Select Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media debate -
Wednesday, 26 Oct 2022

Online Safety and Media Regulation Bill 2022: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Chairman

The Minister, her officials and my colleagues are very welcome. I thank them for their attendance at our second session to resume our consideration of the Online Safety and Media Regulation Bill 2022. Members will note, as agreed during our meeting last night, that it is proposed that we take a one-hour suspension from 4.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. to allow those present have a bit to eat or a rest.

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. Members must also be physically present in Committee Room 1 for any division. I welcome Deputy Clarke, who is substituting for Deputy Ó Snodaigh.

We will move on and resume consideration of the Bill on section 10. Members will note there are no amendments to section 10.

Section 10 agreed to.

SECTION 11

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 79 to 81, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

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

I move amendment No. 79:

In page 59, line 34, to delete “Complaints”.

Section 11 provides for amendments to sections 47 and 48 of the Broadcasting Act 2009, the purpose of which is to extend the complaint-handling provisions which currently apply to broadcasters to cover video on-demand services and to provide for circumstances in which coimisiún na meán may handle complaints made to broadcasters and video on-demand services. Section 47 of the Broadcasting Act, in particular, provides for the preparation and implementation of codes of practice for complaints handling by broadcasters and video on-demand services.

Section 48(3) of the Broadcasting Act, as substituted by the Bill, provides for the circumstances in which an coimisiún may dismiss a complaint, while section 48(9) provides that a complaint that is being resolved under a code of practice prepared by a broadcaster or video on-demand service may still be treated by an coimisiún as a complaint made to it. The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland has noted that section 48(9) could be interpreted as allowing for a complaint to be submitted to an coimisiún which has already been effectively resolved under a code of practice prepared by a provider and that it is unclear whether an coimisiún would have the authority to dismiss such a complaint.

The purpose of amendments Nos. 80 and 81 is to provide absolute clarity that coimisiún na meán can dismiss a complaint in those circumstances. Amendment No. 79 is a technical amendment to delete the section titled "Complaints" before section 48 of the 2009 Act to be inserted by the Bill, which deals with complaints handling with regard to media service providers, in light of the fact that a number of other sections with regard to the individual complaints mechanism for harmful online content will be inserted later in the Bill. This will avoid a single section being entitled, "complaints", where there are no multiple sections dealing with complaints in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 80:

In page 60, line 23, to delete “or” and substitute the following:

"(c) the complaint has been resolved effectively under a code of practice prepared under section 47(3), or”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 81:

In page 60, line 24, to delete “(c) the complaint” and substitute “(d) the complaint”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 82:

In page 60, line 27, to delete “section 139ZA(2)” and substitute “section 139ZI(2)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 12

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 83, 316 and 319 are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 83:

In page 61, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

“(e) in subsection (21), in paragraph (q), by the substitution of “section 31 of the Electoral Reform Act 2022” for “section 3 of the Act of 1998”,”.

The purpose of these consequential amendments is to take account of the enactment of the Electoral Reform Act 2022. Amendments Nos. 83 and 316 update references to sections of the Referendum Act 1998 and to the referendum commissions in order that they now refer to the Electoral Reform Act and, an coimisiún toghcháin, the new electoral commission. Amendment No. 319 amends a reference in the Electoral Reform Act to the Broadcasting Act 2009 in order that it now refers to the relevant section in this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 13 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 23

Deputy Imelda Munster

I move amendment No. 84:

In page 65, to delete lines 14 and 15 and substitute the following:

“(a) in subsection (2)—

(i) in paragraph (d) after “language”, to insert the following:

“, including at least 30 minutes in Irish between the hours of 09:00 and 18:00 between Monday and Friday,”,

and

(ii) in paragraph (l), by the deletion of “where directed by the Authority,”,”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 23 agreed to.

Sections 24 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.

NEW SECTION

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I move amendment No. 85:

In page 68, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 82 of Principal Act

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

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

I thank the Chair for allowing me to substitute for An Teachta Ó Snodaigh. This is a simple amendment relating specifically to the board make-up of RTÉ. When TG4 was established as the all-Irish broadcaster, it was put into law that 100% of the board must be competent in Irish. RTÉ was established as a bilingual national broadcaster, yet there remain no requirements in place for Irish competency in RTÉ. RTÉ has obligations to broadcast and provide services in Irish as well as English, and it is clear from the reports from An Coimisinéir Teanga that RTÉ has failed in this regard and failed to fulfil obligations to the Irish language.

Aside from Raidió na Gaeltachta only a tiny fraction of what RTÉ broadcasts is in Irish. In a 2017 report, An Coimisinéir Teanga said it was less than 1%. I appreciate things may have improved slightly since 2017 but they have not improved to the degree they need to. Where content is produced in Irish, reporters are paid less than their counterparts doing the same work in English. All of this points to RTÉ failing to take seriously its obligation to the Irish language and its obligations as a bilingual broadcaster. In any other bilingual state it would be expected that the board would at least have a competency in both languages of that state. That does not exist here.

This amendment would also ensure Irish is an essential requirement for half the membership of the RTÉ board. They would have to be able to use, speak and communicate in both English and Irish. It is almost insulting to say we could not find competent people to sit on the board of RTÉ. Almost 40% of the country has some level of Irish. It would be very insulting to say we could not find talented, experienced and skilled people who are competent in the Irish language to take up a position on that. By not ensuring the board is competent in Irish, we are in turn failing to ensure the Irish language itself and the Irish-speaking community are understood and represented at board meetings. There is a risk of the same problems that have happened in the past reoccurring in future. I again refer to the 2017 report. RTÉ stands for Raidió Teilifís Éireann and not the Irish television station. Those who use the Irish language on a daily basis have a very realistic expectation we ensure that, at the very top of that organisation, there are people at board level who are competent and able to communicate effectively in the Irish language.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I thank the Deputy for the amendment. As she said, it would require that no fewer than 50% of the board members of RTÉ be proficient in the Irish language. A provision of this kind would be at odds with provisions for membership of State boards more generally. With regard to the criteria necessary for consideration as a member of the board of RTÉ, section 82 of the Broadcasting Act 2009 already provides that candidates must have "experience of or shown capacity in", among others, "matters pertaining to the development of the Irish language". The specific provision contemplated by the amendment, over and above that already provided for or in addition to the provisions for membership of State boards more generally, is not necessary. Accordingly, I will not be accepting this amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Sections 31 and 32 agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I move amendment No. 86:

In page 69, to delete lines 24 to 26 and substitute the following:

“33. Section 114 of the Principal Act is amended—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) in paragraph (a), after “service” where it firstly occurs, to insert “in the Irish and English languages”,

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

and

(b) in subsection (2)(a), by the substitution of “the national aim of restoring the Irish language to use as a spoken language nationwide” for “the Irish language”.”.

This amendment seeks to clarify that RTÉ's object is to establish, maintain and operate a national television and sound broadcasting service in the Irish and English languages. It would expand the current provision that says RTÉ should have "special regard ... in particular" for the Irish language such that it reads "in particular for the national aim of restoring the Irish language to use as a spoken language nationwide". This should be a national aim of media policy generally, and I understand it has already been discussed on Committee Stage in the Seanad. However, given what we have spoken about beforehand and RTÉ's failings in upholding its legal obligations on Irish as exposed by the Coimisinéir Teanga, it is worth our taking the opportunity to strengthen those obligations, and this Bill gives us just that. RTÉ is not an English language-only broadcaster but a bilingual broadcaster and it should be directed in law to support the restoration of Irish as a language used nationwide and to provide a service in both languages and to both language communities.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I again thank the Deputies for the amendment but I cannot accept it for a number of reasons. The amendment seeks to change the position in the 2009 Act where video on-demand services are titled "non-broadcast non-linear audio-visual media services" to "audiovisual on-demand media services" in line with the language in EU law.

However, this is already provided for in sections 33 and 34.

On the other elements of the amendment, which proposes to replace a reference to "the Irish language" with a reference to "the national aim of restoring the Irish language to use as a spoken language nationwide", I am advised that the current reference to the Irish language is sufficient and appropriate in the context of this section of the 2009 Act, which states that, in pursuit of its public service objects, RTÉ shall "be responsive to the interests and concerns of the whole community, be mindful of the need for understanding and peace within the whole island of Ireland, ensure that the programmes reflect the varied elements which make up the culture of the people of the whole island of Ireland, and have special regard for the elements which distinguish that culture and in particular for the Irish language".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I move amendment No. 87:

In page 69, to delete lines 24 to 26 and substitute the following:

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

(a) in paragraph (a), by the substitution of “in full” for “in so far as it is reasonably practicable”, and

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

I will speak to amendments Nos. 87 and 88. The Minister mentioned the island of Ireland in her previous contribution. RTÉ is the national broadcaster and it has an obligation to the whole of the nation and to the island. The legislation currently outlines how RTÉ has a duty to make its broadcasting services available to the whole community on the island of Ireland insofar as reasonably practicable.

Despite this provision, we regularly see geoblocking taking place for whole sections of our community north of the Border and the exclusion of people in those Six Counties from sporting coverage and even online competitions during matches of their own county teams. This compounds the offence felt there, as discussed yesterday, I understand, and over maps of Ireland being used by RTÉ where the North is essentially replaced by sea. This is not just deeply hurtful and exclusionary to the people of those Six Counties, whether they are Irish citizens or not, who want to enjoy and participate in RTÉ services and the momentous occasions the same people South of the Border have the opportunity to do. It also raises the question of how reasonably impracticable difficult is it to include them.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I thank the Deputy for the amendment. As with amendment No. 86, I cannot accept amendment No. 87 as it simply repeats a change to the 2009 Act made by the Bill, in this case in section 33.

The other element of this amendment seeks to change the requirement on RTÉ to make available a national television and sound broadcasting service to the whole community on the island of Ireland “as far as is reasonably practicable” to a requirement to make it available “in full”. This would not be appropriate as it would legally oblige RTÉ to obtain a set of circumstances where it does not reasonably have the means to ensure those circumstances would always be in place, particularly as RTÉ is not a State body in both jurisdictions on this island. As with amendment No. 86, this amendment would have the effect, for instance, of obliging broadcasts to make available sports events both within and outside the jurisdiction of the State. Acquisition of rights to sporting events are a commercial matter between a rights-holder or sports body and broadcasters. These are very often allocated on an exclusive territorial basis and, as such, it is not possible to legislate for and compel RTÉ to make such events available. Examples of such events might include the World Cup or the Olympics.

I understand the frustration of viewers in Northern Ireland when certain events may not be shown on RTÉ in Northern Ireland given the distribution of rights to those events. However, I am advised this amendment would not make a difference to the current position. Were this amendment to be interpreted as compelling RTÉ to acquire rights to sporting events, such as the Olympics, on an all-island basis, there could be significant unintended consequences in terms of the amount of additional expenditure that would need to be incurred by RTÉ. For example, were a rights-holder aware that RTÉ is compelled by legislation to make events available on an all-island basis, it may seek to charge a premium, given it would know that RTÉ would have to acquire the rights.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I have a query for the Minister in relation to what she said. The Sky deal with the GAA has fallen through and RTÉ has taken over. Previously, when we raised the geoblocking issue, we always got the response that it was a commercial deal done between others and nothing could be done. If RTÉ has the rights now, as opposed to the deal done with Sky, how does that fare for eliminating geoblocking?

Deputy Catherine Martin

The difference here is it would be known by people that RTÉ is compelled by legislation to make events available, so therefore it would be unfair because it would be charged premium rights if it is compelled in legislation. Regarding the GAA, RTÉ made that decision itself. This would be forcing it in legislation and therefore would lead to that unfairness when it comes to looking to acquire rights.

Deputy Imelda Munster

It is something that could be looked at again.

Deputy Catherine Martin

Not within the context of legislation; perhaps in the broader outlook. This is not for legislation.

Chairman

Perhaps as a committee we could go back there again.

Deputy Johnny Mythen

It is a shame that the likes of a team such as Tyrone can play in the All-Ireland, raise the Sam Maguire Cup and their families at home cannot watch it on TV. That is an issue.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I said in my contribution that I understand the frustration of viewers when certain events may not be shown. The people who cannot travel down and want to watch it in Tyrone and support their team cannot do that. However, if it were to be interpreted as compelling RTÉ to acquire the rights to such sporting events, it leads, as I said to Deputy Munster, to that unfairness. Premium rates would be charged if it is absolutely compelled. Sporting organisations – not RTÉ – are the ones allocating the rights on a territorial basis.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I move amendment No. 88:

In page 69, to delete lines 24 to 26 and substitute the following:

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

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

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

I take the point the Minister made in terms of compelling others in relation to the territorial aspect of sporting rights. However, Deputy Munster raised a valid point about how these relationships and contracts can change. I do not think anybody will be unrealistic when it comes to compelling RTÉ to pay that extra premium where that premium does not exist or where no conversation or negotiations have taken place with others who may have access or control over that premium. It would be important for RTÉ to have those conversations and open up those dialogues to prevent this geoblocking, especially when it comes to the likes of the GAA, which is a 32-county organisation and 32 counties participate in it. I do not think any of us were happy with the scenario, as Deputy Mythen mentioned, where the winning team’s own towns could not access watching them lift the Sam Maguire Cup that time. I am speaking on amendment No. 88, but there is an onus on RTÉ to have those conversations where others have those licensing rights, particularly to sporting events. If it is not an issue that can be addressed under this Bill, it is an issue that should be examined or explored under another policy or other legislation.

Deputy Catherine Martin

Is the Deputy addressing amendment No. 88?

Deputy Sorca Clarke

Yes.

Deputy Catherine Martin

Again, in the case the Deputy is referencing, it is the sporting organisation, not RTÉ, that is the one allocating the rights on a territorial basis. It is not RTÉ, it is the actual sporting organisation, which in this case was the GAA. It is not RTÉ.

Amendment No. 88 seeks to change the requirement on RTÉ to make available a national television and sound broadcasting service to Irish communities outside the island of Ireland “in so far as RTÉ considers reasonably practicable” to a requirement to make it available “in full, unless limited by factors beyond the control of RTÉ”. I do not see this amendment as materially changing the obligation already on RTÉ, as any limitation on RTÉ’s provision of services to Irish communities outside the island of Ireland arise almost exclusively from factors beyond the control of RTÉ. The purpose of the present provision is so that RTÉ can ascertain those limits and work within them to provide its services on the widest possible basis.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 have been ruled out of order.

Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 not moved.

Section 33 agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I move amendment No. 91:

In page 69, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:

“Equal Pay for Equal Work

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

“Equal Pay for Equal Work

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

The amendment pertains to what many see as a particularly gross and offensive situation that has been allowed to develop. In many ways it meets the definition of "discrimination". Workers at Raidió na Gaeltachta are being paid up to 25% less than their counterparts in English at RTÉ Radio for the same work. This cannot be allowed to continue. I understand that the committee has tried to raise this matter directly with RTÉ but has yet to receive any form of a proposed solution. It is quite disgraceful that despite this specific injustice having been raised, no solution or offer of a solution has come. Deputy Munster raised the matter back in January when RTÉ was undertaking a review into different pay grades and representatives from RTÉ said they would not examine the difference in pay based on working in Irish or English. It is frankly appalling that this has been allowed drag on. It is a basic matter of workers' rights and the equality of workers who work in Irish, which in reality often involves more work than those operating through the English language. Irish language reporters may have to translate items or prepare and support interviewees with little Irish, while competing with an English language service that often has more traction, investment and resources. Effectively, the Irish language reporters are doing more work than their English language counterparts but are getting less pay. This sends a stark message to those who would like to work through the Irish language that they will be valued less and that Irish is not seen as a skill but as a burden. All Irish language workers could do their work through English as well, meaning that they are more skilled than their counterparts. Instead of being rewarded for that additional skill and the additional work, they are penalised for it. If we are serious about attracting young people into careers that involve the Irish language, this fundamental issue needs to be addressed and resolved. Regardless of what language a journalist is working in, the quality of their work should determine their rate of pay. There should be nothing controversial about the amendment. It is a basic workers' rights issue and it is one we have an opportunity to fix. We have an opportunity to make sure this does not happen to anybody else working in this area, be it in the Irish language or English.

Deputy Catherine Martin

This amendment would introduce obligations regarding the rates of pay for RTÉ employees. The independence of RTÉ in operational matters is provided for in legislation and I do not believe it is appropriate to introduce legislative provisions in this regard. RTÉ is currently undertaking a review of the staff grading structures across the organisation and services. If there are any discrepancies with regard to equal pay for equal work, I expect them to be identified and rectified through this process.

Deputy Imelda Munster

With all due respect, that response from RTÉ is absolute rubbish. RTÉ knows well there are discriminatory practices between English language workers and Irish language workers. It gave a commitment some months back to address it and revert to us. We had to chase it up and when we eventually got a response, it was a complete and utter fob-off. There is a responsibility on RTÉ, given that it is funded by taxpayers through the TV licence, to not operate practices that discriminate between English language and Irish language workers. I found RTÉ's response highly offensive and thought it was pure ignorance, to be honest. If we can put anything right through this legislation, it would be by forcing RTÉ to stop this unequal carry-on and the discrimination. It is completely wrong and RTÉ is fully aware of it.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

Dee Forbes specifically said that RTÉ will not examine this discrepancy between journalists who operate in the Irish language and journalists who operate in the English language as part of that pay review.

Deputy Johnny Mythen

If we rely on RTÉ and its obligations, or this process, nothing will happen. It is up to us to protect workers in this country, as citizens and workers. It is a simple policy principle of equal pay for equal work, which everybody should have the right to. The amendment should stand. Relying on the obligations of RTÉ to do something will not do.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I hear the Deputies' concerns and frustration about this. I am not sure if the place for this provision is within this legislation but I will ask my officials to follow up with RTÉ on this. I would be of the opinion, as I said earlier, that any discrepancies around equal pay for equal work should be addressed in that review. They should be identified and rectified. I will give a commitment that my officials will follow up with RTÉ on this. I just do not think this specific legislation is the place to put this but I will get my officials to follow up, if that is okay.

Deputy Imelda Munster

That would be okay but I have concerns. I accept the Minister's commitment, which is fine. However, we would need to know the response before Report Stage because this is something we feel has to be addressed, given that RTÉ point-blank refused to address it. It is unbelievable stuff.

Deputy Catherine Martin

We will come back to the Deputies before Report Stage. I am committing that my officials will follow up and look for clarity on that issue. We will have that information and the response before Report Stage.

Deputy Imelda Munster

That would give us an opportunity to address it on Report Stage.

Deputy Johnny Mythen

We thank the Minister for that commitment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I move amendment No. 92:

In page 69, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 116 of Principal Act

34. Section 116 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (16):

“(17) No less than 25 per cent of monies spent by RTÉ on independent television or sound broadcasting in any given year shall be spent on programming or content in the Irish language, from 31 December 2025.”.”.

This amendment seeks to ensure RTÉ will work to increase and adequately fund the production of Irish language content. From the start of 2026, a quarter of the money RTÉ spends on independent commissioning for TV and radio would have to go towards Irish language production. The 25% quota is in line with the same quota being implemented on the new European work schemes, which will be funded by the audiovisual media services levy. RTÉ is a public service broadcaster and should have the same specific responsibility to fund Irish language programming, independent of the newly-proposed scheme. This would help address the current inadequacy of RTÉ's Irish language provision, as identified by An Coimisinéir Teanga, and would reinforce the bilingual role of RTÉ as a public service broadcaster. It would also directly fund job opportunities in the Irish language, something that can encourage people to pursue studies and further opportunities in the language. This would demonstrate the value and utility of learning and using Irish as part of a career and open career goals. Not only is there a work element to this, there is also a cultural element and an entertainment element.

Deputy Catherine Martin

The amendment would introduce a new baseline for investment by RTÉ in Irish language content of 25% of the investment it makes in independent productions annually. As I outlined yesterday, the Future of Media Commission has recommended a comprehensive review of all Irish language services. I do not believe that making a statutory provision, as envisaged by the amendment, is the most appropriate way to achieve any further Irish language services. For this reason, I cannot accept the recommendation. We are going to have a comprehensive review of all Irish language services.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 34 agreed to.

SECTION 35

Chairman

Amendment No. 93 has been ruled out of order.

Amendment No. 93 not moved.

Section 35 agreed to.

Sections 36 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 39

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 94 to 97, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 94:

In page 71, line 21, to delete “(1)”.

Section 128C of the Broadcasting Act, as substituted by the Bill, provides that coimisiún na meán may make rules to ensure the prominence of public service programmes and media services on "interactive guides". In practice, public service programmes and services refer to RTÉ and TG4 as public service broadcasters and Virgin Media as a holder of a television programme service contract. Section 128C is intended to exercise an option available to member states under Article 7b of the audiovisual media services directive to take measures to ensure the appropriate prominence of audiovisual media services of general interest.

In subsection (1) of section 128A the definition of "interactive guide" refers to an interface accessed by a "terminal", which itself is defined to refer to equipment with interactive computing capability other than a computer, tablet device or smartphone. In practice, the reference to "terminal" used in the Bill may have the effect of confining the application of any rules on prominence made by coimisiún na meán to platforms accessed through set-top boxes. That has the anomalous effect of applying the prominence rules to an interactive guide offered by a platform provider, such as Sky or Vodafone, through a terminal but not to the very same interactive guide offered by the same platform provider through a smartphone. Amendments Nos. 94 to 97, inclusive, are intended to address this anomaly by removing the reference to a terminal. This change, though largely technical in nature, will future-proof the prominence rules to allow them to reflect continuing changes in the ways audiovisual content is accessed and viewed.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 95:

In page 71, lines 24 and 25, to delete “and accessed by the use of a terminal”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 96:

In page 72, to delete line 18 and substitute “77.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 97:

In page 72, to delete lines 19 to 27.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 98 to 100, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I move amendment No. 98:

In page 74, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

“(d) programming and services in the Irish language.”.

These amendments seek to ensure that the commission bears in mind the need to give prominence to Irish-language content and broadcasters on interactive guides. The amendments also empower the commission to make rules requiring interactive guides to support such prominence. The amendments seek to empower the Irish speakers using these guides and to ensure they have their right to engage with interactive guides in their own language respected in law. Interactive guides like TV guides and iPlayer catalogues - the Minister mentioned Sky, Virgin and so on - are there to make life easier. People can see what is on and pick what they want to watch, but for Irish speakers the only option is in a different language. There is a compellability factor there that we really should consider.

The commission, as the new regulator that ensures public service content is given prominence on these guides, should have the power to make rules as to what prominence is needed in the public interest, particularly when it comes to the Irish language. Our media is dominated by English. The vast majority of programmes on our televisions and of what we hear on the radio is in English. We need to strike a balance in that regard. We need almost to rebalance that to give Irish prominence for Irish-speaking communities in order that when we click onto our TV guide or a catalogue of shows, the option to receive it in Irish or in English is available. Every one of us in this room has that option already when it comes to accessing our emails. We can access our Oireachtas emails in Irish or in English. The technology is there to do that. The vast majority of us may opt for one language, but the potential for the other is there. As a country, we are committed to ensuring that people use and learn Irish in order that it becomes part of our daily lives, and the media serve a vital role in that regard. We all remember back to our secondary school days, when, if we were learning a foreign language, we were often shown a programme with subtitles in French, for example, as well as the audio being in French. If we could move towards that scenario for Irish, it would go some way to assisting those seeking to learn it and those who are in school to encourage them to become more fluent in the language. Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 would empower the commission to make rules as to how Irish-language content should be prominent on those interactive guides.

Amendment No. 100 is slightly different because it deals with the devices. If it is okay to mention one television brand by name, with Philips TVs, in the menu one can choose to set up the television in Irish, so the technology is available. What we need to ensure is that the use of that technology is encouraged among the other providers of televisions. That could greatly help learners. It also creates an environment in which Irish becomes immersive and a language in its own right that people use day to day because it is then almost constantly in their world. I understand that an Teachta Ó Snodaigh had proposed other amendments around subtitling and audio descriptions being included in both languages. I saw that as a very positive step, and I say that as somebody who has very little Irish and is busy learning at the moment. Having more exposure to Irish in various forums assists immensely with that. It also assists those who are currently Irish speakers and who may have disabilities. For those who may be visually impaired, to have the Irish in an audio description would ensure that their right as members of the Irish-speaking community is respected and upheld.

I ask the Minister to take these amendments on board, see their value and recognise that the technology for this to become normal in our world is already in use. When we go to set up our televisions we can choose which language we want to set them up in. Irish should be one of those languages. I ask the Minister to recognise the value of these amendments to those who are members of an Irish-speaking community.

Deputy Catherine Martin

Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 are intended to ensure that coimisiún na meán provide for the prominence of Irish-language programming and services in any rules made by coimisiún na meán under section 128C of the Broadcasting Act, as inserted by the Bill.

As I indicated earlier, public service programmes and public service media services include, by virtue of the definitions set out in section 128A of the Broadcasting Act, as amended by the Bill, RTÉ and TG4. Both of our public service broadcasters are required by their statutory objectives, set out in sections 114 and 118 of the extant Broadcasting Act, to provide programmes in the Irish language. TG4 is, of course, required to provide programmes primarily in the Irish language. For that reason, in providing for the prominence of our public service broadcasters, in particular TG4, section 128C adequately provides for the prominence of programming and services in the Irish language. Given the Bill already addresses the intention of amendments Nos. 98 and 99, I will not accept them.

Amendment No. 100 seeks to insert a reference to the rights of Irish-speaking users to engage with interactive guides in the Irish language in section 128C(2)(b). I believe the intention underlying this amendment is addressed by subsection (2)(e), which provides that in preparing rules on prominence an coimisiún shall have regard to the rights of users of prominence guides, with particular regard to their rights and likely expectations regarding Irish-language programmes and services. Accordingly, I do not accept amendment No. 100.

Chairman

Is the amendment being pressed?

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I will withdraw it. I reserve the right to come back to it on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos 99 and 100 not moved.

Section 39, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 40 to 43, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 44

Deputy Imelda Munster

I move amendment No. 101:

In page 78, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

“(da) online content by which a person makes available disinformation or false information which is intended to mislead;”.

The purpose of the amendment is that it is an obvious omission if disinformation or false information are not included. The Bill will have a gaping hole if they are excluded from it. The joint committee recommended that they be included when we were doing our pre-legislative scrutiny and I am wondering what the Minister has to say about that. We had two Departments in last week to discuss the DSA, and they said that it only covered online. They said there was an ongoing process of a national disinformation strategy or something of that nature. However, they could not point to anything or give any definitive information. They said the Government was not in a position to table an amendment. Where is disinformation covered then?

Deputy Catherine Martin

I do not propose to accept the amendment. I note the intent of the amendment but this matter will primarily be addressed by my colleague, the Tánaiste, and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, in the context of the legislation necessary to give effect to the implementation of the DSA in Ireland. It would not be useful to cut across that work at this stage. Members will be aware that in March the Government decided that coimisiún na meán, when established by this Bill, will act as the primary regulator, termed the digital services co-ordinator, DSC, under the DSA. Government made this decision in light of the clear synergies between the objectives and approaches of coimisiún na meán and the DSC, including taking a systemic approach to dealing with online safety and platform regulation and similar resourcing needs and expertise for implementation and enforcement.

Disinformation and false information are being tackled on an EU-wide basis, not just through the DSA but also through the European Commission’s code of practice on disinformation. This is a Commission initiative, which has involved a range of online platforms, leading social networks, advertisers and advertising industry players to sign up to self-regulatory standards to fight disinformation. The Commission intends that the code will evolve into a co-regulatory instrument under the Digital Services Act. Clearly, an coimisiún, as the DSC, would have an important role to play in that context. In addition, the Commission has established the European Digital Media Observatory, including a hub in Dublin City University, DCU, which has been tasked with monitoring the implementation of the code. At national level, as the Deputy referenced, the Future of Media Commission recommended the creation of a national counter disinformation strategy. A working group is being set up in my Department to start work on this and to give effect to that recommendation.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I thank the Minister for that. Is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment drafting legislation relating to disinformation?

Deputy Catherine Martin

When the DSA comes into effect-----

Deputy Imelda Munster

When the DSA comes into effect it will draft the legislation and the coimisiún will-----

Deputy Catherine Martin

It will be the DSC. The Government agreed that. There is crossover there but we are working closely with our colleagues in the other Department.

Deputy Imelda Munster

This is probably my ignorance but will the commission implement the online safety measures in this Bill?

Deputy Catherine Martin

Coimisiún na meán will be the regulator of it. The Deputy asked about the strategy as well, which is being led by my Department but it involves a working group of the relevant Departments, civil society organisations and industry stakeholders. I propose that there would be a public consultation on that.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I accept what the Minister is saying but I am still concerned that something as important as disinformation is not covered in the Bill. It might be covered in an online strategy but TV or radio stations might say tomorrow, for example, that there is no climate emergency. It is all about disinformation and false information. I do not see how it is not thought of as important in this Bill.

Deputy Catherine Martin

From the beginning I have always said that the Bill cannot address every issue at once. There is that connection with what has been done with the DSA in the Tánaiste's Department so it is not that it is being left to one side; we are getting this up and running. It cannot address every issue at once and because the coimisiún will be the DSC you will see that being worked together and whatever crosses over will be addressed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I move amendment No. 102:

In page 80, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:

“(2) The Media Commission shall produce a directive outlining appropriate minimum age requirements for children to create online accounts within 12 months of its establishment.”.

This is a straightforward amendment designed to prevent children from having access to material that is clearly not appropriate for them. It is a function of the media commission to regulate the appropriate minimum age. When the Children's Rights Alliance representatives appeared before the committee, they told us that most people are of the opinion that the Government is not doing enough to protect children online or on the importance of this. We tabled the amendment in the hope that the Minister would accept it.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I do not propose to accept this amendment but I accept that there is an issue with young children accessing online services that were not designed with them in mind. It is an issue that I am aware of, both as a parent of and as the chair of the National Advisory Council for Online Safety. It is a complex issue that it is being worked on at EU level. Finding workable solutions in this area will raise a number of complex issues, including privacy and data protection matters, that would need to be resolved before a solution could be effectively implemented and, therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

However, I will ask an coimisiún to examine this issue as a priority, in conjunction with the Data Protection Commission and through engaging on the Better Internet for Kids strategy, to identify potential options and solutions to dealing with this complex issue. As I said, not everything can be dealt with in a single Bill but what matters is that we put the framework in place. I will tell the commission to deal with this as a matter of priority but it is also about dealing with it on an EU-wide basis. In May, the European Commission launched a new European strategy for a Better Internet for Kids. The strategy is built on three pillars - child protection in the online environment; digital empowerment; and active participation. Under the child protection pillar, there is a strong focus on providing age-appropriate online experiences, which the amendment is trying to address, including through age verification and age-appropriate design. In this regard, the Commission commits to facilitating a comprehensive code of conduct on age-appropriate design by 2024 using the provisions of the DSA, which provides that such codes of conduct may be co-regulatory instruments. The Commission has indicated that the code could provide for age verification for accessing certain online content. To facilitate age verification, the Commission has committed to work with member states and EU standardisation to strengthen effective age verification methods. This would be most effective if it was done on a Europe-wide basis and that is why we need to wait. There is a pilot as well called euCONSENT.

I think I have mentioned the pilot to the Deputy previously during Question Time or at the committee. It is an ongoing pilot looking to deliver that online age verification and parental consent which balances the rights I mentioned earlier, the rights of the children and the need to protect them from online harm and age-inappropriate content. The result of that pilot will inform us on an EU-wide basis. It would be more effective to do it on an EU-wide basis.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I understand what the Minister is saying and I understand that things are happening on an EU-wide level. However, I believe children need protection now and that the commission is more than capable of regulating on this. Last night I spoke about advertising targeted at children. Self-regulation is little or no regulation because they are the overseer and the judge and jury. It results in inconsistent standards across the board where nobody is held accountable. It is nothing solid. For that reason, I will press the amendment.

Will the Minister amend the Bill in respect of app stores to ensure children are not allowed to install apps that are only suitable for adults, such as dating apps? Does the Minister intend to look at that on Report Stage?

Deputy Catherine Martin

There is no intention to do that in this Bill.

Deputy Imelda Munster

From the point of view of children's rights and protection, it is disappointing that neither of those will be included. We will resubmit on Report Stage.

Deputy Johnny Mythen

This is important legislation. When we met the stakeholders, many of them stressed that children of four, five or six are able to identify particular brands even on television at the moment. How they operate at times is not kosher. As the Minister said, the protection of children is the most important thing. This should be regarded as one of the most important issues in the Bill as it is about protecting children. Adults can make an informed decision but very often children are influenced. Even young women are influenced regarding their body stuff. It is important that children are protected and this would give them protection.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I agree with the Deputy that it is an important issue, but it is highly complex. The important thing is to get this framework in place and getting the commission set up. I will be asking it to look at priorities in conjunction with the cross-cutting of the Data Protection Commission. Getting the framework in place is the important bit. I agree with the Deputy that it is a very important issue.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 103 to 105, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 103:

In page 81, line 28, after "services" to insert "the provider of which is".

These are technical amendments to refer to the provider of video-sharing platform services in section 139G, as inserted by the Bill, rather than simply the service itself. It is being done on the advice of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 104:

In page 81, line 32, after "service" to insert "the provider of which is".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 105:

In page 81, line 34, after "service" where it secondly occurs to insert "the provider of which is".

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 106 to 109, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Johnny Mythen

I move amendment No. 106:

In page 83, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:

"(e) that service providers provide and publish robust duty of care and well-being measures to protect those who moderate and otherwise work on potentially harmful content from the impact of this content on their mental health and well-being through the adoption of appropriate policies and procedures."

The amendment is to mandate an coimisiún to produce an online safety code specifically to protect workers who will be reviewing harmful content. This type of work is unique to online platforms and it is not intended that this online safety code would encompass any workers' rights or protections already in place under the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment or the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC. Harm from regulating online content was brought up during pre-legislative scrutiny and is unique to this industry, which is why it is important that an coimisiún would take a leading role in ensuring proper standards are in place for those who regulate it. Workers may be required to review abuse of children, people being slaughtered or stuff like that. They must look at that and go through it. It is about protecting those people and giving them rights.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I thank the Deputy for the amendment. Policy regarding employment rights is primarily the responsibility of my colleague, the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, and is more appropriately dealt with in employment legislation. The amendment is also straying into matters which may be more appropriate to the functions of the Workplace Relations Commission. In particular, section 11(1)(d) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides that the WRC shall "conduct reviews of, and monitor developments as respects, workplace relations". I would be wary of any provision that might have the effect of duplicating the work of the WRC. I understand the intention of the amendment. The protection of workers' rights is an important consideration in all sectors, including the sectors which are regulated by the Bill.

I also acknowledge the concerns raised by Deputies regarding working conditions in the technology sector. Last year, the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment heard evidence from trade unions, experts and content moderators regarding their working conditions. The evidence pointed to issues regarding the pay and conditions of content moderators and some of the dangers inherent in the practice of hiring employees through outsourcing firms. One of the witnesses, a former content moderator, set out the very difficult nature of the work involved, as Deputy Mythen noted, and in particular the kinds of distressing content that she was required to view as part of the role.

The Tánaiste also addressed the committee and stressed the duty of care that employers have towards employees to create a safe working environment. He also indicated to the Chair of the committee that he had written to a particular technology company about the terms and conditions of content moderators and indicated that it would be on the agenda when he spoke to the company again.

It is important to stress that the protection of workers’ rights is not a core function of my Department or its agencies. It is important that our employment rights framework, which is the responsibility of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, places consistent rules and obligations on employers in all sectors of the economy.

Moving responsibility for workers’ rights to sectoral regulators would dilute the enforcement of the overarching framework and potentially lead to an inconsistent approach between sectors. In that regard, the role of an coimisiún, as an independent regulatory body, is ultimately to enforce new and updated regulatory frameworks for content regulation across broadcasting, video-on-demand and designated online services. It is not intended to regulate employment relations or assess working conditions.

As a general principle, in considering any amendments to expand the functions of an coimisiún I am very conscious of not unduly expanding the scope of an coimisiún into other areas of policy, with the effect that its core functions, which I have just outlined, might suffer or that it might duplicate the functions of other bodies in the State.

Deputy Johnny Mythen

We are asking for a code to be produced. Obviously, codes will be produced relating to harm, self-harm and all that type of thing. This type of code would help these workers who have a very unique job, which entails viewing a lot of horrible stuff which we know goes on in the world. However, those who need to look at it for hours on end should be protected. It should be included in one of the codes at least.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I go back to the role of an coimisiún. It is an independent regulatory body to enforce new and updated regulatory frameworks for content regulation. There would not be a role there to put in a code on workers' rights. We are tackling it through the codes that will be there relating to prohibiting damaging content being available. That is what this is about.

Moving responsibility for workers' rights into this is not what this commission is set up to do. It is there to end the era of self-regulation. We are tackling online harmful content through this. I could not envisage a code there on workers' rights. That is for a different Department.

Deputy Johnny Mythen

The Minister is mixing up workers' rights and workers' protection. There is a difference. What these people are exposed to, not rights, is the issue. It is in the industry itself.

As I said, it is a unique industry. That is the point I am trying to make.

Deputy Catherine Martin

The protection of workers is still an employment issue and it is not the core function of coimisiún na meán.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I move amendment No. 107:

In page 83, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:

“(e) that all measures taken under paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) shall provide the same protections for users of Irish language content as are provided to users of English language content, and that no service provider shall deny a platform to Irish language content unless for a reason under which content in the English language would be denied platform, such as in the case of harmful or age-inappropriate online content.”.

The amendment states that all measures taken under paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) shall provide the same protections for users of Irish language content as are provided to users of English language content, and that no service provider shall deny a platform to Irish language content unless for a reason under which content in the English language would be denied platform, such as in the case of harmful or age-inappropriate online content. Content should be denied a platform for reasons such as age-inappropriate or harmful material, but not simply because it is in Irish.

An issue arose with Google in recent years where the excuse given was that it could not moderate content in Irish. They could not guarantee that it would not be harmful and, therefore, they banned advertisements in Irish. The irony of that strikes me shockingly given the number of people I know, and I am sure in the wider community, who use Google Translate on a regular basis.

The amendment would ensure that where social media companies engage in content moderation, that also extends to the moderation of the Irish content. It would create a dual effect of not only protecting young and vulnerable Irish speakers, in particular, from online abuse, but also doing away with the excuse from wealthy companies that benefit from our generous tax regime that they cannot host Irish language content or advertisements because they do not have the resources to ensure the content meets their own standards.

This is a case of large corporations choosing to censor advertisements and other content in the Irish language over free speech and language rights of Irish speakers. That should not be allowed in a bilingual state trying to promote Irish.

If the content is inappropriate or contrary to the host's code of conduct, one should ban it but one should not ban it simply because it is in the Irish language and the host does not have the moderators to ensure that it meets its standards.

We live in an online world. Most people's social life has some form of other language included in it. It is shameful to see that being denied to Irish speakers. The amendment would ensure that comes to a halt. I reiterate the irony of that one particular company that promotes an online translation service not being in a position to moderate its own content in the Irish language.

Deputy Catherine Martin

The amendment has two purposes. First, it seeks to ensure the measures taken under online safety codes create equal level protections for users of Irish and English language user-generated content available on designated online subject to online safety codes. Second, it seeks to ensure that Irish language content cannot be removed or prevented from appearing on a designated online service if similar English language content was not removed or prevented from appearing from the service.

I cannot accept these amendments for a number of reasons. The first of these is that the online safety codes will give effect to provisions of EU law in many case, particularly in the implementation of the EU's audiovisual media services directive. In that regard, it would be inappropriate to single out only two of the official languages of the EU.

The second reason is that the proposed requirement for designated online services to not remove Irish language content would not reflect the fact that Irish and English are separate languages and a word or phrase that may be functionally equivalent in each may carry entirely different implicit meanings or connotations that may cause either or both to fall within a particular category of harmful online content. This is the case not only with English and Irish, but with all languages. In fact, it is a particular problem space in online safety and something that coimisiún na meán will need to be alive to in operating the regulatory framework for online safety.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I have a clarifying question. It is quite possible I did not hear correctly what the Minister said. It makes no sense that there is an EU system for the protection of languages that we cannot extend or Irish is not entitled to the same level of protection as another EU language.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I did not say that.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I may have misheard.

Deputy Catherine Martin

What I said was that the online safety codes will give effect to provisions of EU law in many cases, particularly in the implementation of the EU's audiovisual media services directive. In that case, it would be inappropriate to single out only two of the official languages of the EU when there are many languages in the Union.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

That makes a little more sense.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 108:

In page 86, line 34, to delete “section 139X” and substitute “section 139ZF”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Johnny Mythen

I move amendment No. 109:

In page 86, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:

“(i) levels of risk to staff from repeated viewing of harmful content in the course of their work.”.

The amendment ensures an coimisiún must have regard to the well-being of the staff, which has been said. We have discussed this. Maybe I will withdraw it, with the right to resubmit.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Johnny Mythen

I move amendment No. 110:

In page 88, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:

“(c) must not be a current or former member of either of the Houses of the Oireachtas, or current or former member of a local authority.”.

It is a simple amendment. As regards auditors, a current or former member of either of the Houses of the Oireachtas or current or former member of a local authority cannot be an auditor. The amendment relates to the independence of auditors of complaints and complaint handling and provides a layer of protection from political interference by stating current or former Deputies, Senators or county councillors cannot be auditors.

Deputy Catherine Martin

The amendment seeks to prevent current and former political officeholders from being appointed as auditors regarding a designated online platform's compliance with online safety codes or their complaints handling systems. I am not accepting the amendment as, in particular, I am not sure what is the value in preventing a former political officeholder, especially a member of a local authority, from being appointed as an auditor. Realistically, appointed auditors are likely to be firms providing professional services rather than individuals and it would be strange to prevent the appointment of a firm as an auditor on the basis that a member of its staff used to be a councillor.

If the Deputies’ concerns relate to cooling-off periods more generally for persons holding public office, then that would be a matter for the Standards in Public Office Commission.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 111 to 113, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 111:

In page 88, line 36, to delete “and”.

These amendments insert into the Bill provisions requiring that coimisiún na meán must give reasonable notice of an audit to a provider of a designated online service.

The purpose of these amendments is to ensure legal clarity around the operation of these provisions and to ensure audits are not delayed or challenged on the basis of a lack of notice being given.

Deputy Imelda Munster

We are taking amendments Nos. 111 to 113, inclusive, together. For clarity, is amendment No. 113 putting additional requirements on service providers? It appears that way and I just want clarity.

Deputy Catherine Martin

It is just saying that reasonable notice of an audit must be given. It is up to the commission and it depends on how complex the audit will be and how much preparation is needed. It will differ. It is making sure reasonable notice is given to ensure these audits are not delayed or challenged.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 112:

In page 88, to delete line 37 and substitute the following:

“(d) specify the co-operation that may be requested by the person appointed, and”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 113:

In page 88, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:

“(e) require the provider to provide that co-operation, subject to reasonable notice being given by the person appointed.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 114 to 117, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 114:

In page 89, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

“and shall give the provider an opportunity to make representations in writing to the Commission on the report within such period as the Commission specifies.”

This amendment would require an coimisiún to provide an opportunity for designated online platforms to make submissions in respect of an audit report prior to its publication. To clarify, it would not change the outcome of an audit report and the comments made by the designated online platform in question may also be published alongside the audit report. These provisions mirror similar requirements under the provisions for reports by authorised officers and are a key due process requirement.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 115:

In page 89, line 10, to delete “and” and substitute the following:

“(9) After considering any representations made under subsection (8), the Commission”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 116:

In page 89, line 14, to delete “(9) If” and substitute “(10) If”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 117:

In page 89, line 19, to delete “(10) A provider” and substitute “(11) A provider”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 118:

In page 89, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:

“CHAPTER 4

Complaints to Commission about harmful online content

Complaints to Commission about harmful online content

139R. Where a scheme under section 139V provides for the making of a complaint to the Commission on the grounds that harmful online content is available on a designated online service, the Commission may deal with the complaint in accordance with this Chapter and the provisions of the scheme.

Complaints which may be considered by Commission

139S. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Commission may not consider a complaint under this Chapter unless it is satisfied that the following conditions are met:

(a) the complainant has made a complaint to the provider of the designated online service concerned about the availability of the content on the service;

(b) a period of more than 2 days has elapsed since the complainant made the complaint to the provider;

(c) where the provider operates a process in accordance with an online safety code for handling such a complaint, the complainant has taken reasonable steps in that period to have the complaint resolved through that process.

(2) Where the Commission is not satisfied that the conditions in subsection (1) are met, it may consider a complaint under this Chapter if it considers it appropriate to do so having regard to the principles referred to in section 139U.

(3) Where a complaint relates to content which falls within one of the offence-specific categories of harmful online content defined in section 139A(2), the Commission may consider the complaint under this Chapter only if—

(a) the Commission has brought the complaint to the attention of the Garda Síochána, or any other body the Commission considers appropriate,

(b) the Commission has informed the complainant and the provider of the designated online service that it has done so, and

(c) where the complaint was brought to the attention of the Garda Síochána, the Garda Síochána has informed the Commission that they do not intend to take any action, or any further action, in relation to the availability of the content on the service concerned.

Resolution of complaints

139T. (1) The Commission may take any of the following actions for the purpose of resolving a complaint under this Chapter:

(a) referring the complaint to the provider concerned with such advice, guidance or support as the Commission considers appropriate;

(b) bringing the complaint to the attention of another body, where the Commission considers the complaint relates to the activities of that body;

(c) giving the provider a notice under section 139ZZD(1);

(d) dismissing the complaint where the Commission concludes that the content is not harmful online content, or is no longer available on the designated online service;

(e) dismissing the complaint where the Commission finds that the complaint is frivolous or vexatious;

(f) taking any other action provided for in a scheme under section 139V.

(2) Where the Commission concludes its consideration of a complaint under this Chapter but does not consider any action within subsection (1) to be appropriate, it shall provide such advice, guidance or support to the complainant as it considers appropriate.

Principles for resolution of complaints

139U. In dealing with complaints under this Chapter, the Commission shall have regard to—

(a) the rights of—

(i) the complainant,

(ii) the person who uploaded the content to the designated online service,

(iii) the provider of the designated online service,

(iv) the users of the designated online service, and

(v) any person to whom the content relates or at whom it is directed,

(b) the interests of any child concerned as complainant, as the person who uploaded the content to the designated online service, or as a person to whom the content relates or at whom it is directed,

(c) the levels of risk of harm, and in particular harm to children, from the availability of the content or exposure to it, and

(d) the desirability of resolving the complaint efficiently.

Complaint scheme: content

139V. (1) Subject to this Chapter the Commission may make a scheme providing for the making and resolution of complaints referred to in section 139R.

(2) The Commission may make a scheme relating to complaints about the availability of a type of harmful online content on designated online services only if there is an online safety code that—

(a) applies to the designated online services concerned, and

(b) relates to the handling, by those providers, of communications from users raising complaints about harmful online content of that type.

(3) A scheme shall provide, in particular, for—

(a) the content of a complaint,

(b) the procedures by which a complaint may be made,

(c) the procedures the Commission shall follow in considering and resolving complaints,

(d) the making of representations in relation to the complaint by the person who uploaded the content that the complaint is about to the designated online service,

(e) the requirements the Commission may impose on providers of designated online services for the purpose of resolving complaints, and

(f) the procedures by which the Commission shall inform the complainant of the Commission’s resolution of the complaint.

(4) A complaint shall contain, in particular—

(a) a description of the content that the complaint is about,

(b) a description of the category of harmful online content into which the complainant considers the content falls, and the reasons for that consideration,

(c) a description of the location of the content on the designated online service, and

(d) evidence that the conditions in section 139S(1) are met.

Complaint scheme: procedure

139W. (1) Before making a scheme under section 139V, the Commission shall consult—

(a) any advisory committee it has established for that purpose under section 19, and

(b) any other person the Commission thinks appropriate.

(2) The Commission shall give the Minister a copy of any scheme made under section 139V as soon as practicable after it is made.

(3) The Commission may amend or replace a scheme made under section 139V, and subsections (1) and (2) apply to the amendment of a scheme as they apply to the making of a scheme.

(4) A scheme made under section 139V, and any amendment of it, shall be laid by the Commission before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made.

Implementation of schemes

139X. (1) The Commission shall prepare a plan describing the period within which, and the manner in which, it proposes to make schemes under section 139V such that, in any case where there is an online safety code that relates to the handling, by providers of designated online services, of communications from users raising complaints about harmful online content of any type, the Commission is able to deal with complaints about the availability of that type of harmful online content on any designated online service to which the code is applied under section 139L.

(2) The Commission’s proposals in the plan prepared under subsection (1) shall prioritise the making of schemes under section 139V relating to complaints about harmful online content relating to or directed at children.

(3) A plan prepared under subsection (1) shall be given to the Minister and published on a website maintained by or on behalf of the Commission as soon as practicable after it is prepared.

Review of operation of scheme

139Y. (1) The Commission shall review the operation of this Chapter at the end of the period of 5 years after the date of its coming into operation.

(2) Without prejudice to subsection (1), the Commission shall review the operation of a scheme under section 139V where the Minister requests the Commission in writing to do so.

(3) The Commission shall give a report of a review to the Minister as soon as practicable after completing the review.

(4) The Commission shall publish the following annually on a website maintained by it:

(a) the number of complaints it has received in the previous year under a scheme and how those complaints were resolved;

(b) the categories of harmful online content to which the complaints related;

(c) such case studies of complaints as it considers appropriate.”.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I would like to comment on amendment No. 118, which is a whopper of an amendment.

Chairman

The amendment has already been discussed with amendment No. 2.

Deputy Imelda Munster

Yes, they were grouped together at the time.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I discussed this last night.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I had a couple of queries. I missed this in the grouping at the time.

Chairman

I am told Deputy Munster may only make a limited contribution because this was discussed last night.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I just have a couple of queries. There was a grouping and there may have been some confusion on my part. I had jotted down a couple of questions in regard to section 139T. What exactly are the sanctions in that regard and to what other parties can a complaint be referred?

Deputy Catherine Martin

This concerns bringing the complaint to the attention of another body where the commission considers the complaint relates to activities of the body. That could be, for example, the Garda. Is that what the Deputy is referring to?

Deputy Imelda Munster

It is section 139T.

Deputy Catherine Martin

That could be the Garda or the Data Protection Commissioner. It will be brought to those sorts of bodies.

Deputy Imelda Munster

What are the sanctions?

Deputy Catherine Martin

The sanctions are those outlined in the Bill. In regard to the handling of complaints, there are sanctions up to and including fines.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I wanted to double-check that. To what other bodies can a complaint be referred? Is it just the list in the Bill?

Deputy Catherine Martin

It could be the Data Protection Commissioner and it could be the Garda. I can forward the Deputy a more detailed list, if that is helpful.

Deputy Imelda Munster

That would be helpful for clarification. With regard to sections 139W and 139Y, these refer to the committee getting copies of the schemes. I want to know if it is expressly this committee that will get copies of those schemes.

Deputy Catherine Martin

It is not this committee; it is the advisory committees to the commission.

Deputy Imelda Munster

Could we request that?

Deputy Catherine Martin

They will be laid by the commission before each House of the Oireachtas, so the committee will have access in that way.

Deputy Imelda Munster

Section 139W refers to data that would be under the remit of the committee for scrutiny.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I am not sure what the Deputy is referring to but I understand that will be published on the website.

Deputy Imelda Munster

Are there restrictions on who can make a complaint? I was asking this of the Departments the other night. For example, is it only people in Ireland or does it include the EU?

Deputy Catherine Martin

It could also be the EU for video-sharing platforms.

Deputy Imelda Munster

Thank you. That is just for my own knowledge.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I am happy to come back to the Deputy if she wants to communicate with me afterwards.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 119:

In page 89, line 25, to delete “4” and substitute “5”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 120:

In page 89, line 28, to delete “139R.” and substitute “139Z.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 121 to 123, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 121:

In page 89, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:

“(a) on identifying harmful online content, and in particular on the application of subsection (4) of section 139A,”.

These amendments insert into the Bill provisions that clarify matters relating to the making of online safety guidance materials. Amendment No. 121 clarifies that coimisiún na meán can make online safety guidance materials relating to the risk test for non offence-specific harmful online content. Amendment No. 122 clarifies that coimisiún na meán can make online safety guidance materials on matters relating to the online safety aspects of the Bill rather than simply in general. Amendment No. 123 is a consequential renumbering.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 122:

In page 89, line 30, to delete “(a) on any matter” and substitute “(b) on any other matter relating to the operation of this Part or”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 123:

In page 89, line 32, to delete “(b) otherwise” and substitute “(c) otherwise”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 124:

In page 90, line 12, to delete “139S.” and substitute “139ZA.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 125:

In page 90, line 12, to delete “section 139R” and substitute “section 139Z”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 126:

In page 90, line 29, to delete “section 139X” and substitute “section 139ZF”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 127:

In page 90, line 31, to delete “139T.” and substitute “139ZB.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 128:

In page 90, line 32, to delete “section 139R” and substitute “section 139Z”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Johnny Mythen

I move amendment No. 129:

In page 91, line 6, after “notice” to insert the following:

“and in such an instance the Commission shall provide a written explanation for this decision to be given to the Minister and the Houses of the Oireachtas”.

The amendment seeks to insert the phrase "and in such an instance the Commission shall provide a written explanation for this decision to be given to the Minister and the Houses of the Oireachtas”. It intends to provide a layer of accountability by ensuring that when the commission decides to withdraw guidance materials or an advisory notice, it must explain the decision to the Minister and the Oireachtas.

Deputy Catherine Martin

This amendment seeks to require an coimisiún to provide an explanation to the Minister and to the Houses of the Oireachtas whenever it withdraws any online safety guidance materials or advisory notices. I am not proposing to accept this amendment. There are already a range of Oireachtas oversight mechanisms built into the Bill and, in that context, I am advised it is not appropriate to require it to account in this way for this specific type of decision. For example, it would appear it could apply in a situation where an coimisiún was withdrawing some guidance because it was updated with new guidance, which would seem to be overly burdensome.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 130:

In page 91, line 7, to delete “5” and substitute “6”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 131:

In page 91, line 10, to delete “139U.” and substitute “139ZC.”

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 132:

In page 92, line 21, to delete “139V.” and substitute “139ZD.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 133:

In page 92, line 27, to delete “section 139R” and substitute “section 139Z”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 134:

In page 92, line 29, to delete “139W.” and substitute “139ZE.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 135:

In page 92, line 40, to delete “section 139R” and substitute “section 139Z”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 136:

In page 93, line 30, to delete “139X.” and substitute “139ZF.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 137:

In page 93, line 40, to delete “Directive 2000/31/EC” and substitute “the E-Commerce Directive”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I move amendment No. 138:

In page 94, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

“Online Safety for Consumers of Purchased Subscriptions

139Y. (1) For the purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(a) 'Automatic renewal' means a plan or arrangement in which a paid subscription or purchasing agreement is automatically renewed at the end of a definite term for a subsequent term;

(b) 'Automatic renewal offer terms' means the following clear and conspicuous disclosures:

(i) that the subscription or purchasing agreement will continue until the consumer cancels;

(ii) the description of the cancellation policy that applies to the offer;

(iii) the recurring charges that will be charged to the consumer's credit or debit card or payment account with a third party as part of the automatic renewal plan or arrangement, and that the amount of the charge may change, if that is the case, and the amount to which the charge will change, if known;

(iv) the length of the automatic renewal term or that the service is continuous, unless the length of the term is chosen by the consumer;

(v) the minimum purchase obligation, if any.

(c) 'clear and conspicuous' or 'clearly and conspicuously' means in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or colour to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks, in a manner that clearly calls attention to the language. In the case of an audio disclosure, 'clear and conspicuous' and 'clearly and conspicuously' means in a volume and cadence sufficient to be readily audible and understandable;

(d) 'consumer' means any individual who seeks or acquires, by purchase or lease, any goods, services, money, or credit for personal, family, or household purposes;

(e) 'continuous service' means a plan or arrangement in which a subscription or purchasing agreement continues until the consumer cancels the service.

(2) It shall be unlawful for any business that makes an automatic renewal offer or continuous service offer to a consumer in this State to do any of the following:

(a) fail to present the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms in a clear and conspicuous manner before the subscription or purchasing agreement is fulfilled and in visual proximity, or in the case of an offer conveyed by voice, in temporal proximity, to the request for consent to the offer. If the offer also includes a free gift or trial, the offer shall include a clear and conspicuous explanation of the price that will be charged after the trial ends or the manner in which the subscription or purchasing agreement pricing will change upon conclusion of the trial;

(b) charge the consumer's credit or debit card, or the consumer's account with a third party, for an automatic renewal or continuous service without first obtaining the consumer's affirmative consent to the agreement containing the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms, including the terms of an automatic renewal offer or continuous service offer that is made at a promotional or discounted price for a limited period of time;

(c) fail to provide an acknowledgement that includes the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. If the automatic renewal offer or continuous service offer includes a free gift or trial, the business shall also disclose in the acknowledgement how to cancel, and allow the consumer to cancel, the automatic renewal or continuous service before the consumer pays for the goods or services.

(3) A business that makes an automatic renewal offer or continuous service offer shall provide a toll-free telephone number, electronic mail address, a postal address if the seller directly bills the consumer, or it shall provide another cost-effective, timely, and easy-to-use mechanism for cancellation that shall be described in the acknowledgement specified in paragraph (c) of subsection (1).

(4) In addition to the requirements of subsection (2), a consumer who accepts an automatic renewal or continuous service offer online shall be allowed to terminate the automatic renewal or continuous service exclusively online, which may include a termination email formatted and provided by the business that a consumer can send to the business without additional information.

(5) In the case of a material change in the terms of the automatic renewal or continuous service that has been accepted by a consumer in this State, the business shall provide the consumer with a clear and conspicuous notice of the material change and provide information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer.

(6) The requirements of this section shall apply only prior to the completion of the initial order for the automatic renewal or continuous service, except as follows:

(a) the requirement in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) may be fulfilled after completion of the initial order;

(b) the requirement in subsection (5) shall be fulfilled prior to implementation of the material change.

(7) This section shall come into operation on 1 January 2023.”.

In online safety, we have to look at international best practice when it comes to protecting consumers, particularly from those hidden charges and increases in them. There is also a very real difficulty around the exit procedures from some subscription services. I cannot be the only person in this room who remembers the premium ringtones from the 1990s and the horror that ensued when trying to cancel those subscriptions. That triggered legislation in other jurisdictions which we benefited from, thankfully. However, it is still an issue. It was actually highlighted on RTÉ's "Claire Byrne Live" show a number of months ago as an issue. Whether it is an online subscription or a subscription to an app, the issues remain the same. On the face of it, these monthly fees and charges can be quite minimal so they almost slip past people's attention when they appear on their bank statements, but they do have an overall and cumulative damaging impact on people's finances. That is why protections are needed.

What we are proposing is to replicate section 17602 of the Business and Professions Code of the State of California. It would ensure people receive an adequate warning of an impending fee increase, and it would also make it easier to cancel a subscription online with the press of a button. The principle is that it should, in fact, be as easy to unsubscribe as it is to subscribe in the first place.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I thank the Deputy for the amendment. It seeks to introduce rules for businesses offering subscription services, including in relation to renewals, cancellations, recurring charges and information provision. I cannot accept the amendment because it is outside the scope of the Bill and it is more appropriate to consumer protection legislation. As well as this, the amendment does not appear to provide for any enforcement mechanism and would also appear to apply to any business, whether it operates online or offline.

Chairman

Is the amendment being pressed?

Deputy Sorca Clarke

No. We will withdraw it with a view to bringing it back on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 44, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 45

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 139 to 145, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No 139:

In page 98, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:

“35. Online content by which a person exposes his or her genitals intending to cause fear, distress or alarm to another person contrary to section 45(1) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017.

36. Online content by which a person intentionally engages in offensive conduct of a sexual nature contrary to section 45(3) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017.”.

There are two kinds of categories of harmful online content contained in the Bill at present, those related to existing criminal offences, such as harassment under the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020, or Coco's Law, and those that are not linked to criminal offences, such as cyberbullying and the promotion of eating disorders, suicide and self-harm. This amendment will add existing offences from the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 relating to online flashing to the schedule of offence-specific harmful online content in the Bill. This amendment will enable the online safety commissioner to make binding online safety codes that will apply to designated online service providers that will require those providers to take measures to tackle online flashing. Without this amendment, online safety codes could not specifically refer to this type of harmful content online and an coimisiún would not be able to require online service providers to tackle it in terms of how they deal with complaints, how they deliver content and in terms of risk and impact assessments. These codes will apply to online services designated by an coimisiún on the basis of risk assessments and may include social media services, messaging services and videoconferencing services. It will remain the role of An Garda Síochána to investigate allegations of criminal behaviour. An coimisiún's role will be to be oversee the regulatory framework for online safety and hold designated online services accountable for their compliance with online safety codes.

Deputy Imelda Munster

The amendment refers to "Online content by which a person intentionally engages in offensive conduct of a sexual nature contrary to section 45(3) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017". How can the intention of a person be judged? That is the first question that springs to mind. Should it not just be that unsolicited pictures of this type are an offence, full stop? If a person claims that his or her intention was not to cause fear or distress, is such conduct not deemed to be an offence?

Deputy Catherine Martin

I believe we are replicating the wording of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 in the amendment.

Deputy Imelda Munster

As I said, if a person claims it was not his or her intention to cause fear or distress in sending an unsolicited picture of a sexual nature, does that mean that no offence has been committed?

Deputy Catherine Martin

We are not creating a new criminal offence. We are replicating the language that is used in the 2017 Act. The determination of whether an offence has been committed is made on the balance of probabilities. We are not creating a new offence.

Deputy Imelda Munster

Is that something the Department or the Minister would look at?

Deputy Catherine Martin

That would be a matter for the Department of Justice to consider, not my Department. We are just providing for this to be harmful online content on the basis of what is set out in the 2017 Act.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I know that, but it is not great if a person who sends an unsolicited picture to another person can claim that an offence has not been committed because he or she did not mean to case distress or offence. This is the Online Safety and Media Regulation Bill. It is about online safety. I am flagging up that the provision is not necessarily strong enough.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I am not sure intention works the same way in legal terms as we might understand it in everyday terms. The amendment is replicating the language used in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017. We are not creating a new criminal offence. We are ensuring the issue can be tackled in the online world.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I share the concerns raised by Deputy Munster. When speaking of the online world, we are speaking about a very different reality. Often people's behaviour online does not reflect the behaviour they exhibit when standing in front of someone. If an individual were to receive a sexually explicit message – via an app, let us say – would it be a defence to say the intent was not to cause fear or distress and that the sending of the message was simply the norm on the app? I share Deputy Munster's concern particularly because of the arena we are speaking about. It is not face to face but virtual, which has connotations. I will give a very simple example. A message delivered face to face is often interpreted differently than it would be if delivered by text. In his regard, the section to be introduced will need to be amended because it does not go far enough or take into consideration the online or virtual arena.

Deputy Catherine Martin

We have to remember what I said at the very beginning. It will remain the role of An Garda Síochána to investigate allegations of criminal behaviour by an individual. The role of the coimisiún will be to oversee the regulatory framework. In the context of criminal proceedings, it would be a matter of being beyond reasonable doubt. Taking online content down will be ascertained on the balance of probability. There are two different things. It will remain the role of the Garda to investigate allegations of criminal behaviour. This is about the online content.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I could not stand over the Minister's position. It does not reflect what we are trying to do with the Bill.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 140:

In page 98, line 36, to delete "35. Onlne" and substitute "37. Onlne".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 141:

In page 99, line 2, to delete "36. Onlne" and substitute "38. Onlne". —

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 142:

In page 99, line 7, to delete "37. Onlne" and substitute "39. Onlne".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 143:

In page 99, line 12, to delete "38. Onlne" and substitute "40. Onlne".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 144:

In page 99, line 20, to delete "39. Onlne" and substitute "41. Onlne".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 145:

In page 99, line 26, to delete "40. Onlne" and substitute "42, Online".

Amendment agreed to.

Section 45, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 46

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 146:

In page 100, line 6, to delete "139Y." and substitute "139ZG.".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 147 not moved.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 148:

In page 100, line 15, to delete "section 139ZA(1)" and substitute "section 139ZI(1)".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 149:

In page 100, line 35, to delete "139Z." and substitute "139ZH.".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 150:

In page 101, line 15, to delete "139ZA." and substitute "139ZI.".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 151:

In page 101, line 25, to delete "139ZB." and substitute "139ZJ.".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 152:

In page 101, line 26, to delete "section 139ZA(1)" and substitute "section 139ZI(1)".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 153:

In page 101, line 32, to delete "139ZA(3)" and substitute "139ZI(3)".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 154:

In page 101, line 34, to delete "section 139ZA(3)" and substitute "section 139ZI(3)".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 155:

In page 102, line 5, to delete "139ZC." and substitute "139ZK.".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 156:

In page 103, line 25, to delete "139ZF" and substitute "139ZN".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 157:

In page 103, line 28, to delete "section 139ZD" and substitute "section 139ZL".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 158:

In page 103, line 34, to delete "139ZD" and substitute "139ZL".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 159:

In page 103, line 37, to delete "section 139ZD" and substitute "section 139ZL".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 160:

In page 104, line 26, to delete "139ZD." and substitute "139ZL.".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 161:

In page 104, line 33, to delete "section 139ZC" and substitute "section 139ZK".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 162:

In page 104, line 40, to delete "139ZE." and substitute "139ZM.".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 163:

In page 105, line 5, to delete "section 139ZB(2)" and substitute "section 139ZJ(1)".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 164:

In page 105, line 6, to delete "section 139ZB(3)" and substitute "section 139ZJ(3)".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 165:

In page 105, line 8, to delete "section 139ZC" and substitute "section 139ZK".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 166:

In page 105, line 11, to delete "section 139ZC" and substitute "section 139ZK".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 167:

In page 105, line 13, to delete "section 139ZC" and substitute "section 139ZK".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 168:

In page 105, line 32, to delete "section 139ZK" and substitute "section 139ZS".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 169:

In page 106, line 11, to delete "139ZF." and substitute "139ZN.".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 170:

In page 106, line 21, to delete "139ZG." and substitute "139ZO.".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 171:

In page 106, line 23, to delete "section 139ZF" and substitute "section 139ZN".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 172:

In page 106, line 28, to delete "139ZH." and substitute "139ZP.".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 173:

In page 106, line 29, to delete "section 139ZF" and substitute "section 139ZN".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 174:

In page 106, line 29, to delete "section 139ZG" and substitute "section 139ZO".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 175:

In page 106, line 38, to delete "139ZI." and substitute "139ZQ.".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 176:

In page 106, line 39, to delete "sections 139ZQ, 139ZR and 139ZS" and substitute "sections 139ZY, 139ZZ and 139ZZA".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 177:

In page 107, line 4, to delete "section 139ZA" and substitute "section 139ZI".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 178:

In page 107, line 7, to delete "139ZJ." and substitute "139ZR.".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 179:

In page 107, lines 7 and 8, to delete "section 139ZE(6) and (7)" and substitute "subsections (6) and (7) of section 139ZM".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 180:

In page 107, line 19, to delete “section 139ZE(6) and (7)” and substitute “subsections (6) and (7) of section 139ZM”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 181:

In page 107, line 23, to delete “section 139ZE(6) and (7)” and substitute “subsections (6) and (7) of section 139ZM”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 182:

In page 107, line 25, to delete “section 139ZK” and substitute “section 139ZS”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 183:

In page 108, line 24, to delete “139ZK.” and substitute “139ZS.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 184:

In page 108, line 25, to delete “section 139ZE” and substitute “section 139ZM”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 185:

In page 108, line 33, to delete “section 139ZP” and substitute “section 139ZX”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 186:

In page 108, line 33, to delete “section 139ZQ” and substitute “section 139ZY”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 187:

In page 108, line 36, to delete “section 139ZE(7)” and substitute “section 139ZM(7)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 188:

In page 108, line 39, to delete “section 139ZJ” and substitute “section 139ZR”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 189:

In page 108, line 41, to delete “139ZJ(4)” and substitute “139ZR(4)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 190:

In page 109, lines 1 and 2, to delete “section 139ZJ(1) or (6)” and substitute “subsection (1) or (6) of section 139ZR”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 191:

In page 109, line 6, to delete “section 139ZO(3)” and substitute “section 139ZW(3)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 192:

In page 109, line 8, to delete “139ZL.” and substitute “139ZT.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 193:

In page 109, line 9, to delete “section 139ZK” and substitute “section 139ZS”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 194:

In page 109, line 16, to delete “section 139ZP” and substitute “section 139ZX”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 195:

In page 109, line 17, to delete “section 139ZQ” and substitute “section 139ZY”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 196:

In page 109, line 18, to delete “section 139ZP” and substitute “section 139ZX”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 197:

In page 109, line 21, to delete “139ZP(1)” and substitute “139ZX(1)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 198:

In page 109, line 22, to delete “section 139ZQ” and substitute “section 139ZY”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 199:

In page 109, line 26, to delete “section 139ZO” and substitute “section 139ZW”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 200:

In page 109, line 30, to delete “139ZM(2)(a)” and substitute “139ZU(2)(a)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 201:

In page 109, line 32, to delete “139ZM(2)(b)” and substitute “139ZU(2)(b)”

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 202:

In page 109, line 36, to delete “section 139ZM(3)” and substitute “section 139ZU(3)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 203:

In page 109, line 37, to delete “section 139ZK” and substitute “section 139ZS”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 204:

In page 110, line 25, to delete “1139ZM.” and substitute “139ZU.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 205:

In page 110, line 26, to delete “section 139ZK” and substitute “section 139ZS”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 206:

In page 110, line 29, to delete “section 139ZO” and substitute “section 139ZW”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 207:

In page 110, line 33, to delete “section 139ZL” and substitute “section 139ZT”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 208:

In page 111, line 4, to delete “139ZN.” and substitute “139ZV.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 209:

In page 111, line 4, to delete “section 139ZK” and substitute “section 139ZS”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 210:

In page 111, line 6, to delete “section 139ZO” and substitute “section 139ZW”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 211:

In page 111, line 9, to delete “section 139ZM(2)(a)” and substitute “section 139ZU(2)(a)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 212:

In page 111, line 11, to delete “section 139ZM(2)(b)” and substitute “section 139ZU(2)(b)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 213:

In page 111, line 13, to delete “section 139ZM(3)” and substitute “section 139ZU(3)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 214:

In page 111, line 27, to delete “139ZO.” and substitute “139ZW.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 215:

In page 111, line 28, to delete “section 139ZK” and substitute “section 139ZS”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 216:

In page 111, line 33, to delete “139ZK” and substitute “139ZS”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 217:

In page 111, line 39, to delete “section 139ZK” and substitute “section 139ZS”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 218:

In page 112, line 12, to delete “section 139ZK” and substitute “section 139ZS”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 219:

In page 112, line 14, to delete “section 139ZP) under section 139ZP” and substitute “section 139ZX) under section 139ZX”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 220:

In page 112, line 15, to delete “section 139ZQ” and substitute “section 139ZY”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 221:

In page 112, line 35, to delete “section 139ZM(2)” and substitute “section 139ZU(2)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 222:

In page 112, line 38, to delete “section 139ZM(3)” and substitute “section 139ZU(3)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 223:

In page 112, line 41, to delete “section 139ZP) under section 139ZP” and substitute “section 139ZX) under section 139ZX”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 224:

In page 112, line 42, to delete “section 139ZQ” and substitute “section 139ZY”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 225:

In page 113, line 2, to delete “section 139ZK” and substitute “section 139ZS”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 226:

In page 113, line 8, to delete “section 139ZK” and substitute “section 139ZS”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 227:

In page 113, line 14, to delete “139ZP.” and substitute “139ZX.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 228:

In page 113, line 14, to delete “section 139ZK” and substitute “section 139ZS”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 229:

In page 113, line 16, to delete “139ZL” and substitute “139ZT”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 230:

In page 113, line 16, to delete “section 139ZN” and substitute “section 139ZV”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 231:

In page 113, line 17, to delete “section 139ZN(3)” and substitute “section 139ZV(3)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 232:

In page 113, line 27, to delete “section 139ZK” and substitute “section 139ZS”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 233:

In page 113, line 34, to delete “section 139ZQ” and substitute “section 139ZY”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 234:

In page 114, line 21, to delete “sections 139ZK(4) and 139ZO” and substitute “sections 139ZS(4) and 139ZW”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 235:

In page 114, line 32, to delete “section 139ZK” and substitute “section 139ZS”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 236:

In page 114, line 38, to delete “139ZQ.” and substitute “139ZY.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 237:

In page 114, line 38, to delete “section 139ZK” and substitute “section 139ZS”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 238:

In page 114, line 40, to delete “139ZP(1)” and substitute “139ZX(1)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 239:

In page 114, line 41, to delete “section 139ZP(1)” and substitute “section 139ZX(1)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 240:

In page 115, line 23, to delete “section 139ZP(3)” and substitute “section 139ZX(3)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 241:

In page 115, line 26, to delete “section 139ZP(3)” and substitute “section 139ZX(3)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 242:

In page 115, line 27, to delete “section 139ZP(3)” and substitute “section 139ZX(3)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 243:

In page 115, line 28, to delete “section 139ZP(1)” and substitute “section 139ZX(1)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 244:

In page 115, line 32, to delete “139ZP(5)” and substitute “139ZX(5)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 245:

In page 115, line 38, to delete “139ZR.” and substitute “139ZZ.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 246:

In page 115, line 39, to delete “section 139ZP” and substitute “section 139ZX”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 247:

In page 115, line 40, to delete “section 139ZQ” and substitute “section 139ZY”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 248:

In page 116, line 2, to delete “139ZS.” and substitute “139ZZA.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 249:

In page 116, line 3, to delete “section 139ZK” and substitute “section 139ZS”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 250:

In page 116, line 5, to delete “section 139ZN(1)” and substitute “section 139ZV(1)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 251:

In page 116, line 17, to delete “139ZT.” and substitute “139ZZB.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 252:

In page 116, line 18, to delete “section 139ZK” and substitute “section 139ZS”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 253:

In page 116, line 21, to delete “section 139ZP or 139ZQ” and substitute “section 139ZX or 139ZY”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 254:

In page 116, line 22, to delete “section 139ZP” and substitute “section 139ZX”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 255:

In page 116, lines 31 and 32, to delete “section 139ZP or 139ZQ” and substitute “section 139ZX or 139ZY”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 256:

In page 116, line 32, to delete “section 139ZP” and substitute “section 139ZX”.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Deputy Gannon has been very patient. We got to him eventually.

Deputy Gary Gannon

I move amendment No. 257:

In page 116, line 39, after “any” to insert “wilful”.

This involves a simple matter of phraseology. The regulatory framework provided within this Bill is strong and well-intentioned. However, I have an issue with the specific language under Chapter 5, section 139ZT of the Bill regarding a notice to end contravention, which outlines a criminal liability for senior managers and directors of companies where they fail to intervene in removing harmful online content. I believe Digital Business Ireland has written to all of us on this specific language issue. This section of the Bill provides that a senior manager or director can be held liable for any offence proven to be committed by "any neglect" rather than "wilful neglect" of their duties. This has the potential for some very severe prosecutions for what potentially could be an unintentional error. As a result of this offence, a director or senior manager would be liable for fines of up to €500,000 or ten years in prison. I put forward that the term "any neglect" in this section of the Bill should be replaced by "wilful neglect", which would refer to negligence on the part of a senior manager or director that is deemed to be intentional or reckless and reflects a "couldn't care less" attitude. The use of "wilful" versus "any" neglect in this section underlines the seriousness and strengthens the nature of the offence committed.

Looking at case law and other legislation addressing crimes of a serious nature such as this, we will not see the term, "any neglect", used in place of "wilful neglect". The Minister might clarify if that is the case. For example, wilful neglect is the standard applied in respect of corruption offences under the Criminal Justice (Corruption Offences) Act 2018. It is also there in the context of aiding and abetting of certain fraud offences under the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) (Amendment) Act 2021, and in references to certain money laundering or terrorist financing offences under the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010, to name but a few. By inserting "any" instead of "wilful" neglect into this important legislation we are therefore moving away from Irish law. We should question why this departure is taking place in this instance.

There is a distinct difference between the two phrases. While there is a lack of specific Irish case law that underlines this distinction, the UK Court of Appeal distinguished "any neglect" from "wilful neglect", stating that wilful neglect requires the defendant to be aware of the breach and still turn a blind eye. On the other hand, "any neglect" could relate to an entirely inadvertent error on the part of a director or senior manager. This distinction was also noted by the Law Reform Commission of Ireland in chapter 9 of its report, Regulatory Powers and Corporate Offences. Significantly, the Law Commission for England and Wales in a similar paper, Criminal Liability in Regulatory Contexts, also concluded that the "any neglect" standard should never be used for serious criminal offences.

It is also important to emphasise that this offence will place a category one offence in the Bill, which is one of the most serious offences contained within it. Individuals should not be exposed to such offences due to "any neglect" on their part, rather, deliberate or wilful neglect must take place.

I am conscious that I would like to see future-proofing of the Bill, especially for online social media companies. For example, Meta is now building what it describes as the metaverse, a concept many of us cannot even understand. If we strengthen this Bill to ensure that the phrase "any neglect" rather than "wilful neglect" is in it, we could tie up our courts for years with philosophical debates about what constitutes neglect rather than wilful intent. I want to create a scenario where there is not a get-out-of-jail free card for social media companies that would have volumes of lawyers behind them debating the philosophical concept of "any". Let us strengthen the Bill by including intent. If a social media company and its directors, for example, become aware of an issue, they have to enforce and act upon it. However, we are talking about this Bill being with us for the next ten, 20 or 50 years, potentially. We do not know what these technologies look like, but we know what intent looks like. That is why I want to remove "any" and include "wilful". Somebody should be held accountable by the courts for an act they are responsible for but as we move to future technologies we are not aware of, we cannot legislate for that yet. That is why intent must be placed in the Act. I would love to hear the Minister's response.

Deputy Catherine Martin

As the Deputy said, this amendment seeks to replace the words “any neglect” in the phrase “the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect” in the provisions for senior management liability, where a provider of a designated online service commits an offence for failing to comply with a notice to end a contravention.

I understand that some industry stakeholders have raised concerns that the liability standard of “any neglect” is too low and have sought to replace it with “wilful neglect”. I cannot accept this amendment for a number of reasons. It is important to note that the senior management liability provisions in the Bill can only be triggered as part of the following series of steps: an authorised officer investigation has been carried out; coimisiún na meán has determined that a contravention is occurring; the findings of an coimisiún have been confirmed by a court; an coimisiún has determined that a contravention is still occurring and has issued a notice to the provider of the designated online service to end the contravention; the provider of the designated online service has failed to comply with the notice and is being prosecuted for the offence by the Director of Public Prosecutions; and the Director of Public Prosecutions, independently to an coimisiún, seeks to prosecute a director or senior manager under the secondary liability provision. In this context, I think “any neglect” is appropriate. It was provided for in this way in light of, on the one hand, the extensive financial sanctioning powers in the Bill and, on the other, the need to provide a particular balance in a Bill that deals with media, user-generated content and fundamental rights such as freedom of expression.

For context, I understand, and the Deputy raised this matter in his contribution, there are almost 1,500 references to the same liability standard in Irish law so this is not unique. In this Bill, in fact, the circumstances provided for wherein senior management liability may be triggered are quite narrow. Recent examples of its usage include the sanctions on Russia in light of its illegal invasion of Ukraine, building regulations, protected disclosure legislation, food safety regulations, domestic violence law and childcare laws.

The Deputy referenced the UK's Law Commission report, but Ireland's Law Reform Commission report, Regulatory Powers and Corporate Offences, stated that this specific form of secondary liability "does not necessarily result in undue harshness to a defendant, particularly where in a corporate setting the processes and procedures required to meet the standard of negligence are within the peculiar knowledge of the senior managers and comparable agents".

Deputy Gary Gannon

Okay. I am still not convinced. The Minister referenced the UK courts, as did I, but this has particular relevance to Ireland. A lot of these tech companies and social media companies are based here so it could potentially create a hostile environment. I am referring to future technologies that do not exist yet. If we have directors of these companies here, I would like to believe we could have Irish directors on their boards. What is to stop them just relocating elsewhere? I still believe intent has to be at the source of any law we create. If somebody is made aware of wrongdoing, they have to respond. The idea of "any" is an incredibly high standard for the types of technologies we are referring to. I will press ahead with this amendment on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 258:

In page 117, line 15, to delete “139ZU.” and substitute “139ZZC.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 259:

In page 117, line 34, to delete “139ZT(4)” and substitute “139ZZB(4)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 260:

In page 118, line 12, to delete “139ZT(4)” and substitute “139ZZB(4)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 261:

In page 119, line 15, to delete “139ZV.” and substitute “139ZZD.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 262:

In page 119, line 30, to delete “section 139ZK” and substitute “section 139ZS”

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 263:

In page 119, line 34, to delete “section 139ZP or 139ZQ” and substitute “section 139ZX or 139ZY”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 264:

In page 119, line 35, to delete “section 139ZP” and substitute “section 139ZX”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 265:

In page 120, line 23, to delete “Directive 2000/31/EC” and substitute “the E-Commerce Directive”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 266:

In page 120, line 25, to delete “139ZW.” and substitute “139ZZE.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 267:

In page 120, line 25, to delete “section 139ZV” and substitute “section 139ZZD(1)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 268:

In page 120, line 33, to delete “139ZV(1)” and substitute “139ZZD(1)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 269:

In page 120, line 35, to delete “139ZV(1)” and substitute “139ZZD(1)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 270 and 271 are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 270:

In page 120, line 36, to delete “and” and substitute the following:

“(f) identify the geographical area within which the action required by the Commission under section 139ZZD(1) must be taken, and”.

The purpose of amendment No. 270 is to require coimisiún na meán to state the geographical area in which the action required of an online service addressed by a content limitation notice is to be taken. This amendment will simply provide legal clarity in that regard. The geographical limits of any particular content limitation notice will depend on the kind of harmful online content being addressed and any associated national, EU or international law. For example, a content limitation notice ordering the removal of an item of content on the grounds that it constitutes a public provocation to commit a terrorist offence, which is an EU law, would have an EU-wide geographical reach. Under EU and international law and jurisprudence, this would already be required of coimisiún na meán when issuing a content limitation notice requiring, for example, an online service to remove or disable access to a particular item of harmful online content. Amendment No. 271 is a consequential renumbering.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 271:

In page 120, line 37, to delete “(f) state” and substitute “(g) state”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 272:

In page 121, line 1, to delete “section 139ZV” and substitute “section 139ZZD(1)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 273:

In page 121, line 13, to delete “section 139ZV” and substitute “section 139ZZD(1)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 274:

In page 121, line 24, to delete “section 139ZK” and substitute “section 139ZS”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 275:

In page 121, line 25, to delete “section 139ZP or 139ZQ” and substitute “section 139ZX or 139ZY”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 276:

In page 121, line 29, to delete “section 139ZV(3)” and substitute “section 139ZZD(3)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 277:

In page 122, line 2, to delete “section 139ZX” and substitute “section 139ZZF”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 278:

In page 122, line 7, to delete “139ZX.” and substitute “139ZZF.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 279:

In page 122, line 9, to delete “section 139ZW(7)(a)” and substitute “section 139ZZE(7)(a)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 280:

In page 122, line 21, to delete “139ZY.” and substitute “139ZZG.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 281:

In page 122, line 23, to delete “section 139ZW(7)(a)” and substitute “section 139ZZE(7)(a)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 282:

In page 122, line 24, to delete “section 139ZX(2)” and substitute “section 139ZZF(2)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 283:

In page 122, line 26, to delete “section 139ZW(7)(a)” and substitute “section 139ZZE(7)(a)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 284:

In page 123, line 4, to delete “139ZZ.” and substitute “139ZZH.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 285:

In page 123, line 20, to delete “139ZZA.” and substitute “139ZZI.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 46, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 47

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 286:

In page 124, to delete line 5 and substitute “Sections 139ZK(3), 139ZR(3) and (4) or 139ZU(2)(a)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 287:

In page 124, lines 7 and 8, to delete “section 139ZC(3), 139ZJ(3) or (4) and 139ZM(2)(a)” and substitute “section 139ZK(3), 139ZR(3) or (4) and 139ZU(2)(a)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 288:

In page 124, line 11, to delete “section 139ZC(3)” and substitute “section 139ZK(3)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 289:

In page 124, lines 13 and 14, to delete “section 139ZJ(3) or (4) or section 139ZM(2)(a)” and substitute “section 139ZR(3) or (4) or section 139ZU(2)(a)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 290:

In page 124, line 16, to delete “section 139ZC(3)” and substitute “section 139ZK(3)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 291:

In page 124, lines 19 and 20, to delete “section 139ZJ(3) or (4) or section 139ZM(2)(a)” and substitute “section 139ZR(3) or (4) or section 139ZU(2)(a)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 292:

In page 125, line 10, to delete “139ZF” and substitute “139ZN”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 47, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 48

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 293 to 305, inclusive, and 321 are related and may be discussed together. Amendments Nos. 295 and 296 are logical alternatives to amendment No. 294.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 293:

In page 126, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:

“(b) by the insertion of the following definition after the definition of “free television service”;

“ 'local sound broadcaster' means a person holding a sound broadcasting contract under section 63—

(a) which is a contract for the provision of a sound broadcasting service in an area consisting of a part, but not the whole, of the State, and

(b) which is not a contract under section 64 or 68(1)(b);”,”.

The objective of the Government amendments in this grouping, namely, amendments Nos. 293, 295, 296, 298, 302, 303, 305 and 321, is to ensure that local sound broadcasters can avail of the scheme for professional journalistic practices that is being provided for in the Bill. The Bill as published would have restricted the scheme to community sound broadcasters. This scheme has been under consideration for some time, and I understand may have originated when Deputy Naughten was Minister, a fact I want to acknowledge today. The scheme formed part of the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill 2019 introduced in the Oireachtas by the then Minister, Deputy Bruton, and was subsequently incorporated into this Bill. Amendment No. 293 inserts a definition of “local sound broadcaster” in order to give effect to the intention to extend the scheme to local broadcasters. In practice, the definition of "local" includes any contract for a sound broadcasting service in an area consisting of a part of the State. Accordingly, I emphasise that the use of term local includes holders of multi-county and regional sound broadcasting licences. These amendments will ensure that local broadcasters can avail of grant funding to provide training or professional development for persons employed by, or providing services to, the broadcaster in relation to promoting good professional journalistic practices.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 48, as amended, agreed to.

Section 49 agreed to.

SECTION 50

Deputy Imelda Munster

I move amendment No. 294:

In page 127, to delete lines 3 to 9 and substitute the following:

“ “155A. (1) The Commission shall prepare and submit to the Minister for his or her approval a scheme or a number of schemes for the making of grants to any community medium or local independent radio station for the purposes of supporting and promoting good professional journalistic practices and standards in community and local media and towards the cost of such ancillary measures as are necessary to support such a scheme or schemes.”.

Deputy Imelda Munster

May we speak to the amendment?

Chairman

The amendment was already discussed with amendment No. 293. There is limited scope to speak to it.

Deputy Imelda Munster

This is amendment No. 294 and the grouping comprised amendments Nos. 293 to 305, inclusive.

Chairman

Yes. This is amendment No. 294, which has already been discussed with amendment No. 293. I will allow the Deputy the latitude to make a small contribution.

Deputy Imelda Munster

In respect of community media and local radio, the purpose of the amendments we have submitted is to ensure that community television, and not only community radio, can also avail of schemes. This amendment doubles up the order to include the local radio broadcasters that have been omitted despite having been included in the original scheme, as the Minister mentioned, by the then Minister, Deputy Naughten.

Amendments Nos. 297 and 299 involve changes that will enable community media to develop a role as an overlap between the media and community development sector and facilitate the last mile, if you like, of public service media in Ireland, from the national to the hyperlocal, and recognition as such in the Bill would add to a coherent understanding of the development value of the community media sector in the future. We spoke last night about the value of local media. It is invaluable.

Amendment No. 300 is to ensure that local radio is included in the scheme as opposed to just community radio.

Deputy Catherine Martin

May I address all the amendments to which the Deputy has spoken? She mentioned amendment No. 300, which seeks to achieve the same objective as a Government amendment. Accordingly, I will not be accepting amendment No. 300. I have introduced that measure.

Deputy Imelda Munster

Okay.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I understand the rationale underpinning amendments Nos. 294, 299 and 301, which seek to make this scheme accessible to community television broadcasters. I agree with the Deputy that it is important to recognise the important role played by community television in this country. I will not accept those amendments today but I will consider them on Report Stage.

I believe the objectives of amendment No. 297 are already addressed in the Bill.

Amendment No. 304 seeks to require that the commission, in developing a scheme, should have regard to developing impartial journalism through the medium of Irish. In the context of this particular scheme, which is directed towards training in respect of good journalistic practice, I do not think it is necessary to make reference to the language medium in which journalism is provided to the public. However, while I do not accept the amendment, I agree with the objective of developing journalism through the medium of Irish. As the committee is aware, the report of the Future of Media Commission recommended the establishment of a platform-neutral media fund to support six new schemes. I secured €6 million in budget 2023 to set up two of those schemes for local democracy reporting and a court reporting scheme. My officials have commenced work on developing the broad parameters of the schemes and I have directed them to ensure that part of the funding is directed towards journalism in the Irish language.

Chairman

Deputy Clarke may make a very small contribution.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I will make a brief comment on amendment No. 304. I take on board what the Minister has said. This amendment was proposed by Conradh na Gaeilge to allow the commission a role in establishing a grant scheme for the purpose of supporting and promoting good quality journalistic practices and standards around community, specifically in respect of the Irish language. In considering this amendment, it is important to bear in mind our previous conversation regarding RTÉ and the pay differential that exists, which Ms Dee Forbes has confirmed will not be a part of the review being undertaken by RTÉ. This is a simple amendment that asks that Irish language journalists are borne in mind when these schemes are being developed.

Deputy Catherine Martin

May I reply?

Chairman

Of course the Minister can reply.

Deputy Catherine Martin

As I said, as part the new schemes we are developing, I have directed my officials to ensure that part of the funding is ring-fenced for journalism in the Irish language.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 295:

In page 127, line 5, after “to” to insert “local sound broadcasters and”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 296:

In page 127, line 7, after “in” to insert “local and”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 297 not moved.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 298:

In page 127, line 12, after “by” to insert “local sound broadcasters and”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos 299 to 301, inclusive, not moved.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 302:

In page 127, line 16, after “require a” to insert “local sound broadcaster or”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 303:

In page 127, line 25, after “of” to insert “local sound broadcasters and”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 304 not moved.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 305:

In page 127, line 29, after “of” to insert “local or”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 50, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 51 and 52 agreed to.

SECTION 53

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I move amendment No. 306:

In page 129, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:

“Irish Cultural Works

159AA. (1) For the purposes of this section, ‘Irish cultural works’ are defined as works that satisfy the following criteria:

(a) works of music that satisfy two of the following criteria:

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

(ii) 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;

(iii) 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;

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

(b) audiovisual or cinematic content that satisfies one of the following criteria:

(i) the work is made by one or more producers established on the island of Ireland or associated small offshore islands;

(ii) the work is supervised and controlled by one or more producers established on the island of Ireland or associated offshore islands;

(iii) there are co-producers established outside of the island of Ireland and associated offshore islands, but the contribution of co-producers established on the island of Ireland or associated offshore islands is preponderant and co-production is not controlled by one or more co-producers established outside of the island of Ireland and associated offshore islands;

(iv) the screenplay and/or script is written by a resident of the island of Ireland or associated small offshore islands, or based on a work written by a resident of the island of Ireland or associated small offshore islands;

(v) actors, performers, presenters or participants who were resident on the island of Ireland or associated small offshore islands at the time of filming feature for at least half of the total screen time of the work;

(vi) the majority of the filming, recording and editing of the work takes place on the island of Ireland or associated small offshore islands;

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

(viii) the majority of the verbal content of the work is in the Irish language;

(ix) signing in Irish Sign Language features prominently in the work.

(2) The Arts Council shall, following authentication, provide certification for any work that meets the criteria set out in subsection (1) as an Irish cultural work.

(3) RTÉ and Teilifís na Gaeilge as national public service broadcasters have a particular role in supporting the creation, production, promotion and airing or broadcasting of Irish cultural works.

(4) The Commission shall ensure, through the granting or renewal of licences, that any television or sound media broadcasting licence involves a commitment to supporting the creation, production, promotion and airing or broadcasting of Irish cultural works.

(5) The Commission shall conduct an examination of the prominence and use of Irish cultural works in media every five years and produce a report which shall be published before 31 December every five years following its establishment and laid before the Minister, both Houses of the Oireachtas and the Joint Oireachtas Committee upon publication detailing the statistical breakdown of use of Irish cultural works in media over the previous five years, including recommendations for ensuring the enduring success and sustainability of Irish cultural works and options for imposing content requirements or investment obligations on audiovisual and sound media service providers to support the creation, production, promotion and airing or broadcasting of Irish cultural works, in line with the commitments of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive to cultural diversity.”.

This amendment attempts to finally define in law what is considered an Irish cultural work in the context of music and audiovisual works. It is important to note that when we talk about supporting Irish music and Irish films, and when we talk about the role of RTÉ or TG4 as public broadcasters having a role in supporting Irish culture, we do so at present with no clear definition of what counts as Irish music or Irish film. Irish cultural works would be defined in terms of music under the music, artist, performance and lyrics, MAPL, criteria used in Canada for Canadian works. This means works where the music or lyrics are written by an Irish resident, is performed by an artist resident in Ireland or is recorded in Ireland, regardless of who wrote or performed the music. This status would be certified by the Arts Council.

In terms of cinema and audiovisual works, an Irish cultural work would be one where at least one of the producers or co-producers is established in Ireland, where the screenplay or script is written by an Irish resident, where at least half the screen time features Irish performers or participants, where the performance is recorded in Ireland or where the Irish language or Irish sign language feature prominently. They are broad conditions but would provide clarity as to what is meant by an Irish cultural work when certain bodies are expected to support Irish cultural works. We would also task an coimisiún with including a duty towards Irish cultural works when granting licences to television and radio broadcasters.

In subsection (5) we would require an coimisiún to produce a report every five years examining the breakdown of use of Irish cultural works to track progress effectively. An coimisiún would also examine options and make recommendations on what sort of content requirements or investment obligations should be used to support Irish cultural works in line with the commitment to cultural diversity under the AVMSD.

Deputy Catherine Martin

We all strongly support measures to support the works of Irish artists and the creation of Irish art. Since I became Minister, annual funding for the Arts Council has risen from €100 million in 2020 to a record €130 million. This year, I launched the basic income for the arts pilot scheme, which will support 2,000 artists over three years.

However, the proposed amendment appears to be contrary to European Union law. The proposed criteria for Irish cultural works offered in the amendment includes residence on the island of Ireland and supervision or control by producers on the island of Ireland. Those criteria would appear to be incompatible with the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union guaranteeing freedom of establishment and free movement of services and prohibit discrimination based on nationality.

Notwithstanding the legal complexities I also have concerns regarding the practical implementation of the amendment. There is a potentially large outstanding catalogue of musical and audiovisual works that would be considered as Irish cultural works under the proposed amendment. The Arts Council would be required to devote considerable resources to assessing those works against the criteria suggested by the Deputy and providing certification. In the event of a rejection of a work for authentication by the council, there would also be a need for an appeals process. I fear that an attempt to implement this in practice would prove both highly contentious and time consuming with little benefit for Irish artists or art. For reasons of both legality and practicality, I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 307 and 308 are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I move amendment No. 307:

In page 129, line 40, after “cent” to insert the following:

“, or in which the share of works in the Irish language, from 31 December 2030, is less than 5 per cent, and from 31 December 2035, is less than 10 per cent”.

These amendments seek to replicate what is done in other member states, using powers given under the AVMSD. It is the norm in other EU countries to require a percentage of catalogues on streaming sites, such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, to be in their national language. This helps to support domestic industries in line with EU commitments to cultural diversity. It also helps to protect their national language community against the encroaching dominance of English language productions. I am sure at some point all of us have watched a very dark Nordic programme and enjoyed it immensely.

Ireland is a special case in this regard. English is the dominant language here and our market is flooded with films and shows from Britain and America. This makes it difficult for Irish productions to compete or gain a foothold at home. However, we understand that setting percentage requirements for English language productions would not combat this. At a time when we have a national language, Irish, which is spoken by 40% of the population according to the 2016 census, we also have a special duty to restore that language nationally and to ensure Gaeltacht communities are not further pushed into speaking English, which we see happening day by day, and in their viewing of television or streaming services. Requiring a small percentage of content to be in the Irish language and for prominence to be given to such content on screening sites with viewers and subscribers in Ireland, in the way that there is different content in France or Italy, would go a long way to grow the language and encourage use beyond what it has achieved so far.

We have seen worldwide phenomena when shows in languages other than English break through globally on streaming platforms such as "Squid Game" from South Korea or "Borgen", which was in Danish. It adds to the self-respect and prestige of these languages internationally for both the speakers and learners at home and abroad. We know that Irish language content can be, and is, produced to the highest quality. An array of award winning and internationally acclaimed films in Irish have hit our screens in recent years.

We could develop and build on that quite effectively through investment from streaming sites, not to mention the exposure to our diaspora but to our young people in Ireland for whom these platforms are their main way of accessing shows and films. We are proposing a modest 5% by 2030, which will give ample time to achieve that percentage either through production investment or purchasing works in Irish, all of which benefit the sector and the workers here. That would be increased to 10% by 2035.

Amendment No. 308 deals with ensuring Irish language works are prominent in these online catalogues, highlighted on someone's home page and through the algorithms the online streaming services utilise. This is about normalising Irish and encouraging and celebrating the language. It is about empowering people through those new and emerging technologies. We have all changed how we consume our television watching and can engage with the language at our own pace. It is about implementing in Irish law the same kind of ambition and self-respect other member states have done to date.

Deputy Catherine Martin

Amendment No. 307 seeks to amend the requirement for a video-on-demand service to have a share of European works in its catalogue of not less than 30% to further require a minimum percentage of works in the Irish language, being 5% from 2031 and 10% from 2036.

The requirement for a minimum share of 30% of European works is set out in Article 13(1) of the revised audiovisual media services directive, which is binding on all member states. The European Commission has published guidelines for member states regarding the method of calculating the share of European works in the catalogue of a video-on-demand service. Under section 159B(3) of the Broadcasting Act, as inserted by the Bill, it will be for an coimisiún to make rules to determine whether video-on-demand services meet the European works quota. I expect it will be heavily informed by the guidance of the European Commission in that regard.

I am aware that some member states have provided for a minimum quota for native language works in catalogues of video-on-demand services. For example, I understand that the legal instrument providing for the European works requirement in France, published last summer, included a requirement that 40% of works should be in the French language, subject to agreement between individual services and the French audiovisual regulator.

In the Irish context such a requirement is complicated by two factors. First, there is a relatively small catalogue of audiovisual works in the Irish language as a percentage of all audiovisual works in other languages. We are attempting to address this through increased funding for TG4 and initiatives such as Cine4, which, of course, funded the beautiful "An Cailín Ciúin", but there is still much work to be done. I understand that the amendment sets out to partially address this by pushing out the imposition of a quota to 2031 and 2036, respectively. However, there remains the risk that a perverse effect of the amendment would be to force video-on-demand services to provide a relatively smaller catalogue to meet the 5% and 10% quotas. This would not be to the benefit of audiences.

The second factor is the number of video-on-demand services that will be regulated in Ireland. Under the country-of-origin principle, those services established in Ireland would be regulated in Ireland for the entire EU. As drafted, the amendment would require those services to adopt the Irish language requirements for their catalogues. While this may have the potential, in the longer run, to be of the benefit to Irish audiences, it would not necessarily be in the interest of audiences in other member states. I cannot accept the amendment for that reason.

Amendment No. 308 seeks to require an coimisiún, in making rules for the promotion of European works, to have regard to "the prominence of Irish language works in view of the national aim of restoring the Irish language as a spoken language and language of media nationwide". Given that I cannot accept amendment No. 307, I also cannot accept this amendment, which is consequential to amendment No. 307.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I will withdraw and resubmit.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 308 not moved.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 309 to 314, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I move amendment No. 309:

In page 131, line 38, to delete “may” and substitute “shall, as soon as practicable after the establishment day”.

These amendments are fairly straightforward.

Amendment No. 309 states, "In page 131, line 38, to delete "may" and substitute "shall, as soon as practicable after the establishment day"." That is to ensure that the content levy is definitely introduced and that its introduction is swift.

Amendment No. 310 seeks "to delete 'media service providers' and substitute 'producers of European Works'". The concern is that the current wording of the Bill has the unintended consequence of excluding independent producers entirely from receiving funding from the proceeds of the levy. This is a unique opportunity to build a strong indigenous, independent production sector with secured rights ownership. It is vital that that opportunity is not lost arising from the way the legislation is drafted.

Amendment No. 311 states:

In page 133, to delete lines 13 to 15 and substitute the following:

“(2) The kinds of support for which funds may be granted or loaned under a scheme shall support the development and production of such of the following or such classes or descriptions of any of the following as the scheme may specify:”.

Amendment No. 312 states:

In page 133, line 16, after “programmes” to insert the following:

“, including feature films, animation, drama and documentaries supporting the work of Irish creative talent, and”.

Amendment No. 313 states:

In page 133, to delete lines 18 and 19 and substitute the following:

“(ii) the storytelling experiences of the people of the island of Ireland including the experiences of people of Irish ancestry living abroad,”.

We are looking to clarify the funding that is dedicated to the development and production of audiovisual programmes, whether feature films, animation, drama or documentaries. Those categories should be specifically referred to because they are specifically referred to in the provisions for the BAI sound and vision fund and the Broadcasting Act 2009. The reason for the inclusion of the words "supporting the work of Irish creative talent" is that that is one of the four public service aims of the media as defined in the terms of reference of the Future of Media Commission and accepted by the commission in its report.

Amendment No. 314 relates to the funding of independent production companies and the amount that will be forthcoming.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I thank the Deputies for their amendments, which seek to amend the provisions of the Bill relating to the content production levy and schemes. As the committee will be aware, Article 13.2 of the AVMSD provides an explicit legal basis for member states to levy media service providers that are under their jurisdiction or that are not under their jurisdiction but are targeting audiences in their territories for the purpose of funding European works. I have opted to take the opportunity offered by Article 13.2 of the directive to provide for the imposition of a content production levy on media service providers to fund content production schemes to support the production of European works.

There was a lengthy debate on Committee Stage in the Seanad on both the content production levy and the scheme provisions of the Bill. I committed then to return to consider a number of matters on the Dáil debate on the Bill. In particular, I committed to examine whether express provision could be made to ensure that development activities could be funded through a scheme; to examine whether a certain minimum proportion of funds paid out under a scheme could be ring-fenced for "independent production companies"; and to examine whether provision could be made in respect of the allocation of rights ownership between independent production companies and media service providers. The Deputies have raised those three issues in their amendments and I intend to address them on Report Stage. In addition, as I indicated during the debate in the Seanad, I expect that coimisiún na meán and Screen Ireland will work closely together with a view to maximising the potential of content production schemes.

Turning to the detail of the Deputies' amendments, amendment No. 309 seeks to require coimisiún na meán to impose a content production levy as soon as is practicable after establishment day. As I have said previously, it would not be prudent or advisable to impose a levy until a comprehensive study has been undertaken into the incidence, design and prospective revenue of any content production levy. That will allow coimisiún na mean to identify any unintended consequences that may arise from the levy and to outline clearly whether and how the incidence of the levy will ultimately fall on audiences and consumers of audiovisual media services. Given the many additional questions about the content production levy that coimisiún na meán will need to answer, I cannot accept the amendment.

I understand that amendment No. 310 seeks to address a drafting error in the Bill, as published. It is an intention of the Bill that a content production scheme should be open to all prospective producers of European works. This error came to the attention of my officials shortly after the Bill was published and it was intended to address the issue when other Government amendments to the content production scheme were brought forward. Accordingly, while I do not intend to accept the Deputies' amendment today, I will table a Report Stage amendment to correct the error.

I understand that the intention of amendment No. 311 is to ensure that funds provided under a content production scheme may be used to support "development" activities relating to a production. At present, section 159F(2)(d) of the Broadcasting Act, as inserted by the Bill, specifies a number of development activities that can be supported under a scheme. My preferred approach would be to amend that paragraph to provide absolute clarity that all stages of the development of an audiovisual programme may be funded under a scheme. I cannot, then, accept this amendment but will seek to clarify further on Report Stage that a content production scheme may include funding for development activities.

Amendment No. 312 sets out additional detail in respect of the nature of programmes that could be funded under a scheme. It is unnecessary to specify that a content production scheme may fund feature films, animation, drama and documentaries. Section 159F(2) provides that a scheme may fund the production of audiovisual programmes, which captures all types of audiovisual content, including drama, films, animation and factual programmes.

Amendment No. 312 also provides that a content production scheme would specifically support works that relate to the works of Irish creative talent. As I noted during Report Stage in the Seanad, the outstanding and defining quality of such works would appear to be that they are produced by, or involve the work of, Irish citizens. This carries the implication that those of Irish nationality would be given preference in any funding provided through a content production scheme. This would appear to be contrary to EU law as it would, on the face of it, place Irish citizens at an advantage over citizens or residents of other member states as regards a content production scheme and, therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 313 seeks to amend a description of the kinds of audiovisual programmes that may be funded under a scheme by qualifying a reference to the experiences of the people of the island of Ireland such that it refers to "storytelling" experiences. The relevant paragraph of the Bill is intended to encompass experiences in the most expansive sense to facilitate the funding of the widest array of content. The effect of the proposed amendment would be to restrict the types of content that could be funded and, therefore, I do not intend to accept it.

Amendment No. 314 seeks to require that 80% of the funding under a content production scheme would be ring-fenced for "independent production companies" and to provide for the prescription of a fair and equitable balance in rights ownership. Although I do not intend to accept the amendment, I intend to table an amendment on Report Stage to provide for the ring-fencing of a certain proportion of funding for independent production companies. I am also examining the question of providing that coimisiún na meán could make a certain allocation of rights ownership a requirement for receipt of funding under the scheme.

I thank the Deputies for their engagement and their amendments. Our positions on a number of the matters discussed are quite close. I look forward to tabling amendments to address those issues on Report Stage and to the debate that will ensue then.

Chairman

Does Deputy Munster wish to press or to withdraw the amendment?

Deputy Imelda Munster

I will withdraw it, reserving the right to resubmit it on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 310 to 314, inclusive, not moved.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I move amendment No. 315:

In page 135, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:

“Obligation for Investment

159HA. (1) The Commission, following consultation with audiovisual media service providers, audiovisual and screen production companies established in Ireland, workers and businesses engaged in audiovisual production, Screen Ireland, RTÉ, Teilifís na Gaeilge, Foras na Gaeilge, and the public, and no later than one year following its establishment, shall prepare and publish a report examining the possibilities and suggesting recommendations for introducing direct obligations on audiovisual media service providers operating in this State, in line with the Audiovisual Media Services Directive and following the example set by policies in other Member States of the European Union, with regard to the potential impacts of such obligations on audiovisual production, consumers, workers, businesses, media service providers, and the promotion of the Irish language and Irish cultural works.

(2) The report outlined in subsection (1) shall consider in particular the potential for—

(a) requiring investment directly in the production or co-production of European works partly or wholly on the island of Ireland, works of Irish cultural expression, and works in the Irish language,

(b) requiring direct investment in the acquisition of rights for European works, particularly works of Irish cultural expression and works in the Irish language,

(c) regulating the release window for audiovisual works in the State to require a higher direct investment in audiovisual production as a condition for a shorter delay between theatrical release and the right to transmit on audiovisual platforms,

(d) any combination of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c).

(3) The report shall be laid before the Minister, Screen Ireland, both Houses of the Oireachtas and the Joint Oireachtas Committee upon publication for consideration.

(4) The Minister, following consultation with the Minister of Finance and no later than six months following the publication of the report outlined in subsection (1) shall present draft legislation before the Houses of the Oireachtas outlining proposals for the introduction of investment obligations for audiovisual media service providers.”.

Similar to amendment No. 307, this is something that is already done in other EU member states under EU law, specifically under the audiovisual and media services directive. The idea is that providers of these services, such as streaming platforms llike Netflix and Amazon Prime Video, will be required to ensure part of their revenue is invested directly into European works, Irish cultural works and works in the Irish language. France recently reached an agreement with providers in this regard, namely, the DDADUE, which will see tens of millions of euro of new investment result in cultural output in French and job creation opportunities in the process. Such rules implemented in this State would provide €10 million of investment from one streaming site alone.

We are not setting out with restrictive vision as to how such a model could be implemented in Ireland as we do not believe that we are the experts. We are instead asking that the commission meet with the stakeholders and produce a report within a year outlining options that the Department produces legislation within another six months of that with a view to implementing investor obligations. As we have spoken of at length this afternoon, we often hear of things we cannot do due to EU law. However, this is an example of what we can do under EU law. It is something that could deliver quite incredible results if we were to do so. There should not be any delay in seeking benefits for the industry, performers and audience that are enjoyed by other countries. At the very least, we should be asking for that report to be made available.

Deputy Catherine Martin

The purpose of this amendment is to require coimisiún na meán to carry out research on the introduction of investment obligations on media service providers operating in the State. The amendment also provides that the Minister shall present draft legislation before the Houses of the Oireachtas outlining proposals for the introduction of investment obligations for audiovisual media service providers not later than six months following publication of the report.

Before addressing the substance of the proposed amendment, I wish to note that it was determined that a content production levy was the most appropriate approach in the Irish context. As with the existing sound and vision scheme administered by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, the model envisaged in the Bill would allow producers to compete for funding on a transparent and competitive basis in line with objective criteria. This would not be the case with investment obligations, where decisions on the nature of content to be funded would sit with the company subject to the investment obligation. Furthermore, it is not possible under EU law to introduce an investment obligation based on a specific production location within Europe. Our approach in respect of the content production levy already ensures a minimum of 25% of funds raised must be allocated to the production of Irish language content. It is also worth noting that any investment obligation would have to be for the production of European works and not necessarily Irish content. Many major EU-based providers targeting Ireland would likely already fulfil that requirement through their existing investments, so there may not be a substantial net benefit to Ireland from such a measure.

I do not propose to accept this amendment as I am of the view that section 7 of the Broadcasting Act as inserted by section 7 of this Bill will contain appropriate provisions to enable an coimisiún to carry out research in relation to this matter. I draw the Deputy’s attention to section 7(5)(d), which enables the commission to conduct strategic reviews on a number of matters including the funding of sector. I also note that the Minister will have the power under this provision to direct an coimisiún to carry out research on any matter connected to its functions.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I have one supplementary question on that issue. In light of the content of the Minister’s statement towards the end, has she reviewed the agreement that France made with the providers?

Deputy Catherine Martin

No. We decided to go with the content production levy. We thought that was the most appropriate approach in the Irish context.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

My initial reaction to that would be that we would not be having the conversation about how low Irish output production is if levies such as that worked. This seems to be something that is quite innovative and new. If it can work in that specific regard in relation to cultural output in French, it is something we should be looking to mirror - perhaps not replicate in its entirety, but certainly learn from.

Deputy Catherine Martin

The difference as well is what has been done in France is with individual providers whereas what we are doing here is with the sector as a whole.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

Without some significant change in direction, I would be concerned this is a conversation we will be having again in another 15 or 20 years, where Irish output still remains very low in comparison with our EU neighbours.

Deputy Catherine Martin

As I said, it was determined that the content production levy was the appropriate approach in the Irish context. As I said earlier, it is not possible under EU law to introduce an investment obligation based on a specific production location within Europe.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

That is why I asked whether the Minister had looked at the French model and what it had done.

Deputy Catherine Martin

As I said, that is to do with individual, whereas we are dealing with the sector as a whole.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 53 agreed to.

Sections 54 to 66, inclusive, agreed to.

NEW SECTION

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 316:

In page 140, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 46M(5) of Principal Act

67. Section 46M(5) of the Principal Act as inserted by section 8 is amended—

(a) by the substitution of “An Coimisiún Toghcháin” for “the Referendum Commission”, and

(b) by the substitution of “section 31 of the Electoral Reform Act 2022” for “section 3 of the Act of 1998”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Sections 67 to 69, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 70

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 317:

In page 142, line 38, to delete “section 139ZQ” and substitute “section 139ZY”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 318:

In page 142, line 40, to delete “section 139ZQ(1)” and substitute “section 139ZY(1)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 70, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 71 to 77, inclusive, agreed to.

NEW SECTION

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 319:

In page 144, after line 16, to insert the following:

“Amendment of Electoral Reform Act 2022

78. Section 32(1) of the Electoral Reform Act 2022 is amended by the substitution of “Section 46M(2)(a)” for “Section 41(3)”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

TITLE

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I move amendment No. 320:

In page 7, line 13, after “services;” to insert the following:

“to increase the visibility and use of Irish as a spoken language in media and public life 46 and ensure a diversity of content for the Irish-speaking community;”.

We will withdraw and resubmit.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I move amendment No. 321:

In page 7, line 26, after “to” where it secondly occurs to insert “local sound broadcasters and”.

Amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

Chairman

Pursuant to Standing Order 187(3), the Clerk will report specially to the Dáil that the Committee has amended the Title. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On behalf of the committee, I thank the Minister and her officials for their participation. I also thank my colleagues, as well as Calum Fabb and the staff, who have been amazing in assisting me through this process.