Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I look forward to the passage of the Bill in due course. It will be supported by Fianna Fáil.

The Minister, rightly, identified the crisis in public service journalism which affects the broadcasting and print sectors. He identified the basis of the crisis, namely, the loss of commercial revenue to digital platforms and the way in which the younger demographic is consuming media. That is factual. The real crisis arises from the fact that, unfortunately, many of the organisations which support, preserve and protect public service journalism are struggling with the change necessary to meet the needs of those who consume information on digital platforms. It has taken time to get to this stage. It is a challenge to transform and migrate to these platforms.

The difficulty and source of the crisis are that the younger population is consuming data from sources that are not trusted. I categorise it as data, rather than properly curated information. The information is not researched and has the potential to undermine the democracy of the State. I refer only to this jurisdiction in that context because that is the extent of our responsibility in drafting legislation. That said, it is a worldwide problem. For evidence of it, one can look to our nearest neighbour where digital platforms were utilised by those who promoted and desired Brexit. We saw the dissemination of what could be termed questionable information, if one was being kind. It could also be called fake news if one wished to employ the language of certain others. It was certainly poorly researched information. In some cases, it had little basis in fact, while in many others it no basis in fact. It was presented in a manner that led some people to believe there was validity to it. This has happened on many occasions. It happened during the most recent US presidential election when certain facts were distorted and presented on digital platforms. For the younger generation, the branding of the platform gives credence and credibility to the message, even though, interestingly, the platforms accept no editorial responsibility and present themselves purely as facilitators. Obliging digital platforms to stand over the content on their sites or quickly remove it will be another battle.

There was an example of this type of misinformation in the House this evening. A Deputy who seeks to deny climate change read from a print-out of a story which I recently saw on Facebook. The story attempts to gain credibility by making reference to NASA. It has no basis in fact, but it is propagated throughout the Facebook environment among a certain group of people who have sought, for their own interests in some cases, to deny climate change.

A smiliar issue arose in respect of vaccines. A person presenting as a doctor wearing a white coat and with a stethoscope encouraged parents in this country and further afield to believe certain vaccines would harm their children. As public representatives, many Members of this House have been confronted by parents in a school yard or at a school gate who proclaim the veracity of the claims made by a doctor on Facebook and Youtube and ask whether we are aware of how damaging the vaccines would be for children. The only connection between the individual in a white coat and the stethoscope that gave him or her credibility was the fact that they were both on Youtube and Facebook. Youtube and Facebook do not accept any responsibility for the providence of their content. They are merely facilitators. In this great new world of connectedness, all they do is connect people. How wonderful of them to give us all the great opportunity to connect: free speech; let us talk to each other; a little magic dust and it is a great world. Facebook, Google and Youtube rack up approximately €1 billion per week in profits, but they are not required to check the facts presented on their sites.

A local radio station in County Kerry, Clare, Sligo or Leitrim cannot allow anyone on air to present unverified facts, even though the station's licence only covers a relatively small area. The station must exhibit solid journalistic principles and have trained staff who understand how to research a story, ensure there are at least two sources for it and that the facts are checked. That is what public service journalism is about. The challenge to public service journalism, even in relatively rural areas such as those I mentioned, comes from the global players. I know that the Taoiseach and certain others like to hang out with representatives of some of these companies. They are the places in which to be seen. What one says goes unchallenged. One can do this on these platforms.

That is where one starts, perhaps with all the right intent and for all good reasons but yet over time it has the capacity to erode our democracy. To take it to the next step, if we move away from the local and regional stations and bring it to the national station, the Minister rightly identified RTÉ is challenged for many reasons, but there is a challenge in trying to maintain that cost base at a time when there is other sometimes more salacious content, which is not sourced other than just somebody with an agenda who presents it.

The bulwark against misinformation in any democracy that holds all of us to account is an independent public service journalism, the Fourth Estate as it is often referred to. If one believes in that principle, one must accept it has to be paid for. It is no longer possible to support such a level of journalism from the commercial side of the house. From an advertising perspective, in terms of getting bang for one's buck and targeting, the digital platforms will provide a much better return for the advertiser. We must find a way to fund public service journalism properly. It will take much more than what is in this Bill. It is great to talk about 20 bursaries for young journalists. That is wonderful but it goes nowhere near what is required to protect, preserve and support public service journalism.

My party has produced clear policies on a number of occasions that, if implemented, would go some way in addressing the protection and preservation of public service journalism. I do not advance these cases for any particular medium. It is not about an individual newspaper or publisher. It is about how to protect the principle of public service journalism. When I talk to various journalists, be they in broadcasting, the print sector or some who have moved to digital platforms, the challenge is how they can develop their brand and transition it into a digital space. It is costly and takes time and there is a lot of catch-up. I recognise some of them are making an effort but they are not getting the return. It is costly to do it and they will need support.

Regarding the types of things that need to happen, we must address the evasion of the licence fee. It is estimated to be able to produce somewhere between €30 million and €40 million. Unfortunately, I disagree with the Minster's proposal. He is going to change the tender process, which will have an impact on An Post. That change will create a problem somewhere else. I am not sure how much it will deliver. We can look to what they have done in the UK. The Minister is telling the successful bidder who will be awarded the contract that they will have only five years to do this. I do not know if they will they invest enough to get a return. The right thing to do would not have been to kick this out but to step up to the plate, as we know what is happening. Quite a number of homes have a device that does not fall within the definition in the Bill. Therefore, we should change the definition and make it device agnostic. However, if one is consuming public service content, one should pay the licence fee and we should allow the Revenue Commissioners to collect it. That would give equity to the 75% or 80% of the population who are already paying it who would like to see everybody pay their fair share. I have heard the argument that this issue will be another saga like Irish Water. With respect, 75% or 80% of the public were not paying for water. That is a completely separate argument and it should not have frightened off anybody, and it needed to be addressed. Some people do not have a television. It comprises a handful of houses. As long as they satisfy the people who are collecting the licence fee, sign whatever waivers are required and do not have to pay, that will get the Minister out of that problem.

Some of the €35 million, €40 million, €50 million or whatever amount of revenue would accrue from the licence fee could go to RTÉ to fill the gap that exists. It has its own transformational change to make, which it needs to address quickly. We need to see the director-general present that. She has indicated she will and I am sure she has the capacity to do it. We must recognise there are legacy issues in RTÉ. It is not a flexible company. There are unions imbedded in the organisation for a very long time. While we would like to see the organisation make changes more quickly they will be hard fought. There has to be a move - the organisation will need the support of Government - to consider the introduction of compulsory redundancies. It has not been able to get its numbers reduced in line with expectations and tough decisions need to be made. That can be done in a way that supports the bright future of the organisation.

We produced a draft Bill which proposed ring-fencing 30% of the new money collected from those who were not paying the licence fee to go to a sound and vision style fund that would be used to support public service broadcasting in the independent sector in the local and regional stations. They provide such a phenomenal level of service to their areas and to the public. They are at the local matches, in the court room, at county council meetings and they cover local festivals. They provide a phenomenal return to their communities. I accept when they got their licence, there was a requirement for 10%, or whatever percentage, of public service content, news and current affairs. That was very doable in a different time when the advertising revenues were flowing. They are not there anymore. Unfortunately, many of the stations are struggling to employ good quality journalists who know what it is to verify a story, what a story is and understand what station audiences want and how one preserves and protects the stories from their individual areas. We must ensure we do not lose any more of that. They are operating on a shoe string. With the greatest of respect to the Minister, and I have considerable respect for his capacity to get on and take tough decisions and he has done it in other areas, I do not believe we can wait five years, having regard to the local and regional stations.

We depend on our public service media in times of crises. I am conscious that while we are debating this Bill there are people in every one of those local stations, and I am sure there is a team in RTÉ tonight and in all radio stations, wondering how they will address the storm that is approaching us, how they will be the stations to which the public will turn in a time of crisis. The real issue is whether in another three or four years they will have the capacity and the wherewithal to deliver in times of crises, not only in covering such a weather event but all the other issues that arise.

We have work to do in this House. It is somewhat difficult when one is talking about the introduction of levies and taxes and use of the Revenue Commissioners as a method of collection. They are measures not necessarily always put forward from the Opposition's point of view. It normally throws the Minister the problem and suggests he sorts it out. We have gone a step further on more than one occasion in suggesting things that do not always find favour with the electorate but they are the right things to do. If one believes in public service broadcasting and public service journalism and that they have a value, then in my view I have a responsibility to put forward the proposals that I believe have the capacity to deliver, protect and preserve them.

It would be wrong not to talk about the role of public service journalism or journalism generally within the print sector because it is also struggling. We have seen what has happened in recent years. I put forward a proposal previously, which I may have mentioned to the Minister, to examine the advertising streams that go on to the digital platforms, which do not see themselves as publishers. It is time to introduce a levy on advertising on these platforms and for it to be used to fund another stream of income to the State that would again be ring-fenced for supporting journalism within the print sector.

None of these funds should be administered by politicians. I suggested in the past the role and remit of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland be broadened to address media in its entirety through the administration of the various streams of funding so we can in a real way support journalism.

It would be the citizens supporting journalism and not seen as some sort of a hand-out from the Minister or political party of the day. That would be embedded in the system and very much seen as citizens supporting the principle of an independent and free public service journalism with no encumbrance, other than to meet the standards as set down by the BAI. At the time, I suggested that the BAI, in its support of the print sector, would broaden its remit and involve personnel from the Press Council of Ireland. I also believe it is time for the Ministry to take on a role of media generally which overarches and embraces the print sector as well. One will find a level of favour and acceptance from that.

I reserve the right to bring forward some amendments. I am prepared to work with the Department on these. I hope the Minister will not use the money message on them, however, as this has become a way of knocking back certain Bills. We do not have five years. This side of the House will work with the Minister, even if it is not overly popular in certain quarters, to bring forward a method of ensuring a source of funding to support a sector important to the State and show the way in this regard. Other countries have done it. There are other supports for the print sector in other countries. We would not be out of sync in this area. I can share some of the research I have in that area with the Minister. RTÉ needs the Minister’s support and assistance soon. From the people I have spoken to in the organisation, it is clear there is a crisis. I know the Minister will be having meetings with representatives from RTÉ.

We must bring forward some amendments. The Bill is a start but goes nowhere towards meeting the crisis. To some extent, it assists the Government to live up to a commitment given by a former Taoiseach which was to reduce the BAI levy for local radio stations. It has taken some time to come to fruition. There is an issue with some of the local community radio stations. By getting LEADER funding, they go over the €250,000 threshold. This funding is to support staffing at these radio stations. Will the Minister's officials re-examine this provision again? If they are not in a position, I can bring forward an amendment to exclude all community radio stations because they are not-for-profit. Some of the larger ones support educational programmes for journalists through LEADER, which is like what the Minister is trying to do with the bursaries. This could technically put them over the threshold limit. Will the Minister examine it?

See this speech in context