Select Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media debate -
Tuesday, 25 Oct 2022

Online Safety and Media Regulation Bill 2022: Committee Stage

Chairman

This meeting has been convened to consider the Committee Stage of the Online Safety and Media Regulation Bill 2022. Members will be aware that this is the first of three sessions scheduled for today and tomorrow for Committee Stage consideration of the Bill. Members will note it is proposed there will be an hour-long suspension tomorrow from 4.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. because the session is quite long. We will start at 1.30 p.m. and finish at 8.30 p.m. I welcome the Minister and her officials and I thank my colleagues for joining us at this late hour. As we know, Leinster House is alive until all hours and time does not matter. I remind our officials that they are not in a position to speak while we are in public session.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I also remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of Leinster House in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where he or she is not adhering to this constitutional requirement.

It is important to note that in order to participate in a division in committee, members must be physically present in the committee room. Where members wish to speak to certain sections of the Bill, especially those to which no amendments have been tabled, I request that they clearly indicate before I dispose of the section. It is useful to note that only matters raised on Committee Stage may be raised by way of amendment on Report Stage.

I ask members to identify themselves when contributing via Microsoft Teams for the benefit of the Debates Office staff preparing the Official Report, to mute their microphones when not contributing in order to reduce background noise and feedback and to use the raise-hand function if they wish to contribute. I also ask everyone to ensure their phones are switched off or on airplane mode.

The Minister will make some introductory remarks.

Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media (Deputy Catherine Martin)

Tá mé sásta a bheith ag labhairt leis na comhaltaí inniu. Go dtí seo, má bhí rialachán ar bith i gceist, bhí sé déanta ag na comhlachtaí nó na meáin shóisialta iad féin. Ar bhealach tá sé thar am go ndéanfaimid a leithéid.

The members all know how important this Bill is in a range of ways. It is important to our economy in promising to deliver on a modern regulatory system for a crucial business sector. It is important for our society in providing safety and security for people as they seek to benefit from the considerable opportunities provided by the Internet. It is most important, however, for our children. We can all acknowledge how important it is to be able to protect our children from online harm and empower them to deal with the challenges of an online society. I propose a range of amendments in three categories. The first is on foot of issues raised in Seanad Éireann and on which I committed to act. The second is amendments to provide for the individual complaints mechanism and the third is amendments required for technical reasons. The Government approved the amendments on 18 October.

The expert group report on the individual complaints mechanism was published on 20 September. The group ultimately concluded that the complaints mechanism was feasible and, on foot of that, the appropriate amendments have been drafted. The amendments ensure that coimisiún na meán has a legal basis to begin phasing in a robust individual complaints mechanism in the coming years which will initially focus on children and a number of non-offence-specific categories of harmful online content such as cyberbullying.

Another amendment is designed to provide for the inclusion of further forms of offence-specific harmful online content under Schedule 3 of the Bill. This further content relates to the criminal offence of flashing under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017. The amendments will allow the online safety commissioner to appropriately deal with online content related to the offence of flashing through systemic regulations. Other important changes are amendments to ensure the inclusion of local broadcasters in the scheme to support professional journalistic practices and to provide clarity on when coimisiún na meán may dismiss certain complaints.

I know that members of the committee have proposed a range of amendments on a range of issues and I look forward to the debate. I intend to bring a number of amendments to the Bill on Report Stage. The first group of amendments will be to section 53, specifically those provisions that relate to the content production scheme. I am conscious that Deputies have proposed their own Committee Stage amendments to section 53, some of which relate to matters that I have been considering for some time. I look forward to discussing them in detail with Deputies and indicating how I will seek to address those issues on Report Stage.

I intend to bring an amendment 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 promote the broadcasting of musical works that are composed or performed by women in programmes broadcast by providers of sound broadcasting services.

I intend to bring a number of technical amendments to remove references to the obligation of RTÉ and TG4 to maintain the teletext service. There is a sense of urgency to this debate, not least in the form of infringement proceedings pending at EU level, because we are very motivated to formally establish coimisiún na meán and empower and resource it to start its important work. Our debates and discussions since the publication of the Bill in January are really only the beginning. Gabhaim buíochas leis na Teachtaí as a gcuid oibre agus an Bille ag déanamh a bhealaigh trí na Dála.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I move amendment No. 1:

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

Some of the amendments are to section 3 as well. Tá siad simplí go leor. Tá bogadh tar éis tarlú ó thaobh na reachtaíochta seo, is é sin, go bhfuil coimisiún na meán mar theideal air anois. Táimid ag iarraidh go mbeidh "coimisiún" agus "coimisinéir" ann mar theidil chuí ó thaobh reachtaíochta de seachas commission nó commissioner.

The proposal is that, rather than using the English version, and considering the change of the name to coimisiún na meán, it would be logical that "coimisiún" would be used throughout, instead of "commission". It is the same for amendment No. 5, which would use "coimisinéir" instead of "commissioner". It might seem a moot point but there is a logic to this, given the change the Minister has accepted but also the changes that will come into effect at some stage. Maybe the Minister can clarify when alt 9D d'Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla is going to come into being. There are a lot of new State companies being created and according to that Act, which was passed by the Oireachtas and signed into law by the President, all future State companies should be known in the Irish language. That is some of the logic behind these two amendments. That references section 9D of the amended Official Languages Act, which I believed at the time indicated there would be a different approach to the titles of organisations. That has happened in this instance but, logically, the first language should also be used when referring to it in law.

Deputy Catherine Martin

Gabhaim buíochas leis na Teachtaí Ó Snodaigh, Munster agus Mythen as a gcuid leasuithe. As the Deputy said, amendment No. 1 seeks to change all references to the commission in the Bill to coimisiún and amendment No. 5 seeks to change all references in the Bill from commissioner to coimisinéir. As Deputies will be aware, section 9D(1) of the Official Languages Act 2003, as amended, provides that the name of a statutory body established on and from the commencement of section 4 of the Official Languages (Amendment) Act 2021, shall be in the Irish language. I can come back to the Deputy regarding the commencement. He has raised some valid concerns. Ní mholaim glacadh leis na leasuithe inniu ach tuigim na pointí a rinneadh. Toisc gur ceist chasta í seo maidir le dréachtú reachtaíochta, lorgóidh mé tuilleadh comhairle dlí agus tiocfaidh mé ar ais chuig an ábhar seo ar Chéim na Tuarascála. An bhfuil sé sin ceart go leor?

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Glacaim leis sin. Níl mé chun moill a chur ar an bpróiseas inniu. An fhadhb is mó ná gur ardaíodh an cheist seo sa Seanad chomh maith agus nílimid tar éis aon dul chun cinn a dhéanamh. Ní díreach an Bille seo; tá mé tar éis é seo a ardú le Billí eile chomh maith agus an leithscéal a tugadh go dtí seo ná nach bhfuil an chuid sin d'Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla i bhfeidhm go fóill. Níl a fhios ag aon duine cén uair a bheidh sé i bhfeidhm nó cad é an mhoill. Tá mé sásta, más gá, na leasuithe seo a tharraingt siar ach beidh mé á gcur isteach arís ar Chéim na Tuarascála. Tabharfaidh sé sin deis don Aire an t-eolas a fháil faoin Acht, ach chomh maith leis sin fáil amach cén fáth nach féidir glacadh leis an leasú sa chás seo, ach go háirithe toisc go bhfuilimid tar éis glacadh leis gur coimisiún na meán teideal an eagrais. Is ait ansin go bhfuilimid ag glaoch "the commission" air reachtaíocht, rud atá ag dul i gcoinne an teidil oifigiúil. I am happy to withdraw the amendments for now.

Chairman

The Deputy is giving us an easy start. Go raibh maith agat.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, 43, 82, 108, 118 to 120, inclusive, 124 to 128, inclusive, 130 to 136, inclusive, 148 to 256, inclusive, 258 to 264, inclusive, 266 to 269, inclusive, 272 to 292, inclusive, 317 and 318 are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 9, line 32, to delete “section 139ZZ(1)” and substitute “section 139ZZH(1)”.

The purpose of this group of amendments is to make provision in the Bill for an individual complaints mechanism, as recommended by the online safety expert group in its comprehensive report. When I established the expert group earlier this year I made it clear that if it was feasible to introduce an individual complaints mechanism, I would provide for it in the Bill. That is what I am proposing to do with these amendments. The expert group has done its work and has given detailed consideration to the wide range of issues raised in the context of an individual complaints mechanism, including through a public consultation and engagement with experts such as the Australian e-safety commissioner. The expert group’s report and recommendations chart a practical way forward for the introduction of an individual complaints mechanism, focused on operationalising the mechanism on a phased basis and firstly for children. These amendments were drafted on the basis of the heads contained in the expert group’s report and they hew closely to the expert group’s recommendations, save for necessary legal adjustments by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.

In this regard, amendment No. 118 provides for the substantive provisions for the phasing in and operation of an individual complaints mechanism, including how an coimisiún can make schemes for complaints about various kinds of harmful online content; the threshold that must be met before an coimisiún will handle a complaint; the kinds of resolutions for complaints available to an coimisiún; a requirement for an coimisiún to set out a plan for operationalising these provisions; and a requirement for an coimisiún to prioritise operationalising the individual complaints mechanism for children in the first instance.

The remainder of the amendments in this grouping - amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, 43, 82, 108, 118 to 120, inclusive, 124 to 128, inclusive, 130 to 136, inclusive, 146, 148 to 256, inclusive, 258 to 264, inclusive, 266 to 269, inclusive, 272 to 292, inclusive, 317 and 318 - are consequential to amendment No. 118 and relate to the necessary renumbering of sections throughout the Bill to account for the insertion of amendment No. 118.

Chairman

Deputy Naughten looks worried that we will be here all night.

Deputy Denis Naughten

I nearly had a full house there with all those numbers.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 9, line 34, to delete “section 139ZZ(2)” and substitute “section 139ZZH(2)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 9, line 36, to delete “section 139ZZ(3)” and substitute “section 139ZZH(3)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I move amendment No. 5:

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, 137 and 265 are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 10, line 30, to delete “definition” where it firstly occurs and substitute “definitions”.

These are purely technical amendments inserting a definition of the e-commerce directive into section 2 of the 2009 Act, which concerns definitions. This is being proposed to avoid repeating the title of the directive where it is referenced in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 10, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:

“ ‘E-Commerce Directive’ means Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market;”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 11, to delete line 24 and substitute the following:

“(a) the nature, characteristics and impacts of published material,”.

This amendment is primarily about including the impact of media and recognising the influence of media, including social media, on members of society.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I thank Deputies Ó Snodaigh, Munster and Mythen for their amendment, which seeks to add the word “impacts” to the phrase “the nature and characteristics of published material” within the definition of media literacy in the Bill so that it reads as “the nature, characteristics and impacts of published material.”

While I am sympathetic to the proposed amendment, I am confident that its intentions are covered by the definition of media literacy as a whole, which refers to the “public understanding of material published in print, broadcast, online or other media.” It is also in line with the meaning of media literacy used by the Media Literacy Ireland network in practice. The line the amendment seeks to change is contained within a non-exhaustive list of things which this public understanding may comprise.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I will withdraw the amendment with the option of resubmitting it on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Section 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 16, line 19, to delete “meaning given by” and substitute “same meaning as in”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 16, lines 19 to 22, to delete all words from and including “Directive” in line 19 down to and including “Market” in line 22 and substitute “the E-Commerce Directive”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

NEW SECTION

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 11 to 13, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 16, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

“Meaning of “under the jurisdiction of the State”: providers of other services that may be relevant online services

6. The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 2B:

“2C. (1) For the purposes of this Act, the provider of an information society service, other than a provider to whom section 2A or 2B applies, is under the jurisdiction of the State if the provider of the service is established in the State within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the E-Commerce Directive.

(2) In this section ‘information society service’ has the same meaning as in Article 1(1)(b) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015.”.”.

The amendments in this group seek to clarify that the jurisdictional test for when a relevant online service which is not a video sharing platform service is established in Ireland is set out in Article 3 of the e-commerce directive. Amendment No. 11 contains the substantive section, a new section 2C to be inserted into the 2009 Act, while amendments Nos. 12 and 13 involve consequential renumbering. These amendments are purely to give greater legal clarity as to how jurisdiction for such services is determined under the Bill and do not in substance alter the legal framework set out in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

SECTION 6

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 16, line 32, to delete “section 2B” and substitute “section 2C”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 16, line 33, to delete “2C.” and substitute “2D.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 7

Deputy Johnny Mythen

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 19, line 4, 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”.

This amendment is very simple and includes the power to compel online services to provide any data requested that pertains to public interest research, or any data the commissioner deems to be relevant in protection of the common good in a time specified and determined by the commission. This was already discussed in the Seanad. We want to tweak it a bit. We are really concerned about it. The entire committee had agreed for data to be collected for public interest research. The Minister knows how these big companies work. They collect data and profile people, particularly children. They also target certain areas and sell on the data. This would provide the means to make them really accountable.

Deputy Catherine Martin

Amendment No. 14 seeks to provide an coimisiún with 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.

I do not believe it is appropriate to give a regulatory body a general power to compel the disclosure of information based on what would be its own definition of the public good. My advice is that any such power must be explicitly linked to the functions envisaged for that body. An coimisiún already has the power to compel designated online services to provide it with information regarding their compliance with their obligations under online safety codes and the Bill sets out that it is an offence for them not to do so.

Regarding access to data for the purposes of public interest research, the Digital Services Act sets out a detailed process by which this may be done. That Act is expected to enter into force by the end of November 2022, following which EU member states will have 15 months to implement its provisions in their national law. This process is being led in Ireland by my colleague the Tánaiste. Including this amendment would therefore pre-empt or duplicate those provisions which would, on both counts, be inappropriate. For these three reasons, I do not accept the amendment.

Deputy Johnny Mythen

I will withdraw, but obviously retain the right to resubmit.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 18 to 21, inclusive, 33, 66 and 320 are related and may be discussed together. Amendment No. 16 is a logical alternative to amendment No. 15.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 19, line 16, after “traditions,” to insert “in particular the Irish language,”.

I was not expecting all these amendments to be grouped together. There is some logic to grouping them. The aim of these amendments is to try to ensure a wide range of duties and responsibilities, go bhfuil dualgas dearfach agus reachtúil ann ó thaobh chur chun cinn na Gaeilge i measc na meán. Tá sé sin tábhachtach dúinne agus do dhaoine eile nach féidir leo a bheith anseo, sé sin, na heagrais atá ag cur chun cinn na Gaeilge, iad siúd a cheapann go bhfuil an Bunreacht i gceart gur teanga náisiúnta na tíre í agus, dá réir, gur chóir go mbeadh dualgas ar leith ar aon eagras atá ag craoladh sa tír seo ó thaobh na Gaeilge de.

The purpose is to ensure the Irish language is not ignored. Its history, traditions, language and music need to be presented and supported. There is a duty to promote beyond what is sometimes the current view that is a burden. If the duty to promote the Irish language and our traditions is included in legislation, then we can demand of the media that they do more. For many years, the debate has been focused on the failure of our State broadcaster to fully carry out its duty under the Constitution to promote the Irish language and do more to ensure that our traditions are promoted. We believe this is an opportunity to right that wrong and to ensure that all the media in Ireland understand that is part of their duty.

A number of the amendments relate to section 7 and further down they relate to the long Title of the Bill because we believe it of such important that it should be mentioned. The issue was raised on Committee Stage in the Seanad. Having reflected further on that debate in the Seanad, the Minister may now be in a better position to accept these amendments or at least give an indication to come back on Report Stage with a version of what is being proposed here.

Maidir le leasú Uimh. 5, sin an fhoclaíocht a chur Conradh na Gaeilge chun cinn. Tá foclaíocht dhifriúil againn chomh maith, ag déanamh cinnte de go mbeadh ní hamháin the duty to satisfy the existing demand, but to go further and stimulate an increased demand for the Irish language.

Tá mise den tuairim gur chóir go mbeadh sé sin mar dualgas ag an Stát, ní hamháin sna meáin ach i gcúrsaí oideachais chomh maith. Ní hamháin go mba cheart an t-éileamh a shásamh ach ba cheart cuidiú leis an éileamh a chruthú. Bheadh níos mó brú agus níos mó éilimh ar chláir agus a leithéid maidir leis an nGaeilge i nGaeilge agus maidir leis ár dtraidisiún ar an oileán seo.

Deputy Catherine Martin

Gabhaim buíochas arís leis na Teachtaí as a gcuid leasuithe. In Uimh. 15 agus 16, iarrtar leasú a dhéanamh ar fhoráil sa Bhille go ndéanfaidh coimisiún na meán a dhícheall lena chinntiú go bhfreastalóidh a bheartais maidir le seirbhísí craolacháin agus físe ar éileamh ar an bhealach is fearr ar riachtanais mhuintir oileán na hÉireann, ag cur a dtraidisiúin agus a dteanga san áireamh trí thagairt shonrach a dhéanamh don Ghaeilge.

Ceapadh an fhoráil seo den Bhille lena chinntiú go gcuirfidh coimisiún na meán le traidisiúin agus le teangacha éagsúla ar fad ar ár n-oileán san áireamh ina chuid oibre. Tá sé i gceist go gcuirfidh an tagairt do theanga, ní hamháin don Ghaeilge, don Bhéarla agus don Ultais ach don iliomad teangacha eile a labhraíonn daoine atá ina gcónaí ar ár n-oileán san áireamh.

I understand that the intention of amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are to specify a particular role for coimisiún na meán in supporting and promoting the Irish language and Irish language programming. I consider that the intention of the amendments is already provided for in the specific references to the role of an coimisiún in paragraphs (c) and (e) of subsection (3) of section 7 of the Broadcasting Act, as substituted by section 7 of the Bill. I, therefore, cannot accept the amendments.

I leasú Uimh. 18 d’athrófaí an dualgas atá ar an choimisiún cláir Gaeilge agus cláir a bhaineanna le hathrú aeráide agus inbhuanaitheacht chomhshaoil a chur chun cinn agus a spreagadh go dualgas chun forbairt agus soláthar na gclár sin a chinntiú agus a mhéadú.

The committee will know that I am strongly in favour of increasing the availability of Irish language programming. I have secured increased allocations to TG4 over the past three budgets. When I took up the post as Minister, the Exchequer allocation for TG4 was €37.2 million. In 2023, that allocation will be €52.2 million, which is an increase of just over 40% over a three-year period. I also approved TG4's proposal to establish a new dedicated Irish language children's channel, Cúla4, and made a specific €3.3 million provision in budget 2023 to support the new channel.

The language in the Bill is sufficient to ensure support by an coimisiún for the production of programming in the Irish language with regard to climate action. Replacing the term "promote and stimulate" with "ensure and increase" would imply that an coimisiún, as a media regulator, could direct the editorial content of a broadcaster or video-on-demand service towards a particular outcome. As an coimisiún will not have that power, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

Aontaím le cuspóir leasú Uimh. 21. Mhol na Seanadóirí Warfield, Ó Donnghaile, Gavan agus Boylan leasú ar Chéim an Choiste sa Seanad. Ar Chéim na Tuarascála sa Seanad thug mé ar aghaidh leasú ar an Bhille ina bhforáiltear in alt 7(3)(c) den Acht Craolacháin 2009, a dtagann an Bille ina áit, go ndéanfaidh an coimisiún úsáid na Gaeilge a chur chun cinn agus a spreagadh sna meáin cumarsáide a fheidhmítear sa Stát. This is a broader duty than proposed by the Deputies given that it encompasses the print media in addition to broadcasters, video-on-demand services and online services. I, therefore, do not accept amendment No. 21.

I leasú Uimh. 20, d’fhorálfaí go bhféadfadh an coimisiún athbhreithnithe straitéiseacha a dhéanamh ar na hearnálacha a rialaíonn an coimisiún maidir le craolachán i nGaeilge. The committee will be aware that the Report of the Future of Media Commission recommends that coimisiún na meán should conduct a comprehensive review of the provision of Irish language services across the media system, with a focus on institutional structures and opportunities for innovation and collaboration as well as strategies for youth engagement and Irish language education. Amendment No. 20 would confine the strategic review to broadcasting in the Irish language whereas the comprehensive review to be undertaken by an coimisiún will be broader in scope and include digital media. Accordingly, I do not intend to accept it.

I leasú Uimh. 33 cheanglófaí go gcuirfí sonraí faoi leith maidir le húsáid na Gaeilge mar theanga labhartha sna meáin san áireamh sa ráiteas straitéise a ullmhaíonn an coimisiún. Níl an fhoráil sa Bhille maidir le hábhar an ráitis straitéise saintreorach maidir leis na torthaí nó cuspóirí ar cheart a chur san áireamh in aon ráiteas. Tá sé sin toisc go leagtar amach dualgais agus feidhmeanna an choimisiúin go soiléir in alt 7 den Acht Craolacháin 2009, a dtagann an Bille ina áit. Bheadh aon ráiteas straitéise bunaithe ar na dualgais agus na feidhmeanna sin agus leagfaí amach ann na cuspóirí agus aschuir a bhaineann lena chomhlíonadh. Ní bheadh sé iomchuí díriú ar fheidhm ar leith de chuid an choimisiúin maidir leis an ráiteas straitéise ó tharla go bhféadfadh sé a thabhairt le tuiscint go bhfuil ordlathas cuspóirí ann don choimisiún. Tá sé i gceist go gcomhlíonfaidh an coimisiún a fheidhmeanna reachtúla go léir, ó shábháilteacht ar líne go cur chun cinn na gclár Gaeilge. Ní ghlacaim leis an leasú.

I cannot accept amendment No. 66. The proposed amendment would infringe on the editorial freedom of both advertisers and media service providers. However, we are taking action to increase the quantity of Irish language advertising. As the committee will be aware, my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Chambers, recently brought the Official Languages (Amendment) Act 2021 through the Oireachtas. As a consequence, section 10A of the Official Languages Act, as amended, 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. 320 would amend the Long Title of the Bill to reference specifically the role of coimisiún na meán regarding the use and visibility of the Irish language. The Long Title of the Bill is not intended to capture or reference comprehensively every duty of coimisiún na meán nor to reference one in particular. Rather, it is intended to set out the broad contents of the Bill. Accordingly, I do not accept this amendment.

Chairman

Is the amendment being pressed?

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Yes. I just want to respond to what the Minister had to say. Tuigim an áit as a bhfuil an tAire ag teacht. Déanfaimid déileáil leis an leasú deireanach ar dtús; is é sin an ceann maidir leis an Teideal Fada. Tá an ceart aici nach mbíonn gach uile fhoráil luaite sa Teideal Fada, ach sa chás seo, dá mbeadh muid ag glacadh leis na leasuithe a táimid tar éis a chur chun cinn, tá loighic ann go mbeadh aitheantas á thabhairt don ról breise a bheadh ag na meáin agus don dualgas breise a bheadh bronnta orthu toisc na leasuithe a táimid ag déileáil leo anseo gur ghá go mbeadh sé luaite sa Teideal Fada.

Nuair a chastar ar leasú Uimh. 1, an rud atá i gceist sna leasuithe seo ar fad ná déanamh cinnte go bhfuil aitheantas ann go bhfuil stádas ar leith ag an nGaeilge, nach gnáth-stádas é agus nach bhfuil an Ghaeilge ar chomhchéim le gach uile teanga eile sa tír seo. Sin an príomh-dhifríocht. Tá aitheantas tugtha ag an Aire ansin agus luaigh sí na forálacha atá ann faoi láthair. Bhí díospóireacht ann faoi fáil réidh leis an bhforáil atá ann a thugann stádas chomhchéim do na teangacha difriúla, ach ní sin atá i gceist againne. Faoi láthair, déantar déileáil le teangacha agus le traidisiúin an phobail agus tá cinn difriúla sa tír. An cheann atá ról againne mar pholaiteoirí agus mar Rialtas leis ná an Bunreacht a chosaint agus an áit ar leith atá ag an teanga náisiúnta a chosaint dá réir. Sin an fáth gur chóir go mbeadh an fhoráil atá i gceist againne ann, ach go háirithe an fhoráil in Uimh. 17, go bhfuil stádas agus seasamh ar leith ann maidir leis an nGaeilge, agus dá réir, gur ghá í a chur chun cinn. Amach anseo b’fhéidir nach mbeidh gá í a chur chun cinn toisc go sroichfidh sí am nó áit nach mbeidh gá leis an gcosaint bhreise. Tá na straitéisí ar fad, ní hamháin ag an Rialtas seo ach ag Rialtais roimhe seo, leagtha síos agus tá siad ag iarraidh an stádas sin a shroicheadh, áit a bheidh an Ghaeilge, agus an Ghaeltacht dá réir, agus na traidisiúin atá bainteach leis an nGaeilge cosanta, caomhnaithe agus curtha chun cinn. Ní léim mhór atá i gceist má ghlacfaimid leis na leasuithe seo. Is trua liom go bhfuil an cuma ar an scéal nach bhfuil an tAire ag smaoineamh ar ghlacadh leis na leasuithe.

Tarraingeoidh mé siar leasú Uimh. 15 agus tá mé chun leanúint le hUimh. 16 sa ghrúpa seo. Ansin tá Uimh. 18 go 21, 33 agus na cinn eile a táimid ag déileáil leo sa ghrúpa seo. Ní ghlacaim leis gur ag cur as go mór do na commercial media a bheadh aon fhorálacha a táimid ag déileáil leo anseo. Nuair a chuirtear forálacha nó ualach breise ar chomhlachtaí i mBéarla, i bhFraincis nó i bpé dteanga, glacann siad leis mar chuid den ghnó atá acu, ní chun teacht timpeall air ach chun a ghnó a chleachtadh sa tír seo. Therefore, if we put any provisions and additions on top of the duties and responsibilities of commercial media they get on with it. They understand that is a duty to allow them to continue to broadcast and operate in the State. It should not be seen as a duty but in some ways as just one of those issues they must comply with. In this case it is a positive duty they would have to ensure the promotion of the Irish language and our traditions. If we were to leave this on the exact same footing as all other languages in the country there is a danger the Irish language and its traditions will remain as an afterthought for many of the media. I welcome the changes that have happened in recent years. I am not blind to them. I welcome the huge investment in TG4 and the fact we will have a children's TG4 soon enough. There is a lot more to do about the damage done as a result of the Irish language being ignored by our national media for so many years.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 19, line 16, 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,”.

Chairman

Does the Deputy wish to speak to the amendment?

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I have just spoken to it because they were grouped. The Minister may want to answer.

Deputy Catherine Martin

Mar a dúirt mé cheana, cuireadh leasú ar Cheim na Tuarascála sa Seanad go ndéanfadh an coimisiún úsáid na Gaeilge a chur chun cinn agus a spreagadh sna meáin chumarsáide a fheidhmíonn sa Stát. Rinneadh déileáil leis an leasú sin sa Seanad.

On hearing and seeing more Irish language programming, I point to the media fund. As Deputies know, the sound and vision fund was restricted to radio but now we will have print and radio and there is €6 million of immediate funding there that will start with local democracy and court reporting. Irish language content was included in the most recent round of sound and vision funding, so I see much more scope with the media fund of €6 million that I have asked the BAI to start looking at already. As I said, that includes print as well as broadcasting on air and on TV.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 19, line 24, after “to” to insert “, and visible representation on,”.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 20, line 3, to delete “promote and stimulate the development of” and substitute “ensure and increase the development and provision of”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 20, line 7, after “encourage” to insert “increased use of the Irish language and”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 20, lines 32 to 34, to delete all words from and including “and” in line 32 down to and including line 34 and substitute the following:

“(d) the promotion of the Irish language and the Gaeltacht and published policies of the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, and

(e) published policies of the Government in respect of any matter referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d).”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 21, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:

“(iiia) broadcasting in the Irish language;”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Johnny Mythen

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 21, line 27, 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”.

The Bill was amended in the Seanad to include reference to gambling. This amendment seeks to strengthen the legislation in this regard. It is of vital importance the relationship between the two regulators is put on a statutory footing. Furthermore, a report can ensure the Oireachtas is fully informed on this important issue and can use this real-time data to formulate future policies and legislation.

Deputy Catherine Martin

The Bill already addresses the issue, which is essentially about the co-operation between regulatory bodies on the issue of gambling, by setting out that coimisiún na meán must co-operate, in relation to the regulation of gambling, with any public body concerned with that matter. 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. At a technical level, I cannot accept the amendment because the Bill cannot require an coimisiún to meet a body that does not yet exist or produce a report on a sector for which it has no remit. However, I am satisfied the strategic issue the amendment seeks to address is already adequately dealt with in the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Chairman

Amendment Nos. 23, 24, 26, 31, 32, 49, 50 and 60 are related and will be discussed together.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 22, line 1, to delete “section 48(3), (4) or (5)” and substitute “subsection (3), (4) or (5) of section 48”.

This is a grouping of purely technical amendments. Amendment Nos. 23 and 24 clarify references in the Bill to the functions an coimisiún may delegate to an individual commissioner. These amendments do not change the legal position regarding what can be delegated but simply fix some technical discrepancies.

Amendment No. 26 changes the phrase "a nominee of the person" to "a person acting on behalf of the person". The wording to be inserted is considered more suitable for this section, which relates to the disclosure of interests, as it is more encompassing than the word "nominee".

The purpose of amendment No. 31 is to replace a reference to "monies" in the Bill with a reference to "moneys".

I have been advised that "moneys" is the more constitutional spelling.

The purpose of amendment No. 32 is to replace a reference to "Central Fund" in the Bill with a reference to "Exchequer". This reflects the general usage in legislation to provide that receipts are to be paid into the Exchequer and that payments are charged or paid out of the Central Fund.

The purpose of amendment No. 49 is to fix the section title of section 46I. This is being done on the advice of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.

The purpose of amendment No. 50 is to replace a comma with a dash at the beginning of section 46I. Again, this is being done on the advice of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.

Amendment No. 60 is intended to clarify the meaning of a phrase on not giving unfair preference to any political party in terms of the allocation of broadcasting time or the positioning of content in a catalogue.

Deputy Denis Naughten

I have a technical question regarding the Minister's final comment about political parties. Does this legal wording have implications for individuals who are not members of a party? I know what the intention is.

Deputy Catherine Martin

The amendment does not refer to a person. It simply substitutes "an unfair preference is not given" for "they do not give an unfair preference". Is the Deputy wondering whether this only applies to political parties?

Deputy Denis Naughten

Yes. That is what the Minister said. I am asking about Independent Members, namely, people who are not members of any political party.

Deputy Catherine Martin

The Bill does read "political party", so perhaps that is something we need to examine.

Deputy Denis Naughten

In that case, it would be within the Bill's scope for a broadcaster to give preference to an individual candidate. While I am expressing concern about this as an Independent, there are a number of members - Deputy Cannon is the only party member present at the moment - of, for example, Sinn Féin who might find themselves in a situation in future where their party gives preference to a particular candidate in one constituency over another, which could cause problems. While the party is not given preference, an individual candidate of that party could be given preference, which could discriminate against another candidate. That is not the intention of the legislation, but I am concerned with the way the Bill is worded. Could such a situation arise?

Deputy Catherine Martin

The Deputy’s point is well made. We will examine it and revert on Report Stage.

Deputy Denis Naughten

Perfect.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 22, line 4, to delete “section 139W(6) or (8)” and substitute “subsection (6) or (8) of section 139ZE”.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 25, 27 and 28 are related and will be discussed together.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 22, between lines 33 and 34, 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.”.

The intention of this amendment is to ensure that some of those who are on the coimisiún have competency in the Irish language, given that coimisiún na meán will not just be dealing with the English-speaking media, but also with Irish language media. As the Minister has stated, there is an increase in Irish language media, particularly in light of the increased investment in TG4. I have hopes for Raidió Rí-Rá in this regard. I also hope that more work will be done by RTÉ to fulfil its duties and responsibilities. It would be a sad day if we set up Coimisiún na Meán without ensuring that its chairperson and at least one other member of its board - I hope that there would be more than one such member - were competent in the use of Irish. Ensuring competence would reflect some of the intention of the Official Languages (Amendment) Act 2021, under which there is a duty on the State to encourage various boards to promote the Irish language. In this case, it would be more than just encouragement. There should be a duty to ensure that an coimisiún can hear and take evidence and examine matters raised with it in Irish, which would prevent it from ending up like other State bodies where there have been delays because complaints, reports and communications were made in Irish.

Sin an fáth gur chóir glacadh leis na leasuithe seo. Níl sé i gceist againn go mbeadh cáilíocht ó thaobh na Gaeilge de nó inniúlacht sa Ghaeilge mar dhualgas ar chuile dhuine de na coimisinéirí nó chuile dhuine ar an bhfoireann. Cheana féin, de thairbhe Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla, beidh ar 20% d’fhoireann an choimisiúin, nó dóibh siúd a bheidh á n-earcú amach anseo, a bheith líofa sa Ghaeilge. Tá muidne den tuairim gur chóir go mbeadh sé sin ann ó thús, seachas fanacht ar an gcoiste comhairliúcháin atá ag an Aire agus an dáta deiridh atá ann sula dtarlóidh sé sin in 2030. Tá na trí leasú seo gaolta lena chéile. Ní hamháin an cathaoirleach agus baill an choimisiúin ach an fhoireann atá i gceist chomh maith.

Deputy Catherine Martin

Gabhaim buíochas leis na Teachtaí Ó Snodaigh, Munster agus Mythen as a gcuid leasuithe. I leasuithe Uimh. 25, 27 agus 28, iarrtar inniúlacht sa Ghaeilge a bheith ag bunlíon de bhaill fhoirne nó coimisinéirí i gcoimisiún na meán.

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 2021 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 BAI is specified as a public body in the First Schedule of 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. 28, which seeks to replicate the provisions of section 18C(3)(b) of the Official Languages Act within this Bill.

Mar an gcéanna, ní ghlacaim le leasú Uimh. 27, a d’éileodh go mbeadh inniúlacht sa Ghaeilge ag 30% nó níos mó de na coimisinéirí agus 20% nó níos mó de bhaill fhoirne choimisiún na meán. Soláthraíonn Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla an bonn do chuspóir a bhaineann le comhlachtaí poiblí. Ní fheicim go bhfuil fiúntas i gceanglas sonrach a chur i bhfeidhm ar choimisiún na meán.

I cannot accept amendment No. 25, which would require the executive chairperson and one other commissioner to be competent in the use of the Irish language. I am advised that this provision is unnecessarily restrictive. I would note that the recruitment booklet for the role of media development commissioner advertised in July identified competency in the Irish language as a desirable quality.

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 to provide for that recruitment is through the recruitment process for commissioners rather than in legislation.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Tuigim an méid a dúirt an tAire ó thaobh leasú Uimh. 28 agus tá mé sásta é sin a tharraingt siar.

Ó thaobh na dhá leasuithe eile, má táimid ag glacadh leis an loighic atá taobh thiar den straitéis atá leagtha síos againn ó thaobh an Stáit de agus ó thaobh Achta na dTeangacha Oifigiúla (Leasú) 2021 de, ba chóir go mbeadh muid ag dul chun cinn agus ag déanamh cinnte de go mbeadh ní hamháin desirable attribute ag na heagrais Stáit ar fad ó thús ó thaobh na Gaeilge de ach, toisc go bhfuil gá docht daingean ann, go mbeadh Gaeilge ag an gcathaoirleach ach go háirithe. B'fhéidir nach dtuigeann a lán daoine cé chomh tábhachtach is atá sé ó thaobh na Gaeilge de go bhfuil sí le feiceáil agus le cloisteáil ag gach uile ócáid agus go bhfuil Gaeilge den scoth ag na daoine atá ag labhairt thar cheann an Stáit nó, sa chás seo, thar cheann na meán ar fad, go bhfuil tuiscint acu agus go bhfuil siad in ann na polasaithe agus a leithéid a chur chun cinn. Má tá siad ag labhairt ag cruinniú inmheánach, ar na meáin féin nó ar ócáid, ba cheart go mbeadh siad in ann casadh ar an nGaeilge chun é sin a chur trasna agus chun aitheantas agus íomhá a thabhairt gur tír dhátheangach muid agus go bhfuilimid breá sásta go bhfuil an Ghaeilge chomh feiceálach sin.

An tseachtain seo caite rinne mé agallamh le beirt dalta meánscoile, agus ceann de na ceisteanna a chuir siad agus iad ag caint faoin nGaeilge ná conas gur féidir fáil réidh leis an stigma atá ann maidir leis an Gaeilge ó thaobh post de. Má cheapann déagóirí go bhfuil stigma ann ó thaobh Gaeilge a fhoghlaim agus nach bhfuil aon ghá ann do phoist, an t-aon bhealach leis sin a bhriseadh ná déanamh cinnte de go bhfuil ualach nó dualgais bhreise orthu siúd atá mór le rá ó thaobh an Stáit de a bheith líofa sa Ghaeilge. Tá mé fós chun leasuithe Uimh. 25 agus 27 a bhrú. Ó thaobh an chathaoirligh de, ní hualach mór é. Glacaimid leis go bhfuil an Béarla i gceist, mar sin nílimid ag caint faoi daoine gan scileanna ar leith. Ní bheadh aon duine ag caint faoi duine le Gaeilge amháin agus le Fraincis. Ba chóir go mbeadh muid ag féachaint air seo ó thaobh an chathaoirligh agus, ar a laghad, duine amháin eile sa choimisiún le Gaeilge. Chuideodh sé sin. Tá suas le sé coimisinéirí san iomlán i gceist, mar sin bheifí ag teacht an-ghar go 30% dá mbeifí ag déanamh cinnte de go mbeadh an bheirt acu sin líofa sa Ghaeilge. A lán díobh atá sna meáin, tá Gaeilge den scoth acu agus ba chóir go mbeadh muid ag déanamh cinnte de go bhfuilimid ag tabhairt deise breise dóibh an Ghaeilge sin a chur chun cinn. Cé nach bhfuilimid tar éis glacadh leis na leasuithe uaim agus ó na Teachtaí Munster agus Mythen ó thaobh na Gaeilge de, tá loighic ann go mbeadh an Ghaeilge ag coimisinéir agus ag an gcathaoirleach agus go mbeadh an fhreagracht bhreise sin ag an gcoimisiún chun an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn. Sin an loighic leis na leasuithe seo.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 25, line 36, to delete “a nominee of the person” and substitute “a person acting on behalf of the person”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 27, between lines 5 and 6, 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.”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 28 not moved.

Chairman

Amendment No. 29 has been ruled out of order.

Amendment No. 29 not moved.

Deputy Denis Naughten

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 32, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

“(13) 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.”.

We have moved this amendment that "within 180 days of the passage of this Act [the Minister would] 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". As the officials will know, this is an issue that was discussed at length a number of years ago. The intention was to reduce the levy to the independent broadcasters, in recognition of the public service remit they are providing through the radio stations. The rules in Standing Orders mean it is not possible for me to table such an amendment here as it would be ruled out of order by the Chair, so I have used this mechanism to raise this issue with the Minister in the hope she can indicate that she is prepared to look again at the broadcasting levy.

One of the big problems with the broadcasting levy as it is structured is that it is regressive and disproportionate, particularly for smaller radio stations. They are the ones that are struggling to remain viable and yet they are the most important aspect of the broadcasting network at local level throughout the country. We have taken the decision, and rightly so, to waive the fees for community radio stations. We are unique globally in having a thriving community radio station network. It is a positive development that we are waiving those fees. With the way the levy is calculated currently, all broadcasters, regardless of size or turnover, pay the same percentage on the first tranche of money. Following that, the more money a broadcaster makes, the less of a percentage they pay on those higher amounts. It disproportionately penalises the smaller stations. The intention behind this is to give recognition to the public information role provided by radio stations.

This came to the fore during Storm Ophelia and Storm Emma. Storm Ophelia was the high winds of 2017, which led to a tragic loss of life. A huge amount of our electricity network throughout the country was disrupted, and that had a knock-on impact on broadband and mobile phone coverage. The only way the State could get vital public information out to communities throughout this country was through local radio stations and the local radio network. The same happened with Storm Emma, or the beast from the east as it was called, in spring 2018. A huge amount of our existing infrastructure was brought down, and we are becoming more reliant on broadband and electricity. One is co-dependent on the other. If electricity goes, our broadband and mobile networks go, and as a result of that the only mechanism to get a message across to the public is through our local radio stations.

When we do the be winter-ready campaign, one of the elements in relation to that should be to actively encourage people to have an old radio and a set of batteries so that they can tune in to the local radio station and get updates on the return of electricity, on water supplies, emergency services and where services can be availed of, because it is only on a local radio station that such a level of information can be given out. During those two especially severe weather events, we were all so dependent on our local radio stations to give us vital information. RTÉ and the national broadcasters were great, but they were not going to be able to tell a rural townland in County Roscommon or County Galway when their electricity was likely to be back. They could not go into that level of detail. However, the local radio station could and did give it. That must be recognised. There should be recognition in terms of a reduction in the broadcasting levy. That was before we saw the financial impact of Covid-19 on many broadcasters. Many of the smaller ones now are struggling at this stage. They are the ones that are so vital across many rural areas. Could the Minister look at the proposals and commitments that have been given previously for a reduction in the broadcasting levy, and provide us with clarity and an intention to come back on Report Stage to amend the legislation in this area.

Deputy Seán Canney

I support my colleague, Deputy Naughten, in what he said. I reiterate that in a constituency like Galway East, where we have had a significant amount of flooding for a long period and where many local roads were blocked, local radio proved to be a vital information tool to direct people on how to access their homes, to know where to go and what was going on in terms of electricity cuts. That is very important.

The other benefit provided by local radio stations is the local connection for people who are at home who want to listen to their local club match on the radio and to hear how things are going every Saturday and Sunday evening. A great service is being provided by local radio stations. They are very much part of the fabric of society, especially in rural areas. Where people cannot go to matches or local mass, they can hear coverage on the radio. All of that kind of service is now provided by local radio stations and we take it for granted now. The industry is under severe pressure and this would be an indication that we do support it and that we recognise the service they provide, which goes beyond what any national broadcaster will ever be able to do. For that reason, it is so important that we support local radio stations.

Deputy Imelda Munster

The previous speakers have already covered it, but I want to add my voice to the fact that there is a strong argument for a reduction in the levy given the function and role of local radio and the service provided to local communities the length and breadth of the State, both from an information point of view and in terms of the public service remit. We are all aware of local radio stations in our area. The listenership is of massive proportions. People might listen to national radio for an hour or so, but inevitably they will always switch back to their local radio for news and, as other speakers have said, for information following storms. Local radio can offer all of that vital information to local communities. There is justification for a reduction in the levy, given that they pay the same levy as other stations that have a far bigger listenership and revenue. It does not seem fair and a reduction in the levy is warranted.

Deputy Johnny Mythen

I support the amendment as well. Last Christmas, we had a major issue in my area, in Bridgetown, which was nearly wiped out by flooding. The local radio informed people where trees and electricity lines were down. Seven bridges were wiped out. Without the information, people would have been in dire trouble. Local radio provides a great service and it should be supported. The levy should be reduced.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I thank the Deputies who tabled the amendment and those who contributed on it. As they said, the Bill already provides that community broadcasters will not be liable for the industry levy, so this is focused on commercial radio broadcasters. I value the service being provided by local radio. I grew up not too far from Deputy Munster and I relied on LMFM and Northern Sound. I know the value of local radio in rural Ireland.

The industry levy contained in section 21 of the Broadcasting Act, as substituted by the Bill, is based on the principle that each category of service pays for the cost of activities related to that service so that there is no cross-subsidisation of one sector by another. This is an important general regulatory principle and one I do not think we should depart from. However, it is important to note that the Bill already provides that up to 50% of the cost of regulating broadcasting can be met through the TV licence. This was carried over from the Broadcasting Bill, which Deputy Naughten in particular progressed. However, the Deputies will also be aware that a technical working has been established to look at reforms to the TV licence and we must let that group complete its work. Members will also be aware of the additional funding I mentioned earlier that has been put in place for radio through the sound and vision fund. These supports will also be available at an increased level through the media fund. I am committed to radio and I believe these measures will help.

Deputy Denis Naughten

I thank the Minister for her comments in response to the amendment and her commitment to and recognition of local radio stations and the important role they play. The difficulty I have here is that, as the Minister said, up to 50% of the cost of the levy can be met from the TV licence fee. That is not to say it will be met from the TV licence fee. As we all know well, the difficulty is that when the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform get their claws into this, nothing will happen. What we are seeking is greater clarity on the commitment that there is a determination, in particular for the smaller stations, that they would see a reduction in the levy and that there would be a recognition of the important public service role they play. We have seen at first hand the importance of these stations during Storm Ophelia and Storm Emma. My fear is that with the commercial squeeze that is being put on many of the smaller radio stations the current disproportionate structure of the broadcasting levy would result in many of them going out of business. We would see the amalgamation of stations take place that will not be able to give the information, for example, on what went on in Bridgetown, or when the electricity will be back in 50 townlands across a listenership area. That is the type of detail that was provided during Storm Ophelia and Storm Emma. It is not possible for RTÉ or regional radio stations to give that level of detail. They can advise people to go on to their websites or Twitter accounts for a breakdown in that regard but the reality is that if the electricity to the local mobile phone mast is gone down, and the broadband cable is damaged, along with the electricity cable, people have no Internet. Any online forum is of no use. The only way to get a message to people across the board is through the local radio station.

We must make sure that those radio stations can survive. That is why I ask the Minister to accept the amendment. I know her commitment and that of her officials in this regard but I ask her to reconsider this between now and Report Stage to see if we can provide a greater level of assurance and clarity regarding the reduction in the broadcasting levy and ensure that it is far more proportionate and recognises to a far greater extent the vital role played by these local broadcasters across the country in times of emergency.

Deputy Seán Canney

The important thing is we catch something in this legislation or some commitment is made rather than leaving it in abeyance, because if it drifts from this legislation and this opportunity, we could rue what we have done. When the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform gets its hands on it, it will be a different kettle of fish. Even from a music industry point of view, it is very important we take into account the number of local people who get airtime on local stations, which helps their profile and helps develop arts and culture throughout the country at local level. Many local artists get a platform at local radio station level. It is important we continue to support that as well as all the other services they offer. I implore the Minister to have a good look at this again on Report Stage.

Deputy Ciarán Cannon

I thank the Minister for her observations. It is great to hear a Minister who is very much aware of the power and value of local radio. While these stations are ultimately commercial ventures, they serve a particular public need. They are not obliged to in the main but they feel they must. Many of us in this room have cited those occasions on which local radio becomes vital in terms of communicating directly with local communities. I hope that in how we look at how we structure and fund the provision of public service news gathering and dissemination in the future, and that is across print and broadcast, we strike that balance to ensure the public service remit of local radio is supported, as we have done recently with our print media. I hope a similar gesture of support is extended to local broadcasters. It is vital this happens. They have that public service remit and within the broader spectrum of supporting public service news gathering and dissemination and in acknowledgement of the very difficult financial circumstances in which the vast majority find themselves haemorrhaging advertising revenue to social media platforms. It is time to extend that hand of support as best we can in the context of an overall examination of how we fund public service journalism in the future.

Chairman

Is the amendment being pressed?

Deputy Denis Naughten

I would like to hear a response from the Minister.

Deputy Catherine Martin

As I said, the Bill provides for up to 50%. I understand the Deputy's concerns about the word "can", but that technical group is looking at how that could be applied. Deputy Canney knows his target audience. He went for the soft spot when he mentioned music with me. He got there before Deputy Cannon. The Department has provided funding in the sound and vision fund for musicians. I appreciate that value. There is no disputing it. I am not sure if we can go further but I will commit to examining it and coming back on Report Stage.

Deputy Denis Naughten

On that basis, I will withdraw the amendment with leave to reintroduce on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 32, line 33, to delete “monies” and substitute “moneys”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 33, lines 12 and 13, to delete “Central Fund” and substitute “Exchequer”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 36, line 25, 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 and use of Irish as a spoken language in media, and”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 36, line 37, after “statement” to insert “, in both official languages,”.

This amendment will ensure not only will the report of the commission laid before the Houses but also there will be a specific duty to ensure it reaches the joint committee. In the past, various commission reports were laid before the Houses and committees were sometimes too busy or were unaware of them. In recent years in particular, we have seen that committees have taken a greater oversight role and this would be one of those. The amendment would ensure the report in both official languages would be laid before the committee with responsibility for the media

Tá sé i gceist go mbeadh an ról áirithe ag na coistí chun déanamh cinnte de níos mó ná sracfhéachaint a thabhairt ar an méid atá le rá ag an gcoimisiún nuair a dhéanann sé ráiteas bliantúil nó a leithéid. Is é an fáth go bhfuil mé ag déanamh cinnte de go mbeidh na tuairiscí bliantúla acu as Gaeilge agus as Béarla ná gur minic a tharlaíonn sé go n-eisítear an tuairisc bhliantúil i mBéarla amháin agus go dtagann an ceann Gaeilge ina dhiaidh sin. Uaireanta, tagann sí i bhfad oiread ródhéanach le go mbeadh aon fhiúntas ceart le baint aisti.

Ní hamháin go mbeadh an coimisiún ag comhlíonadh a dhualgais reachtúil dlíthiúil trí na tuairiscí a fhoilsiú go comhuaineach i nGaeilge agus i mBéarla, bheadh sé ag cuidiú leo siúd a bheadh ag iarraidh díospóireacht a bheith acu sna coistí trí Ghaeilge. Is minic nach mbíonn Baill de cheachtar an dá Thí sásta tabhairt faoi nithe atá casta toisc nach bhfuil an fhoclóireacht acu ná an doiciméad ar fáil os a gcomhair as Gaeilge. Is cuidiú é seo. Chomh maith leis sin, is dualgas reachtúil é ó thaobh na Gaeilge de, ar an gcoimisiún atá á bhunadh, go dtuigfeadh sé i dtús báire nach amháin go mbeidh na tuairiscí as Gaeilge ach go mbeadh sé ag teacht os comhair an choiste. Is i leasú Uimh. 35 ach go háirithe a ndéantar cinnte de nach amháin go leagtar os comhair Thithe an Oireachtais an tuairisc bhliantúil ach go mbeadh sé ag teacht os comhair coiste agus go mbeadh dualgas ar an gcoiste déileáil leis. Tá dualgas ar leith ag an gcoiste a bhfuil mise mar Chathaoirleach air maidir le TG4 agus an Coimisinéir Teanga. Ba chóir go mbeadh dualgas agus freagracht air agus go dtuigfeadh an coimisiún agus an cathaoirleach go mbeadh orthu teacht os comhair an choiste, ar a laghad uair sa bhliain, chun déileáil leis an tuairisc bhliantúil acu.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I thank the Deputy for his amendments. Before turning to matters of language, I must note that it is not usual practice to lay documents before specified Oireachtas committees which are already being laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. On that basis, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 35 and 38.

Amendments Nos. 34, 36 and 37 require the annual report and statement of strategy to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas in both official languages. These amendments appear to replicate the requirements of section 10 of the Official Languages Act 2003, as amended. Given that the BAI is listed as a public body under the Official Languages Act, coimisiún na meán will be covered by that Act by virtue of the transitional provisions set out in the Bill. Mar sin ní bheidh mé ag glacadh leis na leasuithe seo.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Tuigim é sin. Tá mé ag iarraidh déanamh cinnte de go bhfuil na forálacha sin in Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla achtaithe go hiomlán. Bhíomar ag caint faoi na forálacha eile níos luaithe nach bhfuil i bhfeidhm go fóill. Glacaim leis go bhfuil an tAire ag rá go bhfuil feidhm leo agus go mbeidh coimisiún na meán nó aon cheann eile ag foilsiú doiciméid go dátheangach as seo amach. Is iad na doiciméid atá i gceist agam anseo ná an tuairisc bhliantúil agus an ráiteas straitéiseach.

Chairman

Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I was asking the Minister whether she would confirm that part of the Official Languages Act had been fully enacted because the Official Languages Act 2003 has not been, and the duties have not kicked in as of yet.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I will come back to the Deputy on that. I understand the concern he as raised earlier as well. I can see the need for certainty.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 36, line 37, after “Oireachtas” to insert the following:

“and before the Joint Oireachtas Committees responsible for media matters and matters relating to the Irish speaking community”.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 36, line 38, after “statement” to insert “, in both official languages,”

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 38, line 15, after “report” to insert “, in both official languages,”.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 38, line 16, after “Oireachtas” to insert “and before the Joint Oireachtas Committee”.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 38, between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following:

“(8) (a) The Commission shall, following consultation with Raidió Rí-Rá, RTÉ, Foras na Gaeilge, Conradh na Gaeilge, 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.”.

Le tamall fada de bhlianta anuas, tá comhrá ann maidir le stáisiún raidió a bheith dírithe ar an óige. Chuala mé na Teachtaí eile ag lua raidió áitiúil. Níl an tionchar céanna ag raidió áitiúil sa chathair seo agus atá thíos na tíre. Tá tionchar ar leith ar Raidió na Gaeltachta ní hamháin ar cheantair Ghaeltachta ach orthu siúd atá ag foghlaim na Gaeilge agus orthu siúd ón Ghaeltacht atá lasmuigh di. Táimid ag moladh go gcuirfeadh sprioc-am ar an gcoimisiún, nuair atá sé bunaithe, tuairisc a bheith foilsithe aige agus é curtha faoi bhráid an Aire, Thithe an Oireachtais agus Choiste na Gaeilge, na Gaeltachta agus Phobal Labhartha na Gaeilge a bhfuil freagra air maidir leis na meáin laistigh de bhliain.

Conas is féidir linn dul chun cinn a dhéanamh maidir le stáisiún raidió do dhaoine óga? Go dtí seo, tá a lán cainte faoi. Tá iniúchadh áirithe déanta ach níl sé leagtha amach go soiléir conas is féidir linn bogadh ó chéim ar a bhfuilimid faoi láthair go dtí an chéim ar ar chóir go mbeimis, áit ina mbeadh stáisiún raidió ann don óige. Luaigh an tAire níos luaithe an dul chun cinn suntasach atá déanta ó thaobh na teilifíse de. Tá gach uile dhuine ar an oileán ag tabhairt tacaíochta don mhéid a bhí fógartha maidir leis an airgead atá á chur ar leataobh chun TG4 do dhaoine óga a bhunadh mar chainéal ar leith. Níl aon duine chun cur ina choinne.

Is é a mhacasamhail atá i gceist ó thaobh an stáisiúin raidió seo do dhaoine óga. Níl an ceangal nó meas – b’fhéidir gurb é an focal mícheart é - ag daoine óga ar Raidió na Gaeltachta. Tá siad ag iarraidh go mbeadh ceol acu agus go mbeadh na cláir dírithe orthu agus ar an saol atá á chaitheamh acu trí Ghaeilge ar scoileanna Gaeilge nó Gaeltachta. Tá siad ag iarraidh go mbeadh ceol as Gaeilge agus ceol domhanda á chraoladh air ach go mbeadh sé craolta as Gaeilge. Tá sórt samplaí déanta againn thar na blianta. Faightear Raidió na Life anseo sa chathair ach níl sé ag craoladh ar bhonn náisiúnta. Bíonn Raidió Rí-Rá ann ar feadh tréimhse le linn Sheachtain na Gaeilge agus léirítear ag an am go bhfuil spéis ann agus go bhfuil an óige sásta díriú isteach agus éisteacht a thabhairt dó. Tá Raidió Fáilte sna Sé Chontae, áit a bhfuil a lán daoine óga ag éisteacht leis na cláir atá dírithe ar an óige.

Bheadh sé deacair dá mbeifí ag cur brú ar Raidió na Gaeltachta breis a dhéanamh mar níl ach méid áirithe ama ann agus tá sé níos deacra nuair a thosaíonn tú á roinnt idir spéis nó gnó agus díriú isteach ar dhaoine óga. Is é an fáth go bhfuil 2FM ná gur bunaíodh an dara cainéal ó Radio 1. D'aithin siad ag an am go raibh gá ann díriú isteach ar an óige ach níor thug 2FM meas riamh ar an nGaeilge. Ní dhearna sé iarracht cheart riamh déileáil léi nó an pobal óg Gaeilge a tharraingt ina threo. Chuir sé sin leis an mbrú agus an t-éileamh chun go mbeadh stáisiún ar leith ann do dhaoine óga a bheadh ag craoladh as Gaeilge.

Deputy Catherine Martin

This amendment seeks to make statutory provision for consultation on the provision of a dedicated Irish-language youth radio service. I will not accept this amendment because the Future of Media Commission recommended that coimisiún na meán undertake a comprehensive review of the provision of Irish language services across the media system and the results of that review will inform developing any actions necessary in this area. Tá sé tábhachtach a thabhairt faoi deara freisin go gcaithfí aon mholadh do sheirbhís raidió nua a chur ar aghaidh tríd an gcreat rialála atá ann cheana féin. D’ainneoin ár dtiomantas do thacaíocht leanúnach na Gaeilge agus d'fhorbairt na Gaeilge, ní hé foráil reachtúil a dhéanamh an bealach is oiriúnaí chun tuilleadh seirbhísí Gaeilge a bhaint amach.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Tuigim é sin. Níor chóir go mbeimis ag an stad seo agus is é sin an frustrachas atá ann. Is é sin an fáth nach bhfuil ach ag lorg tuairisce. B'fhearr liomsa go mbeadh a fhios againn go bhfuil sé seo ag tarlú ar aon chaoi ach níl am againn. Tá an t-airgead curtha ar leataobh agus na féidearthachtaí ann. Cá bhfuil an straitéis lonnaithe áfach? Cá bhfuil an t-earcú á dhéanamh dóibh siúd a bheadh ag déanamh an chraolacháin seo. Ní raibh daoine ag lorg go mbeadh aon athrú ar an reachtaíocht ó thaobh TG4 agus Cúla 4, an cainéal nua a bheadh acu. Ní raibh siad ag iarraidh go mbeadh sé lonnaithe sa reachtaíocht mar thuig siad go raibh bogadh chun cinn agus athruithe ag tarlú agus go raibh na féidearthachtaí ar fad leagtha síos cheana féin.

Tá mé sásta an leasú seo a tharraingt siar ach gealltanas a fháil go mbeidh an tAire agus, tá súil agam, an coimisiún ag obair sa treo seo. Ní féidir linn fad rófhada a ghlacadh. Is é an fáth go bhfuilimid ag caint faoi bhliain ná go bhfuil an obair ar fad déanta. Tá sé leagtha amach cé ar a bhfuil an cainéal nua seo dírithe, cá as ar chóir don airgead teacht agus cad iad na féidearthachtaí ar fad ann. D’fhéadfainn a rá go raibh sé seo simplí agus nach raibh ann ach ceadúnas a thabhairt dóibh ach is é sin é. Nuair atá an ceadúnas ar fáil, is féidir le cuid mhór den chuid eile tarlú i bhfad oiread níos tapúla.

Is stáisiún gairmiúil Ghaeilge don aos óg é. Tá mise sean go leor gur chuimhin liom na stáisiúin bhradacha ar fad. Bhí roinnt dóibh sin gairmiúil amach is amach, agus nuair a tháinig an t-athrú air ó thaobh ceadúnais de, chuaigh a lán dóibh siúd a bhí ag craoladh ag an am isteach sna stáisiúin dhleathacha. Tá a fhios againn go bhfuil daoine ann cheana féin atá in ann stáisiún Raidió Rí-Rá a chur sa tsúil mar a léirítear é gach uile bhliain. Tá na craoltóirí ann agus tá daoine óga ann atá ag gabháil don cheird seo cheana féin nach féidir leo é a dhéanamh ag an leibhéal ar mhaith leo toisc nach ceird ghairmiúil é dóibh. Is é sin an fáth go bhfuilimid ag lorg go mbeidh sé gairmiúil, náisiúnta agus dírithe isteach ar dhaoine óga agus go mbeidh bogadh chun cinn ann seachas muid ag fanacht ar aon bhealach níos faide ná mar ba chóir dúinn.

Deputy Catherine Martin

Aithním an spéis ar leith atá ag an Teachta san ábhar seo. Tá an spéis chéanna agam ann. Aithním an frustrachas freisin.

I will give some further information on this. The BAI, through its Irish language services advisory committee, which includes representatives from broadcasters and Irish language organisations, is carrying out a research project to ascertain the potential demand for such a service, the kind of content which such a service would provide, and the implications for the FM spectrum. I expect its report before the end of the year. If it can be done, I want it to be done. I hope the report will be helpful on that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 41, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:

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

The amendment is to ensure that self regulation of advertising is not included in the Bill. When we were engaging with stakeholders, this was something that came up time and again. Self regulation relies on an industry for its monitoring and control and then it becomes the police, judge and jury. That reason alone makes it a recipe for failure. Time and again it was pointed out that the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland, ASAI, code for advertising, particularly where the marketing of food and beverages to children is concerned, is very weak. The statutory rules for television adverting require advance clearance of ads, but the ASAI can only act on potential breaches after complaints have been made following broadcast. That is futile. The futility of allowing self-regulation was highlighted repeatedly at the committee's hearings and it was pointed out that it is not proper regulation. That is why I tabled this amendment.

Deputy Catherine Martin

Amendment No. 42 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. 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. Accordingly, I cannot accept amendments that would appear to contradict the directive.

Deputy Imelda Munster

That is very disappointing given that, when we did have engagement, this was something that came up repeatedly. When an industry regulates itself, then it decides and has an interest, which obviously means the regulation can be as weak as bedamned. It is not really regulation because it has an interest. Industry's policing or monitoring of it will be watery, to say the least. When we are at this stage, self-regulation should not be included in the Bill for obvious reasons.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Ciarán Cannon took the Chair.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 44, line 29, to delete “section 139ZK” and substitute “section 139ZS”

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Deputy Denis Naughten

I have two queries on section 7 that I want to raise. First, on the individual complaints mechanism, I have read through the amendments and it seems very vague on the powers of the media commission to force the big tech companies to deal with an actual complaint. I refer to amendment No. 118 which refers to the new section 139T(1)(a). It mentions "referring the complaint to the provider concerned with such advice, guidance or support as the Commission considers appropriate". In terms of a complaint, going to the big tech companies in relation to the provision of advice or guidance is far too weak. All of us here and many of our constituents have had personal experience of dealing with the tech companies. Any individual who is unfortunate enough to have had a run-in with a tech company knows they are not that interested in what a complainant has to say.

I ask the Minister to make a clarification on the powers that the media commission has to force the tech companies to act on a complaint when a genuine complaint is being made.

The second issue I want to raise also concerns the powers of the commission. It relates to the right to be forgotten. In the Minister's contribution on section 7, she made the point that one of the first aspects of the media fund that is going to be looked at is the issue of court reporting. One of the key purposes of court reporting is to report in public what has gone on in court. Court hearings are supposed to be held in public and the reports are supposed to be published for that reason. There have been a number of instances where Google has used the right to be forgotten to actually expunge the public record in relation to convicted sex offenders. I believe that for the sake of victims who have lived with the consequences of these perpetrators, and that of any potential future victims, those convicted of sexual offences should lose the right to be forgotten on a permanent basis. Google should not facilitate the deletion of these records. The law on GDPR clearly states that companies like Google have a legitimate reason for rejecting requests for the erasure of such records when it is in the public interest. I believe that above all areas where it is in the public interest, records of conviction for sexual offences should remain available to search via Google or any other search engine. Those records should never be delisted. Yet, the big tech companies are doing this. I believe that the commission has a role to play here in ensuring that companies such as Google protect the court records, ensure that they are searchable and accessible, and that where victims waive the right of anonymity, the very last thing that should happen is that a tech company down the road decides that it is going to delist that particular record. That is a further abuse of the victims involved. I ask the Minister to look at the issue in advance on Report Stage of this Bill.

Deputy Niamh Smyth resumed the Chair.

Chairman

Does the Minister wish to respond?

Deputy Catherine Martin

On the Deputy's first point, the online safety codes deal with the rules on complaints handling. If companies do not abide by the codes that they have signed up to, they will be fined or sanctioned as set out in the provisions. An coimisiún will also have the power to demand that platforms remove particular content. That is how that will be dealt with. In relation to the right to be forgotten, it is a data protection matter. It is not for coimisiún na meán to deal with; it is more for the Minister for Justice. It is a matter for the Data Protection Commission.

Deputy Denis Naughten

I will look at both issues and come back on Report Stage. I accept the point the Minister has made regarding data protection but this Bill is about online safety. We are talking about cases where safe information can be provided to people online, yet records are being erased. I ask the Minister to look and see if there are any additional powers that the commission could have in this area to ensure that the law, as set out in the GDPR, is actually applied by the tech companies. The issue is not the law; the issue is how the tech companies are failing to implement the law as has been passed by this Parliament and parliaments right across Europe.

Question put and agreed to.

Chairman

Amendment No. 44, under the names of Deputies Ó Snodaigh, Munster and Mythen, has been ruled out of order.

Amendment No. 44 not moved.

NEW SECTIONS

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I move amendment No. 45:

In page 45, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:

“Duties to the whole community of the island of Ireland

8. 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.”.”.

Amendment No. 45 is one of a series of amendments that we have tabled, which deals with a number of issues. In this instance, it concerns the issue, as someone described it to me, of the decapitated teddy bear that appears on the television every now and again. When the map of Ireland appears, suddenly a whole section is removed and the Six Counties do not exist for the purposes of weather forecasts and other programmes. There must be a duty to ensure that the island as a whole is reflected in weather forecasts. People may wish to ignore it, but Ireland is still an island. We should not leave a blank space there. The Six Counties have not disappeared or gone into space. One of the other amendments that was ruled out of order addresses the issue of geoblocking and the RTÉ Player service not extending to parts of the Six Counties. The purpose of amendment No. 45 is to ensure that the national public service broadcaster will have a duty to reflect the island as a whole, and that any graphic or pictorial representation will be faithful, as it were, to the island of Ireland as a geographical whole. As I have said, this amendment is an attempt on our part to ensure that that is reflected. People have been raising the issue for many years. Parts of Ireland disappear as if they do not exist. In the case of geoblocking, those who are accepted as part of the Irish nation under the Constitution have no rights. I do not live in the Border region, but as other Deputies here will be able to attest to, there needs to be a proper approach on a national basis to prevent restrictions and ensure that broadcasting continues throughout the island and that no mechanism is put in place that restricts the national broadcasters from one part of the island to the other.

Deputy Catherine Martin

As I noted when this issue was raised in the Seanad, I understand the intention of the amendment and why it is troubling for people living on the island of Ireland watching the public service broadcasters to see their part of the island of Ireland removed from maps. I just do not think we should prescribe in legislation what RTÉ and TG4 can or cannot display or show. Under section 98 of the Broadcasting Act 2009, both public service broadcasters are required to be independent in their day-to-day operations, which includes editorial independence as regards programming content.

The purpose of that independence is to prevent political interference in the operation of RTÉ and TG4. Prescribing the format or content of programming in such a detailed manner, no matter how well-intentioned, would run contrary to the principle of editorial independence and, as legislators, I do not think we should make law regarding the types of content that may be shown on our public broadcasters to this degree of granularity. I acknowledge the amendment seeks to address a number of incidents that offended many people, but I cannot accept it because it would set a wider precedent for the regulation in primary legislation of specific types of content.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I understand that, in some ways, the amendment does seek to address what is probably an editorial decision, namely, to leave out certain counties, but I find it odd that a national broadcaster, or any broadcaster for that matter, would purposely blank them out. In some cases, programmes do not even show the island as a whole, which is bizarre. It is not even that the Six Counties are a different colour, for example; they are just left out. That is not political interference but rather an editorial decision.

What I am asking is reflective of the Constitution, concerning the birthright of every person born on the island of Ireland to be part of that nation, and there is a description in the Constitution regarding what the island of Ireland is. It is not just the singular, large island but also includes the seas around it. I find it odd. If I thought it could be achieved by encouraging national broadcasters, or any broadcasters that get a licence from the State and that will be regulated by the coimisiún, to ensure it does not happen, I would be happy with that. People have complained over the years, however, and that has fallen on deaf ears or a blind eye has been turned. That is why the amendment and other amendments that were ruled out of order were submitted.

I will return to the matter at a later stage to address it, perhaps in respect of other legislation, and I will continue to raise it with the Minister if the amendment is not acceptable. I will table a similar amendment on Report Stage and look to see whether there is a mechanism or wording that would satisfy, and would not be seen to interfere with, the impartiality and the commercial sensitivities of broadcasters. We are not trying to interfere in their work. Rather, we are trying to set out what Ireland is in order that if a broadcaster is announcing the weather forecast for Ireland, the Six Counties will not just disappear. That is strange.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I again refer to section 29 of the Broadcasting Act 2009, whereby both public service broadcasters are required to be independent in their day-to-day operations, which includes editorial independence, a concept I believe the Deputy accepts. Of course, as I said, I understand how it is upsetting for people living on the island of Ireland to see part of their island removed from maps depicted by a public service broadcaster, but I do not think we should prescribe in legislation what RTÉ and TG4 can or cannot display or show. It would set a wider precedent for the regulation of very specific types of content in primary legislation.

Deputy Denis Naughten

We are dancing on the head of a pin here. What Deputy Ó Snodaigh is looking for is very legitimate. We should reflect the geographic island on which we live in how we present something like the weather forecast. Doing so does not come under any editorial independence. The island is an island, full stop. We do not want young people to get the impression that, to drive from Dublin to Letterkenny, they would need to get a ferry because they would have to travel across water. That is bizarre and should not be allowed. Some broadcasters in the UK, when they are announcing the weather forecast, show the weather for Donegal, Sligo, Cavan, Monaghan and so on as well as for the rest of Ulster.

It is a pretty basic request. I accept that the wording of the amendment may not be reflective of what we want, but it is important that any broadcaster in this jurisdiction at least reflect the geography of the island in that broadcast.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I understand what the Minister said about editorial independence and political interference; that goes without saying. Nevertheless, when the national broadcaster is redrawing the map of Ireland, that is something else entirely. It is redrawing the map of Ireland, and Irish people throughout the country, from Derry to Kerry, are seeing six counties having been knocked off the island of Ireland on our national broadcaster. This does not involve political interference. Given RTÉ is publicly funded through the licence system, surely there is some mechanism by which we could resolve this. It is wholly offensive, in the first instance. There has to be something we could do. Are we legally precluded from doing something about it?

Deputy Johnny Mythen

In virtually every geography book, the island of Ireland is there in its entirety. It is a bit ridiculous that this should be an issue. The amendment was never intended to tell RTÉ or anyone else to do anything different from what is done in any other country. There are 32 counties and there is a full island, yet on the news there is a large blank space. It makes us look ridiculous.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I understand the points being made, as someone who grew up in a Border town, but my advice suggests primary legislation is not the place to address this. I think these concerns should perhaps be communicated to the national broadcasters and the committee might wish to communicate them as a follow-on to this discussion. I do not believe primary legislation is where it should be addressed because there is a concern as to the precedent that would set regarding content.

Deputy Imelda Munster

Are we precluded from acting or not? Am I correct in saying that nothing is legally preventing us from doing this?

Deputy Catherine Martin

It goes back to the original point, regarding section 98 of the Broadcasting Act 2009, at the heart of which is editorial independence-----

Deputy Imelda Munster

I accept that but-----

Deputy Catherine Martin

-----so it would be an instruction.

Deputy Imelda Munster

-----we are talking about our island and about the Six Counties just disappearing. We are talking about the national public broadcaster redrawing our island off its own bat. Apart from the fact that is serious, it is very offensive. If nothing legally precludes us from including the amendment, what would be the harm in doing so? Would we not be correct to put something right that should never have been allowed in the first instance?

Deputy Ciarán Cannon

One can see from where the sentiment around this amendment emerges, and it is perfectly laudable. It can be challenging for people in the Border counties or the Six Counties to see themselves disappearing into the ocean. However, the Minister made a very valid point about passing legislation that dictates to an editor responsible for a particular element of output that he or she must draw a particular kind of map. It could apply to any element of public broadcasting. I know the sentiments are validly expressed but it is dangerous territory to put into primary legislation a diktat to an editor or graphic designer as to what he or she must produce on a screen on a particular night. That will leave us open to derision. This is not the route to go down. The Minister is right. Perhaps the committee should have a longer discussion about this issue. If this is something that should be rectified, there is nothing to stop the committee writing to RTÉ and suggesting that this is a change which should be made. I would have no issue with that.

Chairman

The situation probably would be rectified by doing that.

Deputy Ciarán Cannon

Yes.

Chairman

I take the Deputy's point. We have had an open discussion about the topic and have gone around the houses.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Chairman

Amendment No. 46 has been ruled out of order.

Amendment No. 46 not moved.

Chairman

Amendment No. 47 has been ruled out of order.

Amendment No. 47 not moved.

NEW SECTION

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 48, 62, 64 and 84 are related and will be discussed together.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I move amendment No. 48:

In page 45, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:

“Duties to the Irish Language

8. 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.”.”.

These amendments, as the Chairperson said, are related. Amendment No. 48 seeks a requirement for a certain percentage of broadcasting to be done as Gaeilge. Amendment No. 62 seeks to ensure a certain percentage of the music broadcast is in the Irish language or of European origin. Amendment No. 64 relates to a provision that may have been overtaken by Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla. That amendment would require 20% of advertising to be as Gaeilge. Beyond that, we have a report that proposes a move for between 50% and 100% of the advertising on TG4 in particular to be as Gaeilge. I will go through these amendments, bit by bit. Amendment No. 84 is the one from Cumann na Gaeilge.

Amendment No. 48 concerns setting a minimum percentage of the content of television or sound broadcasting to be as Gaeilge. Over the years, we have found that those who were meant, or promised, to ensure a certain percentage never achieved it. That includes the State broadcasters other than TG4 and Raidió na Gaeltachta. The proposal is that the commission would examine this issue, come back within a certain period of time and thereafter set five-year targets, if that is acceptable. It proposes that the commission would publish a report within a year, which could open a discussion about feasibility. Television and radio broadcasters operate under a licence. It is not an open licence. Because the State is granting the licence, it can set conditions. As I said earlier about another amendment, broadcasters accept those conditions. Those are the conditions on which they were granted the licence and they are meant to deliver on them.

Amendment No. 62 speaks in some ways to something Deputy Canney and others mentioned earlier. I have another amendment too. This amendment intends to encourage Irish traditional music by ensuring that a percentage of air time is reserved for it. The threshold is set quite low as the amendment would require at least 5% to be reserved for musical composition containing lyrics mostly in the Irish language by 2025, with that increasing to 10% by 2030. It is to ensure that the content being broadcast fulfils those criteria as a condition of a licence being granted. It would be a means of promoting Irish musicians and ensuring that they benefit.

The amendment also seeks to ensure that lyrics are not only in the English language. There is an element intended to ensure we have music from within the EU in order to diversify the content on radio stations. It would ensure that lyrical content is not only in English, as we have seen on some channels. In many cases, not only do the presenters speak English but the music they present is entirely in the English language. Many of our communities, therefore, do not experience a lot of the music one would hear on the Continent. On the Continent, members of the younger generation in particular switch between languages. There is a predominance of English among teenage and youthful audiences but there are fantastic musicians who cannot be heard on Irish radio.

Amendment No. 64 relates to a matter that is a bugbear for many who love and enjoy TG4. Their frustration is that they are listening and immersed in TG4 before all of a sudden, because of a need for commercially viable, advertising is, in some instances, fully as Béarla. That is fine for some people who can switch between languages but others find that frustrating and it takes them a while to refocus. There is a question as to whether an Irish-language broadcaster should be broadcasting anything in English. I raised that point when I met representatives of TG4 recently. They told me there would be a cost involved but not necessarily a cost on the television station. The cost would fall to those making the advertising. Having spoken to people within the advertising industry, they understand, given what is coming down the track in respect of the Official Languages Act, there will be an increase in funding for Irish-language advertising. They would consider that an incentive. This amendment is intended to ensure the incentive is more than just a few extra advertisements on TG4. It seeks to ensure that TG4 can demand or request of its advertisers that they produce advertisements in Irish. That can include voice-overs when the content is made initially and advertising with no words at all, which many of the clever advertisers are doing at the moment.

Once advertisers know this, it is a lot cheaper to do initially when they are putting an advertisement together rather than having to recast or dub over it. If they understood that this was a requirement under legislation, they would definitely refocus.

Deputy Catherine Martin

Amendments Nos. 48, 62, 64 and 84 would have the effect of setting quotas for the provision of broadcast content and the proportion of advertisements that must be in the Irish language. Deputies may be aware that a number of amendments were proposed on Seanad Committee and Report Stages regarding gender- and nationality-based quotas in respect of musical works on sound broadcasting services and a quota for participation on news and current affairs programmes. I indicated to Senators at the time that I would carefully consider those proposals.

On foot of legal advice from the Attorney General on the proposed quotas considered on foot of the Seanad Stages of the Bill, I decided not to introduce any provision for them here on Committee Stage. Instead, the Government agreed that an amendment should be drafted 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. I intend to introduce these amendments on Report Stage. I raise this now in this context because the advice of the Attorney General has a bearing on my approach to the issue of placing binding quotas for certain types of content in primary legislation.

Amendment No. 48 seeks to impose a general duty on audiovisual media service providers and sound broadcasters in the State to promote the Irish language and requires coimisiún na meán to examine the feasibility and merit of setting out minimum requirements for the provision of content in the Irish language through television programme service and sound broadcasting contracts. As Deputies will be aware, the duties placed on broadcasters through Chapter 2 of Part 3B of the Broadcasting Act, as inserted by section 9, are intended to protect the rights of audiences and individuals rather than to compel broadcasters to take a particular action.

On quotas, as the advice received from the Attorney General in respect of gender-based quotas I referred to earlier indicates, there are a series of complex legal questions associated with quotas relating to competition law and freedom of expression. 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. I agree that we should explore what further steps should be taken to promote the Irish language. These could include making express provision through media service codes, as I intend to do on Report Stage, regarding the promotion of gender balance and musical works composed by or performed by women. However, I do not agree that an amendment requiring a report to be prepared is appropriate, given that coimisiún na meán will be undertaking a comprehensive review of the provision of Irish language services across the media system. I believe that we should await the results of the review and accordingly cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 62 would set a quota on sound broadcasting services regarding time dedicated to music containing lyrics, mostly in the Irish language, from 5% from 2026 rising to 10% from 2031. The amendment would also provide that 40% of music broadcast in the English language should be reserved for musical works composed by at least one Irish or European Economic Area national. I am strongly supportive of the promotion of Irish music and compositions performed in Irish on our broadcasting services. Ireland has a strong and vibrant music sector, which is recognised across the world. As Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, I am keen to ensure appropriate supports are in place to nurture and protect this sector further.

However, following the advice of the Attorney General received regarding gender-based quotas, I am acutely conscious of the legal and other factors that must be taken into account when considering the feasibility of introducing airplay quotas. I understand the Deputies have drafted the amendment to seek to ensure compliance with EU law, as a language-based airplay quota has been successfully introduced by the French authorities, for example. From a policy perspective, the potential benefit to music production in Ireland must be balanced with the rights of broadcasters, subject to their contractual or regulatory obligations, to determine the type of content they wish to broadcast and to ensure commercial revenue, particularly in the context of the current media climate. I do not think the legal or policy complexities can be resolved in the timeframe of this Bill and, accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment. However, this is a matter that can be considered in the context of the comprehensive review of the provision of Irish language services across the media system.

Amendment No. 64 would require audiovisual media service providers, including broadcasters, to ensure that at least 20% of advertisements made available on the service would be in the Irish language from 2026. As I indicated earlier, we have already placed a duty on public bodies to ensure that at least 20% of advertising placed is in the Irish language. In addition to concerns regarding the legal complexities of any quotas, this amendment may have a number of unintended effects that would require careful consideration. First, the measure could reduce the revenues that broadcasters could earn if there is not a sufficient supply of Irish language advertising from advertisers to produce content in the Irish language. For example, if a broadcaster currently broadcasts 95% of advertisements in English, a 20% quota could lead to a significant drop in advertising revenue, if advertisers do not first correspondingly increase their production of Irish language advertising and price it accordingly. There is also a risk that there comes to be, in effect, two advertising pricing structures, one for English language advertising and one for Irish language advertising. Second, given the country-of-origin principle that underpins the audiovisual media services directive, this requirement could only apply to audiovisual media service providers registered or licensed here in Ireland. Accordingly, services regulated in other member states that target Irish audiences would not be bound by the quota, potentially increasing their share of revenue earned from advertising vis-à-vis Irish services. As the broadcasting sector in particular already faces significant challenges to advertising revenues due to the change in ways that content is consumed, I am of the view significant analysis and consultation with stakeholders would be required before considering such a change. Accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 84 would require that sound broadcasting service contracts and television programme service contracts include a provision requiring broadcasters to provide at least 30 minutes of programming in Irish between the hours of 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. I will not accept this amendment today. As with the Deputies' other proposed amendments, this is a matter that could be considered by the comprehensive review of the provision of Irish language services across the media system that will be undertaken by coimisiún na meán.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response, some of which I was aware of when I put the amendments together. Again, these amendments are borne out of frustration. For instance, the BAI had the duty to ensure local broadcasters, even in Gaeltacht areas, had special regard to the needs of the Irish language community. We know from the report by Dr. John Walsh and Dr. Rosemary Day that Galway Bay FM broadcast 0% in Irish, even though it broadcasts in Gaeltacht areas, and nothing was done about it. This amendment is about trying to ensure, at minimum, that there would be a target that is implementable and a body, in this case an coimisiún, that could ensure that would happen. Dr. Walsh and Dr. Day produced a comprehensive report on the level of Irish language broadcasting by broadcasters, in particular, local broadcasters, throughout the country. These broadcasters knowingly accepted their licences and were encouraged over the years to increase the very minimal amount of Irish language broadcasting they were producing, whether they were transmitting Irish traditional music, Irish language music or other music.

From meetings of this committee and previous committees, other Deputies will know of discussions on how we ensure local and national broadcasters broadcast our own music. These amendments are attempts to reflect, as the Minister mentioned, the French example.

I remember over the years people saying we could not do various things because of EU law, whereas France is doing it. I do not know if the French are getting away with it or if they have a better understanding of EU law than we have. Maybe an coimisiún can look at it when it is carrying out its comprehensive analysis of Irish broadcasting. I hope that comprehensive analysis can be completed quite quickly and will have an effect so that it is not necessary for us to come back here in some years' time still frustrated or more frustrated with the lack of progress.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 8 agreed to.

SECTION 9

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 49:

In page 49, line 33, to delete “: ‘relevant media service provider’ ”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 50:

In page 49, line 34, to delete “Part,” and substitute “Part—”.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 51 to 58, inclusive, and 67 to 76, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 51:

In page 49, line 34, after “Part,” to insert the following:

“ ‘party political programme’ means a programme broadcast, or made available in a catalogue of an audiovisual on-demand media service, by or on behalf of a political party for the purpose of promoting the political party;

‘political party’ means a political party registered in the Register of Political Parties;”.

Section 46M(4) of the Broadcasting Act 2009, as inserted by the Bill as passed by the Seanad, retains the prohibition on advertisements of a political nature and the derogation from that prohibition in the case of "party political programmes", previously known as "party political broadcasts". In that, the Bill is intended to reflect long-standing policy.

During the debate in the Seanad, I signalled that "party political programme" was intended to have the same meaning as "party political broadcast", namely, the short programmes carried on our public service broadcaster during electoral periods for the purpose of promoting a registered political party. The term "programme" was used in lieu of the term "broadcast" to ensure that it encompassed both broadcasts by broadcasters and programmes made available by a relevant media service provider, in other words, to ensure that it covered both party political broadcasts on RTÉ 1 and on the RTÉ Player.

Senators and a number of stakeholders, including RTÉ and the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, sought clarity in the Bill that "party political programme" had essentially the same meaning as "party political broadcast". Given the importance of providing clarity in this matter I am introducing amendments Nos. 51 to 58, inclusive, to provide for a definition of "party political programme" in the Bill.

Amendment No. 67, when read with consequential amendments Nos. 68 to 76, inclusive, provides that media service codes, which will apply to broadcasting and video-on-demand services, may provide that party political programmes may only be made available at specified times. Currently, party political broadcasts are only made available during electoral periods. This provision is intended to make coimisiún na meán's authority to specify the timing of party political programmes explicit. The intention is that these times shall continue to be during electoral periods. However, to provide flexibility, the provision refers to specified times rather than electoral periods to allow coimisiún na meán adapt to any change in policy in this regard.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I ask about the clarification on "party political programme" instead of "party political broadcast". What is that clarification?

Deputy Catherine Martin

The term "programme" was used in lieu of the term "broadcast" to ensure that it encompassed both broadcasts by broadcasters and programmes made available by a relevant media service provider, in other words, to ensure that it covered both party political broadcasts on RTÉ 1 and on the RTÉ Player.

Deputy Imelda Munster

So, it covers both.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 52:

In page 50, line 5, to delete “million.” and substitute “million;”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 53:

In page 50, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:

“ ‘relevant service’ in relation to a relevant media service provider means an audiovisual on-demand media service provided by that provider.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 54:

In page 50, line 6, after “in” to insert “paragraph (c) of the definition of ‘relevant media service provider’ in”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 55:

In page 50, line 6, to delete “(c)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 56:

In page 50, line 22, after “in” to insert “paragraph (c) of the definition of ‘relevant media service provider’ in”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 57:

In page 50, line 22, to delete “(c)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 58:

In page 50, to delete lines 23 to 25.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 59 and 65 are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 59:

In page 50, line 32, after “or” to insert “undue”.

During the Seanad debates on Committee and Report Stages on the Bill, a number of Senators indicated that they considered the provision that prohibits broadcasters and providers of video-on-demand services making available programmes which may reasonably be considered to cause “harm or offence” as being potentially contrary to the principles of freedom of expression. I committed to examining the matter. Having examined and considered the matter, I am proposing amendment No. 59 to qualify the standard applied to broadcasters and providers of video-on-demand services from “offence” to one of “undue offence”. This will align the language in the Bill with the standard of “harm or undue offence” to material applied by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland through its code of programme standards, ensuring that the statutory provisions align with the practical implementation of the prohibition.

In qualifying the term "offence" the amendment recognises what the BAI recognises in practice, which is that there is no guarantee that programme material will be free from offence, given that the definition of "offence" varies from person to person. However, the amendment will still guard audiences against undue offence which shall continue to be enforced by coimisiún na meán through media service codes.

In this context I also note that the Bill contains numerous safeguards in respect of fundamental rights, not least that one of the primary functions of coimisiún na meán is to uphold the democratic values in the Constitution, including freedom of expression. However, it must be stated that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute and, like all other rights, is subject to balancing the 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 the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. I am confident that this Bill sits comfortably within those traditions.

Amendment No. 65 is a consequential amendment to amendment No. 59.

Deputy Imelda Munster

The word "offence" is very broad and it is hard to narrow it down. Somebody could be offended by something trivial. Will changing it to "undue offence" solve the issue that exists? What do we know about the media service codes? Anybody may take exception to anything that is said, but how is it proposed to define "undue offence"? The Minister might provide an example.

Deputy Catherine Martin

The codes will set out that detail. This is what the BAI currently uses in broadcasting codes already. What we are trying to do here is align that language with what is there and applied by the BAI through its code of programming standards. It is what is used by the BAI currently in its broadcasting codes, so we are just ensuring the statutory provision is in line with the practical implementations of the prohibition.

Deputy Imelda Munster

My point is that has not been very effective and hence, we are where we are now. If we are going with the same media codes, "undue offence" is very broad and open to interpretation by literally anybody.

Deputy Johnny Mythen

We have a problem with the definition of "undue offence" and defining exactly what it means. It could mean various things. Will the Minister nail it down for us?

Deputy Catherine Martin

The codes will set out in practice what it should mean. This arose during the Seanad debate. In qualifying the term "offence", the amendment recognises what the BAI recognises in practice and currently uses, which is that there is no guarantee that programme material will be free from offence, given the definition of "offence" varies from person to person. However, this amendment will still guard audiences against undue offence, which will continue to be enforced by coimisiún na meán through media service codes.

Deputy Imelda Munster

Will the Minister define "undue offence"?

Deputy Catherine Martin

It is not something we can define in legislation. As I said, it is something-----

Deputy Imelda Munster

No, but in practical terms.

Deputy Catherine Martin

-----that will vary from person to person. The media service codes are to be abided by, by whosoever has signed up to them and if there is a complaint made, it is for the commissioner to decide.

Deputy Imelda Munster

Are they the same media codes the BAI is currently using or will they be more restrictive?

Deputy Catherine Martin

That will be for the commissioner to decide. I am saying there are some there that are currently used by the BAI. It will be for the commissioner to decide.

Deputy Imelda Munster

That might be something we raise again on Report Stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 60:

In page 52, lines 3 and 4, to delete “they do not give an unfair preference” and substitute “an unfair preference is not given”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Denis Naughten

I move amendment No. 61:

In page 52, to delete lines 26 to 28.

I am looking for clarity here. I read section 46L(7) as saying RTÉ can waive the 20% requirement of a news service across its seven radio stations, namely, Radio 1, 2FM, Lyric FM, Raidió na Gaeltachta, Gold, Pulse and 2XM. That was never the intention of legislation in this area. It is important all of the national broadcast stations run news content and that it is news content relevant to their particular audience. The last thing we need is a situation where we have national broadcast stations devoid of news content or where there is uniform news content across a number of channels. Each of these stations specifically targets a particular section of the population and it is imperative that news content is targeted at each particular section. With the way technology has gone now, this may be the only independent, unbiased news content these particular listeners get. My reading of this legislation as drafted is that RTÉ, by carrying its news content on RTÉ Radio 1, would not have to provide news content on the likes of 2FM. Every single person who pays for a TV licence would be very concerned to think a news channel targeted at young people would not have a news service and one that is specifically targeted at its audience and listenership. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify this. I hope I am wrong in my interpretation but clarity is required.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I thank the Deputy for his amendment. Section 46L(5) of the Broadcasting Act, as inserted by the Bill, seeks to reflect the current policy regarding the requirement for sound broadcasting services to devote a set amount of broadcast time to news and current affairs programmes. This is subject to a derogation that may be issued by coimisiún na meán to a licensed radio service. This derogation is currently exercised by the BAI with radio stations such as Christmas FM.

The amendment brought by Deputies Naughten and Canney would remove section 46L(7), which provides that the various radio services provided by RTÉ are covered as one radio service for the purposes of the news and current affairs requirement. As Deputies are aware, RTÉ radio services are not licensed by the BAI, nor will they be licensed by coimisiún na meán. Instead, RTÉ services are subject to extensive statutory duties set out in Part 7 of the Broadcasting Act 2009. Accordingly, it is not possible for the BAI, and will not be possible for coimisiún na meán, to offer a derogation to RTÉ from the requirement to set aside a minimum amount of time to news and current affairs programming. For that reason, the Bill provides that RTÉ services may be considered as one service for the purposes of the minimum requirements. If the Bill did not have this provision, Lyric FM would be subject to the minimum requirement as much as Radio 1, with no recourse for a derogation, unlike all other radio services. This would have negative implications for both RTÉ and audiences, who currently have considerable choice across RTÉ services, while being well served by news and current affairs programming. That is why I cannot accept this amendment. The practical effect of the amendment would be to require more news bulletins on, for example, Lyric FM. In the longer term that would create a disproportionate requirement on RTÉ which, unlike licensed broadcasters, would be unable to avail of this derogation.

Deputy Denis Naughten

Therefore what I am saying is correct. The Minister used the example of Lyric FM but let us look at 2FM. I made the point that the only unbiased news content many people who tune into 2FM get is the news content on that station. The Minister is saying the changes she is making to the primary legislation would allow RTÉ to say that because it is providing news content on Radio 1, we now do not have to provide news content to the same extent, namely, the 20% target, on 2FM. 2FM is targeted at young people. Due to algorithms, the only other news content young people get is in a news bubble. The only way they are going to get unbiased news content about what is going on in the country may be through this particular channel and the Minister is now giving RTÉ a waiver for that. This is bad for democracy. It is bad for the social cohesion of the country and we are treading a very dangerous avenue by going down this route. Consequently, I ask the Minister to reconsider this particular proposal.

Deputy Catherine Martin

This is recognising that different stations have different target audiences.

It would unduly restrictive to require RTÉ to have a particular percentage of news content on all its stations. We are not changing anything here. This subsection reflects the current Broadcasting Act. We are not changing anything but rather carrying it over to the commission. RTÉ is obliged to provide news and current affairs extensively on a nationwide basis.

Deputy Denis Naughten

Absolutely, and that is not being changed by this, but the Minister is playing with words here. She may correct me if I am wrong, because I do not know where it is in the legislation and I would be surprised she is replicating it in legislation because, as she knows, in relation to her argument earlier, it is not good when drafting legislation to replicate something, and we are not replicating anything here, but RTÉ has an obligation at the moment to carry news content across all its channels. This amendment does not leave that legal requirement in place. That is a very dangerous road to go down. We are saying RTÉ can provide its news content by increasing the amount of news content on RTÉ Radio 1, which has a lot of news and current affairs content anyway, and that can cover the requirement to provide it on the likes of 2FM. That may be the only independent channel in this jurisdiction from which young people get unbiased news content. It is not controlled by algorithms and neither should it be. I urge the Minister again to ensure every single citizen of this country has access to unbiased, fair and equitable news content and ensure that is provided for, which I believe is not the case in the current drafting of the legislation.

Deputy Catherine Martin

We are not changing anything. The Deputy seems to think we are changing something. We are not changing anything. We are replicating what is in the Broadcast Act.

Deputy Denis Naughten

The Bill reads, "The sound broadcasting services established and maintained by RTÉ are deemed to be one sound broadcasting service for the purposes of subsection (5)", and subsection (5) is the requirement for 20% of the broadcasting time of the service. The Minister is saying that 20% of the broadcasting time of the service can be on one channel, which can leave other channels without any news content. There is no requirement for them to have any news content. They can at their discretion but that is before the committee here. If the organisation cannot even maintain the geographic integrity of the island, how are we going to ensure it is going to maintain news content across all its radio broadcast channels if we put in a provision like this?

Deputy Catherine Martin

We can engage on this with officials after this. This was brought in in 2009. It is hard to access it now to show it to the Deputy but we can engage with him. The intention is not to change anything. I will ask my officials to engage with the Deputy after this meeting, if that is okay.

Deputy Denis Naughten

Grand. On that basis and to be helpful I will withdraw the amendment but I do feel very strongly on this. It is something I will revisit on Report Stage if I am not satisfied with the officials' reassurances.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I move amendment No. 62:

In page 52, between lines 30 and 31, 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.”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 63 and 147 are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I move amendment No. 63:

In page 52, between lines 30 and 31, 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 under the jurisdiction of the State.

(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.

(5) In making rules under subsection (4), the Commission shall have regard to any relevant characteristics of the market in which a sound streaming media or music-sharing platform service provider under the jurisdiction of the State provides a sound streaming media or music-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 20 per cent of the net annual revenue derived 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.”

These amendments seek to emulate the audiovisual media services levy which has been proposed to target Netflix and Amazon Prime. In this case we propose a levy which could be imposed on music sharing and sound streaming media platforms such as Spotify. The levy would be used to fund a scheme to be administered by the Arts Council to support the creation, production and performance of Irish music and programming of traditional sound broadcasting services such as radio stations that air Irish music. The Minister mentioned the sound and vision fund. This would probably complement that if we put a levy on the likes of Spotify, although I am not picking on Spotify only. There are quite a number of platforms. Similar to amendment No. 62 which was already discussed, we are not limiting this to Irish language music but also including music of Irish cultural expression, in line with the criteria used in Canada, which are music, artist, performance and lyrics, MAPL, which would cover music and lyrics composed by a resident on the island of Ireland, in this case an artist resident on the island, or a performance recorded in Ireland. There are measures already used for rights when music is played, but artists from elsewhere in the European Union, because we are in the European Union, would not be excluded from receiving this funding as long as they perform in Ireland or performed music composed by an Irish resident. This is to ensure we are in compliance with any EU rules or directives.

The aim is to address three problems. The first is that musicians are struggling. This gives them a bit more bargaining power and allows them to earn more because their music will be played, the idea being to encourage the playing of their music or for them to have access to funding from the fund created by this levy. Second, radio stations are struggling to compete against the likes of Spotify and others. There is an over-reliance on commercially produced music from America and Britain. I discussed this earlier. There is not a clear Irish identity. This would encourage local radio stations to play local musicians and there would be financial reward for those musicians. Third, a massive amount of money from those listening to Irish music leaves these shores to go to streaming services which have no loyalty to Ireland, as money has no loyalty once it goes into the commercial sphere. This is a way of ensuring they pay a dividend. The amendment sets a 20% levy. Some might argue that is too high. We could start at a lower rate. This is based on discussions over the years going back to former Deputy Willie Penrose, which is neither today or yesterday, arguing for the need for a fund to be ring-fenced to ensure we can protect Irish musicians, encourage them and ensure their music is heard in Ireland at the same level, if at all possible, as some music which is commercially produced in English and that comes from other jurisdictions such as the United States and Britain. Now, with Britain out of the EU, this would be encouraged by the EU and I do not think it would be contrary to any EU legislation.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I thank the Deputy for the amendments. As I understand it, the purpose of the amendment is, first, to allow coimisiún na meán to identify and designate providers of what are referred to as sound streaming media and music sharing platform services; second, to provide for coimisiún na meán to impose a levy of 20% on the revenues of those providers earned in the State; and third, for the proceeds of the levy to be granted to the Arts Council for the purposes of making schemes to support the production of Irish music.

As the committee knows, as Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, I am firmly committed to supporting Irish art and artists, including musicians, across all practices. That is why I brought forward the basic income for the arts pilot scheme, which will provide €325 per week to support 2,000 artists, including 584 musicians over three years, and allocated an additional €2 million to the sound and vision scheme to support the live music-related programming this year. I understand the intention of the amendment is to raise further funds to support the Irish artists. I also understand the concerns that have been raised by musicians and artists regarding their remuneration for content consumed through music streaming services. This is a complex area and, in the first instance, I would emphasise that copyright law is a matter for Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

The committee will understand why I cannot accept this amendment. It represents a major policy departure requiring extensive analysis and consideration, with a number of complex legal and policy questions that need to be addressed. I would have a number of specific concerns regarding the amendment being proposed here. First, I note there is no explicit legal basis in EU law for such as levy. As Deputies are aware, the revised audiovisual media services directive applies to audiovisual broadcasters, video on demand services and video sharing platform services. The provisions in Article 13(2) of the directive, which provide the legal basis for the content production levy contained in this Bill, are directed at audiovisual broadcasters and video on demand services. In particular, the innovation of Article 13(2) of the directive is explicitly to permit the levying of video on demand services targeting audiences in the State. Second, it is unclear whether net revenue is intended to be analogous to taxable profit under the tax code or refers to post-tax revenue. In either case, what is being proposed appears to be similar to the current corporation tax, albeit that it seeks to tax revenue that is earned by a service. I would note, in that context, that the rate proposed is considerably higher than the current rate of corporation tax. It would be a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Finance, to consider a levy on net revenue in the first instance. Finally, the proposal would appear to target only those sound streaming services that are under the jurisdiction of the State, which I take to mean are established here. Accordingly, the levy would not appear to apply to the major services located outside the State. There is a risk then that those services currently established here would simply seek to relocate to another member state to avoid the levy.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I will withdraw the amendment. I may amend it and table it again on Report Stage to address some of the concerns raised by the Minister. The intention is to ensure there is a levy in place to support Irish music in particular.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Chairman

With the forbearance of colleagues, I wish to finish section 9 before we conclude. It is hoped we can get through it quickly enough.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I move amendment No. 64:

In page 52, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:

“(1A) (a) A television broadcaster or provider of audio-visual services 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.”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 65:

In page 53, line 35, after “or” to insert “unduly”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 66 not moved.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 67:

In page 54, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:

“(3) Media service codes may provide that party political programmes may be broadcast or made available only at specified times.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 68:

In page 54, line 15, to delete “(3) The Commission” and substitute “(4) The Commission”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 69:

In page 54, line 20, to delete “(4) The Commission” and substitute “(5) The Commission”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 70:

In page 54, line 40, to delete “(5) Provision” and substitute “(6) Provision”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 71:

In page 55, line 5, to delete “(6) In preparing” and substitute “(7) In preparing”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 72:

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

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 73:

In page 55, line 9, to delete “(8) A failure” and substitute “(9) A failure”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 74:

In page 55, line 11, to delete “(9) Subject to subsection (10)” and substitute “(10) Subject to subsection (11)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 75:

In page 55, line 20, to delete “(10) After” and substitute “(11) After”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 76:

In page 55, line 21, to delete “subsection (9)” and substitute “subsection (10)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 have been ruled out of order.

Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 not moved.

Section 9, as amended, agreed to.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Chairman

I thank colleagues for their forbearance, diligence and engagement. I also thank the Minister and her officials for their hard work today.

The select committee adjourned at 10.07 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 26 October 2022.