Apologies have been received from Senators Noonan and Ní Chuilinn. Senator Ní Chuilinn will be substituted by Senator Duffy.

Today's meeting has been convened for the committee's engagement on the broadcast levy increase. I welcome the witnesses. From the Department of Culture, Communications and Sport, I welcome Ms Tríona Quill, assistant secretary, media and broadcasting division, and Mr. Stephen Ryan, principal officer, broadcasting policy. From Coimisiún na Meán, I welcome Ms Aoife MacEvilly, broadcasting and video-on-demand editor, Mr. Rónán Ó Domhnaill, coimisinéir forbartha na meán or media development commissioner, and Ms Iseult Ó Síocháin, chief operating officer. From Independent Broadcasters Ireland, I welcome Mr. John Purcell, chairperson, Mr. Michael Kelly, chief executive, and Mr. Ronan McManamy, chief executive of Clare FM and Tipp FM.

The format of this meeting is such that I will invite the witnesses to deliver an opening statement, which is limited to five minutes. Statements will then be followed by questions from members. As attendees are probably aware, we will publish statements on our webpage. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Before we move to today's discussion, I will clarify some limitations in relation to parliamentary privilege as regards references made in the Houses by witnesses to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege in respect of the presentations they make to the committee. This means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty as Chair to ensure this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I now invite the witnesses to deliver their opening statements.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and committee members for the opportunity to discuss matters relating to the Coimisiún na Meán levy to support its regulatory, supervisory and sectoral development activities for the broadcast sector. A diverse, independent and trustworthy media sector plays an important role in Ireland, supporting our democracy, fostering national identity, heritage and culture, and ensuring access to free and impartial news and current affairs. Radio has always been, and continues to be, an important part of that wider media ecosystem at both local and national level. However, it is equally important that there is effective and proportionate regulation and supervision of the media sector, which is also independent and trustworthy. It is also important to note the long-standing principle that costs of such regulation are met by regulated sectors themselves, particularly commercial operators.

The Broadcasting Act 2009, as amended, makes provision both for the independence of Coimisiún na Meán as regulator and for the imposition of levies to meet the costs of an coimisiún’s activities. The Minister's key role in this wider area is to put in place an appropriate legislative framework, which enables not only effective regulation of media operators and platforms but also the development of appropriate sectoral support mechanisms. While the commercial radio sector has long been able to access support through the sound and vision scheme, the recently published Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill is bringing forward a number of measures designed to further underpin and broaden sectoral supports. Primarily, these legislative proposals will convert the existing broadcasting fund into a platform neutral fund to be known as ciste na meán. It will also enable putting the recent media fund schemes, for example, to support news reporting, on a statutory footing. Furthermore, the legislative proposals will also enable an coimisiún to carry out regular reviews of public service content provision across the wider media sector and propose support schemes to address gaps identified. The Minister will in future be able to determine or specify the amount of proportion of public funds provided to ciste na meán for specific schemes to address gaps in content provision.

We are happy to take any questions the committee may have on these matters.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and the committee for the invitation to attend today. I am the broadcasting and video-on-demand commissioner at Coimisiún na Meán. I am joined by Rónán Ó Domhnaill, our media development commissioner, and Iseult Ó Síocháin, our chief operating officer.

Coimisiún na Meán is Ireland's media regulator, responsible for developing and regulating a thriving, diverse, creative, safe and trusted media landscape. Ensuring that radio remains resilient, accessible and trusted by Irish audiences is central to our work, both through our regulatory role and our funding and development initiatives. In the context of seismic changes in media market shares, audience consumption habits and content production and dissemination, the radio sector must continue to transform, evolve and help shape and reflect who we are as a society. As the media landscape changes, so too must regulation adapt and evolve. Since our establishment, an coimisiún has seen a significant increase in the range and complexity of our regulatory responsibilities and activities, including in respect of sound broadcasting.

Similarly to other independent sectoral regulators, our activities are primarily funded by industry levies. The Broadcasting Act 2009 mandates specifically that we must ensure that the amount of all levies we impose is sufficient to meet our expenses properly incurred and our working capital requirements.

This provision is important as it ensures that an coimisiún has sufficient resources to discharge our regulatory functions without presenting a financial burden on the public or the Exchequer. The levies charged on, for instance, radio broadcasters, are used solely for the regulation and funding of the radio sector, with some shared general costs divided between levy categories. This means that there is no cross-subsidisation between levy categories. Each year, we carry out an extensive process assessing the budget required to deliver on our work programme for the following year. In line with the legislation, we submit this work programme, alongside estimates of income and expenditure, to the Minister for Culture, Communications and Sport each October for the following year. The legislation also lays out that an coimisiún cannot run a deficit on the levy, only a surplus, the excess of which is either refunded or offset against future levy obligations.

The increase in our 2026 estimates versus 2025 estimates for the sound broadcasting sector are driven by increased pay costs, increased professional costs, which includes research activities and legal advice for new policies and statutory functions, and also the inclusion of a working capital provision. Where our actual expenditure, as audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, is less than the estimated expenditure, we refund or credit the levy payers via our reconciliation process. For example, the approximately €1 million increase in levy 2026, has been partially offset by the return of €419,000 to the radio sector from the 2024 levy reconciliation process. The funds generated by the sound broadcasting levy go towards the regulation and support of the radio sector in Ireland. The scale of work involved in this has rapidly expanded in line with our new statutory remit. For example, the new statutory broadcasting complaints process ensures that the public can have their complaints dealt with in a fair and objective manner, and that where a breach of a code, rule or statutory obligation is found, it may progress to new investigation, enforcement and sanctioning stages. Developing robust processes and procedures for this, as well as a new risk-based compliance framework, are major current projects for our teams.

Last year, over half of the total complaints received were in respect of content broadcast on radio. In May, we published a complaints insights report which outlines the complaints we have received since establishment, a copy of which has been shared with the committee. A significant new development in radio has been the launch and recent extension of the new digital audio broadcast, DAB, plus trial, which is supported by Coimisiún na Méan and which has required the provision of up to 30 new sound broadcasting contracts for the trial. This provides new services and choice for Irish audiences with DAB plus radios. This development has added to the importance and complexity of our project to develop a new, future-focused broadcasting services strategy, on which we are currently engaging with industry. The broadcasting service strategy includes a review of our licensing activity and we are inviting the broadcasting sector to provide feedback on how this activity should evolve. This is an area of extensive and resource-intensive activity for both our organisation and radio broadcasters, including the re-licensing of 33 commercial radio stations with new ten-year contracts. In 2026, we expect to license or re-license three commercial radio stations and to process two to three temporary radio licensing applications each month.

Other significant projects currently under way to support and regulate the radio sector include the further development of the broadcasting codes and rules, new sports broadcasting policy, Irish language policy, media pluralism policy and a new public service media framework. Much of this work is to implement the Future of Media Commission recommendations. The recently published Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill further extends our remit, including for example in reviewing public service content provision.

We also continue to support the commercial broadcasting sector through our media development activities. In January 2026, we announced funding of over €3 million to radio broadcasters across Ireland through our journalism schemes. Separately, our sound and vision scheme is a crucial support for the commercial radio sector and over the past five years, we have allocated over €9.7 million directly to that sector, with an additional €3.6 million allocated indirectly to the commercial radio sector via independent productions. Our sponsorship scheme and media training and development programme also provide funding to sectoral events and training. We recognise the ongoing importance of a sustainable and well-regulated radio sector for Irish audiences. The funds generated by the sound broadcasting levy are vital to the delivery of our expanding regulatory and sectoral development work. Our ability to effectively hold broadcasters to account underpins audience trust. Our policy, funding and sectoral development work supports the continued contribution of the sound broadcasting sector for the benefit of our communities, culture and democracy. We are happy to answer any questions that members have.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it. Honestly, we do not want to be here today but I must advise that the levy increases are an urgent issue for our sector. I have to convey the anxiety, frustration, and growing sense of crisis in our sector relating to the funding and the regulatory framework, particularly when compared to social media giants and online operators. We accept regulation. However, it must be proportionate, accountable and sustainable. Today, we want to highlight four key concerns, which are the huge increase in the levy, the absence of meaningful appeal rights, the lack of oversight of regulatory spending, and the growing risk of regulatory mission creep.

The levy order of 2026, issued by Coimisiún na Meán in March this year, is causing very serious concern. Coimisiún na Meán has determined that the cost of regulating radio in 2026 will be €3.7 million, an increase of more than €1 million in a single year. As a result, the levy imposed on our stations has increased by an average of 39% this year, and is now an amazing 69% higher than it was in 2024. That increase comes at a time when total radio revenues grew by just 0.9% last year. This year's increase means less money is available for journalism, programme-making, investment and employment. What is particularly difficult to understand is that broadcasters expected that efficiencies and synergies from the new regulatory structures would result. Instead, costs have risen dramatically. We are also being asked to contribute towards activities that appear to extend beyond direct regulation of radio. We have heard of regulation and supervision but we are also funding media development policies.

Following receipt of the levy notices, we engaged immediately with both Coimisiún na Meán and the Department. The appeal mechanism that exists means broadcasters can basically only challenge arithmetic errors. We cannot challenge the scale, justification or appropriateness of the levy itself, which is why we are here today. There is no mechanism for us as a sector to in any way appeal the amount of money being levied on us collectively. There is no meaningful right of appeal.

Of further concern is the absence of any meaningful oversight of the spending plans of Coimisiún na Meán. We have repeatedly been told that neither regulated entities, nor a Government, nor Ministers, can challenge those plans once approved. We fully supported independent regulation but independence cannot mean an absence of accountability, scrutiny, or cost control. A 69% increase in mandatory business cost over two years is not sustainable. For a State agency, it surely fails the small business test. Few businesses could absorb increases of that scale without consequences for investment, employment and services. In our case, it will damage employment and undermine our already hard-pressed services. All this raises wider questions. How are an coimisiún's budgets scrutinised before approval? Why can levy payers not challenge the levy itself? Why are broadcasters funding activities that are not related to the direct regulation and supervision of broadcasting? How has a situation arisen where neither Government nor those paying the levy can challenge spending decisions?

We are increasingly concerned about regulatory mission creep. Historically, broadcasting regulation focused on licensing, standards and compliance. Resources now appear to be directed towards broader policy functions that extend beyond core regulation. Indeed, the commissioner outlined how an coimisiún's remit and regulatory activities are expanding dramatically.

We have been surprised to hear complaints activity regarding radio citing as a factor in rising costs. We have heard that again today from the commission. According to the commission's own figures, independent stations were the subject of just 36 complaints over almost three years. Seventeen stations received no complaints and 14 received only one or two.

The issues we bring before the committee are straightforward, including a levy that has increased by 69% in two years, no right of appeal, limited oversight of regulatory spending, broadcasters funding activities beyond the regulation of our sector, and the growing risk of mission creep. We believe the levy increase must be reviewed and reversed. Proper oversight and accountability mechanisms must be introduced.

We should only pay for our own regulation and not for the regulation of others, or for media development policies. The expansion of regulatory costs into wider media policy areas must be prevented.

Independent radio remains one of Ireland's most trusted and connected media sectors, as, I think, all in this room would agree. We are here to be constructive. We work well individually with members of the commission but we are asking this committee to ensure that regulation remains proportionate, accountable and sustainable so our broadcasters continue serving their communities and audiences.

We will now move to questions from members.

I thank all the witnesses for being here and for their contributions. This is an issue I feel very strongly about. I have raised on the floor of the Dáil the disproportionate levy that has been imposed on the radio broadcasting sector. It is important to get under the hood of this because, as we have heard from Mr. Purcell contribution, and I agree with him, radio is a trusted source of news, current affairs, community contribution, social cohesion and local employment. It is a tradition that is part of the fabric of Irish society, from the death notices people listen to on the local radio station to long form interviews. The way that communities get into issues in a meaningful way is such a crucial part of democracy and our lives in Ireland.

I am very concerned by some of the issues that have been raised around mission creep, for example, which I want to get into if I can, and also around oversight. Increasingly, we are hearing reasons the Department and Minister will not go into certain areas, including fear of interference with certain agencies. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be consistent at times and it seems to suit the Minister when he wants it to suit him. More broadly, there does not seem to be a good grasp of what that governance framework looks like and what oversight and accountability needs to be built in, while respecting the independence of State bodies, which I fully appreciate is a part of that. What irks me most about this whole area is that the disruption of this sector by tech has put independent radio, broadcasters and legacy media under so much pressure. Yet, somehow the tech sector seems to be getting off scot-free.

I want to start with the Department. Its statement refers to the importance of regulation of the media and the principle that sectors bear the cost of the regulatory authority. The 2026 broadcast levy will now stand at four times the levy on hosting services and more than double that on intermediary services. Regulating sound broadcasting is expected to cost less than €4 million in 2026 but regulating designated online services costs four and a half times that. Intermediary services cost seven times that to regulate. If there is a funding gap, should the services that require the greatest regulation not bear the greatest cost? Why are these rates so disproportionate and why are they becoming even more disproportionate? Have there been any increases in any other levies charged to fund Coimisiún na Meán?

I thank Deputy Gibney. It is a principle within the legislation that sectors cannot cross-subsidise each other. The costs that are imposed on, say, the radio sector, should only relate to radio and, by the same token, the cost of regulating the tech sector has to be imposed on the tech sector only and not on any other regulated entities. That is the principle in the legislation and it is what Coimisiún na Meán does in defining where the cost rise for it is, in terms of inputs to the levies.

The question of what costs are apportioned to which sector seems to be a hard one to ask. How is that analysis done? Does the Department have oversight of that analysis? Do the stakeholders who have these levies imposed on them have access to that analysis?

That principle is on the basis of legal advice that it had to be done that way. That is what is in the legislation and the basis on which Coimisiún na Meán allocates those costs for the purposes of levies.

Has Ms Quill seen the maths?

We do not see the detail. We see the figures that go into the three-year estimates across the various sectors. We do not see all the detail on the levy and how, exactly, costs are allocated.

Does Ms Quill think that is an issue?

It comes back to the question of what it means for Coimisiún na Meán to be independent in relation to this. I do not think it is appropriate for the Department to get into every figure within Coimisiún na Meán.

It is raised as an issue by certain groups of stakeholders which have these levies imposed on them. In that instance, does Ms Quill see there is an appropriate mechanism for the Department to investigate further, ask for figures to be put forward and have a chance to analyse this?

The Minister has raised certain questions with Coimisiún na Meán and made clear that he is concerned about the quantum of the levy on the radio sector. Coimisiún na Meán's predecessor, the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, had a very tight staffing complement and was heavily dependent on external commissioning. One of the aims in developing Coimisiún na Meán was to make sure it was well resourced from the outset in order that it would be in a position to fulfil its obligations right across the various sectors. Moving from a very small entity to a larger one has resulted in costs, in terms of generating new financial systems, new HR and so on.

I am sorry to wind up but I want to ask the broadcasters a question. I feel like I am talking about Coimisiún na Meán while its representatives are in the room. I have to leave for another meeting but I hope to come back to put some questions to Coimisiún na Meán. I am glad to hear that the Minister is concerned because in response to me, he was very dismissive of my concerns on this. He was incredibly dismissive on the Dáil floor. What do Mr. Kelly and Mr. Purcell think would be a fair method? What would work for them?

It would be something that would cover the core regulatory costs. We do not know the broad split of how the money is spent. I note the point about the tight staffing of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland and the need to staff up and have sufficient expertise. However, I draw the committee's attention to the fact that, despite the increase in staff, there is also €1 million provided for professional fees covering legal, research and so on. An issue was mentioned in relation to the scrutiny of the figures and the line thing. What concerns us is that over two years nobody seems to have spotted that the particular imposition on radio increased by 69% and nobody seemed to wonder whether this was important. When I speak to people in other sectors they nearly fall off their chair when they hear of an increase of 69%.

I thank the witnesses for coming. It is much appreciated. To stay parochial and local, my local radio station is KCLR 96FM. It plays a vital role in keeping Carlow and Kilkenny connected, informed and heard. In an era, environment and time when trust in news can be difficult to get, the fact we have a local radio station like that, which is of the people, for the people and community orientated, is so important in our community and area. We are very proud of that and the work the station does around community, sport, local issues and making people's voices heard. I put on the record the significant role KCLR 96 FM plays for so many people across my constituency of Carlow–Kilkenny.

Regarding the levy increase, I will be blunt and straight. How, in the name of God, can Coimisiún na Meán justify a 69% increase in two years in a levy for one particular sector? Can the witnesses square that for me? I cannot understand how, in a two-year period, an increase can be that high.

We provided data to the committee along with our opening statement on the increases. Our calculation, including working capital, is an increase of 42% from 2024. We appreciate that is a significant increase.

It is based on work we are undertaking in relation to the regulation of the radio sector, as well as a contribution to some overall-----

It is not based on commercial revenue generated, though, is it? From reading the report, I see that the commercial revenue generated has increased by 0.9%. The Department's levy will have increased by 69%.

We do not look at the commercial revenue generated other than in the sense of-----

Surely as an accounting exercise, Coimisiún na Meán would look at a commercial radio station's ability to pay and take that into context?

Our levy order is how the levy is divided up within the industry. We look at qualifying revenue, so the larger stations obviously spend more.

Is Coimisiún na Meán happy that 69% is fair?

I am saying that it was a 42% increase over that period.

Over the two years.

It is directly related and proportionate to the scale of work we have in-----

Mr. Purcell.

Could my colleague respond on the 42%?

Our figure is based on 2024, with it being the reconciled figure for 2024 after €419,000 of a rebate. To get the 42%, the original figure has to be used. We are working off the reconciled figure, which was the real cost of regulation in 2024 and gives the 69% increase.

Okay. I am really conscious of jobs, because I see the importance of them to the sector. Will Coimisiún na Meán guarantee the committee that not a single job in journalism in local radio will be lost as a result of this increase?

There is a lot of pressure on the radio industry and I do not think there are any guarantees around journalism jobs, but I can tell the Deputy-----

This is a problem for me.

-----that our media development commissioner can talk to him about the work we are doing to support journalism jobs.

Can Ms MacEvilly see what I am getting at? I am sorry to be so specific about it, but the levy is being increased significantly by 69% on the one hand and, on the other, Ms MacEvilly cannot guarantee that journalism jobs will not be lost on the back of it.

I do not think there any guarantees around journalism jobs. We know this is an area that is under intense pressure, which is why some of our work is so important. That is why we are implementing so many new programmes and policies that are designed to support journalism and high-quality-----

If we look at the specific increase for radio stations versus other sectors, why is the radio sector being punished more than, say, the tech sector?

The tech sector is paying, as the Deputy can see, a much higher proportion of our overall levy than broadcasters are. Intermediary service providers are paying €26.5 million compared with the €3.7 million from the radio sector. It is a vastly different scale of costs and charges on the online regulatory functions.

At a time when local radio is fighting for survival, and given the phenomenal services it provides against these global tech giants, can Ms MacEvilly see how increasing the levy is making life harder for Irish broadcasters rather than easier?

We are saying that it makes it more important for us to be resourced to do the work that is important for supporting radio. As we said in our opening statement, we are committed to the sustainable future of independent radio. We think it is vital to our democracy and incredibly important for local audiences. We know that the provision of high-quality news and current affairs is a critical underpinning of our democratic society. That is why we are engaged in so much of the work, driven by the report by the Future of Media Commission and the expanding remit of the legislation.

I will ask my colleague to talk about the media development-----

I have one minute left, so I will ask a final question. The station that my family and I listen to is KCLR. If that has to close or cut its news service because of these rising regulatory costs, who in Coimisiún na Meán takes responsibility for that?

As commissioners, our job as a regulator and media development agency is to ensure that we can support independent radio to the greatest extent within our legislative remit, and that is what we are doing.

We are all very aware of the pressure journalism is under, especially in the local media sector. I was at a conference recently where a speaker said that he thought for the first time last year more jobs were created in the local media industry than the national media industry for local journalism through the journalism schemes. We estimate that at least 100 jobs were created across the industry through the schemes, so that is a positive development.

Regarding the point about the platforms paying a higher proportion of the levy than we are, we would say that is absolutely natural, given the fact that their revenue from the Irish market dwarfs ours. From our analysis, we believe that, proportionally, local and independent radio is paying twice the rate of the massive online and digital services. We can provide statistics to back that up, but we are paying twice the rate of-----

Can you provide them?

Yes, we can get them and send them on.

We need to protect these local services, as opposed to putting barriers in their way. I understand and appreciate that Coimisiún na Meán has a job to do but the importance of this service to local people, particularly in my constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny, is huge. Rather than putting barriers and extortionate levies on them, perhaps that is something that could be looked at. As I said, those increases over a two-year period are not sustainable. I do not want to be sitting here in two or three years' time with my local radio station closing down.

I welcome all of the witnesses. I am very familiar with most people here, having worked on the online safety and media regulation legislation, the setting up of Coimisiún na Meán and the Future of Media Commission report, and putting in submissions. Ultimately, all of that was about online safety for children as core number one as well as support for the Irish media sector. Like Deputy Cleere with KCLR, I think that Shannonside FM and Midlands 103 are vital to my community in Longford-Westmeath. I can say here that I trust everything they produce. I cannot say that about a lot of other organisations, particularly those online, but we can trust our regional radio stations and our national broadcaster. That is a fact and it is key and important that we continue supporting them.

Ms MacEvilly mentioned how important this was. Someone else mentioned pressure on local media and highlighted that need. We have a situation where we have an increased levy put on these organisations in the middle of the year after they have put their budgets in place. There has been a significant increase in the staffing at Coimisiún na Meán. Is it a case that the organisation is too top heavy, which has pushed up these costs and, in turn, has meant that these levies are being put on the smaller stations?

Regarding our staffing levels, we are subject to oversight by the Departments of culture and public expenditure and reform in the sense that our numbers are approved by the two Ministers. They are related to business cases, specifically as regards the work we are asked to do under the legislation and the work we do under the development funds. The committee will be aware that there are two new pieces of legislation going through the House at the moment giving us more functions. We have more functions arising from the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act 2022, which significantly extended our remit. Our staffing and pay are in line with public sector norms and are approved by the Ministers concerned.

For the Department, when will that be reviewed? I have looked at other models, such as that of New Zealand, which is almost exactly the same size as Ireland, with the same model, languages, etc. It is far leaner there and it costs six times more to regulate the sector here. Something needs to be asked about this. Perhaps a review could be done on Coimisiún na Meán and its staffing levels to determine if it is overstaffed for what needs to be delivered. With New Zealand, we have a comparison in black and white that says it is six times more expensive here.

Going back to what I was saying before, it is important that Coimisiún na Meán be well staffed. One of the purposes of having it well staffed is that it should become less dependent on external consultancy costs, which are a significant driver of costs.

One of the intentions is to have a regulator with significant internal expertise and capacity so that it is not as dependent on going to the market, which can be very expensive. In fairness, Coimisiún na Meán has also recognised that and has done some work on bringing in more work internally. I hope that would increase over the coming period, which would drive down costs across the commission's work. That is something we will look at and work with Coimisiún na Meán on.

Could the Department look at other countries and the costs they have for a similar output compared with who we have here? We have to get value for money as well. We cannot have excessive costs. We have had enough of those organisations in the country that are trying to go back instead of continuing to go forward with that. I ask that this be reviewed and the New Zealand model be looked at to see why it has a model that is working and is six times less costly than the model we have here. The facts and figures are there.

The Future of Media Commission recognised the need for internal expertise. A lot of the work we do in media development around gender, equality and diversity programmes, sports broadcasting policy, environmental sustainability, the broadcasting network and a carbon calculator - all these things that help build trust in the industry - are being done in-house in Coimisiún na Meán now. That is really a place where we want to get to more and more as we develop.

I think the commission should prioritise online safety more. Trusted media are the radio stations and newspapers we have. It is online where lack of trust and the wrong information exist and is a space that is not safe for our kids. I do not think the commission has dealt with that strongly enough. This has been talked about for years. That is the number one priority and as an organisation, the commission has not dealt with it.

IBI mentioned levies and diverting resources away from broadcasting and into administration. Will the witnesses elaborate on that? Is there any way this committee could have oversight? Maybe that is stepping beyond the bounds of possibility but I think we need to. The witnesses spoke about diverting resources aimed for broadcasting into administration. Will they elaborate on that?

There is a heavy regulatory burden and the indications are that is increasing based on what the commission outlined today. Traditionally, independent radio has been regulated in this country since 1988. There was a tight focus on compliance with the range of codes and licensing and that kept the costs down. We mentioned mission creep but there is a wide range of new policy initiatives, for example, the public service media framework. That relates entirely to RTÉ, yet our sector pays it. It is our understanding that our levy money is paying for the licensing and regulation of community radio. Those are administrative burdens in relation to other sectors that we are required to pay.

There is no levy on community radio. Is that correct?

As set out in the legislation, it is exempt from paying a levy.

The note regarding this levy outlines seven or eight different services and how much they cost for their working capital each year. I am trying to find out what the increased cost that justifies this increased level is. There is no breakdown from year to year. This year, there is a cost of €1 million for professional services fees for sound broadcasting. Is that a substantial jump on the previous year?

It is a jump on the previous year. We publish detailed estimates online. Regarding the breakdown we have given, broadly, the jump from last year is circa €1 million. About 25% of that is related to the charge of working capital. We did not have a charge for working capital in 2025 and we added it back in in 2026. That is why we are saying that you need to take into account the offset of the €419,000 this year because we refunded the previous working capital provision of €391,000 to the radio sector this year. A total of 25% of that is related to the working capital provision. Something along the lines of 40% of the increase is related to increased pay costs. We have more staff doing the work. Obviously, there may have been some pay increases in line with public service pay agreements but it is basically core Coimisiún na Meán staff now. We are fully staffed out in that sector.

The fees for professional expertise should drop in the future.

The 35% is non-pay costs. What we are trying to do, as commissioner Ó Domhnaill outlined, is to build an organisation in which we have the internal capacity to deliver more in-house with less use of external expertise. There are always going to be areas where we will not have core staff, for instance, some of the work we are doing at the moment in developing a new finance system and implementing a new customer relationship management, CRM, system. You will always need external expertise for that but-----

I understand that but-----

-----for the core regulatory work-----

-----what is happening is this is getting passed on to the other sectors. In these figures, there is an increase of 8% in VAT. It is increased on whatever sector but we have the independent broadcasters in front of us. They have already paid VAT on every penny they get and now all of a sudden because the commission has an increase in VAT, they have to pay that. I understand that Coimisiún na Meán is at the starting space and needs to get its space in order. This is really a question for the Department. If there are increased costs in starting and getting the ball rolling properly, rather than passing it on to those sectors that cannot afford it, did the commission or the Minister have a discussion - this is the key question - about whether this can be offset by the State initially until the commission has the capacity to deal with these issues, and is not paying for extra VAT or external staff until it has its own staff?

Exchequer funding was provided to the commission for start-up costs. Exchequer funding was provided in 2023 and 2024 to get Coimisiún na Meán up and running prior to it being able to impose levies. The State has made a contribution to the start-up costs.

Now that extra duties are being put on Coimisiún na Meán, is it expected that the State will continue to fund or increase the funding until the commission has the in-house expertise and the databases that are required, rather than passing that bill on to independent broadcasters or any of the sectors?

If Coimisiún na Meán acquires additional functions at this stage, normally there is start-up funding for those and then a levy, but that should not impact on the radio sector in the sense that it is mainly online functions that are being added to Coimisiún na Meán. The primary cost for those should fall on the tech sector rather than on the radio sector.

Was there any discussion between the Minister and Coimisiún na Meán about the increased levy for this year and for the future because the €400,000 will not be there in the future? Is there an expectation that next year we will be back to this with another increase because the €400,000 has come back from the surplus before and will not be there next year?

The Minister met with Coimisiún na Meán and was clear in his concern about the increase in the levy and his concern that the sector would not face significant increases in the future.

That is something that both ourselves and Coimisiún na Meán are reflecting on to see if there are ways costs can be reduced. There are a few elements to that. One thing that may help on a transparency footing is that it was quite late when the radio sector heard about the increase. We are working together to see can draft figures come out earlier so the sector has a number of months to digest them and it is not last minute. Beyond that and on the regulation of the radio sector, there may be some potential to reduce that because it is a relatively heavily regulated sector. On a risk basis, that may no longer be justified so that is something we have also committed to look at.

I will ask Mr. McManamy to answer some of the questions from the independent broadcasting point of view.

Just to put a bit of perspective on the cost increase for the year, overall costs have gone up by 18%, yet the costs associated with our sector have gone up by 39%. Overall, pay has gone up by 16% and it has gone up by 31% for us. Professional fees have gone up by 24% overall and 50% for us. Administrative costs have gone down by 33% overall but have gone up by 16% for us. As well as costs going up, we seem to be taking a way bigger hit on it than others are in the sector.

I cited a broad income point but the percentage amount of our turnover that we pay is 2.8% whereas designated online services pay 1.25%. We are paying twice what the designated online services are paying. Hosting services are paying 0.54% and audiovisual on-demand services are paying 0.61%.

I welcome everybody. I want to ask about local radio stations and the perception they are increasingly bought up by international media organisations. Where are we at in relation to that? Does that create a risk for editorial lines being dictated from abroad?

I do not think so. I think the regulatory framework for that and the various codes we are obliged to operate under are robust and have worked-----

Those codes are managed by Coimisiún na Meán.

They are managed by Coimisiún na Meán and we do not have an objection to that.

I will come back to Mr. Purcell in a minute because I want to ask Coimisiún na Meán specifically about the issue of balance. Mr. Ó Domhnaill mentioned the commitment to gender equality and diversity in programming. To some degree, those are political goals, however laudable, and I wonder is there a conflict of interest between that and an objective regulatory function? That is my first question. The second is about a concern I have raised but it is not just my concern. Many people have a concern about RTÉ, for example, and the fact there is not enough diversity of political perspective being reflected in the way debates are conducted.

There is a concern that because of Coimisiún na Meán's power to fund, it is at risk of seeking to curate debates on a whole range of issues. On the commitment to diversity and gender equality, does that include diversity of political opinion on a range of issues, from migration to LGBT rights and all the areas of controversy? I am certainly concerned that RTÉ does not produce that diversity. I ask Coimisiún na Mean if it is interested in that, whether it is a problem and how it makes sure it is not becoming part of the problem?

As a reminder, this is about the broadcasting levy.

That is right. The Cathaoirleach may know the broadcasting levy is used to fund Coimisiún na Meán. We are talking about its use of its money.

I am just reminding the Senator.

I thank the Senator. A lot of the work in the media development sphere is dictated by the Future of Media Commission report, which recommended that a strategy be developed for gender equality, diversity and inclusion. That is driving a lot of the work there. We are very conscious, especially with the advent of our journalism schemes, about the importance of independence and the importance of balance.

Tell me about balance. How does Coimisiún na Meán work to ensure balance across a whole range of issues, with the likes of RTÉ and the independent sector? I will ask the independent sector in a moment whether it thinks it does a better job than RTÉ and the State-funded national broadcaster on staying close to the range of issues that are out there of concern in society.

I might hand over to the broadcasting commissioner on the code and rules for balance.

The key area here is the code of fairness, objectivity and impartiality. That relates to the provision of news and current affairs, which is particularly relevant to the Senator's question about the diversity of political-----

It is more than current affairs because broadcasting involves all sorts of things, like light entertainment. There can be a slant on all sorts of different programmes. Broadcasters can have agendas they ventilate. Is that of concern to Ms MacEvilly?

If you look at media pluralism and the importance of having a wide range of voices, services and content, the whole thrust of that is to ensure that by providing that diversity and wide range, you are enabling different voices, different views-----

What does it take for Ms MacEvilly to come to a conclusion that there might not be enough facilitation of genuinely diverse debate? Is Ms MacEvilly saying there is no problem until the Government tells us there is a problem, or is Coimisiún na Meán regularly looking, investigating and monitoring?

There are two means by which we look at this. The most important area has probably been our complaints function. This is where audiences and members of the public have the ability to raise issues if they feel-----

Can they raise questions about a range of issues? You can raise a question about a particular programme but can they raise issues about the general tendency across a range of programming?

If we were finding that complaints were upheld about a lack of objectivity or impartiality-----

Coimisiún na Meán is not looking for overall patterns?

-----in a range of different pieces of content by a particular provider, that would give rise to a concern. We can also take our own volition investigations if there is a concern that there is a breach that is not just in relation to a piece of content but a broader concern. In this kind of area, though-----

My sense and that of a lot of other people is that there are certain areas in society where there is an Overton window and certain ideas are more or less excluded from full discussion, particularly on the State broadcaster. There is not a sense that Coimisiún na Meán knows or cares about that. I just wanted to say that. Can I ask if the independent sector has any perspective on this issue? I am a university Senator so I care about all of the local radio stations equally but I have a particular grá for Galway Bay FM, Midwest Radio and Shannonside FM. Does this issue come on local broadcasters' radar?

It does, of course. We are not immune to the issues in wider society. The Senator asked do we think we do a better job than RTÉ. I would not like to judge because it is comparing apples and oranges. On our role, as we are very localised and concentrated on our local areas, we get an awful lot of feedback. The notion that the only complaints or feedback we would get is through Coimisiún na Meán is erroneous. We get loads of complaints and people ringing up to tell us we are not representing a particular point of view. We generally ask them if they want to go on air. There are many examples in our station where someone would ring up and say we are only covering one side of an issue and we then put them through straight away. That is how we often deal with complaints. We are very close to our community. As regards the success or otherwise of that, people can look at the listenership research. In all areas around the country, it shows that generally, independent stations lead the figures.

Is Mr. Purcell neutral on the question of whether it is good or bad that international organisations are buying up local media stations?

It all depends on the editorial policies and the content that comes out through the speakers. People generally care about the content rather than the ownership structures. Sometimes, there can be a discussion which is too fixated on ownership. As long as there are robust obligations on us - which there are - in terms of fairness, impartiality and-----

Mr. Purcell would have to say that, would he not?

Well, we could be here for the rest of the day arguing whether I really mean it or I am just saying it because I am in front of a Oireachtas joint committee. When I am walking down the street, people will come up to me and tell me my radio station is rubbish because it is not covering something. I will go back and feed that back directly. We are accessible. What is at stake is the continued health-----

I get that. Mr. Purcell has to do the best he can within whatever the market dictates but when most people hear the news that a long-time locally run media organisation has now been gobbled up by a larger organisation, they feel a little pang of regret.

Perhaps. The key thing, regardless of ownership structures, is that local radio stations continue to provide a local service. Regardless of ownership, there are local radio stations that are owned by groups that provide that service.

I thank all of the witnesses for coming here today to discuss this really important topic. A special welcome to Mr. Kelly and Mr. Purcell. We have had major discussions on this. I welcome Mr. McManamy as well. My broadcasting background began in local and regional radio with Community Radio Drogheda, now LMFM. LMFM provides an incredible service, as does Dundalk FM in my own region, with news and current affairs, the local aspect and the community aspect. I have, sadly, been watching the local aspect being removed from many stations right across the country. Look at the current scaling back of the workforce in LMFM. There is absolute consternation that the likes of Colm Corrigan, who is one of the finest sports broadcasters in the nation with over 30 years of a broadcasting career, is being scaled back and may lose his position altogether. He is not the only one across the entire nation.

One of the big worrying losses in our area was the removal of the live broadcasting of the Sunday morning mass. It might sound like a very trivial thing, but it was massive in our area because this was a lifeline and a mainstay of many, especially older or vulnerable people with mobility issues. This has now just been removed. I lobbied for it to be returned and was told it was a Coimisiún na Meán-backed decision. I will come back to that in one moment.

I am concerned that perhaps the Department is losing touch with what is happening to local radio, community radio and regional radio because of these types of levy. Is Mr. Kelly, Mr. Purcell or Mr. McManamy of that opinion?

I worked with LMFM for many years. The pressure we are under financially is what is driving this as opposed to ownership or whatever. Loads of good people have left the sector in recent times. This levy will drive more people out. In my case, to pay for the extra levy, we will cut back on part-time news hours as a way to go with it. If this continues into next year, it will be jobs. For the groups, there is probably a six-figure sum involved here. They have profit targets to hit for their investments and will have to reach those by cutting.

The issue here is financial. Any additional costs that come our way have to be recouped in some way. The market out there from a revenue point of view is not good at the moment. It is flat at best. If we get an extra cost in a levy, we have to cut a cost someplace else. Approximately 65% of LMFM's cost base is staff. Most of the other costs are non-negotiable, such as transmission, light, heat, insurance and so forth. The only place that we smaller stations can cut in principle is within the staffing area. Where we have the most staff is in the news and current affairs area.

We have been talking of these impacts for years and we have not been crying wolf. That is why this is such an important issue.

In relation to the content schemes that have been introduced in the last number of years, such as Sound and Vision and journalism schemes, the conditions of those schemes are that every cent that comes into them has to be spent on content. It would actually be prohibited to use any of that money to pay for the levy. The levy is straight off the bottom line of every station, and that is the difficulty. It is straight out of a station whereas any money that comes in from those schemes, while welcome, goes straight into content, which is paying for journalists, outside broadcasts, OBs, and any type of additional service. That is the difficulty we are facing.

When we were doing our work on this, we spoke to the coimisiún and to the Department initially. We then went off and did some benchmarking. If we benchmark regulation internationally, we find that a very comparable market would be New Zealand. Just to give the committee an idea, New Zealand regulates TV and radio for about 15% of what it costs in Ireland. Then, of course, there is the regulation of press. I am not trying to drag the press into being regulated by a more onerous system, but if you look at the amount of money that is spent on regulating the press in Ireland - both Coimisiún na Meán and the Department of media recognise the Office of the Press Ombudsman and the Press Council as regulatory processes and as equivalent to our regulation - you are talking about it costing them roughly 10% of what it costs us. One of our medium-sized stations is probably paying €50,000 more this year for the levy, whereas if I was regulated by the Press Council or the Press Ombudsman it probably would be a couple of hundred euro.

One can imagine it is then a very unattractive workplace to go into. We have been talking about breathtaking wages at the top of the likes of RTÉ. We all welcome the local democracy schemes, but if we are seeing job cuts now and the wages were poor enough, where do these staff go to?

None of the schemes is for core activities. That is problematic.

I want to come back to the likes of the mass being scrapped, for want of a better word. It is still causing a lot of bother but when I approached the radio station, it said that the decision had been sanctioned by An Coimisiún na Meán. How much of a survey does the commission do and how much does it ask the audience whether something like this will have a major effect on them before a move like this is taken?

I am not aware of any decision the commission has taken in relation to the broadcast of mass. I think these are the kinds of editorial decision that are taken by broadcasters that we would not tend to get involved in. I think the Senator's question is really valid in terms of what audiences actually want. Part of the work we have been doing over the past while, which is driving some of the higher costs at the moment, is asking those questions. We have done significant audience research, both in terms of public service broadcasters and independent broadcasters, looking at what audiences are looking for. Some of the really important findings that have come back from that are maybe not surprising. The core focus would be on the provision of high-quality news and current affairs, and then the localness of the provision of services by local radio services, which is not something that one can find online and which really differentiates them. From our point of view, decisions on the provision of content along the lines of local sports, local politics, local courts and so on would generally be for the independent editorial decision-making of the organisations. Obviously, it helps to support that where we can fund it. Where we do have a more intrusive regulatory role would, for instance, be around ensuring time is allotted for news and current affairs, minutage around advertising, and so on.

As part of our broadcasting services strategy, we are really asking open questions about how much we should be involved, even to the extent we are involved in terms of some of the licensing decisions we make, in the operational arrangements that broadcasters have and whether we should have less involvement in that and be more focused on the outcomes aligned with the audience requirements.

We are doing similar work for public service media on what people are looking for. That will feed into our framework where we will set performance commitments.

I thank Ms MacEvilly. We will have Senator Mark Duffy now, who is replacing Senator Evanne Ní Chuilinn.

I thank the Chair. My question is for Coimisiún na Meán. Is there a more important meeting happening today for Coimisiún na Meán or is this the most important one that it has today?

This is the most important.

Why is the chairman not in attendance?

We felt as a team that this was the team that was most involved in the regulation of the radio sector and the areas that the committee would have the most involvement in. I am the commissioner for broadcasting and video on demand. I work directly with the radio sector. I also lead on the corporate services sector section of our organisation, so I am involved in developing the processes and procedures, the development of the budget and the levy, and the work plan and estimates.

I deal with a lot of the funding schemes for the industry as well.

What is the chairman doing at the moment?

In Coimisiún na Meán-----

What could be more important today than being here? We are discussing the livelihoods of people across the country who work in local independent broadcasting, yet we have a chairman who is not only a chairman, but an executive chairman, who decides not to attend the meeting. Am I the only one who thinks this is totally disrespectful to the meeting?

It was not intended in any way to indicate that this was not the most important meeting of the day. It was actually intended to support the best possible evidence and information that we could give the committee today from the people most directly involved as commissioners in addressing these questions.

The evidence is that Coimisiún na Meán is crippling the independent broadcasting sector by the increase of levies. This has been identified and is presented to the committee today.

On staff and resource, the good news is there will be nothing to regulate in a couple of years if the commission keeps going the way it is going. Has the commission hired all its staff on guaranteed contracts, for ever more, considering the fact that it will have very little income by penalising independent broadcasters as it is doing at the moment? Has that been considered?

I suppose the majority of our staff are on public service contracts.

Yes, so they will have a contract for ever more, including the chair, and independent broadcasters will fold across the country. They will remain in their job forever. Is that a bit of an issue?

Just to clarify, the chair is not in the situation the Senator just outlined.

What situation?

The Senator said "for ever more". Chairs do not stay for ever more.

I mean the 300 staff that are employed by Coimisiún na Meán.

You said "chair", just to clarify. We will continue.

We are being entrusted with really significant regulatory functions and media development functions. We are being given more work. The Oireachtas is currently looking at two new Bills, the Media Regulation Bill and the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill, both of which continue to expand our regulatory remit and functions. If the Senator is concerned that we will not have work across the breadth of our functions, that is not a concern that we have. Our concern is that we can resource ourselves to do the job we have been entrusted with by the Oireachtas, and do it effectively and well. Part of that job includes supporting a sustainable radio broadcasting sector because it is the importance of this for the future.

It is not sustainable.

We have discussed, and can continue to discuss, the level of work that is put into funding, training, development, looking at the future of the broadcasting services strategy, which could look at different ways we could regulate that would reduce pressures on services.

What is to stop Coimisiún na Meán increasing the levy by 100% next year? Is there anything to stop it doing that? Hypothetically, because these figures are growing all the time. Am I correct that it began in the first year with less than 50 staff in 2023?

Yes, it was a very----

Now it is 300.

It was a very different role. The vast majority of the 300 are not working in sound broadcasting and are not funded by the sound broadcasting levy. It is a very different role. What I can say in terms of oversight, though, because somebody raised it earlier, is that we are subject to significant oversight and scrutiny. What the Senator sees around the levy and the estimates, those are our budget and our estimates. Our actual costs are properly audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. If we have spent less than our estimate, that money is returned to industry. That is the oversight mechanism. The Comptroller and Auditor General----

As long as the commission spends the money, that is fine. No matter what it spends, as long as it spends it, that is fine.

I suppose the Comptroller and Auditor General also has the ability to identify if he thinks the money has not been properly spent. That has not been the case. Our work plan informs the budget. Our work plan is informed by primary legislation----

It should not be a work plan at the expense of independent broadcasters that are going to be wound up because of the commission's decision. Could I use the last minute of my time to speak for independent broadcasters?

Let the witnesses reply to that.

We are very conscious of the pressures the radio industry is under. In the latest iteration of our Sound and Vision scheme, €14 million has been committed to the commercial radio sector, €3 million to our journalism schemes, €1 million to our digital transformation programme. We are very conscious of the pressures they are under and of giving them as much support as we can.

Is there a net gain on all of the interventions?

I would point out in relation to the Sound and Vision scheme, and the figures covers the Covid period as well, as I understand it, that is for additional content and cannot be applied to core news or current affairs. Our concern, as clearly supported by the direction of travel, with repeated reference to increasing remits, more policies looking into different areas and so on, outside of the core regulatory functions, as well as the spiralling costs, is the spiralling regulatory burden, which will stifle our content as well as stifling the economics of maintaining our services.

Can I ask a final question?

Briefly.

Of the hundreds of semi-State bodies, less than five have executive chair positions. Is that a governance issue?

Typically, regulators are formulated as commissions with a chairperson. I would be familiar with that from my previous role in the Commission for Regulation of Utilities. It is similar in ComReg and the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission. Our corporate structure is typical for an independent sector regulator.

I thank all the witnesses. During the previous Seanad, I was a member of the committee. With the exception of Ms Quill, I probably spent more time with the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act than anyone here. I think we spent 25 hours on it in the Seanad and about the same in this committee. Our intention as legislators was to promote a pluralist, diverse, democratic media sector within Ireland. This is where the challenge comes from. We recognise very clearly that local radio and independent media are part of that. Indeed, the purposes of Coimisiún na Meán as laid out in the legislation and on its own website make very clear that this is the intention. I get entirely that the commission has a regulatory function as well and am very supportive of what it is doing. I do not have an issue with the number of staff, particularly because of the online safety responsibilities that are placed on them. However, our challenge, which I will put to the Department first, is whether we need to revise the legislation. We have the wrong end of the debate, if it ends up around increasing the levy by this or that. In this era of misinformation and disinformation, it is critically important that we have a vibrant and pluralist media sector. What needs to be done to do that? I am not doubting that there are costs involved in regulation and it has to happen. I would disagree with the press council as I am not entirely in favour of self-regulation in this sector either. Ms Quill knew the purposes of this legislation. Is she happy that they are being achieved?

In fairness, quite a lot has been done in implementing the legislation. The legislation was right in its focus at the time. As I said earlier, we are open, if it is considered that, looking at things now, as to whether the radio sector is overly regulated, we would be open to looking at that, and it is something Coimisiún na Meán is looking at as well. I am not sure if that is what the Deputy was getting at. It is a very fast-changing sector so it is right to keep looking at the balance of regulation.

I am thinking about this in the context of the forthcoming legislation. It is critical that we cannot over-regulate or introduce levies or charges that will end up working to the detriment of the sector. At the same time, I totally respect that the commission has responsibilities in terms of costs that it has to make. I am not just looking at independent radio but also independent television. Requirements are being put in place, for instance, for Virgin Media that include a broadcaster levy and a video on demand levy. We are expecting it to appear on Saorview. It is not receiving a big chunk of State funding. If we start to introduce those levies, they may undermine what I see as the core function of what the commission should be doing. The core function should about promoting the democratic, pluralist media sector, which we are very lucky to still have in Ireland. It is essential to democracy and more important than ever in terms of tackling misinformation and disinformation. Is Coimisiún na Meán focusing a little too much on one aspect of its role rather than on the function of the organisation?

We are very focused on the health of industry, especially as regards trust in the media, as the Deputy said.

That is really central to an awful lot of what we do. Without giving too much away, the annual Reuters news report is going to be launched next Tuesday and it will show a high level of trust in the independent commercial radio sector local news. People do trust it. However, part of the reason they trust it is it is well-regulated.

I agree entirely. I am very proud of the media sector here. Has there been any examination done by the coimisiún about actions that may be seeking to undermine that principle? Coimisiún na Meán's core focus should be on the purpose within the legislation, which we as legislators debated at length. I am just worried. We will not go into the Netflix levy and the streaming levies side of the things but I find it bizarre that we are not prepared to levy streaming services to support the production of Irish context, yet we are placing levies at a disproportionate rate. It is an internal decision around what the coimisiún sees as the priority.

Everything we do in the media landscape is about ensuing there is a healthy, thriving media. That is-----

Has there been any examination done by the coimisiún internally or has it commissioned any research as to the potential impact of cost or levies on independent radio or television?

We are very conscious of the effect of the levy. We are hearing the effect of it quite clearly here today. Our overall ambition is that the sector thrives. That is why we have policies that will help it survive as well.

Given that the coimisiún has heard the effect, what do we need to do? Do we need to make specific legislative changes or is it a case of an internal decision by an coimisiún?

There are two areas. I particularly mentioned the broadcasting services strategy earlier on. Part of the way we regulate broadcasters, particularly in terms of our licensing function, has probably not changed significantly since the 2009 Act was implemented. It was much more hands-on and operational than was warranted. We will-----

Will an coimisiún review that? The landscape is enormously different from-----

Exactly the kind of work this levy is funding this year is our broadcasting services strategy, which is aimed at-----

My question is if it should be. The landscape has changed but we are not levying the streamers or the social media companies, which are playing on that same field. I totally agree that research has to be done, but my question is who should be-----

I will say as commissioner for video on-demand that we are levying video on-demand for our regulatory functions in that section.

I appreciate that but not at the same-----

Not that one. In order to produce the kind of evidence to support legislative change, we have to do the work to develop reasonable proposals and that is what we are working on now.

I agree, but my problem with it is that the coimisiún is levying one sector to be able, essentially, to support that. Do we need to change the legislation to do that or is it a policy decision within the coimisiún?

We are levying the radio sector for the work we are doing on the radio sector. We are also doing work on video on-demand. We have currently got a consultation going on in relation to regulation in that area. I assure the Deputy that radio is not paying for that; the video on-demand levy is paying for that. We have multiple other pieces at work-----

I appreciate that but my problem is that one media sector cannot be divorced from the other. We are competing as politicians locally, as local radio is. It provides a vital resource with the sort of nonsense that is posted on Facebook. To treat them as separate-----

It is very important-----

The legislation really does say only the sectors-----

Can I come in?

No, you cannot. The time is up.

It is symptomatic of the position of this sector.

Excuse me, Mr. Purcell may want to withdraw that because I have to be fair to everyone.

Yes, apologies.

It is not symptomatic at all. Independent Broadcasters Ireland are getting great sympathy here and its representatives should embrace that rather than making a smart comment.

I thank all the witnesses for attending and for the extensive engagement we have had over the past few hours. Like many here before me, I cannot overemphasise the importance of local radio. It really is a trusted source of news and of information, and crucially for many, it is familiar company. They are household names who are in everybody's houses - elderly people's in particular - on a daily basis. If we walk into my granny's house at any stage between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. my local radio station, LMFM, is blaring. She trusts that religiously and everything that comes across the airways from that station. I would go as far as to say that I am of the belief that LMFM is probably the largest radio station outside of Dublin and Cork, if not very close to it. It has in the region of 75,000 daily listeners in its broadcast base alone of Louth and Meath, and that is without the reach it has into north county Dublin, Monaghan, Cavan and parts of Armagh and County Down. The impact increased costs is going to have on jobs and job loses has been referenced here earlier. In the past number of weeks alone, LMFM has confirmed, although not formally and publicly, that we are to lose our station manager and three out of five reporters in the newsroom. These are three people who everybody in the region knows and trusts in relation to courts reporting, local democracy reporting from local council meetings, sports as my colleague has referenced earlier on, and news in particular. This is a devastating blow to me personally and to most people locally and I would have major concerns as to the continuation of that level of detail and level of trust going forward as there is a regionalisation of hubs in regards to how the radio station will produce context and information going forward.

I will start with Independent Broadcasters Ireland. This is down to a decline in earnings due to reduced revenues but of course increased costs and, in particular, the levy are bound to have had an impact on this. Is the IBI forecasting similar patterns happening, such as what is going on in LMFM and I am sure other stations right around the country, in the coming weeks and months?

While we cannot speak on behalf of every individual member-----

Of course.

-----nonetheless the one thing I would say is that from everybody in every radio station that is part of the IBI nobody wants to have fewer journalists, fewer sports reporters and fewer services. The drive in our entire sector is to have more and to produce better content. It is a very vocational sector. Certainly, people do not enter the sector just for the money. I can absolutely assure the committee of that.

This has been happening for years. It is just a bit more visible now. We have been flagging it. As well as people leaving, we are having more difficulty attracting people. People are leaving for better job security elsewhere, particularly around that news and current affairs area. There are better work opportunities elsewhere.

I imagine the levy and the increased costs, which is the topic of the discussion here today, is putting the fear of God into anybody who is working in that sector at the moment.

Absolutely. It goes beyond-----

We cannot blame these people who are potentially looking at a different career path, something that is more sustainable, long term and secure. I completely understand that. My concern at the moment is the direct implications that we are going to see in initial job losses as opposed to people moving on and choosing to work in a more secure environment.

It also goes beyond just job loses. If there is more costly regulation, it affects investment into the sector as well, which, again, is something that is probably needed long term in terms of people coming in and building services back up.

I will move on to Coimisiún na Meán quickly. Ms MacEvilly said in her opening statement:

Each year, we carry out an extensive process assessing the budget required to deliver on our Work Programme for the following year. In line with the legislation, we submit this Work Programme, alongside estimates of income and expenditure to the Minister ... for the following year.

How detailed are the estimates Coimisiún na Meán provides to the Minister? Ms Quill referenced earlier that the Minister does not see a full breakdown of costs. Does there need to be a change in what is provided to the Minister regarding the potential costs for the year? I cannot understand why he did not raise concerns about the proposed increase at an earlier stage. Was he not privy to the information or did he just overlook that information?

I can just speak to what we provide to the Minister. Ms Ó Síocháin may be able to outline-----

Yes. How detailed is it? It is a brief answer.

We carry out a fairly detailed process internally. All of our teams and divisions plan their operational project activity. That undergoes a sort of prioritisation and refinement with our finance team, the directors and the commissioners.

Did these estimates outline these costs that were provided to the Minister in advance of this year?

That is then costed and once that is agreed internally that and the work programme are provided to the Minister and the Department; not at the detailed level we would have carried out the exercise internally but at the level that is defined in terms of our own-----

Sorry, I ask Ms Ó Síocháin to be clear for me. I do not need a technical explanation. Was the Minister provided with a forecast of an increase of this magnitude? We heard earlier that nobody seems to have spotted in recent years that the levy imposed on radio was increasing by 69%. Was that information provided to the Minister in advance of it happening? That is what I need to know. It is a "Yes" or "No".

Yes. There is a breakdown per category and per sector and one could obviously see the year-on-year increase.

How was this overlooked?

If I can come in, the breakdown is by sectoral area, but it is the determination by Coimisiún na Meán of what it deems to be the cost of regulation.

This is huge. Did alarm bells not ring at any stage, even based on a sectoral cost, that this was of a significantly greater magnitude than previously?

At a more global level, we see there has been an increase in cost, but it is not unsurprising in that Coimisiún na Meán has been building up, with all the new functions it has.

Do we need to change the way this is reported in advance to the Department and Minister?

We can do that. As was said earlier, we can look at how it is timed, in particular. This comes at a time in the year in advance of the levy-----

I am not talking about the timing. I am talking about the reporting.

We can look at the level of detail. Those are things we can add, as we see them.

Can we get a commitment today that that level of detail will be improved?

We can look at it administratively.

It was great to hear from Ms Quill that the Minister is now concerned about the quantum of the levy on the radio sector because when I reached out to him initially, he told me he had no hand, act or part in this. I have that in writing. How far does this concern go? Ms Quill also commented that the Department, along with Coimisiún na Meán, is now reflecting to ensure there are not further cost increases. Is there potential to reduce these costs? Is the Minister's concern going to take this to a stage where there is potential reduction to the costs or can we get a firm guarantee that there will be no further increases?

What the Minister pointed out was that he did not have a statutory role in approving or signing off on these increases because that is what the legislation says. He cannot tell Coimisiún na Meán that it cannot impose that increase. I think he was making that clear. However, he is very concerned, and he made that clear to the Independent Broadcasters of Ireland when he made it.

That is welcome.

We are looking, with Coimisiún na Meán, at what can be done to reduce the underlying costs that feed into the levy because that is the only way to reduce it for the sector over time. That might include-----

The sector might not have time. That is the fundamental concern around this room. I have outlined it in regard to my local radio station. The sector does not have time.

Sorry, is there a question?

I am asking the Department to reflect on increased costs going forward. The sector cannot sit and wait for the Department to reflect. What can we do, in the here and now, to ensure we preserve the trusted source of radio stations and preserve the people who are left in the sector and who want to continue to work in it? They enjoy working in that sector and they provide a vital resource to our communities.

In fairness, there are significant resources going into the sector. I take the point Mr. Purcell made that they are for content, and rightly so, for the benefit of audiences. However, it would be wrong to say there is a really quick and easy solution to this. We have to make sure the underlying costs are kept as low as possible for the sector and that requires some work.

There have been some very good questions from committee members across the board. Just so the witnesses know, I put it to the committee that we address this topic and we brought it forward because we had a couple of cancellations. That shows the extent to which this committee feels this is unsustainable. We come from all different types of politics and none. We reflect society and all of us think this increase is bananas. It is as simple as that. I will come to the witnesses when I ask a question; that is the way it works here. Everyone thinks it is crazy.

There are a few issues with this. I think there is a legislative and regulatory weakness. I am very pro-public sector and very pro-regulation but I would be lying if I did not say there was a certain belief across politics in relation to the scale of Coimisiún na Meán. What is the average salary in Coimisiún na Meán?

We publish information in our annual report and accounts.

We do not have that information.

We do not have it to hand.

Will the witnesses do those calculations and send the information to me?

Yes.

I understand there is going to be creep in Coimisiún na Meán. I do not have a massive issue with that given the areas it has to take on. However, the figures that have been provided in relation to the levy order – €2.8 million for radio, €1.25 million for online and €1.21 million for television – are not sustainable. The worry here is that, as the previous speaker, Deputy Byrne, just said, I do not think we have time. I know this sector very well. I have been in politics for 20 years and I deal with a lot of local radio stations. I see huge staff turnover. Obviously, local radio is a stepping stone for careers - that is fine and everyone knows that - but there is also a turnover of staff for another reason. That is just not sustainable. The reason is the quality of output. Staff would prefer to have a small amount of quality output than to have a large amount of output that is not good quality. That is what they keep telling me. I appreciate what has been put into the various funds. What interests me is that I believe the Minister agrees with the position of members of this committee.

The Minister met Coimisiún na Meán. Deputy Byrne outlined that this issue was flagged. Were the officials surprised by the levy this time around?

I would say we were concerned.

That is enough. Ms Quill is being honest. The Minister is concerned and the Department is concerned. Every member of a political entity and Independent in the Oireachtas, which is represented by this committee, is concerned. The sector itself is concerned. That tells me one thing, namely, that we have a massive problem here and we do not have time. There is something wrong here and there are three possibilities. Either there is something wrong with the legislation or there is something wrong with the regulation process or the organisation. It could be the second of those. There is a big problem here and it is not sustainable.

Deputy Carrigy raised the issue of trust. The witnesses have to regulate the whole spectrum of the online space. We have spent days of our lives in this committee discussing that. There needs to be a qualitative versus quantitative analysis on output, on how levies are done and on the need for society to have the different types of media, as well as on how they impact on our lives. I do not know how that equation is made in the witnesses' process but it needs to happen because the quality of content coming through from local radio stations versus the regulatory side, where Coimisiún na Meán needs to look at the online space, is very far apart. We need the former far more than we need the latter.

My mother lives for bits and pieces on Tipp FM, which, fortunately, she can still understand, but across society people depend on their local radio stations. While the quality of the output is being maintained, the quantity is dropping because local radio is not sustainable. It may be that legislation is needed or a change in regulation is needed, but we also need an organisation to think about this and put it back to the Minister and Department. The Minister has said he is concerned. The Department openly said that too and members are all concerned. Coimisiún na Meán needs to push back and if it does not have the capacity to deal with this, it needs to be given it. However we phrase it, whether benevolently neutral in favour of one sector over another for societal reasons or due to the way information and misinformation need to be managed, we need to do that.

It is nobody's fault but there is a functional failing here in legislation, regulation or how Coimisiún na Meán is managing it. Personally, I think it is probably the second, because Coimisiún na Meán has to drive the bus between the ditches and the ditches are set for it. That probably needs to be changed in some way. We as a committee should write to the Minister. I think the Minister would embrace this. We should write to the Minister stating how we feel and that we are at this juncture. Honestly, I do not see how we can allow this continue whereby in the current structure Coimisiún na Meán could come up with another levy next year that will increase and go up again. The commission does not know because it will have to carry out an assessment on the same principles used to assess it for this levy.

I am sorry for that soliloquy but, having listened to everyone, that is a summary of where we are at collectively. I will give everyone one minute to reply to what I said. As I have already asked Ms Quill, I will start with Coimisiún na Meán to be fair. There is one minute each, if that is all right, as an indulgence to the Chair.

We would thank the Cathaoirleach and all the members of the committee. We have listened. It is loud and clear-----

We are not finished so do not thank us yet. There is round two.

We hear clearly the concerns, as we heard the concerns of the Minister. We are looking at ways that we can put downward pressure on the levy for next year. We are looking at ways that we can enhance some of the flexibility in the mechanisms within the legislation that we have and we will engage with the Department on those, and already have done so on one or two points. We will definitely take on board what is being said here today.

Is there anything I said there that the Independent Broadcasters of Ireland would challenge?

No. You provided an admirable summary. I thank the Cathaoirleach.

Is Mr. Purcell making up for earlier now?

Apologies; I was cringing in the seat earlier when I realised what I had said.

We would hope the increases will stop. We believe there are measures available to the Minister whereby he can fund aspects of the operation of Coimisiún na Meán on an interim basis.

On Deputy Byrne's question about whether we need legislation, the answer is "Yes". There is an opportunity. The costs of the levy should be restricted to core regulatory measures and the policy development should be funded by the State, etc.

There was talk about other sectors not cross-subsidising. Coimisiún na Meán carries out activities in relation to the newspaper sector and they do not pay a levy.

It is a fair point. We did not even think of that.

It is true to say that the Department was asked and is open for whatever opportunities might be there to discuss how the regulatory processes can be simplified and if legislation is required.

I am slightly confused at this stage. One of the questions related to the rebate of €415,000. When I look back at the information, it is to be decided. That was 2024. Have we any indication how much of a rebate will be available to reduce the levy next year, for instance? If there is not any, that means there will be an increase in the levy next year because €419,000 has disappeared.

We are currently finalising our accounts for 2025 with the Comptroller and Auditor General. I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of that but we will soon know the answer to that question.

In terms of the drivers for the levy next year, what I wanted to mention is that there are a couple of areas where there would be hopefully downward pressure. First, we would not expect to be charging that working capital piece again next year, so already that would change. If we can retain that rather than refunding and recharging it every year, that would be to the benefit of everybody.

The other area is the legislation that is before the Houses at the moment which enables us to establish a separate levy for RTÉ and TG4 to pay the full costs of the new public service media framework. Only a small portion of that is charged to the radio sector but that would be taken out. So there are some areas where we would hope to put that downward pressure, and obviously also taking on board all of the feedback we have today. There are other areas that we are working with the Department on in terms of other flexibility that we can use. These are future measures to support ongoing downward pressure in this area.

It is key that we look at making sure in the future that the levy is reduced rather than increased, given the pressures on that sector. There are other sectors where levies can be increased. I can understand the point about cross-subsidisation of different levies and maybe that is something the Department can look at to allow.

What is the surplus in all of the other areas for 2024? Ms MacEvilly mentioned 2025. There was a surplus for this sector, but was there a substantial surplus in the others? How is that accounted? Does it merely sit there or where does it go?

There was a more substantial surplus in other sectors. We have been better at estimating radio because we have a clearer picture on the regulatory framework there. In some of the new sectors, it is quite new and evolving.

They are all very much in individual categories. If there is a surplus relating to the regulation of video on demand, that has to go back to the video-on-demand providers that paid it, etc. It would not have an impact in this conversation.

Does it sit there year on year or does it reduce that sector's levy?

If there is a surplus, it can either be refunded to the sector or used to offset future levies. In other words, it could be a lower levy rather than a refund. This year, in the main it was taken as a refund.

I welcome the proposal to write to the Minister but it would be good to get context on that. Is that to ask to reverse the 39%?

Often, based on evidence that we hear, we summarise and make recommendations. As the Senator will be aware, we as a committee do not have the power to change but we make recommendations, send them to the Minister, and hope that the Department and the Minister will take on board what we are saying. We will be making recommendations based on what we have discussed here.

I fully support that. It is important that the Minister is conscious of independence but he is empowered by the committee to hopefully act in the interests of radio stations. It has been outlined that time is of the essence because the sector is under huge pressure and threats and has navigated well through the introduction of social media and all of the other different sources of media over the past two decades in particular. From a regulatory point of view, it does not make sense that a threat would then come from Coimisiún na Meán. I hope that with the interventions today the 39% increase in the levy can be reversed and that it will be protected going forward. As has been outlined, it is totally unsustainable.

Do the witnesses believe it fair to businesses that every year there will be a review? It is still a commercial operation. Each year, they cannot make a concrete decision because they are worried about what the next levy will be the following year. They cannot invest in equipment because they do not know if they are going to be there.

We are taking on board very clearly what is being said today and I thank the Senator. We have pointed to two areas where we think there may be downward rather than upward pressure on the levy next year, being the working capital provision and the new levies that are being introduced on foot of the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill, which could take some burden away from the radio sector, and I suppose we are also considering in the round.

If we look at our budget for 2026 as a whole, the vast majority of it is going towards the online sectors. That is the key element of the funding. Our budget for 2026 is almost €65 million. The radio levy is a small part of it. The overall picture is really around the cost of regulating the online sector. We will also be looking at ways in which we can reduce the regulatory burden on the broadcasters.

I have been in the industry from the start. We started with very heavy regulation. As we became more compliant, it became very light-touch regulation. We seem to be swinging back towards heavier-touch regulation, which is probably disproportionate with a mature and compliant sector. There has been talk today about future media, but there is no future for the media as we currently operate if we keep getting hit with extra costs. There is talk about developing the sector, but the sector is already developed. What is actually happening is that we are unwinding what has been developed over the past 35 years. There is talk about supporting the sector. The worst way to support the sector is to send us extra bills, because there are consequences.

I thank the witnesses for a useful discussion. There are a number of things we need to look at doing. In the context of the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill, which is coming before the Oireachtas soon, we need to reflect on what is happening here - I might ask the Department to do this - and we need to look at whether we need to amend it. I suggest that any levies that are applied should only be around the costs of regulation. If we need to amend the legislation, now is the time to do consider these matters, given that the Bill will be making its passage through the Houses quite soon.

I welcome the discussion that is going on within Coimisiún na Meán around the long-term viability of some of the sector. The discussion has to take place in the context of the overall objectives of the legislation. How can we ensure a viable pluralist media going forward? That has to be almost sector-neutral. Our witnesses referenced 2009, which is a lifetime away in terms of how social media, technology and AI have developed. We want to ensure that there are diverse voices and that Irish stories are being told. Coimisiún na Meán might furnish us with details around the research and the work that is being done. It should not be funded out of regulatory levies.

The broader question to which all of this comes back, and which we never properly settled, is the debate around the funding of media. There have been sticking-plaster solutions but we have not addressed a lot of this - the licence fee, the temporary measures for RTÉ and the question of whether we should put in place a streaming levy. Coimisiún na Meán has to implement what is there. I still think we need to explore this if we are going to ensure what we are going to have well into the future. My view has always been that we should have public funding, involving an arm’s-length body, and that whoever applies will have to do so in a very fair way. We have to do it properly. That is just my view. I know the Future of the Media Commission dealt with it. I genuinely worry about what is going to happen if we do not address the broader funding issue. We have had it with RTÉ in here. We know what the position is with RTÉ in 2027. We are going to be back here in 2028 dealing with some of the same issues. I get that it is a political decision and that it is for us to do, but we need to revisit that.

In the context of what we talked about with the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill and the timeframe, we can probably look at making those amendments. Might it be something that the Department and the Minister would be willing to come forward with?

The principle of it would have to be discussed with the Minister. It is his call. I do not know if a date has been set yet for Committee Stage of the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill.

We expect it to be early July.

We are trying to progress things quickly. I will bring it back to the Minister to discuss.

It might be useful if it is considered within the Department and if it is included. I am not speaking for anyone, but it is something there will be a consensus on if it is included, because otherwise we will see recommendations on Committee Stage around these issues.

I have two brief questions I did not get to earlier. If I am right, it was said in Coimisiún na Meán's opening contribution that a deficit cannot be run on the levy - only a surplus - and that the excess can be refunded or offset against future obligations. It was mentioned more than once that if an organisation takes in more than it needs, it can be refunded. I take it from that remark that the levy is deliberately priced very high in the knowledge that a refund can be made later on. Was there a conscious decision to give additional capital to help with staff costs, as the organisation sought to get itself on a level playing field? Given the level of distress this has caused, was this decision a mistake, in hindsight? Can it be looked at now in the context of how the levy is charged and set going forward?

There is a lot there. The legislation allows us to either get it exactly right, which the Deputy can imagine with estimates is rarely going to happen, or we can have a deficit that we cannot run below. That is one of the areas we have picked up with the Department because it materially impacts our ability to keep downward pressure on the levy. We would really appreciate support for that. One or two lines in the legislation could make it easier for us to keep the costs as low as possible.

Is that something we can note in our correspondence to the Minister?

Agreed.

It would be in line with other regulatory levy-funded bodies. We do not deliberately overprice but we obviously have to ensure we are not going to fall below. We could run things differently-----

Something that is acknowledged-----

-----and potentially make better use of that working capital provision. That is something that would generally have a positive material benefit. We did not overprice. We do a bottom-up exercise, with all of the teams putting in cost estimates. I can assure the Deputy that the commissioners then put top-down downward pressure. That is unlikely to happen this year; it will more likely be next year. The debate that says "we will not do that because it is too expensive, we should do that instead" is absolutely part of our process.

I have a question for the IBI. It is something that I do not think we have given enough focus to today. We have focused on the cost of the levy. The IBI opening statement commented on the lack of a coherent appeals process. Do the representatives of the IBI believe that legislative change or amendments are required to fix that, or is there anything that the committee can highlight in that regard?

As it stands, individual stations can appeal the computation of the levy, as we understand it. As it is currently put together, in theory if five stations appeal and their levy goes down, the levy then goes up for the remaining stations. There is no mechanism for us as a body to have a discussion like we are having here today about the state of the sector in relation to the ability to pay the levy, etc. This was our only avenue forward. I am not sufficiently qualified to speculate on how that would be reflected in legislation, but we think there does need to be some sort of sense-check on it.

Could Mr. Purcell provide the committee with a note on that? It might be helpful as we consider that further.

Yes. I thank the Deputy.

On that point, we are currently in court with some of the large online providers that want to have the right to challenge the levy. That could put providers in the position of basically dictating how much regulation of the sector we can do. From a regulatory independence point of view, we have to be very careful that the regulatees do not have the opportunity to dictate what can be spent on regulation or to get insight into some of the regulatory strategies around investigations or enforcement by having much more in-depth information provided. That is something we are defending very robustly.

We are sympathetic to what Ms MacEvilly is saying, given the law of unintended consequences. We are aware that such organisations, which are on a different scale to her colleagues in the committee, often build that into their costs - let us call a spade a spade.

The last comments are from me. Deputy Malcolm Byrne basically said what I was going to say. We have a Bill coming through here and now is the time to deal with this, if we need to deal with it from a legislative point of view. I would ask the Department to go back. I think the Minister is sympathetic, based on the concern he and the Department officials expressed here. Here is the opportunity to deal with it. The Department officials might, as a matter of urgency, ask the Minister to work with us and we will work with him because we are all on the one page here.

Obviously, there is the broader issue on which there is a disagreement between the Minister and this committee in relation to the "Netflix levy". The elephant in the room is the issue in relation to that and how funding would emanate if we had that levy. While this Minister is in place, I would say that boat has sailed. We will leave that but I still think we can work with the Department and the Minister in relation to the current legislation coming through to see if we can deal with the issues, which are glaringly obvious, that are coming out of this committee meeting. We will write.

Committee members may want to share further information with the clerk to the committee in relation to that letter. This letter will need to be prompt. We will have to write it fairly quickly, in the next few days. If there is any other information, I ask the committee members to share it with us.

That concludes our meeting. I thank all who attended. It was a very good meeting, one of the better and more comprehensive meetings we have had.