In the context of amendment No. 84, I would be concerned that as it is drafted it would have the unintended consequence of preventing an employee of an coimisiún from seeking to influence any considerations of an coimisiún regarding the contract of that employee. This would seem to prevent employees from representing their interests to their employer, namely, an coimisiún. The provision in the Bill, as currently drafted, was designed to prevent such scenarios from occurring. Accordingly I do not accept the amendmen…

Section 37 (2)(a) and (2)(b), which the Senator is seeking to delete, are about a person’s contract with an coimisiún; they are not about the requirements of disclosure regarding a person’s activities in terms of an employment contract. It is about a person’s contract; it is not about the requirements for disclosure.

Yes, they have a duty in the context of disclosure. This section is about a person's contract.

I thank the Senator for bringing forward this amendment, which would have the effect of obliging all public bodies engaged in the distribution of State monies for the production, screening and broadcasting of audiovisual or sound content to ensure that funds are distributed equitably and proportionately throughout the whole island of Ireland, with particular regard to the need for regional balance in investment and representation in audiovisual, screen and sound content. For a number of reasons, I will not be accep…

As I said, I appreciate the intent but I just cannot accept the amendment as drafted because there are a few fundamental issues with it. If the Senator wants to have a discussion with my officials about what he is trying to achieve, that could be done because there are a number of complex issues - even about the role of the commission in this and what the Senator is trying to achieve. I am happy to ask my officials to engage with the Senator.

Again, I understand the intention behind this amendment and take the point that it can be very troubling for people living on the island of Ireland, be they Irish citizens or not, to watch their public service broadcasters and seeing their part of the island of Ireland effectively blacked out or removed. However, I would be concerned about accepting an amendment that would be so prescriptive as to what RTÉ and TG4 could or could not display. Under section 98 of the Broadcasting Act 2009, both public service broadca…

Section 46A(6) of the Broadcasting Act, as amended by section 8, requires an coimisiún to publish the register of video-on-demand services established in Ireland on its own website. Amendment No. 90 would require the commission to furnish a copy of this register to the relevant Oireachtas committee annually. I am not sure I see the value in this amendment, given that the register will be made publicly available by the commission under section 46A(6) and through the European Commission under Article 2.5b of the audi…

I thank the Senator for her amendment. The figure of €2 million is derived from the definition of a media business set out in Part 3A of the Competition Act 2002, as amended, which provides for the media mergers framework. For reasons of consistency and proportionality, I believe that we should continue to use this figure and cannot accept the amendment.

The media in different jurisdictions may be different. Section 46I of the Broadcasting Act 2009 as inserted by section 9 of the Bill provides for a definition of "relevant media service provider". This is important as some of the duties and aspects of the media service code set out in section 9 of the Bill, such as those related to objectivity and impartiality, apply to this category of provider rather than to all providers of audiovisual on-demand media services. I believe consistency is important in these matters…

Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 would have the effect of changing a requirement for broadcast and video on-demand services not to broadcast or make available, "anything which may reasonably be regarded as causing harm or offence", to a requirement not to broadcast or make available"anything that may reasonably be regarded as causing harm to a group of persons, or a member of a group, based on any of the grounds referred to in Article 21 of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union]". In terms of the refere…

This is the value of debate in the House. I can see the point the Senator is raising. While the Senator's definition is too wide, I can see the issues she is raising and recognise there is an issue in the language. I propose not to accept amendment No. 93 but to ask my officials to look at the language of what is there, given the concerns that have been flagged in the House today.

I thank the Senator for her amendment and contribution. She knows the exact background to this in respect of amendments Nos. 94 and 95. I agree on first examination that some of the wording in the Bill does look old-fashioned, particularly the language in section 46J(1) which requires: “A broadcaster [or] an audiovisual on-demand media service [not to broadcast or] make available … anything which may reasonably be regarded as tending to undermine the authority of the State". As the Senator has correctly pointed out…

I did say the court has set that high bar. This is a tried and tested provision which reflects the safeguards contained in the Constitution. It has been operated in a balanced way in the years since it has been on the Statute Book. As a result, I will not be accepting amendments No. 94 and 95.

The ability of the media to freely and independently express opinion is both a core value and a cornerstone of democracy. Without free and independent media, a well-informed citizenry cannot exist and democracy cannot function in any meaningful sense of the word. That is what the Constitution provides for and what this Bill reflects. Within that framework, investigative journalism plays an important role. I absolutely understand the intention behind amendment No. 97, which seeks to mitigate a perceived risk that th…

The functions of the commission safeguard liberty of expression and explicitly safeguard the democratic values in the Constitution. The text that is proposed to be deleted and-or replaced has been carried forward from the Broadcasting Act 2009. It has been on the Statute Book for more than a decade. To date, we are not aware of any adverse impact on public discourse or investigative journalism from those provisions. As a result, I will not accept amendment No. 97.

As Senators will be aware, an coimisiún will be responsible for issuing permanent and temporary sound broadcasting contracts following enactment of the Bill and dissolution of the BAI. The amendment requires an coimisiún to receive the approval of an Oireachtas joint committee before authorising a derogation from the requirement that a sound broadcasting service shall devote not less than 20% of the broadcasting time on the service to news and current affairs programmes. Granting such derogations is a matter that s…

I thank the Acting Chairperson. I am not accepting the amendment for two reasons. There is the political interference and difficulties with the Oireachtas committee, which Senator Higgins accepted, but also the fact that the BAI already grants such derogations. That will be carried over by an coimisiún and licences are for a finite period, which has not caused an issue to this point.

I welcome the intent of amendments Nos. 102, 106, 127 and 148. I agree with the Senators that gambling addiction poses a major challenge to our society, particularly when it involves children and young people. This is why the establishment of a gambling regulator focused on public safety and well-being with the powers to regulate advertising gambling websites and apps was a commitment in the programme for Government. The Minister for Justice published the general scheme of the gambling regulation Bill last October.…

This amends the proposed section 7(5)(d) of the Broadcasting Act as inserted by the Bill. It provides that the commission may undertake strategic reviews of the sectors regulated by the commission in respect of the protection of workers' rights. I cannot accept the amendment for the following reasons: in the first instance, policy regarding employment rights is primarily the responsibility of my colleague, the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, and is more appropriately dealt with in employ…

I have addressed these issues. I have said I cannot accept the amendment because I believe the policy regarding employment rights is primarily the responsibility of my colleague, the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I also stated I believe the amendment is straying into matters that may be more appropriate to the functions of the WRC. I would be wary of any provision that might have the effect of duplicating its work. The idea of moving responsibility for workers' rights to sectoral regul…