We have two hours for this piece of work. We welcome the Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin, and the Opposition spokespersons. Amendments Nos. 1, 4 to 9, inclusive, 16, 18 to 27, inclusive, 30 to 33, inclusive, 51, 74, 79, 92 to 103, inclusive, and 127 to 129, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Amendment No. 94 is a physical alternative to No. 93, No. 96 is a physical alternative to No. 95, No. 98 is a physical alternative to No. 97 and No. 100 is a physical alternative to No. 99. Would the Minister like to move amendment No. 1 and address this substantial grouping?

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 7, line 27, to delete “sound”.

Amendments Nos. 1, 92, 94, 95, 97, 100, 101 and 103 collectively provide for the inclusion of providers of community television as bodies that may apply for funding under the scheme for professional journalistic practices. This matter was raised on Dáil Committee Stage and, having examined the issue, I will bring these providers into the scope of the scheme. As the Government amendments address the substance of the related amendments tabled by Deputies today, amendments Nos. 93, 96, 98 and 99, I will not be accepting those related amendments.

Amendment No. 102 seeks to require that, in developing a scheme, coimisiún na meán shall have regard to developing impartial journalism through the medium of Irish. In the context of this particular scheme, which is directed towards training in respect of good journalistic practices, I do not believe it necessary to make reference to the language in which that journalism is provided to the public. However, while I do not accept the amendment, I do agree with the objective of developing journalism through the medium of Irish.

The purpose of amendments Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, is to clarify that the definition of "programme schedule" in the Bill encompasses both audiovisual programmes and sound programmes and that references to "programmes" in the definition of “sound broadcasting service” are references to sound programmes. Amendment No. 7 corrects a typo in the definition of "video-sharing platform service". These amendments are being proposed as a result of engagement with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.

The purpose of amendments Nos. 8, 9, 16, 18 to 27, inclusive, 30, 31 and 33 is to align the wording in the Bill regarding the roles of the Minister with responsibility for coimisiún na meán and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in respect of certain financial and staffing matters with the wording in the public spending code. As such, they are technical amendments and do not have any substantive effect on the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 51, 74, 79, 128 and 129 fix a number of typos and clarify punctuation.

I am glad the Minister has recognised the need to include community television as well as community radio. We submitted amendments in that regard on Committee Stage and I am glad that she has accepted the spirit of those amendments.

I do not know whether the Minister read amendment No. 102 but the Irish language is not mentioned. It reads "shall have regard to developing impartial journalism in both official languages". It does not pick out Irish or English over the other of the two official languages.

I thank Deputy Munster for her engagement on Committee Stage with regard to that amendment. On Deputy Ó Snodaigh's point, I am advised that it is not necessary to make reference to any language medium in which journalism would be provided to the public. It is about the journalism.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Tairgim leasú Uimh. 2:

In page 8, line 14, to delete “Commission” and substitute “Coimisiún”.

Baineann na leasuithe seo leis an díospóireacht a bhí againn ar Chéim an Choiste mar gheall ar úsáid na bhfocal "Coimisiún" agus "Coimisinéir" in ionad "Commission" agus "Commissioner". Ní gá dom athrá a dhéanamh ar na hargóintí ar fad a rinneamar ar Chéim an Choiste. Dhein comhghleacaí liom é sin sa Seanad. Fuair mé litir ón Aire ar an 16 Samhain ina léirítear go n-aontaíonn sí liom go bhfuil an ceart againn sa leasú ach nach bhfuil sí sásta glacadh leis ar an gCéim seo. Thógfadh sé an iomarca ama agus chuirfeadh sé an iomarca stró ar an Aire nó ar na daoine atá ag déileáil leis an reachtaíocht seo control agus F a bhrú chun teacht ar gach uile áit ina dtagann na focail "Commission" nó "Commissioner" chun cinn sa reachtaíocht. Is é an fáth nár mhol mé leasú ar an 350 áit ina luaitear ceachtar den dá rud sa Bhille ná nach raibh mé sásta 350 leasú a mholadh. Ar Chéim an Choiste, dhein mé iarracht leasú a mholadh a d'athródh na focail seo gach uair a úsáidtear iad sa Bhille ach d'inis Oifig na mBillí liom go gcaithfear leasú a mholadh i leith gach uile áit ina dtagann siad chun cinn. Tá sé sin beagáinín seafóideach ach mhol mé na leasuithe seo arís chun an gá le smaoineamh air seo nuair atá an reachtaíocht á scríobh sa chéad dul síos a léiriú.

Ba chóir do na daoine atá ag obair ar an mBille seo a thuiscint gur gá an fhoclaíocht Ghaeilge a úsáid nuair atá coimisiún na meán á bhunú. Tá sé ait go bhfuil muid ag caint faoi "commission" agus "commissioner" tríd an reachtaíocht ar fad. Is rud praiticiúil é. Níl mé chun moill a chur ar an gCéim seo ach ba chóir go dtuigeann muid agus na daoine a bheidh ar an gcoimisiún seo gurb é sin an teideal atá ar an gcoimisiún agus nach dtarlóidh Béarlú air amach anseo. Ba chóir go dtuigeann ní hamháin na coimisinéirí féin agus muidne atá ag déileáil leis an reachtaíocht, ach na meáin féin, nuair atá siad ag trácht ar obair an choimisiúin seo amach anseo, gur chóir an teideal Gaeilge, atá anois sa dlí de réir Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla (Leasú) a ritheadh sa Teach seo anuraidh, a úsáid. Ní gá dom níos mó moille a chur ar chúrsaí. Níl ach dhá leasú anseo in ainneoin go luaitear na focail seo 350 uair. Níor mhol mé 350 leasú toisc go bhfuil meas éigin agam ar Thithe an Oireachtais agus ar an bhfoireann bhocht in Oifig na mBillí a oibríonn faoi a lán stró.

An bhfuil éinne eile ag iarraidh labhairt ar an ábhar seo? Níl. An bhfuil freagra ag an Aire ar an leasú seo?

Gabhaim buíochas leis na Teachtaí Ó Snodaigh, Munster agus Mythen as a gcuid leasuithe. During the course of Committee Stage, I undertook to come back to Deputy Ó Snodaigh on the proposal to substitute "Coimisiún" and "Coimisinéir" for "Commission" and "Commissioner" wherever mentioned in the Bill. As the Deputy referred to, I wrote to him in this regard on 16 November. As he has said himself, I understand and agree with the underlying intention of the proposed amendment but, at this stage, it would require more than 500 individual amendments to be read, moved and voted on, which would be onerous and burdensome. However, I will seek Government approval to bring forward a single amending provision to affect the necessary changes for inclusion in future legislation as soon as is practicable.

This would be an efficient and effective way to achieve the intended aim. As I set out in the letter, the current approach in the Bill fulfils the requirement of section 9D(1) of the Official Languages (Amendment) Act 2021, once sections 4 and 5 of that Act are commenced, because it provides that the legal name of the new regulator is to be coimisiún na meán. The reference to commission and commissioner is for interpretive purposes for the English language version of the Bill. Is í fírinne an scéil ná gur féidir an cuspóir atá taobh thiar de na leasuithe a moladh a bhaint amach trí leasú amháin ar an mBille nuair a achtófar é. Ag an bpointe seo, bheadh os cionn 500 leasú ag teastáil chun an leasú a dhéanamh mar a bhí beartaithe. This is the reason, as Deputy Ó Snodaigh has said, that once this becomes an Act it can be done with one amendment in the future.

Conas a sheasann an leasú? An bhfuil an scéal mar an gcéanna mar gheall ar leasú Uimh. 3? Tá sé sin tarraingthe siar chomh maith. Tá an dá cheann tarraingthe siar.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 10, line 6, to delete “Commissioner” and substitute “Coimisinéir”.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 12, line 19, after “audiovisual” to insert “or sound”.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 13, line 10, after “providing” to insert “sound”.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 13, line 15, after “to” to insert “sound”.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 13, line 38, to delete “or”.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 18, line 23, to delete “consent” and substitute “approval”.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 18, line 23, to delete “approval” and substitute “consent”.

Amendments Nos. 10 and 35 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 19, line 9, after “efficiently” to insert the following:

“, including the power to compel online services to provide any data requested that pertains to public interest research, or any data that the Commissioner deems to be relevant in protection of the common good in a time specified and determined by the Commission”.

In a democratic society, the common good must be sacrosanct before the private interests of big business. Currently, independent academic researchers, digital analysts and policy experts cannot access the data from social media companies they need to do their job to protect the interests of the public. As I highlighted on Committee Stage, the purpose of amendment No. 10 is to address this by giving the commission or headquarters of online regulation the power to deem appropriately what information should be given over and the power to compel those companies to do so.

This issue was also highlighted in the joint committee work in pre-legislative scrutiny where the committee recommended that provision be made in the legislation to enable public-interest research based on data provided by regular platforms. Amendment No. 35 is a new amendment based on discussions that took place on Committee Stage on this issue. I accept that the issue is difficult to legislate for, but I do not believe we should leave this legislation today without having made some inroads on the issue. The amendment is a simple one that calls for experts within the commission to examine the issue as was raised by the joint committee and by several witnesses, and to make recommendations on same.

As I set out on Committee Stage with regard to amendment No. 10, I am advised that it is not appropriate to give a public body this type of general power. It should be explicitly linked to its functions. This is why the Bill provides for these powers in relation to designated online services and their compliance with online safety codes. Under the Bill it will be an offence for them not to do so.

On amendment No. 35, the Digital Services Act sets out a detailed process by which this may be done. The Digital Services Act came into force on 16 November. My colleague, the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, leads on the implementation of the Digital Services Act in our national law. Dealing with this in the Bill would duplicate and pre-empt that work. Therefore, I do not accept these amendments.

Amendment No. 11 arises out of Committee Stage proceedings. Amendments Nos. 11 to 13, inclusive, 28, 29, 34, 36, 43, 48, 50, 53, 65 to 67, inclusive, and 81 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 19, line 21, after “traditions,” to insert the following:

“in particular, the duty not only to satisfy existing demand but to stimulate increased demand for Irish language programming and content, in line with the national aim of restoring the Irish language as a spoken language nationwide,”.

Táim ag cur grúpa leasuithe chun tosaigh ag tosú le leasú Uimh. 11. Baineann an leasú seo le ceist chur chun cinn na Gaeilge sna meáin agus ról ceart a thabhairt don choimisiún. Táimid ag díriú isteach ar shraith mhór leasuithe. Is mór an trua é gur dhiúltaigh an tAire, i ngach uile chás, an Ghaeilge a chur cinn sna meáin nuair a bhí na leasuithe seo os comhair an choiste ní rófhada ó shin. Bhí sí den mheon go raibh roinnt acu unnecessarily restrictive. Ba é an rud a bhí i gceist againn ná a chinntiú go mbeadh na daoine a bheidh i gceannas ar na meáin Ghaeilge in ann an Ghaeilge a labhairt. Ní fheicim conas a bheadh sé sin ródheacair a thuiscint. Ní raibh an tAire sásta fiú a rá sa Bhille gur chóir don choimisiún aird a thabhairt dá chuid polasaithe féin maidir leis an nGaeilge agus leis an nGaeltacht.

Maidir le leasú Uimh. 12, ní bhfuair mé freagra maidir leis an bhfáth a tharla sé sin sa choiste. Ní raibh an tAire sásta go mbeadh an Ghaeilge san áireamh i ráiteas straitéiseach ach oiread. Is rud simplí é sin a mbeidh gá leis amach anseo. Ba é an freagra a tháinig ar ais chugainn arís agus arís eile sa díospóireacht ar na ceisteanna seo ná gurb é an fáth ar diúltaíodh glacadh le haon leasú lenar lorg muid tuarascáil ón gcoimisiún nua ná go bhfuil athbhreithniú cuimsitheach ar sholáthar seirbhísí trí Ghaeilge sna meáin molta ag coimisiún eile, coimisiún nach ann dó níos mó, agus go dtabharfaidh an coimisiún faoi seo ag am éigin amach anseo. Bhí muid ag triail a dhéanamh cinnte de go mbeadh sé sin mar cheann de na chéad dualgais a bheidh ag coimisiún na meán agus go dtuigfeadh an coimisiún go mbeadh air aird a bheith aige ar a dhualgais maidir leis an nGaeilge a chur chun cinn, go háirithe ó thaobh na meán Gaeilge, thar an tréimhse ina mbeidh sé ag obair. Mar sin, cén fáth nach bhfuil fiú tagairt don athbhreithniú cuimsitheach seo sa Bhille? Luadh nach raibh gá leis an leasú toisc go bhfuil an t-athbhreithniú ag tarlú. Tá sé tarlaithe ach níl sé le feiscint ina iomláine sa Bhille seo.

An mbeadh cumhacht ag an Aire athbhreithniú a lorg ón gcoimisiún amach anseo fiú? Beidh an coimisiún neamhspleách. Is féidir linn athbhreithniú a lua ach ní féidir a dhéanamh cinnte de go dtarlóidh sé sin toisc go bhfuil coimisiún na meán neamhspleách. Má tá eagras neamhspleách, ní féidir le hAire ach treoir a thabhairt dó. Ní féidir leis nó léi dualgas a chur air é sin a dhéanamh. B'fhéidir gur féidir an t-airgead atá ar fáil don eagras a tharraingt siar nó ainmniúcháin a bhaint ó bhaill an bhoird ach tá sé sin deacair agus is é sin an fáth gur chóir go mbeidh na spriocanna agus na róil iomlána leagtha síos i dtús báire.

Chinnteodh leasú Uimh. 13 go mbeidh athbhreithniú straitéiseach ar an nGaeilge sna meáin. Má tá an tAire dáiríre faoin athbhreithniú ar an nGaeilge sna meáin, ba chóir di tacaíocht a thabhairt don leasú seo ach go háirithe.

Má ghlactar le leasuithe Uimh. 28 agus 29, beidh coiste bunaithe ar a mbeidh daoine le Gaeilge amháin chun tabhairt faoin obair seo. Tá gá ann go dtuigfidh an coimisiún cad atá ag teastáil ó dhaoine atá faoi mhíchumas, Gaeilgeoirí faoi mhíchumas san áireamh, nuair atá codanna nua á gcur le chéile aige. Ba chóir nach mbeadh fotheidil i mBéarla amháin. Tá tráchtaireacht fuaime ag teastáil sa dá theanga oifigiúil. Is é sin an tuiscint a dtagann ón moladh atá againn i leasuithe Uimh. 65 agus 67. Tá gá le leasuithe eile chun an ceart an Ghaeilge a úsáid ar líne a chinntiú. Is é sin an fáth go bhfuil leasú Uimh. 81 ann. Dúirt an tAire ar Chéim an Choiste go mbeadh sé unfair to single out any language nuair a bhí sí ag cur i gcoinne an leasaithe sin. I am not singling out any language. Táim ag cur chun cinn an teanga náisiúnta, ceann den dá theanga oifigiúil.

Tá dualgas ar leith ar an Rialtas agus ar an Aire, mar an Aire atá freagrach as an nGaeltacht agus as an nGaeilge, an Ghaeilge agus an Ghaeltacht a chosaint agus a chur chun cinn. Tá leithcheal á dhéanamh ar phobal labhartha na Gaeilge agus ar na meáin Ghaeilge in Éirinn, agus is faoin Aire atá sé é sin a chur i gceart. Sin iarracht dul tríd na leasuithe sin chomh gasta agus is féidir.

Gabhaim buíochas leis na Teachtaí as ucht a gcuid leasuithe. As I set out on Committee Stage, I believe the intention of amendments Nos. 11 and 12 is already provided for in paragraphs (c) and (e) of section 7(3) of the Broadcasting Act, as substituted by section 7 of the Bill. Mar sin, ní mholaim glacadh leis na leasuithe seo. I will not accept amendment No. 13 because an coimisiún will undertake a comprehensive review of the provision of Irish language services across the media system on foot of a recommendation of the Future of Media Commission.

I thank the Deputies for proposing amendments Nos. 28 and 29. Section 19 of the Broadcasting Act 2009, as inserted by section 8 of the Bill, provides that an coimisiún may establish committees to assist and to advise it on matters relating to its functions or on such other matters as it may determine. The effect of the amendment would be to mandate an coimisiún to establish a committee that would monitor and report on compliance with obligations and propose recommendations on the use of the Irish language across the media. While I appreciate the intentions behind this amendment, I cannot accept it. I have some worries about mandating the establishment of multiple committees in legislation as, notwithstanding the language used, that tends to fix the subject matter of the committee to a moment in time. Accordingly, I am advised that it is more appropriate to allow an coimisiún the flexibility to define the terms of reference of any committee established pursuant to section 19.

I do not propose to accept amendment No. 34 because, as I said on Committee Stage, it may imply there is a hierarchy of objectives of an coimisiún. It is intended that an coimisiún fulfil all its statutory functions, from online safety to the promotion of programming in the Irish language, and set them out in its statement of strategy accordingly.

Amendment No. 53 would infringe on the editorial freedom of both advertisers and media service providers and, in any case, we are addressing this through section 10A of the Official Languages Act, as amended, which will, when commenced, require public bodies to spend at least 20% of their advertising budgets on Irish language advertisements, with at least 5% to be placed through Irish language media.

Amendment No. 36 seeks to make statutory provision for a consultation on the provision of a dedicated Irish language youth radio service. As I have previously noted during this Bill's passage through the House, I will not accept this amendment because the Future of Media Commission recommends that coimisiún na meán undertake a comprehensive review of the provision of Irish language services across the media system. The results of the review will inform the development of any actions necessary in this area.

Amendments Nos. 43, 48 and 50 are similar in intent to amendments proposed in the Seanad on gender and nationality quotas in respect of musical works. I carefully considered those proposals and, on foot of legal advice from the Attorney General, decided not to introduce any provision for them on Committee Stage but, instead, sought and obtained Government approval to draft amendments to provide that coimisiún na meán may make media service codes to promote gender balance on news and current affairs programmes broadcast by broadcasters and made available by providers of audiovisual on-demand media services and to promote the broadcasting of musical works that are composed or performed by women in programmes broadcast by providers of sound broadcasting services. The issue of quotas raises complex legal questions. There are already clear avenues for us to take action to support Irish language programming through increased funding and supports. For example, I have increased funding for TG4 by 40% since I entered office, from €37.2 million in 2020 to €52.2 million in 2023. That is the basis for my rationale for not accepting these amendments.

I thank the Deputies for amendments Nos. 65 to 67, inclusive. These amendments would have the effect of requiring media service rules relating to accessibility to reflect the needs of Irish speakers. While I fully welcome the intent behind the amendments, I am of the view that it would be appropriate to defer the introduction of such a measure until coimisiún na meán, on foot of a recommendation of the Future of Media Commission, undertakes a comprehensive review of the provision of Irish language services across the media system. This would allow coimisiún na meán to assess fully the capacity of the broadcasting sector in respect of the accessibility of Irish language content. This review could then inform future updates to the rules coimisiún na meán makes in respect of accessibility.

Mar a dúirt mé cheana, ba é ceann de na moltaí a rinne an Coimisiún um Thodhchaí na Meán ná go ndéanfaí athbhreithniú cuimsitheach ar sheirbhísí agus ábhar Gaeilge ar fud chóras na meán. Ghlac an Rialtas leis an moladh sin. Déanfaidh coimisiún na meán an t-athbhreithniú seo, agus táthar ag súíl go dtógfaidh sé 18 mí chun é a chríochnú. Leag Coimisiún um Thodhchaí na Meán roinnt ceisteanna amach ina thuarascáil ar ceart don athbhreithniú díriú orthu, lena n-áirítear ról RTÉ, TG4, Raidió na Gaeltachta agus soláthraithe ábhair. Ina theannta sin, moladh go scrúdódh an t-athbhreithniú deiseanna do chomhoibriú agus do chomhpháirtíocht amach anseo, straitéisí le haghaidh rannpháirtíochta óige, clár óige agus oideachais. Cé nár mhian liom talamh slán a dhéanamh de mhionsonraí athbhreithniú neamhspleách an choimisiúin, bheinn ag súil go mbeadh an próiseas leathan go leor chun na ceisteanna a d'ardaigh an Teachta a chlúdach. Táim ag súil freisin go ndéanfaidh an coimisiún, go háirithe an coimisinéir um fhormhaoirsiú na meán , agus an coiste Oireachtais, plé ar an ábhar seo.

I thank Deputies Ó Snodaigh, Munster and Mythen for amendment No. 81. As I set out on Committee Stage, I cannot accept the amendment because it would be inappropriate to pick out only two EU languages in the context of this Bill transposing the audiovisual and media services directive. As important, though, the amendment would appear not to reflect the fact that Irish and English are separate languages and that a word or phrase which may be functionally equivalent in one language may carry entirely different implicit meanings or connotations in the other, which may cause either or both to fall within a particular category of harmful online content. I therefore cannot accept this amendment.

Ba mhaith liom teacht ar ais. Tá roinnt rudaí le plé agam agus tuigim cad atá á rá ag an Aire. Ní raibh mé ag súil go mbeadh athrú poirt aici inniu ón méid a bhí ráite roimhe seo ar Chéim an Choiste. Tuigim go bhfuilimid ag iarraidh go mbeidh coimisiún na meán chomh neamhspleách agus is féidir. Fós féin, táimid ag leagan síos na dualgais atá ag an gcoimisiún sin agus is é sin an méid a dhéantar i reachtaíocht. Ba chóir go mbeadh an ról iomlán atá ag an gcoimisiún seo i bhfad Éireann níos soiléire maidir leis an nGaeilge agus cur chun cinn na Gaeilge, í a chosaint, agus mar sin de. Is é sin an iarracht a bhí á déanamh againn sna leasuithe seo. B'fhéidir nach bhfuil siad chomh soiléir is a shíl mé a bhí siad ach ní raibh aon rud ann ag teacht salach ar an neamhspleáchas sin. Ní raibh ach tuairiscí i gceist agus aitheantas a thabhairt don ról agus don stádas atá ag an nGaeilge thar an ról agus an stádas atá ag an mBéarla, toisc gurb í an Ghaeilge an teanga náisiúnta. Tugadh ról bunreachtúil don Ghaeilge agus ba chóir go mbeadh an chosaint agus an cur chuige sin ann di ón tús.

Féadfaimid dul tríd na leasuithe ar fad ach níl mé chun moill a chur ar Theachtaí eile dá bharr sin agus déanfaidh mé iarracht teacht ar ais ar an ábhar seo ar Chéimeanna eile. Mar a dúirt an tAire, tá na coistí againn agus beidh tuairisc nó taighde cuimsitheach ag teacht amach anseo. Déanfaidh mé iarracht a dhéanamh cinnte de sin nuair a bheidh an coimisiún ag teacht os comhair an choiste, agus nuair a bheidh an tuairisc acu amach anseo. B'fhéidir gur cúpla bliain a bheidh i gceist sula mbeidh an coimisiún os comhair choiste Dála agus go mbeidh roinnt de na ceisteanna seo le freagairt aige maidir leis an méid atá déanta ag an gcoimisiún maidir leis na gnéithe seo.

Críochnóidh mé leis seo ach maidir le leasú Uimh. 36, dúirt an tAire ar Chéim an Choiste go mbeidh tuarascáil ón Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, BAI, faoin stáisiún Gaeilge, an cainéal raidió do dhaoine óga, roimh dheireadh na bliana. Dúirt sí le déanaí ansin ó shin go mbeadh sé sin curtha i gcrích i mí Eanáir. Níl a fhios agam cén uair atá sé i gceist aici é sin a dhéanamh. Aithním an obair mhaith atá déanta maidir le TG4 féin agus an dul chun cinn ansin ach cuirim ceist anseo maidir leis an stáisiún Gaeilge do dhaoine óga.

An bhfuil tú ag brú leasú Uimh. 11?

Níl a fhios agam an bhfuil an tAire ag iarraidh freagra a thabhairt?

An bhfuil tú ag iarraidh freagra a thabhairt, a Aire? Cheap mé go raibh tú soiléir go leor maidir leis an méid a dúirt tú cheana.

Sílim go raibh mé soiléir go leor. Caithfimid fanacht go dtí go bhfaighfear na moltaí a rinne an Coimisiún um Thodhchaí na Meán agus go ndéanfar athbhreithniú cuimsitheach ar sheirbhísí agus ar ábhair Gaeilge ar fud chóras na meán. We should wait for that. The commission set out in this report a number of issues that the review should focus on which I named earlier and which we should wait for. Tá sé sin leathan go leor chun na ceisteanna a d'ardaigh an Teachta a chlúdach.

Níl an tAire ag glacadh le leasú Uimh. 11 mar sin.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 21, line 31, after “matter” to insert the following:

, including at least a bi-annual meeting with the Gambling Regulatory Authority, and will produce an annual report on online gambling to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas on a yearly basis”.

Gambling addiction is destroying so many families across the country, so we need to use the full force of every arm of the State to tackle it. It is vital that the relationship between the two regulators is put on a statutory footing. A report can ensure that the Oireachtas is fully informed on this important issue and can use the real data to inform future policies and legislation and expose the extent of the problem with empirical data. I appreciate the Minister's response at previous debates where she said that this is not the remit of the commission but I do not agree. Online gambling and advertising on social media of online gambling is within the remit of the commission. This is a core remit of the gambling authority.

The amendment seeks to require coimisiún na meán to meet with the gambling regulatory authority biannually and to produce reports on online gambling annually. As I set out on Dáil Committee Stage, the Bill already addresses the issue, which is essentially about the co-operation of regulatory bodies on the issue of gambling, by setting out that coimisiún na meán must co-operate in the regulation of gambling with any public body concerned with that matter and this will enable an coimisiún and the gambling regulatory authority when established to have the flexibility to determine as independent regulators their necessary level of co-operation and engagement. This means that on establishment, an coimisiún will co-operate with the existing public bodies responsible for gambling and will also co-operate with the gambling regulatory authority when it is established.

Amendments Nos. 15, 17 and 69 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 22, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:

“(1A) The chairperson and at least one other member of the Commission will be competent in the use of the Irish language.”.

Níl mé chun moill a chur ar chúrsaí arís. Pléadh na leasuithe seo cheana féin. Ba chóir go mbeadh Gaeilge ag na daoine atá freagracht acu sna meáin agus ba chóir go mbeadh dualgas ar leith ann ó thaobh líon na gcoimisinéirí a bheadh Gaeilge acu. Ó thaobh líon na foirne de, tá Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla (Leasú), 2021 tar éis a mhaíomh go mbeadh Gaeilge ag 20%, ar a laghad, díobh siúd a bheadh earcaithe roimh 2030. Tá mise ag lorg go mbeadh Gaeilge ag 20% den fhoireann agus sin an fhoireann atá ann faoi láthair san áireamh. Chomh maith leis sin, ba cheart go mbeadh Gaeilge ag 50% de bhord RTÉ. Tá sé sin simplí, soiléir agus sothuigthe, ach go háirithe toisc go bhfuil an dá theanga oifigiúil ann agus toisc go bhfuil teanga náisiúnta againn sa Bhunreacht. Tugann seo meas agus aird ar an nGaeilge i dtús báire. Dá nglacfaí leis seo b'fhéidir go bhféadfaí neamhaird a thabhairt ar na leasuithe eile a bheidh mé ag cur chun cinn mar b'fhéidir nach mbeadh gá leo mar go dtiocfadh sé go huathoibríoch ó Ghaeilgeoirí go mbeadh gá meas, tacaíocht agus cosaint á dtabhairt don Ghaeilge agus don Ghaeltacht. Seo rud nach dtarlaíonn go minic ar bhoird Stáit nuair nach mbíonn Gaeilge ag an bhfoireann ar fad nó ag duine ar bith acu.

Gabhaim buíochas leis na Teachtaí as a gcuid leasuithe. Ní ghlacaim le leasuithe Uimh. 15, 17 nó 69, toisc, mar a luaigh mé ar Chéim an Choiste, go ndéanann siad macasamhail d’fhorálacha Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla, 2003, mar a leasaíodh é, nó, i gcás leasú Uimh. 17, go bhfuil sé sriantach gan ghá.

Amendments Nos. 15, 17 and 69 all seek to require a minimum number of members of staff or commissioners in coimisiún na meán to be competent in the Irish language. It is important to set out the overarching legislative background that has been in place since the enactment of the Official Languages (Amendment) Act 2021 last December.

Section 18C(3)( b ) of the Official Languages Act 2003, as amended, now provides that the Irish Language Services Advisory Committee established under the Act shall have regard to the objective of increasing, by 31 December 2030 at the latest, the number of staff of public bodies who are competent in the Irish language such that at least 20% of staff recruited are competent.

As I have previously indicated, the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland is specified as a public body in the First Schedule to the Act and so, by virtue of the transitional provisions of the Bill, coimisiún na meán will be considered a public body under the Act. On that basis I cannot accept amendment No. 15, which seeks to replicate the provisions of section 18C(3)(b) of the Official Languages Act within this Bill.

Similarly, I cannot accept amendment No. 17, which would require that no fewer than 30% of commissioners and 20% of staff of coimisiún na meán would be proficient in Irish. The Official Languages Act provides the basis for an objective which applies across public bodies. I do not see the merit in seeking to apply a specific requirement to coimisiún na meán.

As the Irish Language Services Advisory Committee continues its work over the coming years, consideration could be given to requiring competency in the Irish language for one of the commissioner posts. However, it is important that we retain flexibility in this regard to ensure the widest array of candidates are available on establishment of coimisiún na meán. Accordingly, the best way for providing for that recruitment is through the recruitment process for commissioners, rather than in legislation.

Amendment No. 69 would require that no fewer than 50% of the board members of RTÉ be proficient in the Irish language. As I noted on Dáil Committee Stage, a provision of this kind would be at odds with provisions for membership of State boards more generally.

With regard to the criteria necessary for consideration as a member of the board of RTÉ, section 82 of the Broadcasting Act 2009 already provides that candidates must have “experience of or shown capacity in”, among others, “matters pertaining to the development of the Irish language”.

I do not believe that specific provision as contemplated by the amendment, over and above that already provided for, or in addition to the provisions for membership of State boards more generally, is necessary.

As Deputy Ó Snodaigh noted, the new chair of RTÉ who was appointed yesterday, Siún Ní Raghallaigh, is a former chair of TG4 and a fluent Irish speaker which I think will stand to her in her new role.

Rinne mé dearmad comhghairdeas a dhéanamh le Siún Ní Raghallaigh as an ardú céime nó an post nua. Níl a fhios agam an ardú céime é ach tá súil agam go mbeidh ról mór millteach aici sna meáin. Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil sí tiomanta an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn agus go bhfuil sin tábhachtach. Ní shin an cás a bhí ann thar na blianta ar bhoird Stáit dhifriúla timpeall na tíre. Sin an fáth leis an leasú seo. Ní ag caitheamh anuas ar aon duine atá i bpost faoi láthair nó roimhe seo atá i gceist leis seo. Níltear ach ag déanamh cinnte de, nuair a thagann athruithe amach anseo, go mbeadh muid cinnte go mbeadh an cathaoirleach líofa sa Ghaeilge nó inniúil ar aon chaoi; go mbeadh an coimisiún timpeall orthu; agus go mbeadh an Ghaeilge le tuiscint acu siúd a bhíonn ag obair ann. Gan an tuiscint sin bíonn sé i bhfad Éireann níos deacra a dhéanamh cinnte de go bhfuil an Ghaeilge i lár an phoirt nuair a bhíonn céimeanna á nglacadh ag an gcoimisiún, nuair a bhíonn tuairimí á roinnt nó nuair a bhíonn moltaí á ndéanamh. Sin an fáth go bhfuilimid ag déanamh iarracht sa chás seo a dhéanamh cinnte de go mbíonn an Ghaeilge agus an Ghaeltacht i lár an aonaigh maidir leis na meáin. Ba chóir go mbeadh seo mar cheann de na gnéithe a mholtar maidir leo siúd a roghnófar amach anseo. Chuala mé go bhfágtar an Ghaeilge go dtí an próiseas roghnúcháin. Ní leor sin. Ba chóir go mbeadh sé leagtha síos i bhfad Éireann níos luaithe agus ba chóir go mbeadh an Ghaeilge chun cinn.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 23, line 22, to delete "following consultation with" and substitute "with the consent of".

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 27, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

"(3) In the case of no fewer than 30 per cent of Commissioners and at least 20 per cent of members of the staff of the Commission, a person shall not be appointed to these roles unless he or she is able to communicate proficiently in the Irish language. This provision shall be in force in relation to all new appointments following the enactment of this Act.".

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 27, line 31, to delete "consent" and substitute "approval".

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 27, line 32, to delete "approval" and substitute "consent".

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 27, line 36, to delete "consent" and substitute "approval".

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 27, line 37, to delete "approval" and substitute "consent".

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 28, line 1, to delete "consent" and substitute "approval".

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 28, line 1, to delete "approval" and substitute "consent".

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 28, line 20, to delete "consent" and substitute "approval".

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 28, line 21, to delete "approval" and substitute "consent".

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 29, line 6, to delete "consent" and substitute "approval".

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 29, line 6, to delete "approval" and substitute "consent".

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 29, line 30, after "determine" to insert the following:

", including a specific committee to monitor, report on compliance with obligations, and propose recommendations on the use of the Irish language across media".

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 29, line 33, after "persons" to insert the following:

", and only persons fluent in the Irish language shall be included in a specific committee on the use of the Irish language across media".

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 30, line 8, to delete "consent" and substitute "approval".

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 30, line 8, to delete "and" and substitute ", given with the consent of".

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 30, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:

"(13) The Minister shall within 180 days of the passing of this Act lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on provision for a reduction in the levy in recognition of the public information service provided by independent radio stations.".

I thank the Minister for facilitating engagement with her officials on our amendment since we discussed it on Committee Stage. When I was the Minister responsible for communications and during Committee Stage of this Bill, I argued, having regard to the costs associated with and the regulation of broadcasting, that we need to acknowledge the vital role of local radio in providing a public information service. I have given the Minister examples from the time of Storm Ophelia and the Beast from the East, which were in 2017 in 2018, respectively, when we did not have the Internet, electricity, television or mobile phone coverage. The only communications service to which people had access was the radio. It was not possible for any national broadcaster to give local information on what was happening by way of road closures, electricity supply, the closure of schools, etc. The local radio stations provided that service. Within the legislation, there needs to be an acknowledgement of that.

Having engaged with the Minister's officials on this, I note the legislation provides for a reduced levy for the local radio stations. The difficulty, however, is that local radio has its back to the wall. It has gone through considerable pressure and strain in the past couple of years as a result of Covid. The advertising budgets available to local radio stations have been squeezed and squeezed. I request, therefore, that the levy be suspended for 2023 while the new commission is being established. I am not asking for the levy to be abolished but for a reduction for one year and one year only, namely 2023, to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation facing the local radio station network across the country.

The cost of the reduction or suspension of the levy would be approximately €2.5 million for 2023. This is a small fraction of the substantial subsidy given to the newspaper industry through the VAT reduction, which was an acknowledgement of the impact on the print media owing to the loss of advertising revenue. There has been no acknowledgment of the local radio stations. I ask that we acknowledge the very serious financial challenges and the current financial environment of local radio stations across the country. They have been put under severe financial pressure. They are not being helped now by the pressure on advertising budgets across the board as a result of contracting budgets right across our economy. To acknowledge the vital public service role that local radio stations play, I request that the levy be suspended for 2023. I plead with the Minister to take on board this proposal. We do not want to divide the House tonight. Right across the House there are many Members who support the proposal. Let us come to an agreement to waive the levy in 2023 and start afresh in 2024, when the new commission will be established.

I am aware from speaking to the Minister that she is more than aware of the value and power of local radio to engender a deep sense of community and solidarity in rural areas. She is from County Monaghan so she will understand this. She has spoken to me numerous times about the power of local radio. Deputy Naughton quite rightly mentioned the power of local radio to disseminate crucial information at times of crisis in rural regions. This became crystal clear to me during the pandemic. On Galway Bay FM, the morning current affairs programme hosted by Keith Finnegan essentially became the go-to repository of and resource for crucial information on how to gain access to the pandemic unemployment payment and other supports, which were being rolled out almost overnight in certain cases in the very early stages of the pandemic. Elderly people living on their own had been unsure about how to access the supports. They were not left to feel alone, simply because they had the radio on the kitchen counter. There was a conversation they could tune in to. That is the essence of local radio. The sector has been in existence for over 20 years, but, as Deputy Naughton points out, it is still recovering from the pandemic and finding it really difficult to chart a way forward commercially for its stations. During the pandemic, we found a way of suspending the levy in acknowledgment of the very difficult circumstances in which the sector found itself.

Although it is, perhaps, not in quite such a difficult situation right now, it is far from financially viable.

I ask the Minister to look at all options available to her to support the sector in navigating the next 12 months in particular. There are companies that are reducing their advertising budget. In addition, we are seeing many of those budgets migrating away from local radio and commercial radio in general and over to social media platforms. That is a significant factor in the reduction of advertising revenue available to local radio stations. I ask the Minister to use whatever resources, instruments and tools are available to her to support the stations over the next 12 to 24 months while they find a way of navigating back to viability. There needs to be a focus on that. As I said earlier, I know she is cognisant of the challenges they are facing and she will do her very best for the sector, working in collaboration with them and supporting them through the difficult months ahead.

Local independent radio is very important to communities, especially in rural areas, including in large towns and villages. Local stations' news updates and delivery of up-to-the-minute happenings during the pandemic and during storms contributed enormously to public safety and in no small way to the saving of lives. Their economic challenges following the pandemic have multiplied threefold. Advertising has dropped significantly, putting tremendous strain on stations such as my local station, South East Radio. The sound and vision scheme will not be sufficient to meet the requirements of maintaining a quality service, including the delivery of live news, talk-based programming and current affairs. The viability of local radio stations is on the line. The Minister has it in her remit to accept this amendment, which would go a long way to protecting these community-based, community-driven and community-supported radio services.

I again acknowledge the support and co-operation of the Minister's officials in meeting with Deputy Naughten and me to discuss these issues following the committee meeting. When I mentioned music at the committee, the Minister said I was getting to the soul of the matter. Local radio goes beyond the usual in what it provides, all of which we have become used to having. During the pandemic, as Deputy Cannon mentioned, it was there to broadcast the local mass. It provided a service, especially for people living alone. Last Sunday, there was a fatal accident beside my house, following which roads were closed and diversions were set up. It was the day of the replay of the Galway county hurling final between the Loughrea and St. Thomas clubs. It was great to have the diversions in place to allow people to get to the match in Galway city and go about their normal business. When we had flooding in Galway, a road would be flooded in the morning and by noon that day, another one would be under water. All of that information was put out by the local radio station. It was given during breaks in musical programmes or as part of current affairs broadcasting.

I reiterate the point about the pressure local radio stations are under right now. It would be a great gesture if the levy were deferred for 2023. Taking into account what was done in regard to the VAT rate on local newspapers, this would be equally appreciated by and acceptable to everybody concerned. Given the jobs involved and the pressure the stations are under, a one-year deferral would give the Minister a chance to look at the situation within the overall scope of how she will deal with the levy into the future. It would be a great gesture for the radio stations, giving them a lifeline that would ensure they can form their businesses into something that will be viable in the aftermath of the Covid period.

The Minister should know we are concerned about country music as well as soul music.

I add my voice in support of the amendment. There is a strong argument for a reduction in the levy given the service provided by local radio and the role it plays within communities the length and breadth of the State as part of its public service remit. There is also an argument to be made that a reduction in the levy is justified for local radio stations given that they pay the exact same levy as other stations with a much bigger audience and much greater resources. It seems unfair that they should be penalised by having to pay the same as others that are in a much better position, especially given the vital public, information and community service they provide.

As a proud Monaghan woman, I fully agree with the Deputies on the public service value of the independent radio sector, particularly at local and regional level. I am sure Deputy Munster and I, living near each other as we do, listen to and value the same local and regional radio. Local radio stations are the very essence of public service broadcasting and, as Deputy Cannon and others said, they have proved a lifeline for many, particularly at the height of the Covid crisis, by providing critical local information and a vital sense of community when it was most needed.

Regarding the calls for the broadcasting levy to be suspended or reduced, we must keep in mind the regulatory principle that a regulated service should only contribute to the cost of functions related to that service. That is the intention of subsection 21(5) of the Bill. It is an important principle based on legal advice. Therefore, it is not possible for the levy on designated online services to be used to fund a reduction in a levy on broadcasters. This is an argument that was also made to me in a submission. Exchequer funding for 2023 for an coimisiún is an interim measure to enable it to get started quickly on its new functions. One of its priorities will be the preparation and making of a levy order to ensure it becomes self-funding as soon as possible in respect of its full range of functions and to ensure online platforms pay a levy to fund the regulation of those entities and their activities.

The amendment proposes that, "The Minister shall within 180 days of the passage of this Act lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on provision for a reduction in the levy in recognition of the public information service provided by independent radio stations." I am very conscious of the challenges facing the independent radio sector. While I do not believe this legislation is the appropriate vehicle to address immediate economic pressure facing the sector, I am cognisant of the concerns expressed by Members and the sector itself. Although I do not propose to accept the amendment, I acknowledge Deputy Cannon's request that I look at all options. To that end, I intend to ask the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, BAI, this week to engage with the sector with a view to understanding the dynamics of the current economic environment and its impacts on the sector. I am conscious that the temporary business energy support scheme has only recently opened for applications and its benefits have not even been felt. I will ask the BAI to examine the extent to which these horizontal support measures will assist in alleviating current financial pressures.

I am not ruling anything in or out at this juncture but it is important that we have robust and independent data to support any decision that might be taken. Rather than producing a report on a reduction in the levy within 180 days, as proposed in the amendment, I will ask the BAI to report back to me within 100 days, which would bring us into the first quarter of next year. Furthermore, when the executive chairperson of an coimisiún is formally appointed, I will meet that person and ask that he or she take into account Members' concerns when it comes to putting in place a new broadcasting levy order under coimisiún na meán, which will take effect in 2024. I am looking at a report to me in the first quarter of 2023 and I am also looking to 2024 and a meeting with the executive chairperson. Of course, there also will be an in-depth engagement with the sector by coimisiún na meán.

Reducing the broadcasting levy is not the only way to support the sector. The Bill provides for a scheme to enable local broadcasters to avail of grant funding to provide training or professional development for persons employed by or providing services to the broadcaster in regard to promoting good professional journalistic practices. As Minister, I have supported the independent radio sector. In budget 2023, I secured €6 million for the establishment of the media fund, which will facilitate a local democracy reporting scheme and a court reporting scheme.

They will be administered by coimisiún na meán and I would expect that local radio and newspapers would be well placed to benefit. My intention is that these would be in play and in a position to distribute before the end of 2023.

The sound and vision scheme operated by the BAI provides significant support to the broadcasting sector and since taking office, I have allocated an additional €17.4 million in Exchequer funding to the scheme, within which €5 million has been ring-fenced for independent commercial radio and €1.2 million has been ring-fenced for community radio. The sectors also benefit under some of the other schemes. I understand that the sound and vision scheme does not include news and current affairs but it has promoted and supported the long-term sustainability of the sector and it has been strongly welcomed by the sector for doing so. The sound and vision scheme has supported the provision of important public service content for the Irish public, as well as making a real and significant contribution to meeting the costs of producing content for the radio sector. That is why I am announcing that I have decided to provide funding of €2.5 million before the end of this year for another specific round of the sound and vision scheme for commercial radio, which will be rolled out through the BAI in 2023. The value of this funding is greater than the full-year cost of the levy for the commercial radio sector.

Those are my proposals in recognition of the concerns expressed by Deputies. I understand the concerns that Deputies Canney, Munster and Naughten have expressed and I am grateful to them for the amendments they put forward. I cannot accept the amendment but I have brought forward strong proposals to support the radio sector. Deputy Cannon asked me to explore all options and I hope he is in a position to accept that.

I thank the Minister for her response and for her movement on this since Committee Stage. The difficulty is that we cannot draft an amendment that creates a charge on the Exchequer; we have to go through this rigmarole of putting down these nonsensical amendments. In fairness, the Minister is acknowledging the issue and putting a mechanism in place. I ask the Minister for an assurance that we will get sight of this report when it is completed and when she has considered it. No matter what the decision is, I ask the Minister to give us sight of it. She has moved part of the way to acknowledge the financial challenge that is there. This is a big issue for many radio stations, not only for the Minister's radio station of Shannonside Northern Sound or my local radio station but it is one for my other local radio stations: Galway Bay FM; Midwest Radio; Midlands 103; Ocean FM; and iRadio. Because of my geographic location in the middle of the country, I have five of these local radio stations that are under serious financial pressure and that are providing a vital local service. I would hope that in the process of the Minister's consideration and analysis of this and in her engagement with the new commission, we can come to a situation where those small, local and independent radio stations get a real financial break next year and the year after. I thank the Minister for her comments this evening.

I thank the Minister and her officials. We all recognise the problems and the Minister has recognised them in what she has said, which I thank her for. The €2.5 million for the sound and vision scheme is a positive, as is the engagement with BAI. That will ensure we end up in a situation where we get this sorted out permanently so that the likes of Galway Bay FM, Clare FM, Midwest Radio and the other stations that have been mentioned have a solid footing on which to continue to serve the public in the way they have been doing.

I thank the Minister and her officials for the solidarity they have shown with the sector, reflecting the challenges they are facing. I would hope the report emanating from the BAI in that short time frame will confirm the need for a redesign and restructuring of the levy so that it does not impact negatively on the long-term viability of the sector. I thank the Minister most sincerely for the additional funding that will be provided under sound and vision. It is most welcome. From speaking to some people who operate in the sector I have heard that the application process for sound and vision was somewhat cumbersome in its past iterations and the cost associated with making a sound and vision application ate into the rewards when grants were finally awarded. I ask the Minister if it is at all possible for that process to remain as robust as it needs to be in protecting taxpayer funds, while also being cognisant of the fact that many local commercial radio stations do not have the resources or expertise to navigate cumbersome application processes.

We are all in agreement on the real value of the independent radio sector. I appreciate the responses from Deputies. I will make that report available when it comes and, as I said, I am asking for it to be brought to me within 100 days. I will bring Deputy Cannon's concerns on the sound and vision application process to the BAI too.

Although I am not accepting the amendment, I am committing to writing to the BAI this week so that I have robust and independent data in advance of any decisions that might be made on this. I will get that within 100 days, the Deputies will get to see the report and I will communicate the complexities of the process and the Deputies' concerns around that. As I have announced, I am also providing funding of €2.5 million before year end for another specific round of the sound and vision scheme for commercial radio.

I would like to concur with my colleagues on the €2.5 million, which is very welcome news. It shows that the Minister is taking this seriously. On the issue of the grants, there were many complaints about them not being on time and the length of time it took for them to be handed out was not conducive. I would appreciate it if that could be looked at as well.

Similar to Deputy Cannon's point, it is about the process. The Deputy is saying it is about the length of time but it is about that scheme overall so I will bring those concerns to the BAI.

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 34, lines 12 and 13, to delete “publish, with the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” and substitute the following:

“, with the approval of the Minister, given with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, publish”.

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 36, line 27, to delete “and” and substitute the following:

“(ca) include specific detail, which shall be made available in the Irish language, on objectives, intended outcomes, strategies and performance assessment of previous and future strategies, relating to progressing the increased visibility use of Irish as a spoken language in media, and”.

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 38, after line 42, to insert the following:

“(8) (a) The Commission shall, following consultation with organisations involved in the provision of radio services in the Irish language and the Irish speaking community, no later than one year following its establishment, prepare and publish a report, to be laid before the Minister, both Houses of the Oireachtas, and the Joint Oireachtas Committee upon its publication, outlining options and recommendations for the provision of a national Irish language radio service for young people within the following five year period.

(b) The Minister shall take account of the recommendations of the Commission in the report set out in paragraph (a) and prepare a Bille um Raidió don Óige , setting out steps to achieve the aim of a national Irish language radio service for young people, to be presented before the Houses of the Oireachtas no later than one year following receipt of the report.”.

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 41, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

“(1A) Provision made for the purpose referred to in subsection (1) shall not include regulation of commercial communications.”.

When I raised this issue on Committee Stage the Minister was not in favour of it, but it remains a very important issue. Allowing the advertisers to self-regulate is something most people would see as ridiculous. It is bad practice, and it causes harm to people, especially children. I resubmitted the amendment in the hope that the Minister would reconsider her position on this important issue.

Amendment No. 38 would have the effect of preventing an coimisiún from co-operating with groups in the establishment of standards or self-regulatory systems as they relate to commercial communications. As I stated on Committee Stage of the Bill going through the Dáil, I cannot accept this amendment as it would appear to contradict the audiovisual media services directive.

I do not know how many groups we had before the committee who made the argument about the importance of ensuring advertisers were not allowed to self-regulate, in particular when it comes to marketing to children, whether it relates to food or other issues. It makes sense to take such an approach. One does not have to put up much of an argument against it. It is important in framing the legislation that we get things right from the get-go. I hoped the Minister would support the amendment.

Section 34 of the Broadcasting Act 2009, as amended by section 7 of the Bill, is drafted in line with the revised audiovisual media services directive, and allows the commission to co-operate with self-regulatory mechanisms. Articles 9(3) and 9(4) of the directive set out the requirements on member states to encourage self-regulation in respect of commercial communications, including advertising.

I cannot accept the amendment as it appears to contradict the audiovisual media services directive. The Bill will not be providing for, nor will an coimisiún be overseeing, the entire advertising regulatory framework in the State, which is distributed across a range of authorities. For example, Members will be aware that the forthcoming gambling regulation Bill will establish a gambling regulator to oversee the regulation of gambling, while the Public Health (Alcohol) Act 2018 sets out provisions relating to the advertisement of alcohol.

The commission will have a strong role in regulating commercial communications, including advertising, through media service codes, which will be binding on video-on-demand services and broadcasting services, and through online safety codes, which will be binding on designated online services. The main concern is that it would appear to contradict the audiovisual media services directive.

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 45, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:

" Duties to the whole community of the island of Ireland

9. The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 39:

" Duties to the whole community of the island of Ireland

39A . The Commission shall prepare and publish a report no later than one year following its establishment proposing potential recommendations for how all RTÉ, Teilifís na Gaeilge, and holders of television broadcasting licences or audiovisual media service providers under its remit, could be facilitated, assisted and required to make available these services in full to the whole community of the island of Ireland, including how they could work to achieve a resolution and co-operation across rights holders in the case of competing claims across jurisdictions, and toward removing any obstacle or barrier, such as the geographical restriction of their broadcasting rights to one part of the island or the use of geoblocking to enforce such a restriction, to their equal availability across the whole island, paying particular regard to the State's role in supporting the fulfilment of commitments in the Good Friday Agreement relating to the widespread availability of services provided by Teilifís na Gaeilge and acknowledging the public service duty of RTÉ to the whole community of the island of Ireland.".".

This is a simple amendment asking for a report to be published proposing potential recommendations for how RTÉ, Teilifís na Gaeilge and holders of television broadcasting licences can make these services available to the whole community of the island of Ireland and remove any obstacle or barrier such as the geographical restriction of their broadcasting rights, paying particular regard to the role of the State in supporting commitments in the Good Friday Agreement. It is a simple amendment and I urge the Minister to see how it could be facilitated to end geoblocking in the North. The reasons it is needed were discussed in the committee. I understand that the Minister expressed her sympathy with viewers locked out of content simply because they live in the Six Counties. I hope the Minister will not object to this amendment. We will see whether she will depart from the usual phrasing about taking steps to make content available as far as practicable to the whole community of the island of Ireland. In the case of amendment No. 114, is this ambition restricted to the whole of the State?

Amendment No. 39 would require an coimisiún to make a report setting out concrete steps for how media services providers established in Ireland, including RTÉ and TG4, can make their services widely available on an all-island basis.

It should be noted that RTÉ and TG4 are currently obliged, insofar as possible, to provide their services to the whole of the island. As identified in the amendment, key to the goal would be all media service providers obtaining or retaining the rights to programmes in two jurisdictions, in Ireland and in the United Kingdom.

Given the country-by-country nature of how rights related to media production are bought and sold, including the important part this plays in pre-financing productions in Ireland, this would lead to a significant increase in cost in providing, or loss of funding for, many different kinds of programmes. Accordingly, while I am sympathetic to the aim, I cannot accept the amendment.

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 45, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:

“Duties to the whole community of the island of Ireland

9. The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 39:

“Duties to the whole community of the island of Ireland

39A. RTÉ and Teilifís na Gaeilge, as national public service broadcasters with a duty to the whole community of the island of Ireland, shall endeavour to ensure that in the event of any graphic or pictorial representation or map of Ireland that is broadcast or used in a broadcast to depict data or information for the public, every practicable effort is made to present the relevant data for the whole island of Ireland where possible, and shall always, including in cases where data or information for any part of the island cannot be depicted, present the island of Ireland as a geographical whole, maintaining the integrity of its coastline, and refraining in all cases from presenting any jurisdictional boundaries within the island as equivalent to coastline.”.”.

I understand amendment No. 40 was discussed on Committee Stage, when the Minister accepted that it would be legally possible for us to introduce this amendment. It relates to repeated instances where nearly 2 million people in the North of Ireland have been, in effect, cast into the ocean. The Monaghan and Cavan borders have been redrawn as coastline and the teddy bear that is Ireland has, in effect, been decapitated. The Minister accepted on Committee Stage that this is offensive to many people. For example, the provisions in the Bill that seek to ban the broadcast of offence and anything undermining the authority of the State are far more intrusive into the editorial independence of RTÉ and broadcasters more broadly. Surely maintaining the geographic integrity of the island is a much more basic, simple and objective task. This is about excluding almost 2 million people entitled to be part of the Irish nation from exactly that, the Irish nation as represented in maps. Whether it is on the weather showing data or pictorial representations, public service and national broadcasters should have a duty to the whole of island and its people.

As I noted when the issue was raised previously during this Bill's passage through the Houses, I understand the intention of the amendment and why it would be troubling for people living on the island of Ireland watching their public service broadcasters to see their part of the island of Ireland removed from maps. That goes to the core of the issue raised by Deputy Daly. However, I do not think we should prescribe in legislation in this level of detail what maps or geographical areas RTÉ and TG4 can or cannot display or show on television. As I suggested on Committee Stage, this might be a matter that could more appropriately be raised with RTÉ by the joint committee.

I acknowledge that this amendment seeks to address a number of previous instances which offended many people. However, I cannot accept the amendment as it would set a wider precedent for the regulation of very specific types of content in primary legislation.

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 45, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:

“Duties in the broadcasting of sport and interactive games and polls

9. The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 39:

“Duties in the broadcasting of sport and interactive games and polls

39A. (1) Coimisiún na Meán shall prepare and publish a report no later than one year following its establishment proposing recommendations on how the State could work to ensure that—

(a) enjoyment of live broadcasts, subsequent transmissions and online media coverage of sports by television and audiovisual media service providers is extended, to the greatest extent possible, equally to the whole community of the island of Ireland, particularly in the case of, but not limited to, events of major importance to the Irish nation, and

(b) participation is equally accessible to the public across the whole of the island of Ireland and not restricted to any one part or parts of the island in the event of any game of chance, interactive competition or poll, including phone-in, SMS, or online competitions, quizzes and surveys organised by a television broadcaster or audiovisual media service provider.

(2) From 1 January 2024, Spórt Éireann shall only provide assistance to an organisation under section 8(4)(a) of the Sport Ireland Act 2015, following the commencement of this Act, where that organisation makes every practicable effort within their control, such as through the licensing of broadcasting rights to their events, to ensure that any broadcast of events organised by the licence-holder, whether live, in subsequent transmissions, or in online catalogues, is made equally accessible to the public on the whole island of Ireland, and places no barrier to their equal availability across the whole island.”.”.

Similar to the previous amendment, this deals with the duty of broadcasters to the whole island. We have reworded our amendment since Committee Stage as it was ruled out of order, but thankfully that is no longer the case. Subsection (1) calls on the coimisiún to prepare a report within a year on how TV and audiovisual coverage of sport, especially major sports events, as well as access to participate in phone-in or online competitions, polls or games, could be extended to the whole island. This deals with what was discussed on Committee Stage. Supporters of both teams in the North are not allowed to watch their own team play and are being denied entry to competitions during the game which features their own team or the team they support.

It is a matter of examining how we can end this exclusion.

Subsection (2) goes a step further and will make Sport Ireland funding to sports organisations conditional on making every practicable effort to ensure broadcasting rights for their events are equally accessible North and South. Sporting organisations will still be allowed to decide not to do so to maximise profits by selling broadcasting rights in a way that will leave people on one side of the Border without equal access, but they will not be allowed to receive State funds if they do so. This will come into effect in January 2024. I hope Deputy Catherine Martin, as Minister with responsibility for both media and sport, can accept the amendment and ensure State funding will not be used to divide Ireland further by cutting off almost 2 million people on the island from participating in key sporting moments for the nation.

The amendment would have the effect of obliging coimisiún na meán to make a report and recommendations on how the State could make available broadcasts of sports events both within and outside the jurisdiction of the State. It would also have the effect of introducing conditionality on the availability of grants from Sport Ireland to sporting bodies linked to the availability of any broadcast, whether live or not, of their events on an all-island basis.

The rights to sporting events are a commercial matter between the rights holders and broadcasters and, as such, it is not one coimisiún na meán can have a role in or one that can be legislated for. It is also not appropriate that conditions for grants that may be awarded by Sport Ireland would be linked to the negotiation of rights for any given event. Similarly, the running of competitions is an operational and commercial matter for the broadcasters and, again, it is not an area where coimisiún na meán can have a role or one that should be legislated for. As such, I cannot accept the amendment.

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 45, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:

“Duties with regard to regional balance

9. The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 39:

“Duties with regard to regional balance

39A. (1) Coimisiún na Meán shall prepare and publish a report no later than five years following its establishment proposing recommendations on how the State could ensure that all public bodies engaged in the distribution of State moneys for the production, screening and broadcast of audiovisual or sound content, including but not limited to RTÉ, Screen Ireland, and the Commission, work to distribute funds equitably and proportionally across the whole community of the island of Ireland in the interests of regional balance in terms of both investment and representation in audiovisual content, screen and sound, including in programmes relating to news and current affairs, culture, and sport, of communities across the whole island.

(2) The report prepared under subsection (1) shall give due regard to the particular need to support the production of Irish language audiovisual or sound content in Gaeltacht areas, including targeted investment and representation for Gaeltacht communities.

(3) The Commission shall prepare and publish a report every 10 years from its establishment providing a general overview of the regional spread of investment and representation over the preceding 10 year period of regional voices and communities by State bodies in audiovisual content, screen and sound across the whole community of the island of Ireland, including specifically in programmes relating to news and current affairs, culture, and sport, and outlining recommendations on how to improve the regional balance of investment and representation.

(4) The reports referred to in subsections (1) and (3) shall be laid before the Minister, both Houses of the Oireachtas, and the Joint Oireachtas Committee upon publication.”.”.

This is another simple amendment, which seeks a report from coimisiún na meán after five years and every ten years thereafter examining regional balance of investment and representation in the media. This will help with Government policymaking in future as well as the monitoring of how funds are spent. We have taken account of the specific need for Irish language funding to focus on Gaeltacht areas.

The amendment would oblige coimisiún na meán to make reports and recommendations on how public bodies engaged in the distribution of State moneys for the production, screening and broadcast of audiovisual or sound content to ensure funds are distributed equitably and proportionally throughout the island of Ireland, with regard to the need for regional balance in investment and representation in audiovisual content, screen and sound.

For a number of reasons, I will not accept the amendment. At its widest and taking account of the specific bodies referred to in the amendment, a definition of "public bodies" could cover the Revenue Commissioners in their role regarding the application of the section 481 film tax credit; Screen Ireland as regards making development and production loans available; the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland as regards the sound and vision scheme; TG4 as regards its role in commissioning content; and RTÉ as regards its funding for independent productions through the independent production account established under section 116 of the Broadcasting Act. Each of the funds disbursed by those bodies may come from two sources, namely, from the Exchequer, in the form of funding for section 481, Screen Ireland loans and TG4, and from the licence fee, in the form of funding for RTÉ and the sound and vision scheme.

While I appreciate the intent of the amendment to ensure more balanced regional development and representation, it touches on a number of fundamental issues that would render it unworkable due to the nature of the audiovisual sector in the State and potential issues regarding EU law. For example, TG4, as a publisher-broadcaster, commissions all its content production from Gaeltacht-based companies, largely in Galway but also in Cork and Waterford. Obliging TG4 to distribute funding equitably and proportionally throughout the island of Ireland could undermine its current commissioning model and the range of independent production companies that support this. It is natural that production companies providing for TG4 would be concentrated in Gaeltacht areas given a greater number of fluent Irish speakers live there. I would be worried about the unintended consequences of providing that funding by TG4 be spread regionally.

The amendment would also impact on the operation of the section 481 film tax credit. The relief is distributed by the Revenue Commissioners and is technically open to any EU-based company that meets the qualifying criteria. Therefore, restricting the application of this relief to the island of Ireland, as suggested by the amendment, would appear to be a contravention of EU law.

I agree that seeking balanced regional development is important and it is an objective of Government, both within the national planning framework and underpinning the national development plan. However, I do not think it would be appropriate to place such an objective in legislation, as proposed by the Deputies. The amendment, as drafted, would appear to give rise to a number of unintended consequences.

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 45, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:

“Duties to the Irish Language

9. The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 39:

“Duties to the Irish Language

39A. (1) All audiovisual media service providers and sound media broadcasters in the State have a duty to support the promotion of the Irish language as the national language.

(2) The Commission shall examine the feasibility and merit of setting mandatory minimum content requirements for percentage of content in the Irish language through the awarding of television programme contract and sound broadcast contract licences to be introduced by 31 December 2030, with a higher obligation for public service broadcasters and local broadcasters service Gaeltacht areas, and with a view towards progressively increasing these content requirements over the periods from 2030 to 2035 and again from 2035 to 2040. The Commission shall publish a report no later than one year following its establishment, which shall be laid before the Minister, both Houses of the Oireachtas, and the Joint Oireachtas Committee, outlining the findings of this examination and proposing recommendations for the implementation of such mandatory minimum content requirements for the Irish language.”.

Amendments Nos. 44 to 46, inclusive, 52 and 57 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 44:

In page 51, line 10, to delete “undue offence”.

I will speak to amendment No. 44. We spoke about this on Committee Stage and we pointed out that "undue offence" can mean anything to anybody. The phrase is so broad that we asked that it not be included in the Bill. We sought clarity on the issue on Committee Stage but, unfortunately, none was forthcoming and the Minister could not provide a definition for the phrase when we asked for one, which is why we are seeking to make the amendment now. She made reference to the media commission codes in her response on Committee Stage but these codes have not yet been written. We have no idea what they will contain and, therefore, the wording is far too vague and open-ended for anybody to be comfortable with. The references to "undue offence" are much too vague and it is totally unclear what they mean or what the consequences of the section could be. Accordingly, we want to remove the references to "undue offence" from this part of the Bill and I hope the Minister will support that, for obvious reasons.

Banning certain speech or coverage from being broadcast is a serious matter, especially if the grounds for the banning are subjective and left to unelected civil servants to define, as proposed. While my party colleague Deputy Munster discussed one of the amendments in the grouping, I will focus on amendments Nos. 45 and 46, which relate to lines 22 and 23 of page 51. I understand from the debate that took place in the Seanad that this wording is considered a necessary ground for banning a broadcast to comply with Article 40.6 of the Constitution. Paragraph 1° of this Article sets out the right of citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions. It states, "The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State." It is perplexing, then, that the Minister is being selective in regard to which elements of the Article to reiterate in the Bill.

Anything that may reasonably be regarded as tending to undermine the authority of the State is prohibited. The authority of the State is the only element of the constitutional provision on free speech specifically mentioned in this law, and this is a worrying focus. There is no caveat to ensure that the need to protect against undermining the authority of the State will be balanced against the need to preserve liberty of expression. Given the Minister is not proposing to include in this ban anything regarded as undermining public order or morality, which feature in the same sentence as the phrase "authority of the State" in that Article of the Constitution, we can safely assume there is no need to reiterate anything, because it is already law.

That is why we propose to delete this provision with amendment No. 45. In the event that this is not acceptable to the Minister, we propose an alternative wording whereby the same need to balance this protection with the need to preserve liberty of expression is included in the provision. The caveat included in the Constitution specifies that criticism of Government policy is grounds for speech being protected and we have repeated that here.

There is real danger that a criticism of Government policy could be interpreted as undermining the authority of the State. It is not right that coimisiún na meán or broadcasters would be left fearing that if they allow such content to be broadcast, they might be in breach of the law and, therefore, the Minister should clarify in law that criticism of Government policy is protected or confirm that. Otherwise, this is a worrying step towards draconian restrictions by Government on what can be broadcast.

With regard to amendments Nos. 44, 52 and 57, as I outlined at Committee Stage, the main reason for the language in this section is that it is in line with the standard of “harm or undue offence” applied to material by the BAI through its code of programme standards, ensuring that the statutory provisions align with the practical implementation of the prohibition.

In addition, freedom of expression is not absolute and like all other rights, it is subject to balancing in law to ensure that the rights of others, for example, the right to safety and security, are not unduly infringed. This principle of rights balancing is recognised in Irish law, EU law and in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, ECHR. I am confident that the Bill sits comfortably within those traditions. For this reason, I am not accepting those amendments.

With reference to amendments Nos. 45 and 46, the language used reflects existing provisions in section 39(1)( d ) of the Broadcasting Act 2009, previous legislation and, ultimately, Article 40.6 of the Constitution. Section 7 requires an coimisiún to uphold the democratic values set out in the Constitution, including freedom of expression. Article 40.6 requires the State to limit freedom of expression in certain instances. The courts have since set a high bar for when it is appropriate for the State to do so and it is right that this language and associated jurisprudence should be carried forward through this Bill. I do not believe additional clarification needs to be added to the provision, as suggested in amendment No. 46. As such, I do not intend to accept amendments Nos. 45 and 46. I understand the Deputy’s position, however.

I am completely uncomfortable with the phrase "undue offence". As I said, that could mean anything to anybody. No definition or clarity has been given. Can the Minister give me an example of what would be deemed "undue offence"? If somebody were to give an opinion, whether it be political, non-political or anything at all, what constitutes "undue offence"? We are seeking to put something in legislation and there is no clarity around it. The Chair could say something to me and I might take offence, but the person sitting beside me might think no offence was meant. We are putting this into law. Seriously, can the Minister please define "undue offence"?

As I said previously, this language is in line with the standard of harm or undue offence applied to material by the BAI through its code of programme standards and, therefore, the interpretation of "undue offence" is a matter for the BAI on a case-by-case basis. It would be very difficult to anticipate everything covered. It depends on the context and it is for the BAI to set out in its codes.

There is, therefore, no definition. It is for the BAI to interpret it whatever way it wants. There is nothing definitive about "undue offence". It is whether the BAI decides one day that something is offensive and then makes a similar remark another day that something has been taken out of context. There is nothing definitive about it. To write it into law is a serious matter when no clarity has been given on it. It is too vague to put into law.

It is what the BAI does currently on a case-by-case basis. That language has been carried over from the existing provision set out in section 39(1)(d) of the extant Broadcasting Act 2009 which, in turn, reflects previous legislation and, ultimately, Article 40.6 of the Constitution.

I move amendment No. 45:

In page 51, to delete lines 22 and 23.

I move amendment No. 46:

In page 51, to delete lines 22 and 23 and substitute the following:

“(e) anything which may reasonably be regarded as tending to undermine the authority of the State, unless such broadcast or availability can be reasonably regarded as preserving liberty of expression as enshrined in Article 40.6 of the Constitution, including criticism of Government policy.”.

Amendment No. 47 is in the names of Deputies Naughten and Canney. I do not see either Deputy in the Chamber, however.

I move amendment No. 48:

In page 53, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:

“Music in the Irish language and of European Origin

46LA. (1) A provider of a sound broadcasting service shall ensure that, in the programmes to be provided for under the sound broadcasting service contract—

(a) of the aggregate amount of transmission time allocated to music content in a given year, excluding time allocated to music content which would reasonably be considered Irish traditional music, at least 5 per cent shall be reserved for musical compositions containing lyrics mostly in the Irish language from 31 December 2025, increasing to a minimum of 10 per cent from 31 December 2030. The provider shall aim to broadcast music with lyrics mostly in the Irish language across the full variety of musical genres broadcast,

(b) of the aggregate amount of transmission time allocated to music content containing lyrics mostly in the English language in a given year, from 31 December 2025, at least 40 per cent shall be reserved for content which satisfies two of the following conditions:

(i) the music or lyrics are composed or written by a resident of the island of Ireland or the European Economic Area;

(ii) at least one of the artists involved in the performance of the music is a resident of the island of Ireland or the European Economic Area;

(iii) the performance is recorded entirely within the island of Ireland or the European Economic Area or performed wholly and broadcast live on the island of Ireland or in the European Economic Area.

(2) The Commission shall conduct an annual review of the compliance by providers with the conditions set out in subsection (1) and produce a report annually on the use of music with lyrics mostly in the Irish language and of music originating on the island of Ireland or in the European Economic Area with lyrics mostly in the English language across service providers, as well as the impact of such conditions on service providers as well as workers, artists, and businesses involved in the music industry nationally, which shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and the Joint Oireachtas Committee on an annual basis no later than 31 December each year, beginning with 2026.”.”.

Amendments No. 49 and 87 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 49:

In page 53, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:

“Sound Streaming Media and Music Sharing Platform Services

46LA. (1)The Commission shall, no later than one year after its establishment, designate as a category of services the sound streaming media and music-sharing platform services under the jurisdiction of the State.

(2) The Commission shall designate as a named service under this section any relevant online service that appears to the Commission to be a sound streaming media and music-sharing platform service provided to members of the public within the jurisdiction of the State for a fee.

(3) Where the Commission has reason to believe that a relevant online service may be a sound streaming media and music-sharing platform service under the jurisdiction of the State, the Commission shall issue a notice requiring the provision of any information that appears to the Commission to be relevant for the purpose of complying with subsection (2).

(4) The Commission shall make rules for determining whether a sound streaming media and music-sharing platform service provider has such a low turnover or low audience as to mandate its exemption from the rules under this section.

sharing platform service, including—

(a) the turnover of the provider from the service in the market, as a proportion of the total turnover of providers of sound streaming media and music-sharing platform services from those services in the market, and

(b) the number of audience members of the service in the market, as a proportion of the total number of audience members for sound streaming media and music-sharing platform services in the market.

(6) The Commission may make rules prescribing records a provider must keep and any other action a provider must take to enable compliance with the requirement in subsection (1) to be assessed.

(7) A failure to comply with subsection (1) or any rules made under subsection (6) is a contravention for the purposes of Part 8B.

Sound & Music Media Levy

46LB. (1)An annual levy shall be imposed on all named service providers designated under section 46LA(2), unless exempted under section 46LA(4), of between 3 and 20 per cent of the net annual revenue post-tax derived within the jurisdiction of the State by that company for the provision of sound streaming media and music-sharing platform services, through subscriptions, advertising or other associated incomes, for the year previous.

(2) The proceeds of the levy described in subsection (1) shall be provided for a scheme of funds to be administered by the Arts Council and granted to provide support for the following purposes:

(a) the creation, production and performance of music that qualifies as music of Irish cultural expression across a wide range of musical genres;

(b) sound broadcasting licence holders to commission or produce programmes or radio content promoting and airing music of Irish cultural expression across a wide range of musical genres.

(3) For the purposes of this section, music of Irish cultural expression is defined as any performance or work of music that satisfies any two or more of the following conditions:

(a) the music or lyrics are composed or written by a resident of the island of Ireland or associated small offshore islands;

(b) at least one of the artists involved in the performance of the music is a resident of the island of Ireland or associated small offshore islands;

(c) the performance is recorded entirely on the island of Ireland or associated small offshore islands or performed wholly and broadcast live on the island of Ireland or associated small offshore islands;

(d) the majority of the lyrics are in the Irish language.

(4) The scheme outlined in subsection (2) shall allocate not less than 25 per cent of its annual funds for the creation, production, promotion and airing of music of Irish cultural expression with lyrics in the Irish language, and this shall be distributed across a wide range of musical genres.”.

I understand that these amendments were discussed at Committee Stage. The idea is to introduce a levy on sound streaming and music sharing platforms services such as Spotify or Apple in a similar manner to the levy proposed for audiovisual media services. This money would then be used by the Arts Council to support Irish musicians and local radio. We took note of the concerns addressed by the Minister at Committee Stage and clarified wording relating to taxation and jurisdiction. This is, therefore, a chance for Ireland to lead rather than follow and to protect our own artists and creators from the power of global corporations.

As I set out at Committee Stage, the amendment would represent a significant policy initiative and, as such, requires extensive analysis and consideration with a number of complex legal and policy questions that need to be addressed. For example, it does not appear to have any basis in European law. There are also issues to be addressed regarding the rate and nature of the levy, notwithstanding that the amendment now specifies “post tax revenue”. Finally, it appears to apply to services only established under the jurisdiction of the State which, in essence, could mean services looking to relocate away from Ireland arising from the imposition of such a levy. For these reasons, I will not accept this amendment.

I move amendment No. 50:

In page 53, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

“(1A) (a) A television broadcaster or provider of audio-visual services that targets Irish audiences with advertisements shall ensure that of the total hourly time devoted to the broadcasting of advertisements on any service, at least 20 per cent of the advertisements shall be in the Irish language from 31 December 2025.

(b) The Commission shall prepare and publish a report to be laid before the Minister, both Houses of the Oireachtas and the Joint Oireachtas Committee no later than 31 December 2025 outlining recommendations for increasing the percentage of total hourly time devoted to the broadcasting of advertisements to ensure at least 50 per cent of that is devoted to advertisements in the Irish language on any service provided by a television broadcaster or provider of audio-visual media services, or 100 per cent in the case of services provided by Teilifís na Gaeilge, by 31 December 2030, including recommendations on measures that could be taken across television broadcasting services to ensure Teilifís na Gaeilge would not lose out in its proportion of advertising revenue relative to other television broadcasting services as a result of this additional responsibility.

(c) Where there is uncertainty as to whether a service targets Irish audiences with advertisements, a final decision on their designation as such shall be made by Coimisiún na Meán. ”.

I move amendment No. 51:

In page 53, line 30, to delete “the” and substitute “a”.

We now deal with amendment No. 52 as discussed earlier with with amendment No. 44.

I move amendment No. 52:

In page 54, line 8, to delete “unduly offensive”.

I move amendment No. 53:

In page 54, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

“(iii) increase the visibility and use of the Irish language in media and commercial life,”.

We now deal with amendment No. 54 in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 54 to 56, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 58 to 64, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 54:

In page 54, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:

“(4) Media service codes may provide for standards and practices to promote the following:

(a) balanced gender representation of participants in news and current affairs programmes broadcast by broadcasters or made available by providers of audiovisual on-demand media services;

(b) the broadcast in programmes broadcast on sound broadcasting services of music composed or performed by women.”.

This group of amendments are intended to allow coimisiún na meán make media service codes which promote gender balance on news and current affairs programmes on radio, television and video-on-demand services and to promote the broadcasting of musical works composed or performed by women on radio services.

A key goal of mine as Minister is to further gender equality within every sector under my remit, and to collaborate closely with my Government colleagues to drive change across other key Departments. Young girls cannot aim to be what they cannot see or hear. There needs to be a significant improvement in the ratio of women to men on radio and television so that both genders feel represented in public discourse as well as better representation of women in music on our airwaves. Following careful consideration of the compatibility of gender balance measures with the right to freedom of expression and with competition law, it is considered that the most appropriate approach to further this goal is to empower coimisiún na meán to make codes setting out standards and practices in the promotion of greater representation for women in music and news broadcasting.

Such codes would be binding on providers of radio, television and video-on-demand services and, where breaches occur, could be subject to enforcement action by coimisiún na meán. This approach will allow coimisiún na meán the flexibility to identify appropriate measures to promote gender equality that are consistent with our legal framework.

I move amendment No. 55:

In page 54, line 29, to delete “(4) The Commission” and substitute “(5) The Commission”.

I move amendment No. 56:

In page 54, line 34, to delete “(5) The Commission” and substitute “(6) The Commission”.

I move amendment No. 57:

In page 54, line 36, to delete “offence”.

I move amendment No. 58:

In page 55, line 13, to delete “(6) Provision” and substitute “(7) Provision”.

I move amendment No. 59:

In page 55, line 20, to delete “(7) In preparing” and substitute “(8) In preparing”.

I move amendment No. 60:

In page 55, line 23, to delete “(8) The Commission” and substitute “(9) The Commission”.

I move amendment No. 61:

In page 55, line 24, to delete “(9) A failure” and substitute “(10) A failure”.

I move amendment No. 62:

In page 55, line 26, to delete “(10) Subject to subsection (11)” and substitute “(11) Subject to subsection (12)”.

I move amendment No. 63:

In page 55, line 35, to delete “(11) After” and substitute “(12) After”.

I move amendment No. 64:

In page 55, line 36, to delete “subsection (10)” and substitute “subsection (11)”.

I move amendment No. 65:

In page 56, line 20, after “persons” to insert “, including Irish speakers,”.

I move Amendment No. 66:

In page 56, line 21, after “persons” to insert “, including Irish speakers,”.

I move amendment No. 67:

In page 56, line 22, after “persons” to insert “, including Irish speakers,”.

I move amendment No. 68:

In page 67, to delete lines 16 to 27.

This is a technical amendment to remedy a drafting error in the Bill. This amendment will ensure that a section 70 contractor can continue to benefit from the exemption as set out in section 71(3) of the Broadcasting Act 2009.

I move amendment No. 69:

In page 69, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 82 of Principal Act

32. Section 82 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (2):

“(2A) In the case of no fewer than 50 per cent of the board members of RTÉ, a person shall not be appointed to these roles unless he or she is able to communicate proficiently in the Irish language.”.”.

I move amendment No. 70:

In page 70, to delete lines 2 to 4 and substitute the following:

“34. Section 114 of the Principal Act is amended in subsection (1)—

(a) in paragraph (f), by the substation of “in full, unless limited by factors beyond the control of RTÉ,” for “, in so far as RTÉ considers reasonably practicable,”, and

(b) in paragraph (h), by the substitution of “audiovisual on-demand media services”for “non-broadcast non-linear audio-visual media services”.”.

Amendments Nos. 71 and 73 will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 71:

In page 70, line 2, to delete “subsection (1),” and substitute the following:

“subsection (1)—

(a) in paragraph (b), by the deletion of “and teletext services”, and

(b) ”.

The purpose of amendments Nos. 71 and 73 is to remove the statutory requirements for RTÉ and TG4 to establish and maintain their respective teletext services. This change was agreed in consultation with our public service broadcasters and is considered important to allow progression from outdated technologies with very little viewership.

I move amendment No. 72:

In page 70, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:

“Equal Pay for Equal Work

35. The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 114:

“Equal Pay for Equal Work

114A . RTÉ shall ensure that no worker is paid more for the same amount and form of work to produce content in the

English language as a worker is paid to produce content in the Irish language.”.”.

Baineann an leasú seo le cearta teanga, cearta oibrithe agus cearta comhionnanais. We have outlined on Committee Stage how RTÉ is paying Irish language workers up to 25% less for the same work as their English-speaking counterparts. This is discrimination, pure and simple, and it is unacceptable. We have a chance to enshrine equal pay for equal work in the law. It has been done in many other areas but if this level of discrimination was to take place on any other grounds, it would be considered scandalous and be dealt with in legislation.

The Minister, Deputy Martin, said it would be inappropriate to introduce legislative provisions in this regard but if legislation is not an appropriate place to prohibit discrimination, where is? I am glad that the Minister has written to RTÉ in this regard but it is too little too late. I am informed that the matter was first raised with RTÉ in the year 2000 yet the broadcaster has the nerve to tell Deputies that it had not been made aware of the issue. The review of pay scales is already under way and Dee Forbes stated clearly to the Dáil Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media that the review will not consider the issue of different pay based on the language of work. This is not a matter of editorial or operational independence for RTÉ but it is workers in Raidió na Gaeltachta being treated less for being Irish speakers, working in the Irish language, serving Irish speakers, and it cannot go on.

It is hard to believe that this is still ongoing. We had the broadcaster before the Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media and various other committees and it is just blatant about this. It fobbed us off by saying it was carrying out a review. We asked whether this specific issue would be under review and it said yes. The broadcaster did not come back to us on the issue and we had to chase it up with it. The broadcaster then said the issue was not under review and is deliberately ignoring the fact.

I would be very surprised if the Minister were to allow this to continue, with a State and public broadcaster allowing pay disparity between workers, where one section of workers is being paid 25% less because of the language they work in. As far as I can remember, the Minister was to make contact with the broadcaster and I would hope that it would not fob the Minister off the way in which it fobbed off the committee, and that she will direct the broadcaster, so to speak. She will not be interfering in any broadcast matter in doing so. This is a workers' rights issue and it is blatant discrimination and pay disparity.

These people are paid by licence payers and they are carrying out discriminatory practices. The committee will not let this go so we brought it to the Minister. We included it here to see if we could have it addressed in legislation. I will not be impressed if the Minister does not do anything about this.

I thank the Deputies for the amendment. The amendment would introduce obligations regarding the rates of pay of RTÉ employees. Mar a dúirt mé cheana, tá sé fíorthábhachtach go mbeadh cothromaíocht ann idir an Ghaeilge agus an Béarla. Bheadh imní orm faoi aon difríocht pá a bhaineann go hiomlán leis an teanga ina ndéanann duine a chuid oibre. Parity of esteem between Irish and English is vital. I share concerns about any disparity in pay being purely related to the language through which someone conducts their work. RTÉ is undertaking a root-and-branch review of grading structures and examining all roles in the organisation, including Raidió na Gaeltachta. The Deputies are aware I have written to RTÉ asking it to address the concerns of the members of the committee and set out exactly how the process will address pay disparity. The independence of RTÉ, however, in operational matters is already provided for in legislation and I am advised it is not appropriate to introduce legislative provisions in this regard.

Tá eolas agam ar an sárobair a dhéanann na craoltóirí agus na hiriseoirí i Raidió na Gaeltachta, mar shampla. Chualamar cheana féin faoi na stáisiúin ar fud na tíre. Beimid ag lorg vótála ar an leasú seo.

The Minister got pretty much the same type of correspondence. She said she requested exactly what RTÉ will do but I think the organisation is biding its time on this. If this amendment is not accepted by the Minister, RTÉ will eventually fob her off. I guarantee her, although I hope I am wrong, that it will fob her off. If the amendment is not accepted and included in legislation and RTÉ's hand is not forced, I guarantee it will not do it. For this reason, I ask the Minister to accept the amendment. As my colleague said, this has been going on since 2000. RTÉ is constantly fobbing people off, at committee meeting after committee meeting, and it is time this provision was put into legislation to force its hand.

I share the Deputies' concern in relation to parity of esteem between Irish and English and I have written to RTÉ asking it to address their concerns. If the Deputies do not receive a reply shortly, I will write to RTÉ again. I see an opportunity given that the chair of RTÉ who was appointed to the position yesterday is a fluent Irish speaker. I will meet the new chair, arising from her appointment, and will raise the matter with her.

The time permitted for this debate having expired, I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Dáil of 29 November 2022: “That the amendments set down by the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed.”.