Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tairgim: "Go léifear an Bille don Dara hUair anois."

This is an important Bill, and I am happy to bring it to the House on behalf of the Minister. The main aim of the Bill is to implement the European Media Freedom Act, EMFA, in Irish law. EMFA is an EU regulation which puts in place new rules to protect media freedom and pluralism in the EU and strengthen the internal market for media services.

A free and independent media is a cornerstone of democracy and essential for healthy public debate. In an increasingly challenging environment for journalism, we can be thankful that Ireland has a strong constitutional and legislative foundation for the freedom of expression and safeguarding of media independence. However, we cannot take this for granted and we must modernise and further strengthen our legislative framework to take account of the transformation of the sector.

EMFA is wide ranging, and not all of its provisions are reflected in the Bill we are discussing here. This is because EMFA is an EU regulation and, as all Members know, is directly applicable in Irish law. Alongside this, the Irish regulatory framework for media is already well aligned with the main provisions of EMFA. Therefore, many of EMFA's provisions do not require further implementation in Irish law.

This Bill is focused primarily on two areas of EMFA that do require further implementation: the amendment of our existing media mergers regime and the introduction of new rules to increase transparency in the allocation of advertising by public bodies. Other areas of EMFA that require further implementation relate to the independence of public service media and the protection of journalistic sources, and they are being progressed through other legislation.

I will deal with the key areas of this Bill in summary first and I will briefly outline how other elements of EMFA will be implemented. Given the time available, I will focus on the main elements of the Bill but officials are available to provide details on all aspects of it if Deputies have specific queries.

Ireland's existing media mergers regime is set out in the Competition Act 2002, as amended. It is an important protection for media plurality and aims to prevent the concentration of media ownership into the hands of a small number of people. This Bill will broadly maintain the approach of the current framework while making some targeted changes to ensure that it is operating efficiently and fully in line with EMFA.

Under the current legislation, all media mergers must be notified first to the CCPC, which assesses the transaction on competition grounds. If approved by the CCPC, the media merger will then come to the Department of Culture, Communications and Sport for assessment on the grounds of media plurality, and it is then for the Minister for Culture, Communications and Sport to make a determination. The Bill will transfer responsibility for this media plurality assessment to Coimisiún na Meán. This is in line with EMFA, which requires that national media regulators, as designated under the audiovisual media services directive, are responsible for or substantively involved in the assessment of media mergers. The transfer of responsibility to Coimisiún na Meán will leverage its expertise in relation to media plurality, particularly in relation to online media, which is set to become an increasingly prominent part of the media mergers regime. Moreover, Coimisiún na Meán's status as an independent regulator will further strengthen the integrity of the process and reduce any individual or potential perception of a political element to decisions in relation to media mergers.

The Bill will also broaden the scope of the existing media mergers regime, most notably to include online platforms. This is a requirement under EMFA and reflects the digital transformation of the sector in recent years and the impact that online platforms have on media plurality. The scope of the legislation will also be broadened to include a merger involving a single media business, rather than requiring the involvement of at least two media businesses, as is currently the case. Finally, the new regime will apply to all media businesses, in contrast to the current framework, which is focused predominantly on media consisting substantially of news and current affairs.

Separately, the Bill seeks to ensure the media mergers regime is focused on those media mergers that are likely to have a significant impact on media plurality or editorial independence in the State. Under the Bill, for a media merger to be automatically notified to an coimisiún for assessment, the media business being acquired must have a turnover of at least €2 million in Ireland. The Bill provides that the Minister may modify this monetary amount by order, with the approval of the Oireachtas. This is to allow the regime to take account of market developments.

The introduction of a turnover threshold addresses an issue that has arisen in recent years with the existing media mergers regime where an increasing number of media mergers with limited connection to Ireland have been required to be notified for assessment. An example would be a merger where an international media business with operations in Ireland acquires a foreign media business with no activity in Ireland. These mergers are highly unlikely to have any impact on media plurality in the State and their removal from scope will remove this unnecessary regulatory burden for businesses. It will ensure that the media mergers regime is proportionate and can continue to operate efficiently with a focus on the most impactful mergers.

Coimisiún na Meán will be able to "call in" or require the notification of mergers that do not meet the criteria for automatic notification where it is of the view that there is likely to be a significant impact on media plurality or editorial independence. This new power would be of relevance, for example, in the context of mergers involving local media, where the turnover of entities is low yet there is still a potential impact on plurality in the local context. A further example would be cases where the target is in its infancy with low revenues but has significant market share and the potential to have a significant impact on plurality.

The Bill will also strengthen Coimisiún na Meán's enforcement powers by creating a number of new offences, including for failure to provide information requested or for putting a merger into effect without approval. Where a merger has been put into effect without approval, Coimisiún na Meán will have the power to unwind that merger.

Overall, these changes will strengthen and modernise our media mergers framework, ensuring that it remains an effective protection for media plurality and is in full compliance with EMFA.

I will deal next with the provisions relating to State advertising. Advertising by public bodies is an important source of revenue for many media organisations. Yet, in most EU member states, there are no specific rules as to how advertising expenditure by public bodies is advertised. This could lead to a situation where advertising could be used as a potential source of political influence over the media. This is why EMFA sets out new transparency requirements in relation to expenditure on advertising by public bodies. Under EMFA, public bodies must ensure that expenditure on advertising with media services or online platforms is allocated in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner. Public bodies must set out appropriate criteria and procedures to be utilised in allocating advertising expenditure. Public bodies must also publish information on an annual basis regarding the total amount spent on advertising and the amount spent with individual media services and online platforms. While broader public procurement rules and Irish language requirements under the Official Languages Act 2003 apply to advertising by public bodies, there is no overall framework for transparency of State advertising in Ireland, as envisaged under EMFA.

The Bill contains a number of implementing provisions to give full effect to these requirements. It sets out a broad definition of "public authority or entity" to include: Departments; local authorities; regulators and entities controlled by the Government; and commercial State companies. The Bill also sets out detailed timelines for the publication of expenditure information by such bodies and it obliges them to publish a plan for compliance with the requirements of EMFA, setting out the criteria and procedures they will use to award State advertising. Public bodies must seek to ensure that, where possible, the overall yearly expenditure on advertising is distributed to a wide plurality of media service providers.

The Bill entrusts Coimisiún na Meán with the task of monitoring expenditure on State advertising and producing an annual report based on the information published by public bodies. An coimisiún will also be responsible for developing guidelines to assist public bodies in fulfilling their obligations.

The Bill will also designate Coimisiún na Meán as the body responsible for a number of other tasks under EMFA. First, it will be responsible for the development of a media-ownership database containing information on the ownership of all media services in the State. This is a task that, in practice, an coimisiún is already undertaking through the mediaownership.iewebsite, which has been developed with DCU and has been operational since 2020. The Bill will place the requirements for such a database on a statutory basis and set out how it needs to be developed further in line with EMFA case requirements. In addition, an coimisiún will be tasked with engaging with industry to promote transparency around audience measurement systems.

This is a technical area, and EMFA provisions are primarily intended to address a lack of transparency in relation to audience measurement online. For example, in Ireland there are existing industry standard audience-measurement systems for TV under TAM Ireland and for radio under JNLR. However, there is no equivalent industry standard for online audience measurement. Coimisiún na Meán's role will be to engage with audience measurement providers operating outside of industry agreed standards. In particular, that refers to online platforms and streaming services. It will encourage them to draw up and adhere to jointly agreed codes of conduct. It is important that some provisions of EMFA will be implemented separately from this Bill.

EMFA sets out a number of safeguards to protect the independence of public service media, such as RTÉ and TG4. These safeguards are being implemented as part of wider reforms of public service media governance through the broadcasting (amendment) Bill, which is on the priority list for publication this session. The Bill includes revised procedures for the appointment of a director general of a public service broadcaster and a reform system for assessing the performance and funding of RTÉ and TG4.

EMFA also seeks to strengthen the protection of journalistic sources by placing certain limits on State powers of investigation. These provisions will require the amendment of criminal justice legislation and, as such, are being taken forward by the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. Work is ongoing in relation to the Garda Síochána (powers) Bill and the communications (interception and lawful access) Bill. The Department of justice is considering other necessary legislative reforms to ensure compliance with EMFA as part of its wider legislative reform programme.

I now turn to a more detailed overview of the provisions of the Bill. Part 1 includes standard provisions setting out the Title to the Bill and key definitions used throughout. It also repeals certain sections of Part 3(a) of the Competition Act 2002.

Part 2, which is important, amends the media mergers framework under the Competition Act 2002 to ensure its full alignment with EMFA. Chapter 1 sets out transitional arrangements relating to the transfer of the media mergers function from the Minister to Coimisiún na Meán. Chapter 2 includes the detailed amendments of the media mergers framework under Part 3(a) of the Act.

Section 10 amends a number of definitions including the definition of "media business and media merger" to align the scope of the media mergers framework with that envisaged under EMFA. Section 11 inserts a new definition of "carries on a media business in the State" in order to establish a turnover threshold for notification of a media merger of €2 million.

Section 13 provides Coimisiún na Meán with a new power to require notification of a merger which does not meet the definition of a media merger, where it is of the view that the merger may have a significant impact on media pluralism or editorial independence.

Sections 15 to 17, inclusive, set out the process for the examination of a merger by Coimisiún na Meán. The Bill retains the existing two-stage process, while incorporating new elements required under EMFA. Under Section 17, Coimisiún na Meán will also have the power, following an in-depth full examination, to unwind or dissolve a merger or acquisition that was put into effect without approval.

Section 19 requires that the parties to a merger will have the right to appeal to the High Court against a decision of Coimisiún na Meán in relation to a merger.

Section 24 will require Coimisiún na Meán to develop and maintain a national media ownership database in line with EMFA requirements. Section 24 also expands Coimisiún na Meán's existing report on ownership and control of media business in the State to cover broader media market developments, including trends in consumption and relevant economic data. This will provide a clearer picture of media plurality in the State and a stronger evidence base for decisions in relation to media emergence.

Chapter 3 sets out a number of consequential amendments to Part 3 of the Competition Act 2002, which deals with the assessment of mergers from a competition perspective.

Part 3 sets out implementing provisions to give full effect to the requirements of EMFA on State advertising. Section 31 sets out a detailed definition of "public authority or entity" to provide clarity as to whom the requirements of EMFA will apply.

Section 32 obliges public bodies to seek to ensure, where practicable, that their yearly expenditure on advertising is distributed to a wide plurality of media service providers.

Section 33 requires public bodies to publish a plan for compliance with the requirements of EMFA, setting out the procedures and criteria they will apply in awarding contracts for State advertising.

Section 34 sets out detailed timelines for the annual publication of information by public bodies in relation to their advertising expenditure.

Section 35 designates Coimisiún na Meán as the body responsible for monitoring and producing an annual report on State advertising based on the expenditure information published by public bodies.

Section 36 enables Coimisiún na Meán to develop guidelines to assist public bodies in meeting their responsibilities in relation to State advertising.

Part 4 amends section 34 of the Broadcasting Act 2009 to provide that Coimisiún na Meán may co-operate with industry and encourage the drawing up of codes of conduct to promote transparency in audience measurement.

The Bill seeks to implement a number of important amendments to our regulatory framework that will further strengthen our existing protections for media freedom and pluralism. The Minister looks forward to working with all in this House as we debate these issues in the coming weeks. There is an urgency in respect of this Bill.

Joanna Byrne (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We in Sinn Féin see no reason to oppose this Bill. We look forward to its progression to Committee Stage. It would address many of the issues this party has raised over the years regarding media ownership and independence. We may seek to submit amendments on matters on which we believe the Bill is not strong enough, but I am sure engagement on that would be welcomed.

The parent legislation of the Bill we are discussing today is the European Media Freedom Act. Were it not for the EU pushing this legislation, the Government would be happy to continue sitting on its hands. The positive is that this Bill will put more tools in Coimisiún na Meán's toolkit. I hope it will choose to utilise these tools when necessary and not refer cases back to the EU to investigate, as it has done with X and Grok, rather than using the measures provided for nationally under the recent online safety framework. Laws, rules and regulations are worthless unless they are enforced by the appropriate statutory body. I think we would all agree there is no point in giving somebody a new car unless they are going to drive it.

Almost ten years ago, Sinn Féin MEP Lynn Boylan commissioned a report on the concentration of media ownership in Ireland, highlighting the high risk associated with Irish media ownership due to the influence of figures like Denis O'Brien. That report said that Ireland has one of the most concentrated media markets of any democracy and that "It is now imperative that urgent action is taken, and seen to be taken, to reassure journalists, media organisations and the wider public". This Government, which has been in power in one form or another since 2011, has done little to address this. It was flagged back then that having such a high concentration of media ownership in the Irish market threatens media plurality and undermines the media's ability to perform its watchdog function. That it is why it is important that we move this Bill along and also try to strengthen it in areas where it may be lacking, perhaps through provisions allowing existing monopolies to be broken up.

I hope that, with this legislation, we will stave off a Rupert Murdoch-type media dominance subsuming the Irish market. His politically right wing-leaning global media empire made him a kingmaker from the US to the UK. To quote a CNN article published when he was stepping down in 2023:

Through a hazardous cocktail of mis- and disinformation, conspiracy theories, and outright propaganda, Murdoch profited off of fear and division with little apparent regard for warping the public discourse, disfiguring American politics, and imperiling Western democracy.

That is what we must guard against. That is why it is essential we have powers here in Ireland to guard against that type of monopoly. There are powers here that should be utilised. We need not refer everything to the EU when complex decisions arise in the future. All of those provisions of Article 22 of the European Media Freedom Act, which this Bill will give full effect to, relating to media mergers and the assessment of media market concentration are very welcome.

The 2016 report on the concentration of media ownership in Ireland and more recent reports on media ownership in Ireland all highlight the same issues. A report on high ownership concentration posing significant risks to pluralism states that our market is dominated by State-owned RTÉ on radio and TV, by Mediahuis in print and by Bauer Media in commercial radio, with significant foreign ownership. Key concerns include the lack of specific statutory ownership limits and high cross-media consolidation. The ownership of print media is flagged as being very high. Denis O'Brien sold Independent News and Media to Mediahuis in 2019. Of the top four print groups, Mediahuis has 38% of the readership, the Irish Times Group has 26%, Reach plc has 15% and News Corp has 12%. Together, they control 91% of the national print audience. The concentration in radio is flagged as high, that in media as medium to high and that in online media as concentrated.

I would like to see an assessment of our current media companies and what may be considered an existing monopoly and to examine how Coimisiún na Meán deals with it. The need for this will be known when Coimisiún na Meán develops a national media ownership database, as it is required to do under this Bill.

The Bill will also impose transparency on public authorities and entities. They will be obliged to publish information on the total amount spent on advertising and the amount spent with individual media providers. I sincerely welcome this. State advertising in many small media outlets and regional newspapers during the Covid pandemic shutdown was helpful but in no way did it cover their losses. It may not have gone far enough in that time of crisis but at least some effort was made and that is to be acknowledged.

Some political parties have been caught out misusing State advertising. In 2018, the new Government strategic communications unit paid for adverts to promote the Project Ireland 2040 national development plan. This was widely criticised. The Times in the UK reported that the editors of several regional newspapers were told to present the advertorials like news content. These ads often featured TDs and councillors. The Government delayed answering questions asked under the Freedom of Information Act for several weeks before releasing the documents on the day of the referendum to repeal the eighth amendment, hoping to bury the news. We in Sinn Féin tabled a Private Member's motion seeking the immediate disbandment of the SCU, this so-called spin unit. This controversy caused the Government's strategic communications unit to be disbanded mere months after it was established. We can therefore see why some parties have been reticent to introduce legislation in this House to tackle the issue without EU direction. It is welcome that Coimisiún na Meán will now have responsibility in this area but, as I said earlier, I hope it makes use of the new tools in its toolkit.

The Bill's focus on audience measurement systems with a view to improving transparency and reliability is welcome. This will also be worth scrutinising further on Committee Stage. The requirement for Coimisiún na Meán to co-operate and to encourage the adoption of codes of conduct by industry to promote transparency around audience measurement systems may not provide the teeth required to ensure true accuracy and transparency.

I look forward to looking at this Bill further on Committee State. I welcome the fact that areas of concern regarding media ownership concentration flagged by Sinn Féin over a decade ago will now be legislated for. It is well past time.

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Joanna Byrne has already stated the issue, which had previously been brought up by Lynn Boylan, regarding the fears we have about Ireland's media being owned by a very small number of players. We brought this issue up because of the huge footprint Denis O'Brien had at the time. You cannot talk about the negatives of media ownership and the impact it can have on world politics without talking about what Rupert Murdoch did in Britain. He decided who would be prime minister. Prime ministers did deals with him before they were within smelling distance of an election. Tony Blair has gone on the record as having done that. What was that headline about Neil Kinnock and the last person out switching off the lights? That is the reality.

We also see every day, although in some cases we may try not to see, what Fox News and others do in America. We can call these news corporations but there are probably more suitable terms. We are into the realms of absolute farce at this point in time. That is a particular issue.

Can we deliver media scrutiny and proper rules and regulations across the entire world? Of course we cannot. We have to deal with Ireland. As Deputy Byrne said, we are doing this on foot of European legislation. In this case, we are very glad it was initiated but we need to ensure we have all the checks and balances and due diligence necessary to ensure a huge level of ownership, control and power are not left in a small number of hands, who can work in concert if they choose to and who can direct and disrupt politics.

We know the detrimental impact modern media has had on politics on a worldwide basis. We know the issues regarding misinformation, disinformation and abject lies, as well as a lack of control. While we welcome the added powers for Coimisiún na Meán, we will need to see it operate them. We need to see a regulatory framework for social media that will work because we also know that social media companies and big tech have abjectly failed to regulate themselves. We have all seen the disgrace in relation to Grok. As Deputy Byrne said, we could have done with Coimisiún na Meán and the Government acting at an earlier stage, even just to show an interest in the matter and an intent that the creation of child pornography and such would not be facilitated, no matter who was in control of these companies.

I remember speaking to a garda at an event years ago. We were talking about the need for road safety and things that needed to be done on a particular road. He said that if An Garda Síochána was dealing with people who had good manners, it would not need half the rules and regulations. Unfortunately, we are not dealing with people who have good manners, but that does not matter. Whether it is in relation to the Irish media market or regulation across the board in the online space, we need rules because we cannot rely on the likes of Elon Musk and whatever particular rant or moment of lunacy he is going through at a particular time.

When we talk about truth at this point in time, what does it even mean any more? We have seen the brutal actions by genocidal Israel in Gaza, Lebanon and throughout the wider Middle East. We have also seen the backing that is being provided by Donald Trump. We then have Pete Hegseth telling us that the Strait of Hormuz would be open but for the Iranians. They seem to be firing missiles and causing problems. We also had the beyond scandalous killing of more than 170 schoolchildren when a school was attacked with a Tomahawk missile. I understand that Tomahawk missiles are made in the United States, but we all heard Donald Trump's answer in relation to that. Even Pete Hegseth said that there would need to be an investigation because Donald Trump made out that it might have been the Iranians. That is the world we are in.

We need to make sure that we can control whatever piece we can and feed into the European Union, including the European Commission, so that we have some element of a framework. That framework is about the media and the huge impact and footprint it can have. We cannot leave that in the hands of a very small number of people. It would work if we were dealing with really sound people who had really good manners, but, unfortunately, that is not what we are dealing with in the world at this point in time.

As Deputy Byrne said, all parties across the House will need to work together to ensure that we get the best system we can. It goes without saying that we need to ensure that the gaps we saw during the Grok situation are addressed by whatever legislation is required and that we address whatever weaknesses there are, be that through our online safety Bill or the Digital Services Act at a European level.

We all welcome the necessity of artificial intelligence in relation to healthcare, innovation and so on, and we all understand the wonderful communication means we have at our disposal, but, in real terms, we need to have regulation because we know the abject harm that is being done by social media companies with their recommender algorithms. They keep people in really unhelpful and terrible spheres, for want of a better term. I was nearly going to show my age and say "sites". We have all seen where someone starts looking at one thing on TikTok - which, like every other company, profiles its customers, including their age and where they are from - and then all of sudden it can put them down a rabbit hole that is really dangerous for them.

I accept that the regular media has certain controls and protections for people. It cannot publish what it wants and any lunatic cannot just start spouting. We even have an occasional bit of lunacy in this House. It happens occasionally and I want it to be called out when it happens.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not from the Deputy.

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of course not. I can see the Minister of State is taking notes on all of the gems I am offering up.

This is the world we live in. It is important that we make sure that we put in the supports and checks. What has happened to date across the world is frightening. What could happen in the future with the tools that are in the hands of big tech and media moguls scares the life out of me. Some of this is what has facilitated the likes of Donald Trump to make his way into the White House. Like other instances, it also shows the failure of many others in politics. We need to ensure that it cannot happen here. Our job as the Opposition is to hold the Government to account, but it is necessary that any legislation relating to the media that comes from the Government holds the media to account, and then the media in turn holds all of us to account. That is only fair and proper.

I have no doubt that, if there is co-operation across the board, we will all look to find the framework that will work from the point of view of ensuring that we not allow a very small amount of people to gain too much of a foothold in the media, control the message and possibly undermine democracy. We need to ensure that those protections are introduced because there are far too many damaging aspects in the world at the minute that are impacting on democracy. We need to make sure that we do not allow this to continue.

Everyone will be pleased to hear that I am about to end.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy's time is over. It is a record.

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Not quite. This is usually when I ask for some element of flexibility. Given the day that is in it and the fact that I am here with Deputy Byrne, I once again offer my solidarity to her. What Trivela has done as the owner of Drogheda United is an absolute disgrace. I am glad that she is doing what she always does, which is fighting her corner.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be fair, that is not part of the debate.

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept that. I will finish on this, and I will say it very quickly as well. As I am protecting a Louth TD, I also offer my solidarity to Gerry Adams as he defends the republican struggle.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy, please. That has nothing to at all to do with the Bill.

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is it.

Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy never fails.

Robert O'Donoghue (Dublin Fingal West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I endeavour to be half as entertaining as Deputy Ó Murchú.

I am glad to be speaking on this Bill because it goes to the heart of something that is fundamental in any democracy, namely, how our media operates, who owns it and who influences it. I was with Dublin City FM just last week. It brought many of the points in this Bill to my attention. I hope this Bill is enacted and that it ultimately protects the independence and integrity of journalism in a world that is changing faster than ever before.

When we talk about media, we are not just talking about businesses or platforms. We are talking about how information flows, public debate and the ability for people to access a wide range of voices and perspectives. That is what underpins a healthy democracy and that is why legislation like this matters.

We need to be honest: the stakes are high. If we allow media ownership to become too centralised and if we fail to safeguard independence and transparency, we risk seeing a system where only a few voices dominate the public discourse. Just look at examples from abroad. Fox News has one perspective, which is heavily amplified and shapes national debate. That is not the Ireland we want. We want a media system that is diverse, and most of all trusted by the public.

It is important to say from the outset that this Bill does not exist in a vacuum. It is part of a wider European effort, which I welcome, to respond to real and growing concerns about media freedom and the rule of law across the EU. There are other areas within this sector and other briefs the European Union should be moving quicker on. I welcome the fact this is coming from the European Union. The European Media Freedom Act was brought forward because, in some member states, there have been worrying trends of concentration of ownership, political interference, pressure on journalists and erosion of media freedom. The goal at European level is clear. It is to strengthen media freedom, protect pluralism and ensure consistent standards across the Union. This is a good thing, and Ireland, rightly, is playing its part in implementing that.

The European framework introduces a number of important safeguards. It strengthens protections for journalistic sources, which is absolutely fundamental if journalists are to do their job without fear. It reinforces the independence of public service media, which plays such an important role here at home. It increases transparency around media ownership, so people can see clearly who controls the media outlets they rely on, especially online platforms. It puts in place protections when it comes to large online platforms, which now play a central role in how people access news and information.

It also introduces a more robust procedure for assessing media mergers and brings in new transparency requirements around audience measurement and state advertising, areas that up to now have not been totally clear or consistent. This is something that was brought up with me again on Dublin City FM last week regarding its listenership figures. Coimisiún na Meán will be obliged to promote transparency in audience measurement systems. For example, Dublin City FM's listenership figures should be used to evaluate the scope of its broadcast map, not its participation figures. It does not give a proper all-encompassing view of where it broadcasts to. I hope this Bill will encourage innovative outlets like Dublin City FM to be bold and brave and to continue to innovate.

To support all of this, there will be the new European board for media services, bringing together national regulators, including Coimisiún na Meán. That kind of co-operation is essential in a media environment that does not stop at national borders.

While much of the European regulation has applied directly from August 2025, there are elements that need to be put into Irish law to ensure they work properly in practice. That is where this Bill comes in. At its core, this Bill focuses on two key areas: media mergers and state advertising. Both of those are hugely important if we are serious about transparency, fairness and protecting our media landscape. To start with media mergers, one of the most significant changes here is the shift in how these decisions are made. Up to now, the Minister has had a central role. Under the Bill, that responsibility moves to Coimisiún na Meán. I welcome this decision. These are not just economic or technical decisions but they go directly to questions of plurality, influence and democratic health. It makes sense that they are assessed independently, based on expertise, and at arm's length from political interference and decision-making. Independence matters, not just in practice, but in perception. Public confidence depends on knowing that decisions are being made fairly and transparently.

The Bill also reflects the reality that the media landscape has changed dramatically. It is no longer just about traditional broadcasters or newspapers. Online platforms, social media, streaming services and digital intermediaries have enormous influence over what people see, read and hear and how it informs their decisions. Bringing these platforms within scope is not just sensible but it is necessary. If we did not do that, we would be regulating yesterday’s media environment, not today’s. Online media travels faster than anything we have previously witnessed and we cannot be crisis managing this. We always need to be ahead.

At the same time, the Bill strikes a balance. The €2 million turnover threshold ensures we focus on mergers that are genuinely significant in the Irish context. We do not want unnecessary barriers or burdens for smaller operators. It is about innovation and being bold and brave for the small guys. There is also flexibility with the "call-in" power, allowing Coimisiún na Meán to look at transactions below the threshold if they could meaningfully impact plurality or editorial independence. That is especially important in Ireland, where we are still one of the few countries in the world which relies on local and niche media - Tipp FM comes to mind - and which can have a big influence despite having such small turnover. A small outlet can still be a very powerful voice in our community.

The second pillar of the Bill is state advertising. This is an area where the changes are very welcome. Public money is spent on advertising across a wide range of media outlets and platforms. That is entirely legitimate as public bodies need to communicate but up to now there has not been a single coherent framework ensuring transparency. This Bill addresses that gap. Public bodies will now be required to set out clearly how they approach advertising, including the criteria and processes, and to report annually on their spending, including amounts paid to individual media providers and online platforms. This is a significant step forward, which I welcome. It brings openness, accountability and fairness, ensuring there can be no perception that advertising spend is used to influence editorial decisions. Again, Coimisiún na Meán will have oversight, which is appropriate given its broader responsibilities.

Beyond these areas, the Bill also includes other important measures. It puts the media ownership database on a statutory footing, giving us a clear view of who owns and controls media in Ireland. It encourages codes of conduct around audience measurement, especially online, where transparency has been lacking. It is also important to remember that this Bill is one part of a broader reform programme. Measures to strengthen the independence of public service media, including RTÉ and TG4, are being progressed separately. Stronger protections for journalistic sources are being advanced through justice legislation, ensuring any interference is strictly controlled and subject to judicial oversight. Together, these measures form a comprehensive effort to strengthen the media framework in Ireland.

While the Labour Party is broadly supportive of this Bill, we will scrutinise it carefully and bring forward our own amendments, if necessary. Just like with Sinn Féin, I am sure they will be welcomed. We need to ensure definitions, especially what counts as media services are clear. We need the regulatory burden to remain proportionate, particularly for smaller media organisations. We need to ensure Coimisiún na Meán has the resources to carry out its expanded responsibilities because, ultimately, the success of this framework depends not just on the legislation but on how it is implemented in practice.

At the heart of all of this is a question of balance. We want to protect media plurality and independence. We want transparency and accountability. We also want a media sector that is viable, sustainable and capable of investing in quality journalism. Getting that balance right matters because once media plurality is lost, it is very difficult to get back. We need to be honest: we do not want a system dominated by a handful of powerful players, where opinion outweighs evidence - in other words, we end up with something like Fox News, heavily influencing public debate with a narrow perspective. That is a warning we ignore at our peril.

This Bill matters. Not just because it implements European law but because it sets the tone for how we value and protect our media in Ireland’s future.

Ultimately, it is about trust - trust that journalists can do their work without interference; trust that the public can access a wide range of voices and perspectives; and trust that the system itself is open, fair, open and independent. If we get this right, we strengthen not just our media landscape but democracy itself. In a time when misinformation spreads easily, when pressure on journalism and journalists is real and when public trust cannot be taken for granted, it has never been more important.

I welcome this Bill. It moves us in the right direction. I look forward to working constructively to ensure that, as it passes through, we make it as strong, clear, and effective as it possibly can be. A free, independent and diverse media is not a luxury in a democracy - it is a necessity and it is our responsibility to protect it. If we fail to do so, we risk a media system where voices are limited, debate is constrained, and public trust is eroded. We will not let that happen. We will protect a media system that is plural, independent and trusted. That is what this Media Regulation Bill is all about.

Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State articulated very well the purposes of this Bill particularly in implementing elements of the European Media Freedom Act. It is important to note that Ireland has always performed well on press freedom indices. Reporters Without Borders, RSF, which is journalists making their own assessment, has placed Ireland’s ranking over the past number of years as "good", which is the top placing, when it comes to media freedom. It is worth noting Ireland is one of only six countries, along with Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Denmark and the Netherlands, that have been consistently rated as good by RSF. In the past Freedom House used to conduct the world press freedom index which, again, always found that Ireland had a very good reputation when it came to press freedom. This is critical to any democracy. It is vital that journalists can always speak truth to power, that they are free from political pressure, that we have transparency in terms of media ownership and we have a plurality of views particularly, as Deputy O’Donoghue just mentioned, in the battle against misinformation and disinformation in the modern age and in the age of artificial intelligence. That is critical. The role of the Irish media in that space is commendable.

It is healthy that we debate media in this country and that it is allowed to happen. For the most part, we are incredibly lucky that we have quality broadcasters, whether we are talking about RTÉ, TG4, Virgin Media or local and community radio or television, and also when it comes to the print media. We are very fortunate to have a good and diverse range of views in our print media at local and national levels. They do a very good job generally and are an essential part of our democracy, particularly if we talk about local media. Their important role in reporting on local news, local council meetings and what goes on in our communities is something we take for granted. We can contrast that with some of the news deserts that exist in many other parts of the world. Part of the problem with the polarisation of politics in the United States is that they have lost a lot of the local and even state-based news media that used to exist. The setting up by the previous media Minister, Catherine Martin, of the local democracy fund to support that reporting was critical.

On the Government’s commitment in the broad area to ensure a free and fair media, the reforming of the defamation laws to allow for fair comment is very welcome. Addressing the problem of SLAPP, strategic lawsuits against public participation, is also something that is very important. We should never see a situation where politicians or those in positions of power use the legal system to try to inhibit good and fair journalists from doing their job. That is not to say that media should be above criticism but a healthy debate is one where journalists challenge us, as politicians, and we equally challenge the media around news stories.

In that sense, it is worth praising, for instance, some of the investigative journalism by RTÉ where it did speak truth to power in recent times which had an impact in here. "Inside Ireland’s Nursing Homes", which was broadcast last June, with Lucy Kennedy and Aoife Hegarty, exposed what had been going on inside some of our nursing homes which demanded a response. Joe Galvin’s "Forced Fashion" looked at how cotton from labour camps in Xinjiang was finding its way onto Irish shelves. That sort of quality investigative journalism, free from political interference, is critical. RTÉ current affairs should not think it can be above criticism. For instance, I regularly criticise the imbalance of many of the programmes on RTÉ which give disproportionate coverage to smaller and fringe political parties and, indeed, to smaller and fringe views. However, for the most part, we are fortunate that we have a very pluralistic media that is open to express a wide range of views.

As the Minister of State said, while the Bill does not deal with every aspect of EMFA, it focuses primarily on media plurality and advertising by public bodies. I welcome the powers that are being transferred to Coimisiún na Meán which will mean that as an independent regulator there will be no perception of political interference in some of this area. I have been quite impressed to date by Coimisiún na Meán’s operations. It is critical that it is properly resourced. We need to look at some of the powers in specific areas but as a relatively new regulator, it has done well.

The Minister of State made the point about the turnover threshold and that is particularly important. We need to address those challenges around media ownership. This is a concern which is flagged occasionally here when we see mergers and so on but we have to avoid the situation we have seen in the United States, for instance, where Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, decided to buy The Washington Post, once one of the greatest newspapers in the world but now only a shell of its former self and the editorial independence, which we would expect in this country of a national newspaper, no longer exists.

There is a slight loophole. While the legislation would prevent a similar situation happening here of a wealthy individual or online platform trying to buy what we might call one of our traditional media, a newspaper or whatever - there are restrictions already in Irish law which are further enhanced by this Bill - as we move into the digital world, there is no real restriction on, say, a wealthy individual setting up an online political news platform, or whatever, and pumping money into that. I raised this with the Standards in Public Office Commission, which accepted my argument. While somebody like Jeff Bezos could not necessarily come in here and buy The Irish Times, Irish Independent or whatever, there is no barrier to an international or domestic Jeff Bezos setting up an online news platform and pump what I would see as political donations into that space.

On advertising by public bodies, the measures contained in the legislation are welcome. When he was Minister for the Gaeltacht, the Minister, Deputy Jack Chambers, brought in a requirement that a lot more advertising would be done trí Ghaelige. At least 20% of advertising is now in Irish on all sorts of issues. It is welcome that when we tune in to radio or TV we hear a lot more Irish. The transparency framework the Minister of State spoke about is important.

I welcome the fact that we have provided support of €750 million over three years to RTÉ in order to allow the broadcaster to continue. I am supportive of that because it is critical but the problem is that it could have a distorting effect on the broader market. There is no access for the likes of Virgin Media Television or local and community radio to that funding. If we want to ensure media plurality, it cannot just be about the direct investment that is being made. That level of public funding, which I fully support because public service broadcasting is a public good, should be open to competition. Other entities should be able to apply for some of that funding in the same way as, for instance, they can apply to the sound and vision fund operated by Coimisiún na Meán. If we are to guarantee media plurality, we cannot have a situation whereby one broadcaster is, in effect, very heavily subsidised by the State but there is no access for others to public resources.

Other than that, the provisions within the Bill are welcome. It is part of the broader framework that we need to ensure that we continue to have media independence and plurality here in Ireland. There are other issues that we need to address around media and digital literacy and the challenges we are facing with regard to online platforms, misinformation and disinformation but that is not the focus of this Bill. This legislation is deserving of support and I am very happy that it has been brought before the House.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Media Regulation Bill sets out aspirations that, on the face of it, one would consider to be very good. Its objectives include protecting editorial independence and journalistic sources. EMFA, from which this Bill derives, refers to ensuring the independent functioning of public service media, enhancing the transparency of media ownership, guaranteeing transparency in State advertising for media providers, boosting transparency in audience measurement for media services and so on. They all seem like worthy aspirations. Protecting the diversity of media, providing transparency around ownership and ensuring the independence of journalism and editorial independence are all things we would definitely want.

However, I am concerned that this debate is taking place in a real world context. There are references in the Bill digest to removing obstacles and barriers to media organisations operating across national boundaries within the European Union, and to the importance of competition. Often it is suggested that if we have more competition we will get more media diversity, that competition is going to help to achieve all of those aspirations with which one could not but agree but is that actually the case in the real world? I just wonder about that. While they are worthy aspirations, the real world situation of media is the hollowing-out of public service broadcasting through increasing privatisation, with things that were done by public service broadcasters being outsourced to private operators in a context in which the people who are coming to dominate access to news, media and information are a billionaire class of social media owners or media magnates like Rupert Murdoch. Competition very often just leads to monopolistic control of the media on a global level by big players, the big billionaires who own media and social media.

At the same time, we have our Government effectively dismantling RTÉ. I often have my disagreements with RTÉ over editorial decisions and so on. I would like to see a better balance and I would not be backward about coming forward when it comes to criticising certain decisions RTÉ makes but we have to fight very hard to protect public service broadcasting because we have far more influence and say over what RTÉ does than we have over what Rupert Murdoch, Elon Musk, Bill Gates or any of those characters do. We have far more influence because we can haul RTÉ in front of an Oireachtas committee. We can have an influence when people are getting paid, as they were, absolutely excessive salaries at the top of RTÉ. I refer here to the scandal around the salary for Ryan Tubridy and so on. We can actually do something about that and influence the situation. The sins of a small number at the top of RTÉ are now being paid for by the people who were not getting paid big salaries, the ordinary people like technicians, journalists, camera operators and all of the backroom people who actually make the thing function. They are going to suffer and the jobs that many of them did are just being done away with. Those jobs are going to be outsourced to private operators.

Who has the money to engage in audiovisual and media production? Only the big players, by and large. There has been a lot of praise for the Irish film industry recently and how well it is doing and there is no doubt about our creative talent, including Jessie Buckley, Cillian Murphy, Barry Keoghan, the list goes on. There are also the technical people in animation and all the rest of it but the fact of the matter is that in the largely privatised Irish film industry nobody has a secure job. It is film-to-film, episodic work. There are no guarantees. Workers do not have any of the entitlements that people who are directly employed have, like those employed by RTÉ, for example. They do not have the income or employment security that they might have with a public service broadcaster. This is what is happening now in RTÉ to the ordinary people. Programmes like "Fair City" and probably "The Late Late Show" are going to be outsourced. We are going to give more tax breaks, with the section 481 provisions extended to the non-scripted sector. This means, for example, that American quiz shows are going to get tax breaks from the public to produce quiz shows that are ostensibly made here. Meanwhile, people who had proper jobs in the audiovisual sector in public service broadcasting are finding that their jobs are being done away with and RTÉ is being hollowed out. There is talk here of the internal market of the EU and removing barriers in order to ensure greater media diversity but the actual net result may be that we do away with public service broadcasting, everything gets outsourced and privatised and secure employment in the audiovisual sector and in the media will be slowly but surely done away with. That is what is happening.

Some of the Bill's aspirations, as I said, are good. Do not get me wrong, transparency around media ownership is good but if we do not have a public service broadcaster, things are going to go in a bad direction. Public service broadcasters have an influence on how the rest of the media behaves. One of the reasons our media is better than in America, for example, is that there is still some notion of having a thing called public service broadcasting, of having an orchestra and of celebrating culture and heritage and things that may not be profitable or garner lots of advertising but which are making a contribution to society. Public service broadcasters work in the best interests of society. They celebrate our culture, heritage, arts and things that are not profitable.

A deregulated, largely privatised and outsourced market is full of diversity but actually it is the diversity of Musk, Murdoch, Google and Facebook. That is not real diversity. It does not provide ordinary jobs or build up a pool of talent. Even funding for the audiovisual sector in terms of section 481 is supposed to be dependent on building up companies of scale and permanent pools of skill and creative talent. That is what it is supposed to do. Money is provided on that basis but that is not actually what is happening. What is happening is that we are doing away with the permanent pools. One of the things that RTÉ did was make documentaries that nobody else would make. It made television series that were trying to reflect Irish society and its development and evolution. It had and still has an orchestra. Will it still be there if we move in a certain direction of outsourcing and privatising everything? I do not think so. In truth, I think some people saw the scandal around high salaries, which was an outrageous scandal, as an opportunity to have a go at public service broadcasting in this country and to dismantle and privatise it through the back door. I would like to hear from the Minister about how that is not going to happen and how this Bill is going to contribute to protecting quality media, quality public service broadcasting and decent jobs and nurturing a permanent pool of creative and technical talent in media and the audiovisual sector.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I send solidarity to the workers in RTÉ, who have been balloting and speaking out against the outsourcing at the station and the effective gutting of RTÉ. I agree that the scandal of high wages, hidden accounts and ridiculous pay for a few presenters at RTÉ is being used to gut the public service station. I have loads of issues with RTÉ and will mention some of them but we do need public service broadcasting. There are TDs in this House who are delighted about the whole Tubridy thing because it allows them to have a go at RTÉ. A TD who was speaking as I came in mentioned the lack of plurality in the media in Ireland and said the fact that RTÉ was a public service meant that there was not enough plurality. He was not talking about the lack of working-class voices in the media, the lack of women in the media or the lack of minority representation; he was saying that we need more private media.

Based on figures from 2022, RTÉ has a market share in television of 26.75% - it is not a monopoly - while its radio market share is 27.8%. The market in media has been completely opened up and private corporations have moved in and bought large amounts of the media. Virgin Media currently has an 18% share but in radio, for example, Bauer Media controls 25% of all the radio stations in the country. Regional papers face a monopoly, with 15 papers in the Republic owned by Mediaforce, a Danish company. National papers are in a similar situation, with Mediahuis being the biggest player in the market, so the media in Ireland has been swooped in on. The Washington Post was mentioned. It is now owned by Jeff Bezos who owns Amazon and is the second-richest man in the world, below Elon Musk. The Taoiseach spent the day at his company for St. Patrick's Day in the US.

We have to put this into the context of the current situation at RTÉ. The workforce in RTÉ is going to be slashed from 1,853 to 1,400. That will have real effects. It will have real effects on the staff members who are left but also on the quality and the nature of programmes that are made. Workers have been highlighting that the fact documentaries are going to be outsourced is a huge attack on the ability to challenge power, to challenge corruption, to challenge institutions, to challenge states and to challenge the Government. These are real life impacts if there is no budget and no legal power in a public service broadcaster to withstand libel threats. Without the resources of RTÉ, creators will not have the ability to take editorial risks that they have had up to now. RTÉ broadcast programmes that challenged the church's power and exposed child sexual abuse. So many issues have been brought to light due to documentaries that were made in that department in RTÉ.

Although news cannot necessarily be outsourced, it can be diminished and that has happened in RTÉ. RTÉ's "Upfront with Katie Hannon", one of the current affairs programmes, was just cut from the schedule. There are no longer any RTÉ programmes like "Question and Answers", which was broadcast when I was growing up and allowed members of the public to question politicians face to face. There is nothing like that now at RTÉ. I think "Prime Time" is now the only current affairs programme. The justified anger about RTÉ salaries and bonuses for executives is being used as a smokescreen to gut the national broadcaster. It appears that it has not done anything to stop some of the high salaries. The director general of RTÉ is paid €337,500 for his troubles and the number of people in RTÉ earning over €100,000 has actually increased. The attacks are taking place on people below that, and that has to be pointed out.

Obviously, RTÉ has advertising revenue and perhaps it is that reliance on advertising revenue that has seen it has take some shameful editorial stances. RTÉ's coverage of the genocide in Palestine has been appalling. There are so many examples that could be cited of how it has minimised, whitewashed and euphemised what has happened and has been afraid of being seen to be in any way critical, which is bizarre since we are a neutral country. It is not like the BBC, which would be put under a huge political pressure by the British Government, which is a colonial power that is quite supportive of what is going on. Two years into a genocide, RTÉ has never called it a genocide even though the Government calls it a genocide. In one piece in January, there was a headline stating, "Israel says ban on Gaza media access should remain". RTÉ published a piece with no criticism of a press release issued by the Israeli Government about its shameful decision to ban media from Gaza. RTÉ just reprinted it. RTÉ regularly uses the phrase "the Hamas-run health ministry" as a way of undermining figures that might be cited relating to casualties. There are many other examples, including the shameful decision to broadcast the Israel-Ireland match. I call on all workers and all trade unions to boycott that match and I think this pressure is going to build up over the summer.

Regarding media mergers, the Bill requires companies to be transparent about their audience measurement system but the main provision is taking decisions on mergers out of the hands of the Minister and passing it over to Coimisiún na Meán. That is a clear attempt by the Government to depoliticise this and divorce itself from any decisions that it will have to make relating to the media, creating yet another third party like the HSE, which was created to take political pressure off the Department of Health, the NCSE, which was created to take pressure off the Department of education, and the NTA, in respect of transport.

There is this constant practice of setting up companies and entities and giving them more power and taking political power out of the Government's hands.

I question the decision to give funding to Virgin Media despite the fact that it has a huge advertising base. I know it covers current affairs, news and so on, and sometimes does a very good job, but it is a completely for-profit company. There is no legal requirement on Virgin to provide any content or diversity in its output and it frequently resorts to cheap repeats, soaps and so on from other countries.

There is a serious concentration of media in the hands of ever fewer people. There are the statistics that I gave about who now controls regional newspapers and the radio stations. There is a move away from public service broadcasting to privatisation and outsourcing and this will lead to a worse RTÉ and a general distilling of public service broadcasting.

RTÉ and TG4 should be properly funded. The Government has continuously skirted the issue of funding these bodies. It does not want to increase the television licence fee. Therefore, it will deprive RTÉ of the funding that it needs and force it to let workers go and to outsource. That is not good. It is not good for democracy, it is not good for a challenge to power that we need to have and it is not good for challenging the generally majority privately owned media either. We should call out what is happening here and support the workers who are resisting the destruction of RTÉ as a public broadcaster.

Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome this Bill and the implementation of the European Media Freedom Act into Irish law. It is hugely important.

There are a few comments I want to make about the media landscape generally. Some people often give out about media in Ireland but, considering how functional our media are here compared with those in other jurisdictions around the world, even in the European Union, we are incredible lucky to have, broadly speaking, balanced and responsible media. I am struck all the time by the discrepancy between what is often referred to as the mainstream or traditional media - the print media and broadcast media - with what we see online. Much of the stuff on social media platforms, for example, entirely lacks the moderation and editing that comes with the media that we feel we can trust. That is a real problem. The more we can establish that freedom for those media, the better.

Others have spoken about investment in public service media. That is also hugely important. We often forget that even if we were to ramp up spending on RTÉ - I am not necessarily proposing that should be the case - that, in comparing the budget that is provided for RTÉ in the size of country we are with the budgets provided to public service broadcasters in other jurisdictions, it simply is not on the same playing pitch. One could not, for example, compare the RTÉ budget to the BBC budget. My understanding is that the daily budget for the BBC exceeds the annual budget for RTÉ. That is not to criticise the amount of funding for RTÉ but, rather, to mark the fact that we are a small country and we do not have the capacity to whole-scale fund public service broadcasting in the same way.

Notwithstanding that, RTÉ does a really good job. On the budget that it has, it delivers balanced and effective current affairs coverage, for example. Of course, there could be more and it could be better. A criticism I would make, one which I certainly hear from colleagues who are not Irish but may be living here in Ireland, is that they can see the news here as being a little parochial. In the context of being part of a larger European Union, for example, we could see much better coverage of news from other European countries. I am sometimes surprised by the items that get coverage in a prominent place on the RTÉ news and question how newsworthy they are relative perhaps to the footage that is available or the familiarity that Irish people have with places such as America and Britain, which get disproportionate coverage in media relative, for example, to issues in other European countries.

There is a programme on RTÉ radio on Sunday mornings, "World Report", which is singularly excellent. Each episode is a small collection of three or four stories from journalists in parts of the world that we do not hear much about. They give a short report on a big news story in that country. It is invariably something that we have never heard of here and has not found its way into the mainstream media in this country. This is a small opportunity for RTÉ to show that there is a breadth of coverage that we do not generally get. What I would like to see is "World Report" being on every morning or every day on RTÉ radio. We as a society would benefit much more if we got news from those parts of the world but we do not hear it as much as we should. The reality is that Irish media consumers rely much more on the international press, for example, international magazines and international journals, to inform them about many significant world events. We cannot rely on Irish media, not even The Irish Times. The Irish Times provides very good international coverage but there is only so much space in the newspaper and there is, consequently, disproportionate coverage for events that occur in the English-language world, if I can put it that way.

This point may not necessarily be particularly relevant to this Bill insofar as it does not address advertising standards, for example, but advertising is bound up with, and part and parcel of, the media landscape. What we often see in Irish media, and this is a criticism particularly of media other than RTÉ, is whole-scale English advertising rebroadcast on Irish television. There is a cultural import of that. What that says to me is that the advertiser itself has decided there is no distinction between the Irish market and the British market, for example, and that is really sad. There is something much more important about that, however. The signal it is sending is one thing but there is also the loss for Irish industry. For example, if you have an advertisement that is made in London with professional people based in London, whether they are PR people, advertising people, media crews, copywriters, artistic directors, etc., and that advertisement is broadcast here, all of those people who could have made that advertisement in Dublin, Galway, Cork or Limerick lose out in the fact that that work has gone elsewhere and that is a shame. One of the real steps forward we have made in this country in the past couple of years is the 20% obligation to have State agencies advertise trí mheán na Gaeilge. It is wonderful to hear advertisements that are entirely based through Irish, on television and on radio, from State agencies promoting different programmes or whatever it might be. It means you hear Irish in a real context every day and that is a really good thing, but I am afraid that it is contradicted sometimes by the fact that the next advertisement is for a washing powder being advertised by a person clearly based in London, who has nothing to do with Ireland and may never have been to Ireland. There is a loss for the Irish media consumer there in the fact that our media are not meeting the obligations that they should in terms of providing a media environment that is for Irish people and of Irish people. I started this by saying that there should be greater international focus but what I am also saying is that it should be tailored for the people in this country, not for markets outside this country.

In the context of what this Bill is doing, it is hugely important for us to acknowledge how lucky we are to have a functional, fair and generally unbiased media. It is not to say that there are no commentators I disagree with. Of course, there are. In fact, if there were commentators I never disagreed with, that would be a bigger problem. We are lucky to have that. When we look at things, sometimes we see the problems rather than the good things. I see this insofar as what is happening, for example, in the United States, in the complete inability of certain media there to criticise some of things that are happening and the inability of the European media to criticise some of the things that are happening in the Middle East, and particularly the blinkered approach of certain European media to what Israel is doing in Gaza, for example. We do not have that problem here. Insofar as we can look at our media and say that there is something that we can be really proud of, we have media organisations, print and broadcast, in this country which are not afraid to call out things for that they are, not afraid to say things that are unpopular and not afraid to say things that will not curry favour with the Administration of the day. They do that all the time. Thank God not only that they do, but that they feel confident they can do that. That is what media freedom is all about. We are lucky to have it here, which is not to say that we should be complacent about it or take it for granted.

We must recognise that the provision of a fair, open and free media is something that must be striven for eternally. We must constantly work to ensure that it is there. We must constantly work to ensure that journalists feel that they can operate in a free and vociferous way within the media environment. In that regard, it is also worth pointing out that media freedom is also about the freedom of journalists and the protection of journalists from situations where they might feel themselves compromised, and that includes online commentary.

I have often seen journalists being pilloried online for taking a particular position on something. In fairness, they are well able to fight their own battles. I would not have any concerns about that. In the context of this legislation and the European Media Freedom Act, however, we must remember that there is a State obligation to ensure there is pile-ons do not occur on social media in respect of people who take unpopular positions.

As regards cancel culture, which I absolutely abhor, it is entirely reasonable to disagree with somebody or to be disgusted by what they have to say without stating that they should somehow be cancelled. People must be entitled and allowed to express free opinions, whether they are popular or unpopular, pleasant or unpleasant, within the bounds of incitement to hatred and defamation and all the rest.

On the Defamation Act, I am concerned we have attempted to specifically address perceived restrictions that might exist for media in terms of defamation actions. With strategic litigations - SLAPPS - and things of that nature which are covered by that legislation, it is obviously important to suppress the ability of people to use litigation to essentially gag organisations, journalists, people, etc. I sometimes think that we went too far in the case of the Defamation Act insofar as we took steps, for example, to eliminate juries from defamation actions in the High Court which were unnecessary. That step was very much taken to placate media to tell them they will not get awards as bad as they might have been. That could have been done by simply removing the quantum capacity for the jury. In other words, letting the judge rather than the jury decide what the quantum of the award would be.

There is a balance to be achieved in respect of, on the one hand, the importance of the freedom and non-restriction of journalism and the media and, on the other hand, the operation of the public good and the right of people to have their good names. As already stated, that is outside the scope of this Bill. The Bill takes a piece of European legislation and transposes it into Irish law. It is very welcome in the way that it does that. It is a good thing. I hope it is something that will form part of all the instruments we will continue to put in place to ensure that we have media freedom and, more than that, a media that is unbiased, fair and, most importantly, is vociferous in saying what it feels it needs to say, where that is justifiable, rather than what it has to say because of political pressure or anything like that. I welcome the Bill and look forward to its passage.

Michael Collins (Cork South-West, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are elements of this Bill that deserve recognition and support. At its core, it seeks to strengthen something that is fundamental to any healthy democracy, namely plurality in our media. In an era when media ownership is increasingly concentrated and when global platforms hold unprecedented influence over what people see, read and hear, it is right that we take steps to ensure diversity of voices and opinions and the protection of editorial independence. The intention behind this legislation to prevent undue concentration of media power and promote transparency is reasonable. The requirement for greater transparency in State advertising is also welcome. The public has a right to know how and where public money is being spent, particularly in the media space. Equally, the move to establish a clear picture of media ownership is a step towards openness that should be broadly supported.

While we can acknowledge the positives, we cannot ignore the broader implications of what is being proposed. This Bill represents a significant transfer of power from an elected Minister accountable to this House and to the people, to one unelected regulatory body in the form of Coimisiún na Meán. Independence in regulation has its place, but independence must never come at the expense of accountability. We are being asked to place considerable authority over media mergers, definitions of editorial independence and the broader shaping of our media landscape in the hands of a body that is not directly answerable to the electorate. That in itself gives rise to legitimate questions, but people's concerns are sharpened further when we look beyond our shores.

In recent weeks, a report from the United States Congress has raised serious allegations regarding the role of European regulators, including engagement involving Coimisiún na Meán, in the period leading up to elections across Europe, including here in Ireland. According to that report, there was co-operation between regulators, major technology platforms and what has been described as partisan or ideologically aligned fact-checking organisations. The claim is that this co-ordination influenced how content was moderated, particularly during sensitive electoral periods. These are serious claims. They may be contested, and they should be examined carefully and objectively, but they cannot simply be dismissed out of hand. At the heart of this issue lies a fundamental question, namely who decides what information the public is allowed to see?

We are told that this Bill is about tackling misinformation but, increasingly, we see examples across Europe where perfectly legitimate political opinions on migration, energy policy and social issues have been labelled as harmful or unacceptable. When statements that reflect mainstream viewpoints are treated as violations, we are no longer dealing with a neutral regulation; we are entering the territory of subjective judgement and, potentially, ideological filtering. That is where the danger lays. Democracy depends not on unanimity, but on open disagreement. It depends on the ability of citizens to hear competing arguments, to weigh them and to make up their own minds. If decisions about what constitutes acceptable disclosures are shifted away from the public sphere and into the hands of the regulator, however well-intentioned, we risk undermining that very foundation.

This is not an argument against regulation, nor is it an argument against this Bill in its entirety. It is, however, a call for caution. If we are to proceed, we must ensure that there are clear limits on the powers being transferred, that there is robust oversight and transparency in how those powers are exercised and ,above all, that the principles of free expression and democratic accountability are protected at every stage. Once powers of this nature are handed over, they are not easily reclaimed. We must get the balance right between protection of our media landscape and preserving the freedoms that underpin it. If we fail to do so, we may well solve one problem, only to create a far worse one.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to what we have in my constituency. I refer to our local radio station, C103 FM, in west Cork, and 96 FM and Red FM for that matter too, which have given a very fair account of themselves down through the years. You would hear politicians giving arguments from all sides on those stations. They deserve to be commended on their focus on delivering a clear message to people. Members of the public want to hear the honest facts. It does not matter what side the facts come from, as long as they are delivered. Sometimes, the waters in that regard become muddied when it comes to the bigger stations. We often find that we are victims when it comes to Virgin Media and RTÉ. We feel that sometimes we are not represented in a fair manner. I do not know when Virgin Media last made any kind of contact with us. We have a voice. The electorate gave Independent Ireland a very strong mandate. It is fine to try to ignore that if you want to, but there is a reason for it being ignored. That has to be brought to task here. No media outlet at any level has a right to rule somebody in or out or to favour certain people.

I wish to praise the Southern Star and reporters like Kieran O'Mahony, who try to be as fair as possible. They are not favourable at times. At times they are angered and they say the wrong things, but that is quite understandable. At least they are trying their best to deliver an honest and free media that cannot ever be tied up, as such, when it comes to delivering what is the honest story.

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to begin by broadly welcoming the Bill and acknowledging the important work it seeks to do in bringing us into line with the European Media Freedom Act.

It is true and has been said before that Ireland is still considered to have one of the freest, and arguably the finest, presses in the world. We are consistently ranking within the top ten nations, according to the annual world press freedom index published by Reporters Without Borders. That said, the ranking has on occasion, experienced a few fluctuations due to concerns regarding, for example, legal threats to journalists, especially in the context of so-called SLAPPS that are often cited in connection with defamation lawsuits filed by politicians, political parties and certain business tycoons.

There is a general need for regulation, especially with the very small size of our market and the resulting tendency towards the overconcentration of ownership. It is true to say that for years, Ireland has needed a clearer and more independent system for assessing the media mergers that take place in order to protect editorial independence and ensure transparency in terms of how the State allocates advertising money.

This Bill moves key decisions away from the Minister and into the hands of Coimisiún na Meán. I want to reference the comments made by other Deputies in the House with regard to moving decisions from the Minister. I am a great critic of parking health issues with the HSE, parking transport issues with the NTA or saying, "This is a matter for the Garda Commissioner." It is very hard to get direct answers to parliamentary questions or hold agencies to account in the same way. Having a Minister directly involved in the media just provides ammunition to the conspiracy theorists, who call RTÉ and its ilk the "lamestream media", and basically perpetuate the increasing distrust in the media. In my view, it is good for the monitoring and regulation of the media to be one step removed from a Minister.

When it goes to Coimisiún na Meán and if it works and does what the EU framework legislation intends, it may create a more transparent and pluralistic media, freer of political interference. I do not think there is too much of that in this country, in any event, so I would say that it will be freer of allegations of political interference. Down the line, there may be parties in government that are more inclined to seek to interfere in the political process, and we have seen that with the rise of populist parties across Europe. It is a good thing to have this set aside now in case, in the future, we have different configurations that might be less democratically inclined. We live in an age of misinformation and disinformation. Troll factories located in eastern Europe, Russia, Asia and all around the world are deliberately setting out to misinform, disinform, tell outright lies and increase the levels of distrust in our media. If it helps to safeguard the independence of journalism, it is hugely important and essential to any healthy democracy, in particular our small but healthy democracy.

As I said, part of the reason trust in the free press is declining is that we have one of the most concentrated media markets in Europe. That means that every merger or acquisition has a disproportionate impact on the diversity of voices available to the public. Annual reports published by bodies like the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom consistently rank Ireland, a country with very high press freedom, as very "high risk" for market plurality. The 2024 data, which is the latest available, showed a 71% risk score for market plurality, primarily due to what is called the lack of quantitative limits on media concentration in Irish law. This law is trying to remedy that, pushed on, as it is, by the EU framework law. That is why the pluralism-focused merger review required under Article 22 of the European Media Freedom Act is so important. It is not just about competition and market share but about bread-and-butter transparency. It asks the question and tries to seek out whether a merger reduces the range of viewpoints expressed, whether it over-focuses on sensationalism rather than facts, whether it gives one owner too much influence over public debate and whether editorial independence could be compromised, although not necessarily directly. We have heard this about other types of legislation but also in the context of the McCarthyite phrase that is coming into vogue again, that is, the chilling effect on reporting, or possibly in relation to social media, the chilling effect on fact-checking.

We already see this on social media, where just two entities, Meta and Alphabet, are estimated to control over 80% of Irish digital advertising revenues as of 2024. We have seen how hard it is to get these and other social media companies to monitor and regulate their content. It has been hugely challenging, even at a European level. Sin sceál eile. It applies to traditional print and broadcast media as well but at least the level of regulation and penalties available there has been better applied to date, so we have not had the same types of issues.

To go back to the Bill, it is great that the EU principles of press freedom are finally going into Irish legislation. However, as was mentioned in relation to tackling the IT companies and social media, if we want to keep a transparent and pluralistic media, we also have to be serious about resourcing the body that will enforce it. I agree with colleagues who are worried about the Minister passing it on to Coimisiún na Meán. Coimisiún na Meán has already been given major responsibilities for online safety, broadcasting standards and other types of media regulation. We are now adding complex merger assessments, new notification powers and the oversight of state advertising into the mix. We have to ensure that these new roles have adequate staff and expertise. It is not just about passing legislation but it is about making sure that when this is enacted, Coimisiún na Meán is fully resourced.

Regarding the area of state advertising, there are a few welcome things. Article 25 of the European Media Freedom Act, which this Bill facilitates, requires that public funds for state advertising and service contracts are awarded based on transparent, objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory criteria. This puts pressure on public and local authorities to consider certain factors when choosing where to place state advertising. Decisions must be based on the media outlet's ability to reach a specific target audience and also the cost effectiveness of advertising spend, as well as its geographical spread, so it is done across different regions, with local versus national. There are also statutory requirements to adhere to legal obligations, such as requirements for public notices or advertising as Gaeilge freisin.

To ensure non-discrimination, certain procedures are required. This has to be publicly available in advance. The criteria and procedures for awarding funds have to be published electronically before the award process begins. It requires the use of open and proportionate procedures for awarding contracts. All advertising campaigns must be based on a strategic brief that identifies clear communication goals and the target audience. Key performance indicators must be set for each campaign.

It is all bells and whistles, or motherhood and apple pie, as long as we have an agency that is resourced to monitor that all of this is happening, and that the annual reports detail the legal names of providers and business groups, as well as the total amounts spent in each section. That is good stuff. However, while praising the Bill and what it is trying to do, we need to find a balance between regulation and putting costs on certain businesses - by that, I mean the smaller ones. We need a system that allows the public, the Oireachtas and the media to see exactly how decisions are made but at the same time, we need to ensure that the smaller local outlets are not unintentionally disadvantaged because of regulation. A pluralist media is not just about preventing dominance at the top; it is also about ensuring that community voices, regional newspapers and independent digital outlets can survive and thrive. These have been challenged over the years. Many of the local newspapers, for example, are now in the hands of larger companies.

I want to make a point from that angle. I know there is a European fund for reporting. We have seen in many local newspapers that content behind a paywall is made freely available by dint of this funding. This allows journalists to report on a wider range of relevant stories.

I want to put on record that my background is in journalism. I went to what used to be called the College of Commerce in Rathmines, which is now TU Dublin. I learned shorthand, which I have forgotten, learned how to type on a clunky typewriter, and learned all about defamation law, the principles of good journalism and how there are different types of journalism. For example, there are colour writers like the inimitable Miriam Lord, who was there when I was training, and there is news reporting and opinion pieces, and we learned the difference between the types. These days, it has become more blurred. One thing I have noticed is the lack of ability of media outlets to raise money. I am talking about the over-reliance on advertising and the lack of purchasing of the old-style newspapers, which are in decline.

It is difficult to try to fund proper journalism and to make it a career, particularly as journalists' pay is massively under threat and has been declining over the years. It is no longer a career that I would encourage someone to go into unless they feel it is a vocation and they are at the top of their game. What I, as a politician as opposed to a journalist, have noticed is that in the old days, journalists would go to council meetings and would report on what happened. They would talk to people at the meetings and ask them questions. What I have noticed more and more is that stories tend to be printed by those who can send in ready-made press statements as opposed to by the journalists who have the tools to go out and find the stories and get behind them. That is something we have to watch out for as we go because journalism is under threat in light of the nature of the modern media age whereby we have social media influencers who display a lot less responsibility. I saw this recently in relation to my constituency where someone published misinformation online that was shared across Facebook and Instagram. That is the sort of stuff that spreads long before you are able to get the real story, and that can sometimes cause a lot of anguish. I know there is regulation of social media influencers by other means, but we need to get a little tougher in terms of the powers relating to that side of things.

While it does not relate to this Bill, I want to refer to the social media companies in terms of what they allow to be published and how they regulate it. These companies have disinvested in proper moderation and fact-checking. They should not be allowed to get away with that. We need to go beyond what is in this Bill, because a vibrant diverse media is not a one-off. It is not just about this Bill; it is an ongoing responsibility for any democracy, especially when democracies are under threat across the world. We will need regular reviews and proper reporting systems and obviously the funding.

I welcome this Bill's alignment with European standards and its commitment to independent oversight, but I hope Coimisiún na Meán will have the resources it needs in order that we can facilitate a diverse, pluralistic and fair-minded media going forward. I say that because we are massively under threat. We need a media we can trust. We need to be able to say that RTÉ has a particular neutral opinion and will not publish anything until it has checked all the facts because it is afraid of being sued. Gript media might be seen as being a little to the right, but it has a valid voice. We then have other media that are perceived to be on the social side. That is all very welcome. We need to make sure that it is maintained.

Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Members for their valuable and considered contributions and their constructive approach to the Bill. As a general point, I want to emphasise that the core aim of this Bill is to implement EMFA, which is a landmark part of EU legislation that is designed to protect media freedom. The European Commission proposed the European Media Freedom Act as a response to worrying trends in relation to media freedom in certain European countries. It was not developed specifically with the Irish context in mind. However, the principles on which the regulation is based, namely respect for editorial independence and freedom of expression are clearly enshrined in Irish law. In providing for its full and effective implementation, we have an opportunity to introduce another layer of protection for the free and pluralistic media system that we already have. In the current climate, it is clear that a diverse and independent media is essential for healthy democratic debate. We must ensure that the protections we have in place for media freedom and plurality are further strengthened and modernised. This is important legislation and I hope we can progress it as quickly as possible.

I have a general comment to make before I go to what some of our colleagues have proposed. It is that not all aspects of EMFA are being dealt with in this Bill. We also have the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill and a number of other items of legislation that are being progressed by the Department of justice that will progress other aspects.

A number of significant issues were raised. I will seek to address them. I welcome the broad support for this legislation. People have issues with the Bill. Perhaps one or two may not support it, but there was certainly very broad support for it. Some of the specifics that were raised by Deputies Joanna Byrne and Ó Murchú include the already high concentration of ownership in the media sector. It is important to say that Coimisiún na Meán's power to prevent a media merger only falls to be exercised in the event that a merger takes place. This Bill does not provide for an ongoing regulatory function in respect of media ownership. The Minister does not believe that this would be appropriate. It is also not required under EMFA. While the Irish market is relatively concentrated, this is always going to be the case given the small number of media markets.

Issues were also raised about why there are no quantitative limits on media ownership. This regulation does not require the introduction of what are termed bright-line limits on media ownership. In this context, bright-line limits mean putting a figure into legislation setting out the maximum amount of market share a single entity could hold in any given market. While the Minister believes that in principle there could be a reasonable argument for such an approach, it is overly rigid and it could face numerous difficulties in practice. For these reasons, it is not proposed to set legislative limits on ownership for the media market. It is preferable to continue to assess media mergers on a case-by-case basis and, crucially, on the basis of guidelines in this area to be developed by Coimisiún na Meán.

Deputies Robert O'Donoghue, Joanna Byrne, Ó Murchú and Malcolm Byrne raised issues around a fair share of advertising being awarded to local independent radio. It is important to say that the purpose of EMFA's provisions on state advertising is to increase transparency as to how such advertising is allocated. It is not intended to support any particular sector over another. The Bill obliges each public body to seek to ensure that its overall expenditure on advertising is distributed to as wide a plurality of media as is practicable. That does not mean that every media provider should receive a portion of funding from all advertising campaigns, but it does mean that public bodies should adhere to their own published criteria when they allocate expenditure. By obliging public bodies to be transparent and to publish data on expenditure, and providing for Coimisiún na Meán to compile an annual report, anomalies or outliers will be identified. There will be an evidence base that will allow for such issues to be addressed. Coimisiún na Meán is tasked with monitoring expenditure on State advertising and producing an annual report based on this information.

A number of Deputies, including Deputy Robert O'Donoghue, spoke about the fact that we are members of the new European Board for Media Services. I agree that this issue does not stop at EU borders. Its role is to promote a consistent application of EU media law and this framework, including EMFA, and of course the audiovisual media services directive. He also agreed on the €2 million threshold, which I believe is proportionate. This largely came into being after the public consultation. Deputies Malcolm Byrne and Gogarty told us that Ireland is consistently rated as good by Reporters Without Borders. It is critical to say that this would be the case for any democracy.

Local media play a hugely important role. Deputies Michael Collins, Malcolm Byrne and Gogarty all emphasise their importance, for example, in reporting local authority meetings and decisions that are taken there.

That plays a hugely constructive role in connecting local decisions to the people impacted by those decisions. My local radio station, Ocean FM, has won a number of awards for its coverage of local and national elections because it brings every listener into the count centre. It is not just about providing data and figures but also conveying the atmosphere, the highs and the lows of an election. The presenters have a great way of making everybody listening feel connected in a tangible and real way to the whole democratic process.

I noted the comments by Deputies Boyd Barrett and Coppinger regarding public service media. The European Media Freedom Act introduces a number of safeguards to protect the independence of public service media such as RTÉ. Member states must ensure public service media are independent and that they provide a variety of information to their audiences in an impartial way. The procedures for the appointment and dismissal of the heads of management of public service media providers aim to guarantee their independence. Funding procedures are based on transparent and objective criteria and seek to guarantee that public service media have adequate resources to fulfil their remit and safeguard editorial independence. I agree that some of the issues the Deputies raised are covered by this legislation and some are not. Coimisiún na Meán has existing expertise in relation to media plurality and currently undertakes a similar function in assessing changes of ownership in respect of broadcasting licences, which was an issue raised by the Deputies.

Deputy Barry Ward spoke about there sometimes being disproportionate coverage of events that occur in the English-speaking world. He referred to RTÉ in that context and also mentioned advertising. He highlighted the increasing number of advertisements in the Irish language, which helps to rebalance the situation.

A number of TDs raised issues in regard to the moving of certain roles from the Minister to an coimisiún. This is seen as depoliticising those issues. Some, including Deputy Gogarty and the Minister, are in favour of this move. Others are against it, including Deputies Coppinger and Michael Collins. My view is that the Bill sets out a reasonable and balanced way forward on this issue.

I thank Deputies for their contributions. I look forward to Committee Stage, when there will be an opportunity to tease out and address some of the key issues that have been raised on Second Stage.