I hope that every sector will seek to regulate itself as well, but the concern here is this is the commission in relation to that self-regulation and its relationship to them. That is part of the concern.

I would nonetheless say to the Minister that while language, in terms of encouraging self-regulation, is one thing, assisting in self-regulation is quite a different thing. That is part of the concern. I would like an indication from the Minister on whether she is looking at the language that is being used in terms of the way the commission is to engage with the self-regulatory systems and if that is an area that she feels she may be able amend it. Again, where this states "co-operation with, or give assistance to,…

One of the clues to the concern was in that comment on the self-regulatory system. We need to be honest. These are sectors where at the last moment self-regulation has been brought in. I could cite multiple examples. For example, as soon as there was to be an EU regulation on 40% women on boards, suddenly the 30% club appeared as a voluntary mechanism where we were all suddenly keen to voluntarily have 30% women on boards rather than have a rule that there should be 40%. I recognise it is a process but that is wher…

The last point is that the amendments specifically address the area of commercial communications rather than, for example, the Press Council or others.

I move amendment No. 84: In page 42, to delete lines 18 to 23. There is an exemption from the disclosure of interests and my amendment would seek to remove the exemption from the disclosure of interests. Section 37(2) states that requirement for a disclosure of interests does not apply to a person who is entering a contract or proposed contract of employment or a contract or proposed contract of services in relation to the commission. The reason that is a concern, as we have discussed previously, is that there are …

Section 37(2)(b) allows for a proposed contract of services. There is one situation where employees who in terms of section 37(2)(a) are members of staff of the commission but it is a case of contracted services in section 37(2)(b). I would like the Minister to specifically address whether she has that same concern in regard to section 37(2)(b).

To clarify - I would be satisfied if it were clear - a person who has a contract of a service provided with the commission will effectively have an obligation in terms of disclosure of his or her interests, where such interests exist, not specifically in respect of the contract but, rather, with regard to his or her interests. That must be disclosed appropriately. If the latter is the case, I am satisfied with that.

In that context, I am happy not to press the amendment.

I move amendment No. 90: In page 44, line 27, after “Minister” to insert “and the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media”. This is a similar amendment in that if there is a register of media providers, a copy of that register would also be provided to the Oireachtas joint committee. It would be appropriate that if there is a copy of a register of media providers, it would be made available to the Oireachtas and the relevant committee. I expect that there may be a concern about the nam…

I will speak to that because it is important.

I know but it relates to-----

I will be bringing amendments in respect of the exception culturelle and listed sporting activities that are recognised as cultural assets to the State in the future and that they are broadcast. It is a bit different to the very wide provisions in amendment No. 89 because there is already a requirement that those would be available to citizens. I will come back and discuss that on Report Stage.

It would be my preference if the information was shared with the committee. Nonetheless I accept the point that it is in the public domain and can be accessed. In that context, I will not press the amendment, although I would prefer an ongoing dialogue between the Parliament and the Executive. However, I know we have the discussion on "laid before" and "shared" and so forth, so in that context, I will not press the amendment at this point.

I move amendment No. 91: In page 48, line 21, to delete “€2 million” and substitute “€500,000”. The concern here is that in respect of the relevant media service provider, the threshold is quite high in that it is only those with annual sales of greater than €2 million that are considered to fall under this remit. I propose that the annual sale threshold be €500,000 in order that more providers are captured. I am conscious that some of the areas of concern we hope will be addressed in terms of media service codes a…

Is this €2 million threshold applied in other jurisdictions? Ireland differs from countries that may have a very large market and a very large population.

I still have a concern on this issue but I wish to inquire into how it has been dealt with elsewhere. I appreciate that there are other categories under which persons can become relevant media providers. I am not going to press the amendment at this point but I will return to it on Report Stage.

I move amendment No. 92: In page 49, to delete lines 14 and 15. I understand that the intention here, an intention that is shared by many of us present, is to address through the legislation certain matters. I have highlighted the issue of harmful content and, as the Minister will be aware, I have also advocated for addressing harmful conduct. There are concerns, however, in respect of how widely this might be interpreted and how it is framed. We need far more clarity on this. Section 46J(1)(a) refers to "anything …

The Minister has described her concern that amendment No. 93 would have too wide an application but, as worded as the moment, the language has that potentially very wide application. There is no indication in terms of what will be determined as reasonably causing harm or offence. Would harm include harm to interests? Would a documentary that exposes bad practice by a particular actor or corporation and affects it financially be harm to interests? Is that reasonably-caused harm? It is not clear. In terms of offence,…

I accept that.

I withdraw amendment No. 92.