefit of additional funding for independent companies, as recently as last night, anyone who watched “Hell For Leather - The Story of Gaelic Football” will probably acknowledge the benefit of funding independent production companies, like Crossing the Line Productions, and allowing them to tell brilliant stories about the history of Gaelic football.
I mentioned Nemeton in the opening statement. There have been other such documentaries over the years such as “Blues Sisters” by Loosehorse, as well as “A Year ‘Til Sunday” and “Marooned”. All those separate independent production companies produced brilliant documentaries. More of the same would be fantastic. The Bill may help to unlock that.
Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is there anything that could come in that might be a threat? I am supportive of GAA+. It is about spreading the game worldwide. I know that any profits ultimately go back into the game or to promote the game. Is there anything in the Bill that might be a threat?
Mr. Noel Quinn:
A total of 82% of every commercial €1 earned is repurposed back into grassroots. Therefore, any threat to our commercial earning power is obviously taken seriously. Piracy is the evident answer to that question, such as dodgy boxes and the infringement of our copyright. Anyone who is ripping off official copyright footage is essentially dipping their hand into the GAA's pocket and reducing its ability to repurpose profits into capital infrastructure projects in Drogheda, into balls, bibs and cones in Leitrim, or into 3G pitches in County Cork. The challenge is piracy.
As well as that, the challenge is to continue to churn out quality programming and to invest in the best commentators, analysts and production companies in Ireland. I mentioned the 70 people we currently employ. The challenge is maintaining that high bar we set ourselves in the years to come.
As a starter, for us to end year 1 with the volume and the additionality of games GAA+ has offered has been well received from our members. It has been appreciated that games that would not have ordinarily been shown are being shown. That has been positive.
Malcolm Noonan (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I welcome our witnesses. I thank LOITV and GAA+ for the important role they both play in promoting their respective games. When it comes to the issue of the content levy, in our consideration, it is important that we cannot treat GAA+ or LOITV in the same way as Disney+ or the big streaming platforms. I am interested to hear the witnesses' views in that regard. I have listened to both the opening statements. Not only are they providing an invaluable service to communities; they are also providing opportunities to broadcasters and people to get a foothold in the industry. They provide a unique opportunity to tell the history of the leagues and to bring out other documentary-style programming. That is important from a historical and archiving perspective. I am interested in both witnesses' views in that regard.
Mr. Mark Scanlon:
From a LOITV perspective, as we mentioned in our opening statement, any potential levy should be judged against subscriber, income and profit levels. A distinction should be made in recognition of the public service element we have.
I mentioned earlier in the opening statement that 63% of our games cover 9% of the revenue. That shows how important it is for us to ensure every single game is shown, particularly across women's football. That is a key area for us. If we go back to 2021, we had one live game per year on television in women's football. Clearly, whether it is on television, a commercial broadcast will take precedent over that. It has been difficult for us to be able to get television broadcasting revenue from there. Due to LOITV and because we have been able to showcase the game to a greater audience, it has meant a massive increase in our television levels. With TG4 coming on board, we now have 17 live games across women's football on an annual basis. I put a lot of that down to the fact that we started showcasing the women's game with LOITV. It is important. The attention received by some famous moments in Irish football, such as Stephanie Zambra’s goal, was only possible because there was an analyst covering the game at that moment before our streaming service began. For the next goal at that level or the next showcase of talent in Irish football, be that in our women's Premier Division, our academy structures or in our men's First Division, it is crucial to have the LOITV service available in order that every moment is captured. Hopefully, that will be taken into consideration.
Malcolm Noonan (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does Mr. Scanlon agree that this should be viewed - excuse the pun - as a means of increasing participation? It is obvious that the increasing output of production and the showing of live games are having a positive knock-on effect on the participation of minorities, women and girls in sport. That question is to both witnesses.
Mr. Mark Scanlon:
From our perspective, it should be viewed in the context of both participation and fan experience. We mentioned already the growth of the League of Ireland. We consider LOITV as having a large part to play in that. Before LOITV, fans were unable to experience the league if they did not get the live game that was on television, which may only have been once every three or four weeks. People did not have the opportunity to see what was happening across the league. Since LOITV has been established, that opportunity has been there for people to become more familiar with the League of Ireland clubs. It has grown the fan base, which, in turn, grows participation levels, with more boys and girls looking to play football and see the heroes and role models they have in the game. It is massive to us.
Mr. Noel Quinn:
The impact would be substantial. How material it would be to us depends on how it is imposed. Our costs are significant. Production is still expensive, even though it is slightly mitigated with a digital set-up as opposed to a traditional linear broadcast. We would rather invest in quality programming and having the best people holding a microphone or pointing a camera. Any additional costs would probably impact that. The costs are significant already and are rising. It could impact decision-making in terms of the programming and the volume of programming we would do. If it was imposed, I suggest that it perhaps be looked at it in a fair way and absolutely in a different light from a global conglomerate with billions of euro of turnover. As I mentioned earlier, €1 less in our coffers is essentially €1 less available to repurpose back out. To give an example, this year, more than €9 million was repurposed in player welfare and €15 million went to games development pathways. It allows us to employ 340 coaches in schools and clubs. Any additional costs layered on inhibits us achieving what we want to do with our overarching goal, that is, to foster lifelong participation.
In respect of broadening the appeal of the game and participation because of livestreams, that is a real thing. To bring it closer to home, we are involved with helping camogie with its recent broadcasting with RTÉ to guarantee a number of games. When I say about bringing it closer to home, as a father of two young girls, in recent days, we knew we could sit down to watch the camogie quarter-finals. We will have the semi-finals and final to watch also. Broadcasting is still the most effective marketing tool. Particularly in the context of dropout and burnout rates, it is important to put our heroes on screens rather than people going to TikTok to see LeBron James or Messi. We want them to see David Clifford or the equivalent.
Pádraig O'Sullivan (Cork North-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I welcome all the witnesses. I might just start with LOITV. Mr. Scanlon said in his opening statement that only 9% of revenue is generated through LOITV. Where is the bulk of the rest of the revenue being generated from?
Pádraig O'Sullivan (Cork North-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is that ticket sales?
Mr. Mark Scanlon:
No, it is from the streaming services alone. When fans sign up to the service, as part of their subscription sign-up, they pick their favourite club. We can then track both the viewing data and the purchasing data within the platform itself.
Of the revenue, 91% comes from the men's Premier Division. That is probably understandable, given the fact that it is the highest profile and gets the most coverage. That is the part we are looking to try to balance and why we have developed LOITV. If it were not there, the men's First Division and the women's Premier Division would not get that level of exposure.
Pádraig O'Sullivan (Cork North-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is definitely not affecting attendances or anything like that either. I have not noticed it and I go to a fair few League of Ireland matches. The debate when Sky Sports was launched years ago was that it might impact gate receipts, but LOITV does not seem to be doing that here.
Mr. Mark Scanlon:
No. The possibility of fans staying at home was certainly a concern at the start and it was an area that even some of the clubs were a little nervous about when they were putting the pricing structure in place. In fact, we think it has enhanced the League of Ireland and helped grow the attendances. The attendances were at a lower level in the mid-2000s. They have grown considerably over the years, and since LOITV has come in, we have sold out stadiums lots of weeks. LOITV is really important for the people who cannot even get into the ground but also for promoting the clubs and the league itself. I hope it has grown attendances. Obviously, that is our main aim. Nothing beats being at the games themselves. We want to make sure that those attendances continue to thrive and that the stadiums are full, but it is just not possible for people to attend every game every week. We could have a men's First Division game with Kerry playing against Finn Harps. It is just not going to be possible for people to travel consistently on that basis and a multitude of other reasons. We feel that having LOITV gives us the best of both worlds, helping to grow attendances but then also providing the service for people who cannot make the games.
Pádraig O'Sullivan (Cork North-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is like what Mr. Quinn just said about young people in particular. It is great to see them take out their phones for Cathal O'Sullivan scoring a screamer from 30 yards out for Cork City. We can take our pick of Cork players from last weekend. Maybe it could be one of the Downeys taking a ball from the air. It is great that young people now are able to see that, particularly on the apps and the various platforms.
My time is brief. I might ask both organisations to answer the following if they want to do so it in their own time. They have spoken about how the levy might work if it were to come in. Is it their preference that they would just be exempt as minor players in the market or would they prefer a more tiered approach? How would they both see it?
Pádraig O'Sullivan (Cork North-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If there was not an exemption, they would expect tiering of some description.
Pádraig O'Sullivan (Cork North-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is me done, Chair.
Evanne Ní Chuilinn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Thank you. Our next speaker is Senator Comyn.
Alison Comyn (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for attending. A lot of my queries have been answered. I have to concur with my colleague Deputy Byrne: the witnesses provide a vital service, and we thank them very much for that. There is no question that, as they themselves said, GAA+ and LOITV broaden the appeal of the sports to so many who cannot get to the venues for reasons of vulnerability, finances, etc. The witnesses want to expand their services as much as they can at home and abroad. Maybe they could explain to me about some of the hurdles they face at the moment that hinder that expansion. Does the Bill go far enough to address any of those hurdles? Perhaps we could start with Mr. Quinn and Ms McCoy.
Mr. Noel Quinn:
I think I have already laboured the point about piracy a little too much, so I will not go back on old ground, but it is a significant impact on our potential earning power.
As regards other hurdles we have to jump, we are an over-the-top streaming platform, we are naturally reliant on broadband penetration. While that is a little bit of a wrinkle in the model, I am thankful for the fact that the national broadband plan is going well and Ireland is a nation of nearly 5 million Internet users. That hurdle is being overcome, and 4G and 5G access is now at 98% and 75%, respectively. The Internet connectivity hurdle was a more material thing a number of years ago. It is mitigating as we go.
Another example is venue infrastructure. In the interests of protecting our employees in terms of health and safety and having a good-quality working environment, it would be a matter of continuously upgrading facilities to make sure they have the best experience when they go to the newly refurbished Cedral St. Conleth's Park or MacCumhaill Park in Ballybofey.
Alison Comyn (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Or, indeed, Louth. I was there this morning. It is looking very good.
Mr. Noel Quinn:
Yes. Congratulations to Louth on that amazing news as well. It would be capital infrastructure, investment to make sure we give the experience to our own team and to patrons and fans who attend, and also the tackling of illegal bad actors in the market who are trying to infiltrate and rip official copyright.
Alison Comyn (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
LOITV is probably suffering similar hurdles.
Mr. Mark Scanlon:
Yes, very similar. Mr. Quinn has articulated it well but, from a piracy perspective, from our point of view, "The League of Ireland Fans Podcast" carried out a 2023 survey of illegal streaming and the results of that were that 54% of people were accessing LOITV through illegal streaming. Unfortunately, that means there was a lot of lost revenue for the service. That does not allow us then to increase our production levels or to give money back into the clubs in order for them to continue to increase what they do. It is a valuable service, and piracy is a huge issue for us. It is certainly one we would love to see tackled even further. I know some good work has been done in recent times, particularly around sellers, but the end users are still a major problem for us. I think most of the general public still do not realise the impact it has on small services such as LOITV and GAA+. That is the most important area for us and the biggest challenge.
Likewise, facilities and venues are a massive problem for us. It is great that there is a new stadium opening in Louth. We look forward to new stadiums being supported in Drogheda and Dundalk in Louth as well for our football clubs, but also across the country. We released our facilities investment plan at the back end of 2022 and in it can be seen the significant investment that is still required for League of Ireland facilities. That will help us to continue to grow the service and improve the user experience.
Alison Comyn (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What are both organisations doing to communicate more strongly the message that piracy is holding them back and the damage it is doing?
Mr. Mark Scanlon:
We have been working together with Sky and other providers, as have our colleagues in Premier Sports, to try to bring that message home and make our submissions on piracy. As regards the end user perspective, we have tried to hammer home that point as well because, at present, the prosecution takes too long by the time it gets to the end service, with the piracy continuing in the meantime. It is taking too long to shut down the services that are there and we do not feel that the legislation is strong enough to stop the rip-off of our copyright.
Alison Comyn (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
So, this is something we could work on.
Mr. Noel Quinn:
Absolutely. In recent times, the GAA would have monitored and issued cease-and-desist communications to particular individuals carrying out illegal processes. The alliance that we, the FAI, Premier Sports and others have joined together in feels like something new and fresh but, equally, stronger legislation to go after people who are selling dodgy Fire Sticks and codes would probably be very helpful.
Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for appearing before the committee and for the work they do. One thing I often find as regards the Irish emigrant community is that, when I travel and meet people who are fans or supporters of a particular code or team, it is really important to them. It is a good sign that, this summer, we did not see the row about GAAGO that was stirred up by some high-profile public individuals last year.
I was interested in Mr. Scanlon's mention of dodgy boxes and the net loss of income potentially being 54%. I recall when the organisations were before the previous committee and there was an estimate for each code - the FAI and the GAA - that 20% of income was related to broadcasting rights. Is that roughly correct?
Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
And for the GAA?
Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Slightly less than 20%. There are probably two elements: the income they would get from the streaming service and then payments from, say, a broadcaster, whether it is RTÉ or Virgin Media. I do not anticipate exact figures, but can the witnesses just give me even ballpark overall revenues?
Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes.
Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Of that 15%, what would come from RTÉ, Virgin Media, TG4 or whatever else and what would come from GAAGO?
Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I would think that, of the GAA's total revenue, in or around 10% might be coming from the public service broadcasters and then 5% from GAAGO.
Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What about the FAI?
Mr. Mark Scanlon:
From the FAI's perspective, there are two different areas. There is the League of Ireland element but then there is also the international element, which is part of a centralised rights deal with UEFA. I cannot speak on that area today, so this is just a League of Ireland perspective. Under 10% of the League of Ireland's revenue would come from broadcast revenue. The percentage would be split, with about 70% coming from traditional broadcasting and 30% from the streaming service, which, as I said, all goes back to clubs on the broadcast element and on the LOITV element.
From a linear TV point of view, 17 games were live across TV in 2020 - 16 men's and one women's game. This year, we will have a record number of 59 games live on TV, a fantastic improvement for us. Over the years, we have worked with RTÉ, Virgin Media and TG4 for those games across our various competitions. LOITV brings the rest of the games live.
Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Declan McBennett, RTÉ's group head of sport, said a couple of days ago that RTÉ sold its 50% stake in GAAGO because the GAA wanted sole ownership. What price was paid for the stake?
Mr. Noel Quinn:
I commend Declan McBennett on increasing the RTÉ Gaelic games coverage from 30 games to nearly 70. I wish to draw a distinction between GAA+, which I represent, and GAAGO. GAA+ is wholly owned by the GAA after retention of rights. GAAGO is for the diaspora, as the Deputy mentioned, which we are proud to service as well. I do not believe that figure has been made publicly available yet. I am not in a position to divulge it today. I will take note of it.
Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It could be useful to know. The witness is correct about the concern because the streaming levy does not specifically exempt small streaming services in the legislation. It is important in the recommendations of the committee that we look to exempt small streaming services in comparison to Netflix. Given what has been said about dodgy boxes and the challenge, we need to raise our concerns. It is a significant revenue loss.
Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The witnesses are talking to the converted. I am a huge soccer fan. My nephew plays soccer for Wexford youths and I have some good friends playing for Bray Wanderers - last Friday evening was not very enjoyable. I experienced what Ms McCoy did first hand with the museum. It is incredible for adults and children. It is priceless. It is wonderful to see older people going around. She should not underestimate what she has done.
I am concerned. Mr. Scanlon said that all the money LOITV made went down to the grassroots but, on the other hand, he said it was making nothing. That does not add up, literally. Will Mr. Scanlon clarify that?
Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is the service making money?
Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is exactly where I am coming from. I am fully behind it. I have been in nursing homes; I was away for eight years in Sri Lanka and I used the witnesses' services. It is simply priceless what they have put together. I am worried about the financial model. Where are the services going? How can more games be rolled out? How can greater choice be offered? How can games that would not otherwise be seen be shown? That is the key.
We have to keep discussing the elephant in the room - the dodgy box. As a businessman, how are the services making money? We are giving too much time to this but we have to because it is the elephant in the room. Where will the services be in the next five years? The situation has come on leaps and bounds. I was afraid, especially for League of Ireland, that bringing extra TV games in would pull people away from the pitch but it has had the opposite effect. The sport is exploding; it is brilliant.
Mr. Mark Scanlon:
As we submitted in our supporting documentation, a number of other services now rely on LOITV within the league as well. Our commercial and marketing all come from what we can develop from live clipping. We already show every game but we want to continue to improve the production level. In games where we have only one camera, we would like to have a second or third and improve the angles and quality. That all comes down to the revenue the service generates. Right now, the model we base it on covers all of the costs, ensuring there is revenue left for the clubs to cover their costs. If we were able to tackle the piracy element and generate additional revenue, that would give us more opportunities to increase production levels and improve the service for users.
Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Will Mr. Quinn comment on where he wants this to go? What is the destiny? Will he comment on piracy?
Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I saw that; it is brilliant.
Mr. Noel Quinn:
As costs rise, we will retain pricing for a number of years. There is only a certain point to which one can absorb that, though, which is a challenge for us to consider in the post season. Between the Liam McCarthy Cup, Sam Maguire Cup and lower-tier hurling, there are 200 intercounty games played within a 12-to-16-week period. We are at the max because of that playing calendar. We do not want to become a broadcast-everywhere sport so we are comfortable with the balance at the moment. We want participation - we want bums on seats and people to buy tickets. It is about physical events first. We are balancing that. The view is not to broadcast everything, to be clear, but to provide enough options to promote the game and provide an option to those who cannot attend.
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for being here. I apologise for being late; I had another meeting. I will build on some of the previous comments on the distribution of profit. Both organisations highlighted the ring-fencing of profit for grassroots investment. Do they have a breakdown of where those profits go? I appreciate it is a marginal amount, as was mentioned. If it goes to League of Ireland clubs based on subscriptions, is it 50:50 between men and women? Is there any other breakdown such as geographic, initiative, age category, etc?
Mr. Mark Scanlon:
From our perspective, about 60% of the revenue covers the costs and around 40% is left over to distribute across clubs. For the revenue distributed across clubs, there is a set formula based on equalising it across the divisions so that all of the clubs receive the same amount. To encourage clubs to help promote and market, the clubs that have more fans signing up for the service will receive approximately 10% of the remaining split on a pro rata basis, depending on how many subscribers pick that club as their favourite when they sign up.
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is it up to the club to break it down between women's and men's?
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is it required that the funding be distributed between them?
Mr. Noel Quinn:
All our accounts are audited and publicly available. We are volunteer-led and driven, so it is important they are assured we are repurposing the money in the right places. I mentioned the figure of 82 cent in every euro earlier and gave examples around player welfare, Gaelic games development pathways and coaching in schools. The GAA, LGFA and Camogie Association are separate associations. Thankfully, we are barrelling towards integration in 2027, which is fantastic. The key point, speaking from a club level, is when the GAA invests in a county and a club, my daughters and wife will benefit from that. Indirectly, LGFA and Camogie Association members benefit, which can only be a good thing. It is publicly available. I am happy to supply a breakdown at a later point.
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That would be great. My next question is about gambling advertising. Is it permitted on the streaming platforms? No.
I understand the concerns of smaller streamers like LOITV and GAA+ about a potential streaming levy. Do the witnesses think it should be set in accordance with the size of turnover, for example, of a streaming company or some other similar metric that would allow proportionality? Would they support that?
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Mr. Quinn.
Evanne Ní Chuilinn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Quinn both made strong cases for a tiered system and exemptions for the content levy. That is something as a committee we will bring back to the Minister. They have made a strong and sound case for that. LOITV is a different business model and offering to GAA+. It is probably a smaller commercial operation. If there was a tiered system, would Mr. Scanlon see a difference between LOITV and GAA+, or would he see the two streaming services being on a par?
Mr. Mark Scanlon:
For us, all of the sports streaming services would be at a similar level, well below the level of thresholds we would expect for high levies to come in. We are working on a similar level to GAA+ in that regard. Both services provide an excellent public service to our members and fans across the country. I think we are similar.
Evanne Ní Chuilinn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In his opening statement Mr. Scanlon said that a lot of the production is on a voluntary basis and at club level. This is encouraging, but we cannot trade on passion. We see that a lot in sport, unfortunately. Is the business case sustainable or is there a need for another funding stream? Deputy Brennan also queried this. How does Mr. Scanlon see the business case progressing?
Mr. Mark Scanlon:
We created the business case over the past few years. When we started the service, it was wholly voluntary. We required the clubs to do all of the production levels. We have slowly generated some revenue that allowed us to set up a centralised production service and that has been a big help to the clubs, but there are still a lot of voluntary camera operators and commentators. If we can generate more revenue as the service continues to grow, I hope that we can stop some of the piracy levels out there. A large amount of the licence fee goes into the Sound and Vision fund. If the new media fund is created and there are opportunities for services such as LOITV to tap into that fund to get more revenue, it would allow us to create employment for more camera operators, commentators and digital media assistants. This would help us grow the industry. We would love to be able to give young people the opportunity to get a start in the business. Given the volume of games we cover at over 550 per season, there is a great opportunity for people to get their start in the industry, build their way up and get to the level the Senator achieved.
Evanne Ní Chuilinn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Mr Scanlon. I want to get clarification on a number of points. LOITV is one aspect of how we watch football on television. Another aspect is free-to-air. RTÉ had a long-standing relationship with the League of Ireland and it has gone to Virgin Media. When the director general of RTÉ was here a couple of weeks ago, he described it as a bolt from the blue and that he was not expecting it to go to Virgin Media. Does Mr. Scanlon know if it had to do with the business case? Was it a money issue? Who was on the negotiating team he was dealing with?
Mr. Mark Scanlon:
We went out to all of the companies it was possible to go to to discuss improving the rights for the League of Ireland. It was the second time we went though this cycle during my time. We have been pretty consistent with everybody we have spoken to. We told them we wanted consistency across the League of Ireland. A game a week was important for us. Unfortunately-----
Evanne Ní Chuilinn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Who was the League of Ireland negotiating with in RTÉ? Was it a group from RTÉ Sport, because the director general was not aware this was coming down the track and that RTE was going to lose the rights?
Evanne Ní Chuilinn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Was it with one person or two?
Evanne Ní Chuilinn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What was paid to RTÉ for the 50% stake in GAA+? A lot of different figures have been thrown around, but as this committee often discusses RTÉ's finances, it would be great if we could put in a request how much was paid for those rights.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
When will that be? Can Mr. Quinn inform us now or in writing?
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We are going on holidays next week.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
"Holidays" might not be the right word. I let us all down there. I have an All-Ireland to win so I will not be going on too many holidays. I am sorry; I have to leave shortly.
A levy is going to have an impact on GAA+ and LOITV in terms of consumer costs and what people will pay for the content. On the other hand, there will also be extra revenue for GAA+ and LOITV from the media fund. There is a chicken and egg scenario. The majority of members on the committee are in favour of some form of levy as was demonstrated from comments made in hearings over the past number of weeks. Whether we can do that with exemptions across the board is another question. What potential revenues do the witnesses see from the media fund and how would they be used?
Mr. Noel Quinn:
From our perspective, we would not see any additional funding as a revenue generator. I would see us repurposing any unlocked funding into the quality of the programming with independent production companies and we would be the operator for that. Our aspiration is to provide more content midweek, in particular. We would not look at it as something to do with the bottom line.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does GAA+ ever work with Clubber?
Mr. Noel Quinn:
Clubber is doing a fantastic job with a number of counties and provinces. I know the guys in Clubber quite well. At national level we have not worked with them, but as part of our streaming policy, county boards are entitled to pick who they wish to work with. I know they have a lot of counties-----
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The format of production is quite similar. Could any economies of scale be achieved by everyone working together?
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I understand that point.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It could be a recommendation of the committee. Regarding viewership, who is watching? Could we get a breakdown based on demographics and geography?
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What are the age profiles of viewers?
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Who initiated the conversation about the sale of GAAGO?
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am sorry if I missed this question earlier. It may have been asked. Was it initiated by the GAA because it wanted to cash out?
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Basically, it wanted RTÉ to cash out.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. The conversation began with the GAA. It was all about controlling your own destiny.
Mr. Noel Quinn:
Yes, the rights will run to 2027, with the exception of GAA+ domestically. The GAA chose to go to RTÉ to offer to buy out its shareholding and expedite the end of its contract so it would own both domestic and international rights until 2027, when the rights cycle will commence again.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Quinn might come back to us as fast as he can before we move on to other work in a week's time. We will go around again. I call Deputy Joanna Byrne.
Joanna Byrne (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have one final question for Mr. Quinn. Is GAA+ in full compliance with the CCPC now?
Joanna Byrne (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Has there been engagement with it?
Mr. Noel Quinn:
Absolutely. There is ongoing engagement, as there has been for years. Whether it is Coimisiún na Meán or the CCPC, we are constantly in contact. We are going through a due process at the moment with a notification as well, but I believe that is ongoing. I foresee that going in the right direction.
Joanna Byrne (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Particularly around the removal of RTÉ from its shareholding, that is a requirement under the competition Act.
Mr. Noel Quinn:
The notification to the CCPC would be in regard to GAA+. It is essentially an update we are operating wholly independently in the domestic sector. The buy-out is in relation to GAAGO, which is international and slightly separate, but it is still something we would communicate to the CCPC as a matter of good governance.
Malcolm Noonan (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I just have one question as well. Mr. Quinn mentioned dodgy boxes and the impact they are having. Will he elaborate on this? The numbers seem quite staggering, with 500,000 dodgy boxes out there.
Mr. Noel Quinn:
Even that statistic that Mr. Scanlon shared earlier from the LOI fan podcast was that essentially one in two people is sharing. The numbers are sporadic in terms of how many Fire Sticks are sideloading illegal content. I think it is our battle in someone else's war. It is impacting on Disney, Sky and Apple TV. We happened to be catching damage in that situation, which is unfortunate.
Malcolm Noonan (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
They can take the hit.
Malcolm Noonan (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is very significant. I thank Mr. Quinn.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I call Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan.
Pádraig O'Sullivan (Cork North-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I was going to ask the same question because Mr. Scanlon outlined the impact on the FAI. The figure of 40% is substantial. Would Mr. Quinn like to take the benefit of a minute or two to detail what that situation actually leads to? Will it be a reduction in capital spending for clubs and so on?
Turning to Mr. Scanlon, I like the whole model that is being run with LOITV. I think it is great that somebody can participate, be it as a camera operator or commentator, and get the experience of being involved from the grassroots up. He might give us one or two examples from around the country where things have been done very well. He probably does not want to single out any specific Premier Division clubs, but he might tell us about where it has been done very well or where somebody has perhaps gone on further afield.
Mr. Mark Scanlon:
Some clubs have been very lucky in the volunteer bases they have, especially in areas in commentary, for example. When we started LOITV, the initial service, WATCHLOI in partnership with RTÉ, as I mentioned earlier, was just for the men's Premier Division. When LOITV started, we relied massively on the clubs being able to step up and do the production. There are great examples in clubs like Longford Town, Athlone Town and Wexford F.C., which all have a huge base of volunteers who stepped in and were able to not only deliver the service for their clubs but also to upskill other volunteers in the other clubs. It has been brilliant. Since then, we have seen situations like commentators who have worked on the games in LOITV, and who had never previously done commentary, then stepping in and being able to move on to Virgin Media's commentary team. Graham Gartland at Shamrock Rovers, for example, was regularly doing the games for Shamrock Rovers and has been able to move on and step into TV. Various other commentators and pundits are getting an opportunity to start off in the service, so it has been really important.
Going back to Deputy O'Sullivan's initial comment, when he mentioned the impact of piracy, one of the biggest criticisms we were getting around LOITV was it not being available on various apps and people were asking why we could not develop an app. Again, though, this is that kind of chicken-and-egg scenario. Without the revenue coming in to help us develop the service, we cannot improve it for the end user. This year, being able to bring Premier Sports on board as a partner, with its expertise, has allowed us to be able to develop apps so our coverage is more accessible. People on mobile devices, tablets and now on smart TVs as well will be able to access it. Hopefully, we will be able to continue to improve the revenue and be able to impact on the areas around piracy by being able to improve the service and add more revenue. That will help the clubs to provide more opportunities for commentators, camera operators and so on.
Mr. Noel Quinn:
On piracy and the levy, they are one and the same. Anything that diminishes our profitability, which is in name only in our case because we want to repurpose, materially impacts on 0our ability to ensure the Cúl Camps, which attract 140,000 children every year, are as good as they can be, or our push towards the social outreach programmes with Movember or other mental health initiatives. It diminishes our ability to be as good as we can be, so it is a factor.
Alison Comyn (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Like many parents, I probably spend a lot of time nowadays trying to get children off screens rather than onto them. It is magnificent that these services are offered, including the streaming services and the apps, etc., but what is being done in terms of outreach programmes, perhaps with juvenile clubs such as Cúl Camps, to try to get them engaged in real life, as they say, too?
Mr. Mark Scanlon:
From an FAI perspective, we are right now in the middle of our football camps, which are fantastic. We have kids, including my own, who will be out and about in the next two to three weeks participating daily in those camps. There are many grassroots programmes across the FAI to encourage participation, as well as the more than 1,500 clubs available for boys and girls to sign up for. At the League of Ireland level specifically, and the League of Ireland clubs, if we were to go back about a decade, they were probably justt the men's senior teams playing in a men's senior league. Now, though, they have grown massively to include men's teams, women's teams, academy teams and, really importantly, huge outreach to their local communities as well. Over the last three to four years, we have seen massive outreach in terms of disadvantaged areas, where the clubs are providing free football drop-in sessions. They have even been able to do some work in areas like prisons, for example. Disability football has also been huge. Earlier I mentioned the Down's syndrome Futsal programme our clubs deliver. We have clubs now that have amputee teams and clubs that have powerchair football teams providing football for wheelchair users. A huge amount of additional work has been done in the communities as our clubs continue to expand.
Alison Comyn (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is it particularly connected to LOITV at any stage?
Mr. Mark Scanlon:
All the areas will be impacted when our League of Ireland clubs continue to grow their revenue. LOITV is helping to grow the fan base, and by buying tickets, coming to the grounds, buying merchandise and generating revenue for the clubs, that is allowing the clubs to expand in areas that would not have been possible before when they were very much living hand-to-mouth in terms of their finances. As their revenue continues to grow, this encourages the clubs to expand into the areas I mentioned. We have seen brilliant examples of that, and LOITV will be an area that will hopefully generate more revenue in future to help the clubs to grow.
Alison Comyn (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Would it be the same with GAA+?
Mr. Noel Quinn:
It is the same with screen time in our house at the moment. Back to the subject of participation, we need to get more hurls or footballs into kids' hands as soon as possible. The Cúl Camps were mentioned. I am very proud of our healthy club model, in partnership with Ireland Lights Up, getting people active and outdoors rather than sitting inside and watching a screen. Going back to the participation point, kudos to the Leinster GAA chairman, who made 20,000 free tickets available for children for the Leinster hurling final this year. Initiatives like that are fantastic in taking down any barriers or challenges. On screen time too, if you are a Liverpool fan, you will only access Mo Salah most likely on a screen. In my case, I may walk to the end of the road and see a Dublin hurler with the girls. The accessibility aspect is key too, rather than just relying on screens.
Alison Comyn (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have one quick, mischievous question. Does the weather in Ireland have any kind of correlation with a bump in viewership? Are people staying away from stadiums and turning on the TV when there is bad weather?
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It did not affect the outcome on Sunday either.
Malcolm Noonan (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Do not mention the war.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That was a good question.
Evanne Ní Chuilinn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
One of the issue we will hopefully discuss as a committee over the next few months is integration between the GAA, the LGFA and The Camogie Association. What we are doing here is planning for the future of broadcasting and sport. Is there provision for GAA+ to become GAA+, all encompassing? Will ladies football and camogie be streamed to the same level as hurling and football when integration takes place?
Ms Niamh McCoy:
Within the integration process, there are different committees looking at different aspects. I am a member of the commercial committee, and that is one of the key points. We have fed that in. As Mr. Quinn mentioned, the GAA already works with The Camogie Association on broadcasting. The commercial committee submitted a paper within the overall integration piece to the steering group, which will be presented later this month. It is a really important piece on integration going forward.
Evanne Ní Chuilinn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Quinn spoke earlier about the importance of the camogie quarterfinals, for example, being on the television. I think he will agree that if it was just hurling quarter finals onwards on the television, there would be absolute war. It is important to have a look at it. This is a genuine opportunity to reinvent the wheel when it comes to sports broadcasting. Mr. Quinn addressed the visibility piece. He mentioned he has daughters and it is important for them to see these girls on television. If that is the case, it is important to put your money where your mouth is and to make sure we are broadcasting camogie and ladies football on GAA+. We have been told that when integration happens, it will still be the GAA. It will be GAA+ all encompassing for both men and women.
Evanne Ní Chuilinn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is correct.
Mr. Noel Quinn:
-----and cannot see, cannot be. The cornerstone of camogie coverage should be the linear TV on RTÉ; that is where we get big viewership. In the interim, there is a good hybrid model, which camogie has established thanks to Ms McCoy, with a streaming partner who at least guarantees there is access there if you want it. It is a question of how we get together and make that bigger.
Evanne Ní Chuilinn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I agree. It is probably important for us as a committee and also for the GAA to keep an eye on it and make sure it stays on the agenda for the steering committee. Again, we hope to hear from its members at some point or to have them in as witnesses if they accept the invitation. I thank our witnesses.
Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have two quick points. One is a comment and the other is a question. I am really concerned about the commercial viability unless piracy is addressed. That is just looking in from the outside. Streaming to old folks homes, people who cannot get to games and the diaspora is so important, but we must consider the financial viability. If he does not mind, I am going to ask Mr. Quinn the question I have been asked by every person I met in the past four days. With his experience with producers and the intricacy of how it all works, how in God's name was that mistake made on Sunday?
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Not that it mattered to the result.
Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is quite serious. There is so much effort put in by players and managers and there are costs for supporters. Is there not a doubling up or checking of things? I am only asking. It is a wild question but it is very genuine. It is out there.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is not going to change.
Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
A simple double-check mechanism could have prevented it. I am fully onside with what the organisation is doing, but we, as in, the TDs and Senators, need to act. We are discussing this Bill but piracy is a huge problem. It is going to get worse before it gets better.
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is really wonderful to learn about, particularly, all the community stuff involved. The sports I am fanatical about are rugby and snooker. I am learning a bit more about our national sports. The GAA has a subscription model for users. What research and feedback does it seek from its users and how often does it do that? Can the witnesses talk to me a little bit about the approaches it takes in that regard?
Mr. Mark Scanlon:
That is something we do primarily through the clubs. The clubs have their own databases and fan bases. Every year since we started LOITV, we tweak the pricing model and the offers available, and that has basically come down to what the fans want and what we have heard back in feedback from the clubs. In the first place we had a pay-per-view model, which we changed to a full season subscription model, to now being able to develop a monthly pass option, as well as a 24-hour pass and an annual pass. Right now, we are happy with the pricing model we have, and that subscription model has basically come about following three or four years of tweaking the process and listening to the clubs and the fan bases. We also have within our League of Ireland a national league committee, and underneath the national league committee, there are players’, coaches, referees and fan committees; they are four separate committees. Within each of them, LOITV is a topic for the following year to get feedback. The supporters’ committee in particular is an important part of that feedback process.
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is excellent. Is there any research available to the organisation? For example, with regard to Senator Cummins question about the weather, does LOITV find it gets any useful data from the subscription of the patterns of users and so on?
Mr. Mark Scanlon:
From our perspective, that has been difficult coming from where we have as a start-up business and part of a League of Ireland department relying on its staff. The benefit for us in that regard has been being able to bring the expertise of Premier Sports onboard. The work it has done as an Irish-owned and operated company for a number of years, dealing with subscription services meant was able to help us shape our offering. That data and research comes from a professional company.
Mr. Noel Quinn:
We do two different types of research dips every year. For GAA+, we do it postseason with our subscribers. We open it for a week. We do an eshot and ask for feedback. Some would be quantitative, some would be open-text box. From that, we have got some of our best ideas for going forward, for example, people wanting more hurling such as Leinster hurling, which is why it was increased this year; more access to Tailteann Cup games to profile the second-tier competition; more options like three for two bundles and being able to pay in instalments rather than upfront, which was helpful feedback; the type of midweek shows they would like; and the type of tone and style, which is evidently different to RTÉ. Those are examples of some of the research and feedback we take from our subscribers. That is done every year. More generally we use an independent company twice a year, pre-championship and post-championship, to get a general temperature check on fan sentiment around the GAA's perception and image and what it means to them to be involved.
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have a few final questions and I thank our witnesses for their time. Off the top of Mr. Scanlon's head, what is the total revenue from LOITV?
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If I was Minister for media, and I was to say to everyone here we will not solve the piracy issue in Ireland because it is a global issue, but as regards the licence fee, we will stick a tenner at the end of a tick box, which the majority of people will surely pay, would that be acceptable to the witnesses? We have 668,232 licence payers in Ireland that proportionately we could divide it out if we multiply it by a tenner - it would come in at just under €6.7 million. That would get around piracy. We could work out the proportions.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am just thinking of-----
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am being a bit facetious, obviously, but there are a number of issues here. The GAA is part of Ireland's culture as is GAA+. It is frustrating for many people. There are platform issues still, by the way. I am more familiar with GAAGO, but there are platform issues from time to time.
I also have elderly parents. Well, my dad passed away recently. He used to have to come to me to watch the match or we would have to send him somewhere if I was not there because he was not capable of doing that. I am conscious of people like that and that there are also platform issues from time to time, which are deeply frustrating. As part of the offering, if there was an alternative model based around even part of what I have just outlined, would LOITV be interested in it?
Mr. Mark Scanlon:
From our perspective, it would give us a great opportunity to be able to further enhance the service we have developed over the last few years. As I mentioned, when we started the service it was a start-up business. There was no capital to put into it, so everything that has been grown has been through hard work and volunteerism. To get to where we are now has been a huge success.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The famous Saorview list that comes with the Saorview box probably needs to be updated as it is a bit clunky. If we imagine that LOI 1 and 2, GAA 1 and 2 and all those games were available on Saorview, the advertising capacity if that would generate other potential revenues because those games would obviously have a massive audience. That is just a thought.
As many members have said, the piracy issue is not going away any time soon. It is a global issue. Technology is disintermediating the old system of paying for Sky Sports and everything else. By the way, if a solution is found, it too will be disintermediated by somebody within five minutes. We have to find a different model. If that model is the one I outlined or some variation thereof, where other revenue would be generated from advertising and other means, that would potentially be the way to go, given that these games are culturally so important to us. I am just kicking off a conversation on this, rather than saying it has to be done that way but it could be a variation of that.
I agree with members that viability is a real and serious issue. From what I have heard today, and I think I am speaking on behalf of all members, what LOITV is providing, given the limitations facing it, is frankly incredible. There is criticism at times of fixtures and this and that, more so with the GAA than with the League of Ireland, but I am sure they both hear the same thing. I understand that criticism and I sometimes make judgements but leaving that aside, what is being performed here given the limitations is phenomenal. It is not sustainable, however. The committee needs to reflect on this. There is a lesson to be learned here as regards sustainability, how important this service is and how the State could possibly play a bigger role based on some variation of what I said.
Are there any final comments before we finish?
Mr. Noel Quinn:
I pass on my condolences on the passing of the Cathaoirleach's father. We would never hide behind platform issues because it does not matter how big you are - even Amazon and eBay will have issues - you will have issues and we have had issues. We are investing this year in trying to solidify that. On Saorview and how we could gain support, I have had discussions about how to make Saorview easier to access. We appreciate that not everyone can use Chromecast or download an app. We point people in the direction of the 300 free-to-air games on RTÉ and TG4. However, for games that are on GAA+ for which people need to know how to use Apple TV, we explored previously an EPG line where GAA+ is found on channel 188. That was cost-prohibitive at the time but it would be nice to ignite those conversations again.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I understand that totally. Basically people would log in.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
They would be permanently logged in. I presume the GAA would agree with that?
Mr. Richard Webb:
Sky is an open platform currently for linear broadcasters, so we would suggest that if you have enough money for satellite capacity and an EPG channel number, you would be entitled to go on the Sky platform. Our problem at the moment is that its app service is kind of locked down and people have to negotiate access to that. I would like to see potential opportunities where, if someone has an app available, they should be allowed to go on Sky if it is of public interest or a certain level.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
They are two slightly different points but the same thing in a different way. This is actually a very important point and something we can probably help with. If Mr. Quinn and Mr. Webb write to the committee regarding both sides of what they just said - one on the EPG and one on the app-----
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
-----we will try to bring that through. That is a good end to our meeting. I thank the witnesses for their time. We will now suspend for a short break.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This is our second session of the day. We will continue our pre-legislative scrutiny of the revised general scheme of the broadcasting (amendment) Bill. In this session we will hear from the NUJ, RTÉ trade union group, SIPTU, and Unite the Union. I warmly welcome the following witnesses to the meeting: Mr. Séamus Dooley, Irish secretary of the NUJ, Mr. Cearbhall Ó Síocháin, NUJ representative, Mr. Trevor Keegan, joint chair of the RTÉ trade union group, Ms Sorcha Vaughan, secretary to the RTÉ trade union group, Mr. Adrian Kane, divisional organiser from SIPTU, Mr. Gerry O'Brien, president of SIPTU's arts, culture and media sector and Irish Equity president and Mr. Michael O'Brien, regional officer at Unite the Union.
The format of the meeting is I will invite our witnesses to deliver an opening statement that is limited to three minutes. This will be followed by questions from members of the committee. Witnesses are probably aware the committee will publish their opening statements online. Is that agreed, colleagues? Agreed.
Before we proceed, I wish to clarify some limitations in relation 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 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 in respect of 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 to proceed with the opening statements beginning with Mr. Dooley, to be followed by Mr. Keegan, Mr. Kane and Mr. O'Brien.
Mr. Séamus Dooley:
A Chathaoirligh, Deputies and Senators, I was going to say it is good to be back, but it is. Congratulations or commiseration as appropriate. I hope, with great respect, that we do not see as much of this committee as we did of the last one. We welcome the opportunity to comment on the revised general scheme of the broadcasting (amendment) Bill and appreciate the invitation. I am accompanied by Mr. Ó Síocháin, cathaoirleach of the Irish executive council. He is a journalist and former secretary of the RTÉ trade union group.
This Bill is extremely significant. It gives effect to many of the key recommendations of the Future of Media Commission in the context of the challenges facing public service broadcasting in Ireland. Given the limited timeframe, we have submitted a small number of observations, and I would like to give a general overview in the context of these observations. Having supported and welcomed the Report of the Future of Media Commission, we again broadly welcome the Bill and endorse the significant measures giving effect to the report. This is without prejudice to our belief that the funding recommendations in respect of public service broadcasting should have been accepted by Government and that the current funding model is not in itself sustainable.
As the trade union representing media workers across broadcasting, print and digital media in Ireland, we are committed to the maintenance and development of public service broadcasting in Ireland. Maintenance of editorial excellence, the protection of quality employment and recognition of the vital role of public service broadcasting, especially RTÉ and TG4, in nurturing and developing talent must also inform State policy on public service broadcasting. This is not reflected in the general scheme. There should be stronger public procurement rules in respect of the outsourcing of work to the commercial sector. Recognising the unique role of media organisations, the Competition Act 2014, as amended, which makes special provision for media mergers and the guidelines on media mergers, could form the basis for rules governing outsourcing. The media merger form originally pioneered by former Minister of State, Alex White, requires companies to provide specific evidence regarding corporate governance, editorial control and independence, and future plans. Governance and editorial management information, compliance with codes and practices within the particular sector and any policy documents in relation to ethical codes all form part of the notification system. That can include the number of complaints made to any regulatory body, grievance procedures, appearances at the Workplace Relations Commission and respect for the institutions of the State, including the WRC.
These observations are also relevant to the media fund provided under this scheme. Organisations which benefit from funding schemes operated by Coimisiún na Meán should meet minimum standards. In the allocation of assistance under the local democracy and court reporting scheme, successful applications have included companies that refuse to recognise trade unions. A common theme today will be the issue of good employment, good work and respect for employment rights, but none of these are reflected in the heads of Bill.
On the terminology used in the Bill, there is frequent to the term "independent sector", which implies that the public service broadcaster is not independent. There is nothing wrong with making programmes for commercial purposes, but the word "independent" is inappropriate and "private commercial sector" would be a more appropriate term.
A healthy, vibrant and creative public service broadcaster is essential to the health of our democracy and, in common with our sister unions, we believe the key priority of State should be the maintenance of public service broadcasting. Simply outsourcing programmes currently made by RTÉ to the private sector is merely a pretence at increasing creativity and does nothing to enhance the overall landscape. The strategic objective of developing the wider audiovisual and audio production sector is not served by transferring programmes from RTÉ to the private, commercial or for-profit sector.
Mr. Trevor Keegan:
I thank the committee for the invitation to attend this evening alongside our TUG secretary, Ms Sorcha Vaughan. As co-chair of the trade union group in RTÉ, I am focused on the concerns of workers across RTÉ, who are represented by SIPTU, the NUJ, Connect, Unite, Equity and the MUI. There are many aspects of the bill which we welcome, such as RTÉ coming under the auspices of the Comptroller and Auditor General and increased focus on diversity of output, and oversight of corporate governance.
From the perspective of the TUG, our starting point is that the failure to reform the funding model over many years is a significant contributory factor to the financial crisis in RTÉ. While this Bill addresses many of the recommendations of the Future of Media Commission, the decision of the Government not to accept the recommendations on the funding of public service broadcasting was a major disappointment and the central problems around long-term funding remain. I hear constantly about the worries and fears of workers in the company over what we see as the proposed outsourcing of content which is currently made within RTÉ by highly skilled colleagues who have learned and honed their crafts over many years. While the RTÉ TUG does not object to a growing and improving independent sector, we object to this causing the displacement of safe employment with defined career paths and security of tenure at the national broadcaster. Simply offering existing RTÉ programmes for tender to outside productions does not enhance the cultural life of the nation.
Yes, many independent production companies make great television and radio, but aside from a small number of larger firms, it is generally content which is provided by workers on short-term contracts with fragile protections. This is not conducive to long-term careers in TV and radio production. We see no good reason to justify the possible farming out of a programme such as "The Late Late Show", which is not just a jewel in Irish broadcasting, but a historic bastion of broadcasting internationally, or outsourcing the production of this country’s only continuous drama, "Fair City". Our SIPTU colleagues have particular concerns in that regard. Such a move will only lead to less opportunity for secure jobs in the future for creative workers across a range of fields, including research, lighting, design, cameras, production, costume or make-up.
RTÉ is exploiting the requirement of this Act for increased independent production spend, to pursue its goal to dismantle and privatise whole sections of RTÉ. That is not creative; it is simply putting more licence payers' money into the pockets of private for-profit entities. Only in the past few weeks, I welcomed a number of interns who began work in RTÉ, where they can get an invaluable grounding in so many areas of the industry. Going forward, however, that may not be possible because some of these departments will no longer exist. The most recent casualty has been RTÉ’s religious programmes department, which has been effectively shut down. This is the department that made the series "Would You Believe" and "The Meaning of Life". Furthermore, the RTÉ trade unions were not consulted about this move. As I said, there are many laudable elements of the proposed amendments, but they should not come at the cost of the breaking up of the national broadcaster.
Mr. Adrian Kane:
I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it this evening. It is an important opportunity to future-proof public service broadcasting and ensure fair and sustainable employment in a rapidly evolving media environment. SIPTU supports increased investment in independent production. Many of our members work in this sector, and we recognise the valuable contribution which this sector makes. However, we wish to make our position clear with regard to one fundamental issue to which our colleagues have already referred, namely, that this additional spend must not displace existing work currently carried out by RTÉ staff.
We are concerned that unless properly safeguarded, the independent spend obligation could become a mechanism for outsourcing RTÉ production. This would result in the loss of secure, pensionable jobs and a weakening of in-house public service capacity. Our position is simple: increased funding should support new content and employment, not a reallocation of work already being undertaken by RTÉ workers. The benefits of growth in the sector must be shared equitably, without undermining existing public service employment.
SIPTU, in addition to representing RTÉ and independent sector workers, also has Irish Equity as an affiliate. Irish Equity is a signatory to the stakeholder guidelines implementing the EU copyright directive and has raised concerns regarding the use of buy-out contracts by RTÉ and TG4. These contracts, which are still in use despite the transposition of the directive into Irish law via SI 567 of 2021, oblige performers to waive their statutory rights to equitable and proportionate remuneration. Irish Equity also has further concerns over the use of material from the archives, in particular, efforts to amend performers’ collective agreements without reference to the union. It is vitally important that the industry becomes fully compliant with all copyright legislation. SIPTU accordingly supports Irish Equity’s call for legislative amendments which would recognise performers’ copyright and remuneration rights under Irish and EU law, tie public funding to contractual compliance with those rights, and establish an independent complaints and enforcement mechanism under Coimisiún na Meán to adjudicate in disputes on these matters.
There is a fundamental matter at stake here, namely, how public funding is spent and what type of employment results from this spend. If we are to grow the sector responsibly, public money, whether allocated to RTÉ or the independent sector, must uphold the highest standards in employment and contract practices. SIPTU is calling for a balanced and fair approach to protect in-house production and employment at RTÉ, support genuine growth in the independent sector and ensure that all public funding is conditional on respect for workers’ rights, whether they are RTÉ staff, freelance crew or professional performers and creatives.
Mr. Michael O'Brien:
Unite the Union represents craft workers in RTÉ and is part of the trade union group. I am here deputising for my colleague, Brendan Byrne, who was unavailable to attend this evening. He has appeared before previous committees on previous occasions. I will begin by endorsing the comments made by my fellow union representatives. In the short time I have, I will focus on our principal concern with the Bill, which is the provision that RTÉ spends not less than the equivalent of 25% of its public funding on independent productions and, within that context, the conditions of work for craft workers employed by independent producers, not to mention the possibility of displacement of work currently taking place in RTÉ.
It is, sadly, often the case that smaller independent companies will other short-term contracts, precarious employment arrangements, lower pay and often misclassify workers as self-employed. Bogus self-employment, like other forms of precarious work, impacts on workers, compliant employers in the sector and the wider economy. It embeds inequality into the workplace. It limits workers’ access to benefits such as pensions, holiday pay and sick pay, and they enjoy fewer protections against unfair dismissal or discrimination in the workplace. Workers in these situations also lack the basic protections of minimum hours of rest and breaks provided for in the Organisation of Working Time Act.
Employers who misclassify workers as self-employed or who engage in other forms of precarious employment have an unfair competitive advantage over other employers. The non-payment of employer’s PRSI not only reduces the money available to the Social Insurance Fund but also reduces individual workers’ social welfare entitlements. One presumes that the provision of funding by RTÉ to independent producers is preceded by some class of competitive tendering process or application process. Independent producers, feeling those competitive pressures, will inevitably seek to promise to deliver the biggest bang for their buck, but how do such promises translate for the workers?
We have seen in other sectors, particularly in construction, where Unite has a significant footprint, where a culture of overpromising for public contracts by private firms gets us. Built into bids we have seen in those sectors was remuneration based on bogus self-employment because the bids could not be made on the basis of paying unionised rates based on direct employment.
I was speaking in the context of craft workers where there is a strong tradition of registered employment agreements and unionised rates that we seek to protect and employers often seek to circumnavigate using the methods I described. The question is how RTÉ will respond if it is shown that some potential independent production companies are anti-union or do not respect the conciliation services of the WRC or the Labour Court. Unfortunately, these scenarios have not inhibited other State bodies from doing business with rogue employers and independent producers.
In summary, we ask the committee, during the pre-legislative scrutiny of the broadcasting Bill, to take on board our concerns regarding employment practices of third parties and that the most robust systems of scrutiny and oversight are put in place to ensure the rights of all workers engaged in public broadcasting are respected and protected.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Mr. O'Brien. I thank all the witnesses for their comprehensive statements. We will now put questions for four minutes, beginning with Senator Comyn.
Alison Comyn (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank all the witnesses very much for coming in. As a journalist of three decades, before I took on a new career as a Senator, I understand the challenges that we have had and the challenges that we face. I have had connections with the NUJ and Séamus Dooley and Trevor Keegan over the years. However, I presume there will not be a conflict of interest. As a former mother of the chapel as well, I have acted on behalf of many of my fellow journalists over the years. There is no question but things have changed. We have the advance of citizen journalism and different platforms. We have the incredible challenges that have been faced by the likes of print journalism as well.
At various times, all the witnesses mentioned quality employment. There have been tremendous advantages with the likes of the local democracy positions, but Mr. Dooley alluded to the fact that they may be coming outside of the unions. I ask each of the witnesses to give me their thoughts on the following question. Is quality employment and the nurturing and development of talent only available within union membership or can it happen outside of it?
Mr. Séamus Dooley:
I will take that question first. I have not experienced a Mother Teresa mentality in the media sector where, out of the goodness of their heart, employers offer enhanced terms and conditions of employment. It is a well-established fact internationally that organised labour benefits workers because salaries are paid. Because of the failure of those who inhabit this House, there is no incentive to recognise collective bargaining. There is no incentive for employers to negotiate voluntarily. We have long believed that in the absence of that, we are not going to get proper terms and conditions of employment. That has had a major impact and a failure, in particular in the regional sector that Senator Comyn is very familiar with, to attract and maintain talent. Journalism is now becoming an unaffordable profession.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Would Mr. Kane and Mr. Gerry O'Brien like to come in briefly as well?
Mr. Adrian Kane:
Coming back to the Bill and things that are not in it and what could be done, as Mr. Dooley has said, there is a union dividend. Even stepping back from that, the biggest problem we have in the State is inequity in terms of the distribution of wealth. There is the adequate minimum wage directive but there is no reference to that here in terms of setting out a framework of how we get to 80%. There is no reference to public procurement and building in progressive approaches to it, and insisting that there is at least the right to collective bargaining. We are met with hostility in every sector of the economy in trying to give effect to the rights of workers to be collectively represented.
I am not getting into the merits of the argument and asking if one is better than the other, but the facts speak for themselves in terms of quality of employment and the union dividend I talk about. The issue that needs to be incorporated into the Bill is public procurement and using it as a progressive force for the distribution of wealth and better quality work. We can see that in the-----
Alison Comyn (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Mr. Kane. We are very short on time. I understand the point. We might move on.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Could Mr. Gerry O'Brien respond very briefly?
Mr. Gerry O'Brien:
Without a union, actors are very vulnerable. There is another element to the employment of actors, and that is their rights under the copyright law and the European copyright directive, which means that the revenue generated by the constant use of their performance should be shared. A proportionate share of that should go back into the actor's pocket. Neither the broadcasters nor even the private sector have any desire to do that. The main contracts being used are buy-out contracts, which we have addressed before. This means that there is a very limited economic value to a contract for a performer, so yes, the union is needed. A collectively bargained agreement is needed. We have begun to try to undo 25 years of buy-outs, but it is going to be a challenge.
Alison Comyn (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I do not know if anyone else wants to come in on that.
Mr. Trevor Keegan:
Senator Comyn mentioned being outside of the unions. I worked in various production companies in the independent sector, outside of the union. There was no security of tenure and no contracts. I went from gig to gig to gig. Many colleagues I worked with were unemployed for four, five or six months of the year. The safety and career progression I have made within RTÉ, in particular since I joined the staff full time, has been beyond stratospheric compared to what I experienced in the independent sector.
Alison Comyn (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The only thing I would observe is that many local and regional presses would have closed down if it were not for the introduction of the likes of the local democracy positions. There is a fine balance between whether one closes or not.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It was remiss of me not to welcome Jessica Freed, SIPTU vice president.
Evanne Ní Chuilinn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I note a reference to language in the independent sector by Mr. Keegan and Mr. Dooley. Mr. Dooley refers to a private commercial sector. Could he explain that a little bit to the committee, in terms of the difference in the use of the terminology?
Mr. Séamus Dooley:
First, there is nothing wrong with that and there is nothing wrong with existing to make money, but to suggest that it is independent means that, by definition, those who are funded by the licence fee are not independent. I reject that assertion. "Commercial" is a better description of those who make programmes for profit. Where it is relevant in this debate is what happens when the public service programme, which is outsourced, ceases to make enough profit for the shareholder. That is why it is relevant to the debate.
Evanne Ní Chuilinn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Could Mr. Keegan say what is the biggest threat to the workers if it does go ahead? I know he is supportive of the independent sector but what is happening in RTÉ in terms of outsourcing and what is the biggest threat or fear?
Mr. Trevor Keegan:
The biggest threat is discussing the likes of long-established in-house programmes being made independently. We have no problem with the independent sector flourishing. We have said that in our statements. The problem is that we are also doing that to the detriment of jobs. RTÉ management are using the 25% as a bargaining chip to argue for farming out productions to make up that 25%. That is not going to lead to more creativity in the independent sector. It is not bringing in new formats or new programmes that might have longevity, like "Room to Improve" did when it was first mooted in the independent sector. We are not against independent programmes flourishing and that sector also doing likewise, but not to the detriment of staff and rights.
Evanne Ní Chuilinn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does Mr. Keegan think that is happening?
Mr. Trevor Keegan:
Absolutely. It is going to happen. People already fear it is going to happen. We have had discussions with management. It is actively looking at the possibility of those two big mainstays of production. Studios will be empty and people will possibly be paid to do very little work in them and they will obviously become disheartened and possibly look for voluntary exit packages, etc., but that is not making a healthy sector for either public service media or the private sector.
Evanne Ní Chuilinn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What is morale like in there?
Ms Sorcha Vaughan:
Morale is awful. On the point of what is happening in RTÉ, we are already being quoted the 25% as a reason that things are being moved outside of RTÉ. We do not believe that should be the intention of the 25%. We want to see a creative, flourishing industry, not just an excuse to move things. That is what is being told to us by management in RTÉ – that this has to move out because it needs to get to 25% from the commercial sector.
Evanne Ní Chuilinn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Am I right in saying the 25% is a starting point and that it would potentially grow?
Mr. Trevor Keegan:
There is talk as well of RTÉ not having access to the media fund. If RTÉ was properly funded it would not need access to extra funding. I know we are short of time. There are numerous projects that we currently make, courtesy of funding from Coimisiún na Meán. I draw attention to the kind of work that gets done. It is not something that would get done in the independent sector. I refer to things like "Spoken Stories", 36 trilogy episodes on radio using professional actors, apart from some stories read by their authors.
They received 80% funding from Coimisiún na Meán. I also raise Miscellany50, a weekend festival of outside broadcast involving the arts centre in Dublin with ten hour-long concerts, 55 new short commissioned essays, five new commissions for music, as well as multiple musicians and singers. The "Davis Now Lectures" is a series of five one-hour programmes and podcasts, specially commissioned with outside broadcasters throughout the country, bringing RTÉ content to the paying public. These kinds of things will not happen if we do not have the proper funding. Initially, we would love to have full funding in terms of the Future of Media Commission recommendation, but if that is not happening, the Coimisiún na Meán funding cannot be taken away either.
Mr. Cearbhall Ó Síocháin:
Tá beagáinín d'fháinne fí i gceist freisin. It is almost a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the current DG's plan to get rid of 400 people means that various people who may have non-transferable skills within RTÉ might seek to take an exit package, landing them in the independent sector, where their rights and terms of employment will drop.
Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank all the witnesses. In particular, I welcome Mr. Dooley back. I am not quite sure about Mother Teresa, but he has certainly appeared before this committee far more often than Our Lady has appeared at Lourdes. I thank him for his contribution.
Public service broadcasting will not just be provided by RTÉ. It can be provided by TG4, by Virgin Media and local and independent media. In an increasingly diverse media landscape, what is most important to us is that we ensure that quality Irish stories get told, which can be done very professionally but not exclusively by RTÉ. Yes, we want to maintain quality employment, but what is critical for us is that we have a vibrant public media sector in this country.
I am a little concerned about dismissing and challenging a lot of what goes on in the independent sector. Mr. O'Brien made the point about employers who misclassify workers as self-employed. With all due respect, it was RTÉ that was most guilty of that, rather than a lot of the independent producers. If we look at TG4 as a model, "Ros na Rún" is provided by an independent production company. In the case of "The Graham Norton Show" on the BBC, interestingly, it is provided by ITV production studios, an independent production company.
Our challenge in this country is to have a vibrant cultural creation industry, of which RTÉ is a part, which ensures that we have work for the creatives and for members of Equity. This challenge goes into the future, dealing with the challenges of AI and the world. Do the witnesses accept that there is plenty of evidence that publisher-broadcasters help to ensure a very vibrant public service broadcasting culture as well as producing quality programmes?
Mr. Séamus Dooley:
Deputy Byrne will not get any disagreement from me regarding TG4 or the work our freelance members do. At the same time, the primary public service broadcaster is RTÉ and it creates the talent. In some respects, RTÉ is the workshop which encourages other people. They can coexist, but what we are saying is, if you want to develop talent, it should not be done through expensive outsourcing.
With regard to public interest journalism, which is the phrase I tend to use nowadays, there is a reality in the regional media sector where there are companies such as Iconic Newspapers, which has a bid to acquire The Connacht Tribune. Unite, SIPTU and the NUJ have opposed that because not only does the largest single regional newspaper in Ireland not recognise unions, it will not reply to letters from the three unions regarding the transfer of undertakings legislation. Yet, the newspaper is a beneficiary of Coimisiún na Meán's schemes. Public procurement rules, in that sense, should involve engagement because it is a group that has enormously talented-----
Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Dooley knows where I stand in terms of the broader public funding issue. Should we then have looked at shifting, in line with the Future of Media Commission recommendation, to a fund for public service broadcasting, subject to the conditions but open to anyone who wanted to apply? The danger is, if it is just given to RTÉ, is that the flourishing sector is not encouraged. For instance, if Virgin were to subscribe to some of those conditions regarding worker recognition and so on, should it be able to apply for some of the State funding for public service broadcasting?
Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Dooley gets the principle of my point.
Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am talking about the broader aspect. The funding should be used to create a vibrant cultural and public service broadcasting sector in Ireland, which has to be broader than just RTÉ.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This is interesting. Multiple Bills which should be interwoven are going through the Houses at the moment. There is the copyright directive, this Bill and a letter we have to deal with tomorrow at some stage which deals exactly with the point Mr. Dooley made about media mergers. It is one to give effect to the European Media Freedom Act, but we have not taken a decision on that, so the witnesses might be back in here sooner than they think to deal with it. One of the problems is that not all of the legislation is coming before this committee. We have to try to make sure that the message goes out there that we have to protect public broadcasting and public media into the future. It has shot itself in the foot so often in recent years, including before this committee only recently.
Mr. O'Brien or Mr. Keegan might be able to answer this, but RTÉ appeared before us and we were asking about workers' rights, contracts and whether RTÉ was asking performers to waive their rights to future residuals or for guaranteed work. Is that a practice that is happening at the moment? The RTÉ head of regulatory service started to tell me that was not happening but someone cut across her and she never finished what she was saying. I do not know what the practice is.
Mr. Gerry O'Brien:
Contracts of actors under the European copyright directive must provide for fair, adequate and proportionate remuneration for the ongoing exploitation of that work. That goes back to the Copyright and Related Rights Act of 2000. That is enshrined in that. I have examples here. For example, prior to 2018, the radio contract stated that the fee offered in respect of the broadcast, whether live or recorded, may be subsequently broadcast and allowed for one repeat of same. There was a limit on the amount of usage that a single fee bought, which is compliant with the legislation. The legislation states that an artist may sell one but not all of the performances they are vested in, in part, but not all of the period vested in them. The period for the copyright is 50 years.
That sort of complied with that, but I recently had a phone call with an actor whose radio play was on its second repeat. This was the play's third transmission. The actor received a new contract, which stated that in order to get paid for the third broadcast, which is money that is due from the initial contract, they had to sign a new contract that guaranteed unlimited usage on RTÉ radio and through digital, etc. If the actor does not sign that piece of paper, RTÉ will not process the fee from the original contract. That is not the first time this has happened. I have one other complaint from somebody who had-----
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That sounds fairly startling.
Mr. Gerry O'Brien:
That is what happens.
Back in 2011, another actor received the same thing and had to go to a solicitor. Eventually, a letter was issued by the legal department of RTÉ stating "Yes, you were quite right, we were wrong. Here's your money." I do not blame the individuals whose names are on the emails because I do not believe they fully understand the legislation and the complexity of it, but for the management of RTÉ not to know this is going on means they do not know what is happening in their own organisation.
Copyright is fundamental to the entire audiovisual industry. It is fundamental across all artists' and creatives' rights, including sculptors, painters, writers, dancers and performers. It says they will be remunerated for the ongoing use and commercialisation of their work. When a lot of public funding goes into the commercial sector, rather than the independent sector - I take Mr. Dooley's point on that - they are there to maximise the commercial value of the performance. They do that in two ways at the moment. One is they get a buy-out contract which says you agree the amount paid is proportionate. How do you know? How does anybody know at that point that that amount of money is proportionate? The legislation says you can challenge that but the cost of consequence falls on the individual performer because they have to go to a legal department, get a solicitor and prove the amount paid is not proportionate. It is a double-edged sword in that we are given the legislation to protect our rights but protecting our rights becomes very costly. The best way to do it is to have a universal contract - there are templates that exist - that will future-proof the use, so there is a percentage or variable built into the contract at the point of engagement. It does not necessarily increase the cost at the point of production but, for revenues generated, all performers have a toe in the revenue stream at the same point the producers do. That is the problem.
That is the answer to the question. That is what is happening. I have the contracts here and I have the email there.
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank everybody for being here. It is incredibly sobering to hear the witnesses' collective concerns over workers' rights in the sector, particularly in relation to this Bill. I will put an open question to all the witnesses. I have heard the gaps they identified. Some were on our radar - around collective bargaining, for example. Mr. Kane mentioned procurement. I will give the witnesses an opportunity to go into more detail on any of those or to open any other ways in which the Bill can protect and enhance protect workers' rights in a more fulsome way.
Mr. Michael O'Brien:
We are having this discussion within a broader context that goes beyond the scope of this Bill, namely the factors that hinder trade union recognition and organising, so that we can guard against a race to the bottom in the sector in the context of private companies getting more opportunities to bid in and potentially take work previously done by RTÉ. We have experienced in other sectors the effrontery of private companies effectively gaining State contracts and public money, not recognising unions or availing of the conciliation services of the WRC and Labour Court, and not a damn thing being done by the authorities in the State. We are confronted by this scenario again. What are we asking for? What has been mentioned is the minimum wage directive. The Government says it does not require any special measures to enhance it, which is patently untrue given the voluntary nature of industrial relations in this country. We are on a potential collision course in the sector. If the trade union movement does its work correctly, makes inroads in organising and tries to establish a floor comparable with what has been enjoyed historically in RTÉ and other unionised firms, then broadcast productions will be interrupted by industrial action.
Mr. Séamus Dooley:
I mentioned the media merger notification form. It is a useful piece of legislation which has not really been used under competition law but which could easily be merged. It recognises that under competition law media mergers are different because they have an impact on democratic, plurality and diversity. That requires evidence regarding corporate governance, editorial control, independence and future plans. That is a summary. That is really useful because a checklist is there. If someone is acquiring a radio station, you ask if the licence is being acquired to close it or to enhance the services. If someone is buying a media group, is it to merge the editorial functions so as to have one group editor, a website and digital presence but the same news with no local input is there? Some kind of framework like that is necessary. Collective bargaining has been mentioned but it is also about plurality and diversity. We need to look at a commitment to education, training, literacy and media literacy as well. All of those could be included.
Mr. Adrian Kane:
We should be using this as a tool to create good jobs. I am conscious of what has happened in the northern legislature with regard to the good jobs Bill. There is an obligation under the adequate minimum wage directive to increase collective bargaining to 80%. It is a case of blending and enhancing the sector. There is a place for the public broadcaster and a place for the commercial sector. All we are saying is we do not want displacement or a race to the bottom. The Bill needs to put those kinds of safeguards in place. If we are serious about a roadmap to 80% collective bargaining, we need to use - whether we call it public procurement or whatever - legislation like this to build to that level and protect and enhance good jobs.
Mr. Gerry O'Brien:
On Deputy Ó Snodaigh's point on the different pieces of legislation, copyright is pervasive within society. It underpins commercialism. I will read from the guidelines from the Department of enterprise:
Where commercially exploitable IP arises as a result of State funding for research and development [so just change for "cultural development"], the opportunity shall be taken to commercialise the IP in all possible fields, applications and territories where it is consistent with achieving Ireland’s objectives.
The purpose of this commercialisation, from Ireland’s point of view, is to maximise the economic and societal benefits and returns to Ireland from its public investment in research.
The primary objective of commercialisation is the creation of sustainable jobs in Ireland, this is the most important form of economic and societal benefit.
It goes on to say that where no sustainable jobs are created, the IP should attract inward revenue streams. Therefore, the IP has to be anchored in this country, particularly in broadcasting. Broadcasting must enshrine within it that any public funding that goes into the commercial sector is fully compliant with the legislation of the copyright Act and the European copyright directive.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Dooley spoke at the beginning of the distinction between commercial and independent. It was staring us in the face but it was too close to us. We needed to actually have it said to us. There is a huge differential because RTÉ can produce independently.
Mr. O'Brien outlined the producer being asked to sign away for all areas. That is deeply concerning if it is a trend, which it sounds like it is. It also sounds like people are being agnostic or ignorant or are throwing a blind eye to it at management level. Is there any evidence of it that can be provided to the committee - in a response, although not now because we do not have time?
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Any evidence of that would be helpful to us all.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Reams, so produce it formally. We have all got hints and documentation in other ways.
It is obvious there are deep concerns in the committee about diminishing worker standards in relation to employment law and outsourcing, particularly in RTÉ. Senator Ní Chuilinn asked a question and it was never fully answered.
Where is morale in RTÉ?
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is that "Upfront"?
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There was no consultation on that either.
Ms Sorcha Vaughan:
No, there was no consultation. As Mr. Ó Síocháin alluded to, things like this Bill and the 25% are being used to fulfil a prophecy being laid, which is that we need to become smaller. The shows will be going, which will push people out into the private sector to create that opportunity and morale is low. Nothing has changed as far as we are concerned and we do not see where it is going at this stage.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Has it got worse?
Mr. Trevor Keegan:
I would class it as having got worse because there is still much doubt about the future. None of us can totally predict what will happen but the whole landscape within the building and as Ms Vaughan alluded to regarding the "Upfront" scenario, teams were told late in the day when this was happening.
The problem is this is a case of Chinese whispers whereby you hear the plan is to possibly have three smaller studios which will not have capacity for audiences. This then diminishes public democracy because if you are not able to have an audience, you cannot have debates for our presidential election or a public debate for a general election. You will not have audiences coming into that building, that actual physical landscape, and feeling they own that - which they rightly do - or are able to take part in the actual line of democracy taking place.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Has that been confirmed?
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is there a fear, similar to the religious programming and what happened with the Monday night show, this will happen without consultation?
Mr. Trevor Keegan:
Yes. Because with the religious affairs instance, unions got a phone call an hour beforehand, or SIPTU did. That is not consultation or the way to conduct industrial relations. We just have had a so-called IR reset where facilitators sat down with HR, the senior team and the unions and we were supposed to reset and recalibrate it, hopefully to move forward-----
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
When did that happen?
Mr. Trevor Keegan:
That happened only a few months ago. We agreed processes should probably get more involved and be more open and frank to weigh some of the flannel, such as heading to the grievance procedure too quickly. In the middle of all that, however, we were hit with the religious programmes being outsourced. The Department effectively closed and one person was going to oversee its commissions. This was when we were trying to get a HR reset.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I understand. We will go around again with Senator Ní Chuilinn going first.
Evanne Ní Chuilinn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I might continue that line of staff morale. My understanding, with a little bit of experience in RTÉ, is if everyone did what they were paid to do, nothing would get done. There is an awful lot of acting-up and people filling in. Mr. Dooley will know exactly what I am talking about when I refer to regrading and the conversations he and I had with RTÉ management over the years. What was said to me and to others who were not contracted for the job they did for 20 years was that RTÉ could not discuss regrading while the Eversheds process was ongoing. Now that the Eversheds process is finished, where is regrading at for the people still stuck in RTÉ?
Evanne Ní Chuilinn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Regrading was brought up by me and others ten or 15 years ago. It is an awfully long time to get paid for what you do, is it not?
Mr. Séamus Dooley:
It absolutely is. I am a Willis Towers Watson sceptic. It is a company that has operated across a number of media organisations in the UK and it is the platform but there is a level of frustration. Overall, it goes back to what Deputy Byrne said. If RTÉ was being reimagined for good reasons, I would say yes this is a healthy debate. The reality, however, is much of what is happening is a reaction to corporate governance failures and a failure of previous management to manage the organisation. As a consequence of that, we are now introducing all these changes without any great vision - being blunt about it - and the concept of seeking forgiveness rather than permission was brought to a whole new level in respect of what happened with the religious affairs programming and without any real debate on the lessons learned when children's programming was closed. It does not mean the programmes are not going to be made; they just will not be made by RTÉ. I often compare it to what happened with the Abbey Theatre when it decided to close the workshop. The workshop was an important part of the creative industry in Ireland.
Evanne Ní Chuilinn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Regrading is still ongoing and there are still people in RTÉ doing jobs they are not paid for. That is the clarification I wanted.
There is one more point of clarification. I mentioned Eversheds already. It was always labelled as a group agreement by RTÉ. As all the union groups are here today, did everybody agree with it at the time and sign up?
Evanne Ní Chuilinn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Eversheds process.
Evanne Ní Chuilinn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will rephrase that because we are short on time. Was there any group or union that disagreed fundamentally or told its own members it did not agree with it?
Evanne Ní Chuilinn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Did all the unions agree to the Eversheds process?
Evanne Ní Chuilinn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Did Mr. Kane and SIPTU also agree?
Evanne Ní Chuilinn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
SIPTU agreed with the Eversheds process.
Evanne Ní Chuilinn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
None of us agree with that.
Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Most of our discussion today has been around failures and problems within RTÉ. I found there was some criticism earlier of the independent sector and naturally, I will stand up for much of that sector. It is unfair and unacceptable to say there are widespread bad practices within the independent sector.
Specifically, regarding the funding issue and the future-funding model, when we talked about how we will fund creative content into the future, one of the options was the development of a streaming levy, particularly when we discuss what streamers are taking out of the country. There was the option to proceed with this and there are provisions within this legislation for its introduction. It was something that this party favoured. Am I correct in assuming the union groups support the streaming levy, in particular, as a way of developing?
Mr. Séamus Dooley:
Yes. The NUJ recovery plan, which was published immediately after Covid, advocated a tech levy, which is a similar kind of thing. As far as we are concerned, the big tech giants, which are often indulged because of their importance to the Irish economy, regularly are free-riders on the bus. This also goes back to the copyright issue. Anything which forces people who are earning to subsidise effectively - or cross-subsidise - is something we would welcome.
Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Or to partner even.
Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I might ask Mr. O'Brien about the change in the sector which we have already talked about. As witnesses will know, I chair the Oireachtas Committee on Artificial Intelligence. AI will have, particularly when the witness talks about residuals, a huge impact. It does not really touch on it within this legislation but it has a significant impact on what we are talking about.
Mr. Gerry O'Brien:
First, I want to address the independent sector. There are problems within the independent sector with regard to copyright and contracts, etc., going back to the implementation of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, which I mentioned earlier, but we are in negotiations that I do not wish to prejudice too much but we will be robust and will ensure that what we present to our members will protect their rights and will provide them with that proportionate remuneration.
With regard to AI, that is a really serious issue. I have attended several conferences with the International Federation of Actors and there are people losing their jobs very quietly which people do not know about. Across Europe, there is a vast career for performers who dub into local languages. This is now being taken over by AI.
The interesting thing is that it is still at a stage where sometimes they go back to the human voice because they cannot get a performance from AI. In Canada, the same thing has happened. A number of colleagues in Canada have been called back to dub into French-Canadian because AI is not doing it.
AI is a threat across GDPR and the copyright directive. It has the potential to reduce our employment. We had a case of an actor who agreed to do a voiceover session for a company. The person was not too sure what the agreement said, but they signed it and assumed it was fairly legal. That voiceover performer has now heard their own voice advertising various products, but it is not them. They have had their livelihood taken away. There was a presentation in the past few months which I found interesting where it said that GDPR gives a potential to withdraw yourself from that scenario because it is your digital rights. The copyright and related rights legislation of 2008 all demand that if someone signs away their voice or physical patterns, that person should be remunerated when they are used. That is what the Screen Actors Guild strike was about. It was to ensure informed consent for the use of a person’s image and voice and the need for a remunerative package each time it is used. That is a piece of legislation we need to address.
Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Within the AI committee, we will be having a specific module on the culture and creative industries.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I was going to speak to Deputy Byrne about that. As the two Chairs, we could do something together.
Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It would make a lot of sense.
Mr. Cearbhall Ó Síocháin:
In the context of head 23 and the media fund, if the protection for employment were built into it and if that were an additional element of the Bill, then that would ensure people not taking and running with the money and using it to displace other jobs. It would protect those jobs the money would pay for.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
To follow on from what Mr. Ó Síocháin is saying about conditionality with whatever funding there is, when it comes to State funding, I always believe any State funding should be conditional on having proper remuneration, protections and recognition at the highest level.
To go back slightly to RTÉ, the redundancy exodus, the bogus self-employment and the morale, what is the state of play now with the whole bogus self-employment? RTÉ was to compensate workers. Has it managed to do that in any shape or form? Where is that at? I remember the director general said at the time that if RTÉ basically fixed everyone up the way they should be, it would be bankrupt. I do not know where it is at.
Mr. Séamus Dooley:
This is an enormously complicated issue. It has been through the Committee of Public Accounts as well. There was a process under Eversheds Sutherland through which a significant number of people secured employment. There was then an appeal system of two independents who dealt with the issue of retrospective rights. What then happened was that Scope, the investigation unit of the Department of social welfare, came in and looked at a whole other category of workers who fell outside of that investigation. There is now a court case in the superior court involving an individual, which means other people who have appeals to Scope are caught in a logjam. It is extraordinarily unfair. That is going to happen. Those people are left hanging. While it is a small group of people, that does not mean it is fair. No one is going to touch them until the superior court appeal is dealt with. That is the real problem. The vast majority of issues around Scope have been resolved, although I would not say to everyone's satisfaction. This was a situation, as Deputy Ó Snodaigh knows, which should never have happened. What Mr. O’Brien described regarding copyright issues mirrors what happened to people who were forced to sign contracts of bogus self-employment. It is the same issue.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Obviously, that deals with morale as well. Morale is down if the organisation you are in is not properly addressing the fallout.
Mr. Séamus Dooley:
Notwithstanding the fact that significant progress was made for a group of people, but it took a very long time. This committee and other committees will know that the trade union group and the ICTU have been before Oireachtas committees for more than 20 years on the issue of bogus self-employment. It was not just RTÉ and it did not happen in a vacuum.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The other question is where the exodus, or the kind of redundancy, that has been foisted on RTÉ now is at. Has it reached the numbers it wants or is it going to continue to be offered?
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Obviously, it is a huge number which will then affect the running of every single department.
Mr. Trevor Keegan:
It depends on where RTÉ deems these people worthy of leaving. Jobs cannot be technically replaced. While people within RTÉ can possibly move sidewards to fill roles, those roles cannot be created in a new kind of way. They cannot be paid with new salaries, creations or new jobs coming in.
Mr. Séamus Dooley:
The thing to watch is the impact on services in small ways. Areas that are not able to offer up voluntary redundancies will be required to achieve savings in other ways. They can be small changes that are not dramatic but have an impact. For example, it could be something as simple as the fact that, without any announcement, "It Says In The Papers" no longer is on RTÉ on a Saturday or Sunday. That has a huge impact. It is a big day for the newspaper industry. That is a simple change. It is not a big cost but those kind of minor things have an impact and that is the concern. That is the sort of salami slicing that inevitably happens when you have a redundancy programme.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It basically means that RTÉ is not settled and it will not be settled for a number of years.
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for being here so late this evening. I appreciate it. It is problematic to think that, given free reign, RTÉ will proceed in this vein to erode both workers' rights and the retention of workers in roles that are in-house versus out. It seems clear to me that when you have organised workers in a publicly owned broadcaster and a level of commercial production outside, there will always be a natural influence on those workers in the commercial space from a better standard of terms and conditions for those workers in the State-owned environment. What we are seeing, obviously, is a shift and a kind of an exodus. I imagine that results in a lack of critical mass in union membership and the terms and conditions that brings. We are going to see a continual erosion.
Mr. Trevor Keegan:
There was always the tradition that staff in the independent sector and other media outlets wanted to get into RTÉ. At the moment, even the newsroom alone has had approximately ten journalists leave within the space of approximately 12 months. The exodus seems to be going in the opposite direction. You have to ask why, obviously.
Mr. Séamus Dooley:
As a full-time official, there is a level of positive engagement with many good HR people in RTÉ. There is a high level of unionisation. The problem is that where there is "ad hocery", as I call it, morale is very low, people are looking around and questioning their future in RTÉ. In a creative industry, people should not have to worry about their future. They should be able to concentrate on the business of doing the job they are paid for.
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will come to Ms Vaughan in a minute. It sounds like there is a difference of opinion. Does Mr. Keegan believe it is the intention of RTÉ to shell out the in-house staff?
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does Mr. Keegan think the motivation is around that?
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Whereas Mr. Dooley is not so convinced.
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There are caveats.
Mr. Séamus Dooley:
-----there are good people, as there are in any organisation. It would be dishonest to leave without saying that. Equally, the purpose of agreeing to some of the proposals in relation to "The Late Late Show" and other programmes was, in my view, to secure Government funding rather than to take a principled position on what was good for the creative sector in Ireland.
Ms Sorcha Vaughan:
Following on from Mr. Dooley's point, we can all speak to criticisms of RTÉ but at a basic level, the reason we are able to criticise is that we are let into the room. Our worry is that, once the work goes outside, we will not be let in the room anymore. At a very basic level, we can have our issues with how RTÉ consults us and whatever else but there are protections. As Mr. Dooley alluded to, we have seen things like the basic income for artists scheme. Protections foster creativity. Without those basic protections, it will be a race to the bottom and a wealth divide will prop up the creative industry.
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
People do it for the love of it. I tread the boards myself and I have a lot of family in the area. One genuinely does do not do it for money. Did Mr. O'Brien want to add something?
Mr. Gerry O'Brien:
My union represents professional performers. The average income for most of them from their profession is between €12,000 and €15,000. When there is something like the basic income for artists scheme, which is vital to them, one has to ask why we have to throw those lifebelts to people. Let us go up river and find out why they are earning so little. The ongoing residual payments, which are normal in Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK - the UK operates here through co-productions - are things that can help a performer to get through a tough time. After I came back from working on a US film a number of years ago, I was hospitalised for a year. I was ill and had an issue. The residuals from that film meant I was still a viable citizen in this country. I paid tax because of those residuals, and I survived.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses. I am quite conscious we have an ex-RTÉ employee here as well. The current issues with RTÉ have been outlined pretty starkly and we need to reflect on them as regards what we will be saying with this legislation. The point about the independent versus the commercial, how those sectors get their funding and the conditionality around same is an important one. That is, bodies have to meet certain requirements as regards standards and workers' rights. That is a critical issue that this committee needs to reflect on.
I am glad we got a chance to outline the Eversheds Sutherland review because, from a union point of view, it is something that is put out there for the likes of myself. There was a need to explain it and the history behind it. It is something that gets raised with me constantly in my political capacity, so it was important that we got a chance to air the history.
Regarding what we asked for earlier, the clerk has asked me to point out to Mr. O'Brien that we actually need it quite quickly in terms of the proposal we will make on this legislation.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We need it by early next week at the very latest.
It would be good if the unions could be quite vocal on the issue of the funding model that was proposed and the streaming levy. We all know the Minister has a certain view on that. We all have a certain view on it as well. It would be good if the unions expressed themselves on that because we are coming to a critical time. When it is before the Oireachtas, there will be a huge debate on it. I encourage them to express themselves.
I will raise two final points, the first of which is on AI. I had to launch an Irish Music Rights Organisation, IMRO, report today on music. Our committee and the AI committee need to do something jointly on AI.
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am on the AI committee as well.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There is huge overlap. That fact has been enhanced here again in relation to artists, workers and their capacity to earn their livelihoods, and what conditionality we can propose to attach to the transposition of the AI directive in that regard.
I am conscious of the workers who are in a difficult and different place in RTÉ. I presume that, with the reduction of 400-odd workers, there will be more programmes, such as religious programming and the Monday night "Upfront with Katie Hannon" show, because of the fact that, once the 400 are gone and there has been movement inside, there will be greater capacity to start making decisions in that area. That is potentially what unions fear, I presume, because some areas will see more people lost than others. The conditionality is that those roles cannot be replaced, so RTÉ might not be able to fulfil its mandate - if it is its mandate - in relation to certain areas. I presume that is a big fear. As a committee, we need to watch what happens post the big line or point being reached next September or October because we need to be a voice for workers. Once those workers leave, it will take a while to manifest and go through, but in autumn next year, there will be signals that we need to watch for.
Evanne Ní Chuilinn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Keegan mentioned people moving sideways. It is important to point out that not everybody will have the capacity to move sideways and do a different job.
Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There will be something there for the committee to look at.
I thank all the witnesses for their time. Sorry it was so late. I appreciate them coming in. Accidentally, we had them coming in the same week as the ICTU conference. That was a complete scheduling accident. This meeting was very engaging and well worthwhile.