Paul Murphy: Calls to Abolish TV Licence, Proposes Tech Levy
Paul Murphy criticised the TV licence as a regressive flat charge and urged it be scrapped and replaced with a levy on big tech corporations. He argued licence sales have dropped sharply amid the Tuberti scandal and concerns over RT's editorial coverage, and pledged support for those refusing to pay.
Paul Murphy described the TV licence as a regressive, unjust tax that requires the richest and poorest eligible households to pay the same fee. He called for the licence to be replaced by a levy on big tech companies, arguing they capture advertising revenue without creating content.
Murphy cited falling licence sales from 950,000 in 2022 to 825,000 in 2023 and 790,000 in 2024, saying more than 155,000 households have stopped paying. He said some are withholding payment in protest and others because they cannot afford the flat fee.
He accused RT of using a "both sides" framing of the Gaza conflict and referred to coverage he described as appalling, saying such editorial choices have contributed to the decline in licence uptake. He also referenced the Tuberti scandal as a factor in public dissatisfaction.
Murphy outlined a proposal to boost public service broadcasting funding by imposing charges on large tech corporations rather than maintaining a flat household licence. He argued this would follow recommendations to transform RT and reduce reliance on what he called a regressive funding mechanism.
The minister responded that the television licence is not a tax and said there is no intention to abolish or replace it, defending its role as an important funding source for RT and sound and vision schemes. The minister warned against eroding public expenditure funding and disputed the proposed alternative funding route.
Main argument
Paul Murphy described the TV licence as a regressive, unjust tax that requires the richest and poorest eligible households to pay the same fee. He called for the licence to be replaced by a levy on big tech companies, arguing they capture advertising revenue without creating content.
Licence payment trends
Murphy cited falling licence sales from 950,000 in 2022 to 825,000 in 2023 and 790,000 in 2024, saying more than 155,000 households have stopped paying. He said some are withholding payment in protest and others because they cannot afford the flat fee.
Editorial and Gaza coverage concerns
He accused RT of using a "both sides" framing of the Gaza conflict and referred to coverage he described as appalling, saying such editorial choices have contributed to the decline in licence uptake. He also referenced the Tuberti scandal as a factor in public dissatisfaction.
Funding alternatives proposed
Murphy outlined a proposal to boost public service broadcasting funding by imposing charges on large tech corporations rather than maintaining a flat household licence. He argued this would follow recommendations to transform RT and reduce reliance on what he called a regressive funding mechanism.
Ministerial response in the debate
The minister responded that the television licence is not a tax and said there is no intention to abolish or replace it, defending its role as an important funding source for RT and sound and vision schemes. The minister warned against eroding public expenditure funding and disputed the proposed alternative funding route.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Other speeches
Tego samego dnia All speeches from this day →
Brian Stanley
Brian Stanley presses on NATO role and triple lock referendum
Brian Stanley
Brian Stanley warns amendment could erode military neutrality
Rose Conway-Walsh
Rose Conway-Walsh Demands Inquiry Start Over Epilim Delay
Richard O'Donoghue
Richard O'Donoghue urges health review of wind farm guidelines
Transcript
Thanks. Minister, the TV licence is a regressive, unjust tax. The richest household in the country has to pay the same as the poorest eligible household in the country, 160 euros. Increasing numbers of people are voting with their feet, are boycotting this TV licence. Will you read the writing that is on the wall, scrap this regressive tax and replace it with a levy on the big tech corporations? The question is, will I abolish the TV licence and replace it with a tax? No, I won't. That's the end of that. I have no notion of doing it. This is a fund that is in place to support RT and public service broadcasters and it also supports sound and vision. I have no intention of replacing it and I have no intention of going down a cul-de-sac that Deputy Murphy would like us to do, which is a road to nowhere for RT and everybody associated with broadcasting. So the shark to answer is no. Thanks. I mean, you accept, presumably, Minister, that the tax is deeply unpopular. Licence sales have plummeted since the Tuberti scandal and everything else that came out in terms of the behaviour of those at the top of RT. There's been 950,000 paid in 2022 that dropped to 825,000 in 2023 and dropped to 790,000 in 2024, a drop of over 155,000 households who are refusing to pay either in protest or because they cannot afford to pay this regressive flat tax which takes no account of ability to pay. I suspect that RT's appalling coverage of the genocide in Gaza has contributed to the further drop in people buying TV licences when RT often continues to use a both sides framing of what is a horrifically asymmetrical conflict using terminology like Hamas run health ministry and providing platforms for representatives of the genocidal Israeli state. Well, I'm here to answer questions in regard to communications. So I'll answer the question with regard to communications. There wasn't really a question there last time, Corle, and the second contribution, and my position remains the same. The television licence is not a tax, by the way, Deputy. I don't see that reference is anywhere in the legislation. So I don't know where you drew that rabbit out, what hat you drew that rabbit out of, and it's an important funding mechanism for RT. And you'll be the very first person out in RT protesting if the government was to in any way reduce funding to RT. So you want your cake and eat it. And on this, I'm not going to, I'm not going to go down, as I say, that cul-de-sac where you just want to erode the tax base of every element of public expenditure and of revenue generating in this country. Because you seem to think that there's a phantom entity out there that can pay for everything by yourself. That's the way you operate. But in a real world of a constitutional democracy, that's not the way things work. And maybe if you ever get the opportunity to spend the day in government, you'll realise that. Mr. Mike, tell us if he considers that all the countries across Europe that have abolished TV licences, are they not constitutional democracies? Is the test of being a constitutional democracy having a TV licence minister? You might clarify that. I presume you're aware that just over a third of funding for RT and for public service broadcasting comes from the TV licence. So it isn't even a majority of where funding comes from. You're probably, well, maybe you're not aware of our proposals, RT for the people, a radical plan to transform RT in public media, which increases funding for public service broadcasting, which takes many of the recommendations of commission Neumann. And does so not by imposing this regressive flat tax on ordinary households, but on the big tech corporations, which are making huge profits, Minister. I don't know if you're not aware of that. I don't know if you're not aware of the parasitical role that they play on journalism, where they aren't creating any of this content, but are getting most of the advertising revenue from it. And therefore, it clearly makes sense to allow them to pay. And I'll continue to support those who refuse to pay the TV licence. And I warn you that that number is increasing. And it seems that even on post has given up on pursuing people, if you look at the number of prosecutions, which are also dropping. Deputy Murphy is no stranger to RT and you get a fair crack at the whip there. Of course, you never use the opportunity to say thanks to the unbridled coverage that you seem to get from RT on a day in, day out basis. And those of us in this side of the house might have something to complain about, actually, to be quite honest about it, if there was a fairness test. But I don't, because it's a public service broadcaster and they're not going to interfere in editorial coverage. But Deputy, you have farm in this space. You don't want to pay for anything. You feel that everybody should pay for something else other than you. And you're entitled to start whatever campaign it is you want to start to undermine another public service. I don't wish you the best of luck, to be quite honest about it. And I don't think most people do either. And when you do get an opportunity to sit on this side of the house with whoever it is that will actually have you as a partner in government, you'll actually see that there's more to running a public service than a megaphone.