Apologies have been received from Senators Cummins and Ní Chuilinn.

Today's meeting has been convened for the committee's engagement with the Minister on various matters, including an update on departmental priorities and legislation. From the Department of Culture, Communications and Sport, I welcome the Minister, Deputy Patrick O'Donovan; the Minister of State, Deputy Charlie McConalogue; Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh, Ard-Rúnaí; Mr. Cian Ó Lionáin, assistant secretary for sport; Mr. Conor Falvey, assistant secretary for culture; Mr. Colm O'Connor, principal officer, strategic policy unit; Mr. Stephen Ryan, principal officer, broadcasting policy; and Mr. Ian Price, principal officer, postal, Internet and emergency planning unit, communications division.

We will take the opening statements as read, if that is okay, given that we have all read them. We will have a questions and answers session. As the witnesses will probably be aware, the committee may publish the opening statement on its webpage. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Before we move to today's discussion, I will clarify some limitations in relation to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege in respect of the presentations they make to the committee. This means that they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty as Chair to ensure that this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

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.

We will now proceed with the questions and answers session. Members have approximately seven minutes each. First is Deputy Cleere.

The Minister, the Minister of State and our other guests are all very welcome. I will be very brief. I have a number of areas I want to cover. Last week, we had RTÉ in before the committee and its representatives spoke at great length about the reforms the organisation was going through and the great work that was being done. Was the Minister's Department aware that RTÉ maintained a 24-hour luxury chauffeur arrangement while seeking additional public funding?

That is the first I have heard of that.

My understanding is that Mercedes S-Class and BMW 7 Series transport is currently being used to chauffeur clients on their journey.

Can the Minister explain to licence fee payers why a broadcaster that is claiming financial pressure continues spending over €200 per journey on chauffeur services?

I cannot. That is a matter for RTÉ. It was in here last week and made it clear that if members had any follow-up questions, they should be put to it. I am not the director general or the accounting officer of the company. With regard to specific areas of expenditure, of which I have no knowledge, this is a question that the Deputy should put to RTÉ.

How much is the Government giving to RTÉ over the three-year period?

I think it is well-publicised at this stage that between the licence fee and the supports, the total package is about €725 million.

In the Minister's view, what exactly has changed culturally inside RTÉ since that money was made available?

First, it has to be said that the current chairman and the current director general inherited what can only be described as an appalling situation that had been left for a number of years with regards to barter accounts and things like that and where public confidence took a fair hit in terms of the payment of the licence fee. I think it is well-accepted and I am on the record as saying that I want to see a continued RTÉ and I want to see a public service broadcaster continuing. I think all of us do. It is really important that in an age of misinformation and disinformation where people in some jurisdictions are swallowing anything for news that we have a credible public service broadcaster and I think we have that in RTÉ. Ultimately, editorial decisions in terms of content are a matter for the director general. The new Bill I hope to have enacted in their Oireachtas shortly with regards to governance and oversight will put the Comptroller and Auditor General in as the auditor of choice with the company and will mean that on a regular basis, the company on foot of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report will appear before the Committee of Public Accounts if there are special reports to be assigned where members of the Committee of Public Accounts will now be able to scrutinise its accounts. That is a good thing as is the fact that RTÉ has already been prepared to reach out to the Committee of Public Accounts. The relationship between RTÉ and this committee is good. I think this committee is working on putting forward members from the JOC recommended list to the board of the company which, ultimately, overseas the expenditure of the-----

Sorry for cutting in but I am conscious of time. I accept that the Minister said that neither he nor Department officials were aware of any 24-hour limousine arrangement while RTÉ was looking for taxpayer support but the public was told very clearly that austerity and reform were underway in RTÉ. Where exactly is that austerity in chauffeur-driven executive transport?

I do not want to have to repeat myself. That is a matter for the director general of RTÉ. I do not run the company. I am responsible for policy and legislation and I am responsible to the Oireachtas with regard to the Department's-----

Does the Minister think that represents good value for money?

It is not a question that I think is best put to me. The director general was here last week. From what I heard of his contribution, he finished up by saying that if the committee had any further questions, it should put them directly to him. I would say that the quickest way of getting an answer is to email him.

Given the fact that the State is investing €750 million in RTÉ, is the Minister happy that this is good value for money?

The Deputy can ask me this as many times as he wants-----

The Minister might answer it if that is okay. I am asking him whether he is happy-----

I have answered.

"Yes" or "No".

I have answered the question.

I will move on seeing as I am not getting any answer from the Minister on the media side of RTÉ.

The Deputy got an answer, but he did not like it.

On to the sporting side of things, the sports capital grant is opening up in June hopefully. Are we on target in terms of the funding amounts? I know the figure last term was €270 million. Does it look like we are in a similar situation financially in terms of support for sporting organisations around the country?

We are engaging across Government concerning the nature and the overall scale of the funding package, particularly with the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation. We have done lots of preparation to get into position where we are ready to operate the next round. We are finalising details and the finer detail of that at the moment. It is our plan to have this fund opened over the summer and for it to be open for a two to three-month window for clubs to be able to apply - ideally in June, but it will depend on getting Government approval for that. The NDP provides for there to be two community sports facilities funds over the course of this Government and one large scale infrastructure fund round. The large scale infrastructure fund will be towards the end of the Government while the two rounds in terms of community sports facilities fund will be opening this summer and approximately two years later as well so we are on course but we are engaging in sanction in terms of the overall funding.

Have we got a capital figure yet in terms of what we envisage it might be?

We are engaging in that at the moment. Obviously, it is our objective to make sure it has as much impact as possible similar to last time around and we are engaging in particular with the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation on that.

In terms of the large scale sport infrastructure fund, we are looking at later next year, into the following year.

The NDP provides for one. We have had two rounds so far. The national sports policy in 2018 outlined that there was a gap in assisting the public funding system for supporting larger projects and recommended that we establish the large scale infrastructure fund. Coming out of that then, we had around in 2020 and another round in 2024. We expect that in around 18 months or two years from now, we will be opening up for the next round.

I welcome the Minister and his officials. Could the Minister give the committee an update on National Archives repository project? I assume this is the facility in Swords. Is that what we are talking about?

It is inside the National Archives itself in Bishop Street in the centre of town. The job is being completed and will be officially opened in the next couple of weeks. It is a major investment by the Department in the modernisation of the National Archives. I take this opportunity to thank and congratulate the National Archives on the work it has done on the 1926 census, which is an amazing piece of work. On the first day alone, it got over 10 million hits.

It might be a good opportunity perhaps for the committee to visit it at some point.

Absolutely. The National Archives would be delighted to have the committee come along to see the work it is doing in terms of the restoration of some of our most important documents.

The Minister is aware the facility in Swords is a former Motorola factory.

Yes.

It is not really fit for purpose for the national collection - the collections of the National Monument Service, the OPW, etc., involving tens of thousands of artefacts. It is a major project. It would take a long time to even decant the entire facility but when it comes to the national collection, it is a matter of urgency that we either purchase that facility, redevelop that site or look at a stand-alone facility for the national collection. Is it a priority on the Minister's list that needs to be dealt with?

It is a priority for us that we make sure that the State's national collection is properly housed but as the Senator knows, all of the buildings of the State, including this one, are the property of the OPW, which is vested in the Minister of Finance as the custodian of them. The OPW owns, manages and operates them. The OPW is aware of our limitations and I know the Senator would have a fair knowledge of this from his time as Minister of State with responsibility for the National Monuments Service. The Senator is right. We we have a problem with regard to the storage of our artefacts and we want to try and ameliorate it. It is a perennial issue that all of the national cultural institutions bring up with me. The Department has prioritised getting a permanent solution. It is not ideal and I do not think anybody would think it is ideal but it is a priority for us along with work here on Kildare Street for the National Library and the National Museum. Today, the building is inaccessible for people with disabilities from the front door, which really is appalling to be quite honest about it.

It is. Are these items in the NDP? How do we see it because the facility in Swords is a major national capital programme? It is a huge project in its own right. How do we see that progressing?

Like all of the projects, including the Crawford Gallery in Cork, we have laid out in the NDP our ambition for the national cultural institutions.

The Senator mentioned the National Archives' principal office in the city centre, which has been completed under that, and the others. I am not happy with the pace of them, to be honest. They are inordinately slow. We have to go through a huge number of gateways and windows in terms of the public spending code and in terms of engagement with the Department of public expenditure and reform to move things on. As a result, what would originally be an envisaged amount of money for the restoration of a protected structure normally does not come within an ass's roar of the final figure because of the amount of time that is lost in the meantime. We need to make it shorter. I hope that the emphasis being put on critical infrastructure by the Department of public expenditure and reform will help. For instance, I was Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works when the National Library moved the books out. That is a long time ago, and we have not really moved on much since then. It is stuck in abeyance, and it is really not good enough that our National Library has large swathes with no books in it.

Yes, absolutely. I will make just another point about that. I think it is an ambition of the National Museum to move its collections out around the country and offer them to other museums, but there is a real challenge there in terms of our county archivists. Some of the posts have been advertised but, simply, the skills are not there and the posts are not even applied for. I think there is a challenge there in terms of archivists as a profession. It is just for noting; it is not really something the Minister's Department can do anything about.

Well, there is a bit we can do about it because of the National Archives Act. It is my intention to bring a memorandum to Government shortly with regard to adherence to the law around the National Archives Acts. We have a lot of State entities that, quite frankly, are not complying with the law with regard to the handing over of material to the National Archives and making sure that it is accessible in a proper fashion for people who would want to do research, academic studies and so on. We have some that are brilliant and we have some that are not. Across the local authority sector, you can say the same. The Senator knows this from his time in the Department of local government. We have some absolutely outstanding local authorities and then we have some that are not-----

That do nothing.

That stand out. There is an obligation on local authorities set down in the law with regard to maintenance of their archives. Unfortunately, there is inconsistency here and it makes it really difficult for people who want to conduct academic studies or research to carry it out. No more than the fact that I have assigned the Comptroller and Auditor General to be the auditor for RTÉ, I see no reason - the Senator would probably agree with me as a former Minister of State in the Department of local government - why the Comptroller and Auditor General is not the auditor of the local authority sector.

Yes, I agree. I thank the Minister for that.

I have a quick question for the Minister of State, Deputy McConalogue. In relation to the large-scale capital fund, he will have seen the report from Swim Ireland in relation to municipal swimming facilities. There is a real challenge there in terms of accessibility for hoists and other facilities. There are a lot of disability organisations out there that are really disenfranchised by the fact that the adaptation in municipal pools cannot happen because, first of all, grants that were previously approved had to be de-committed because of Covid and for other reasons. Is there a case to be made for a dedicated strand of that funding to go towards municipal swimming pools? I have talked to the local authority in Kilkenny, which put up the funding through its own funds or resources to do this. It is a matter of the adaptation of municipal pools for the disability sector, in particular, which is really disenfranchised at the moment.

I accept Senator Noonan's point about that. The Government commissioned that report and put €1 million into it. We facilitated Swim Ireland then in carrying it out specifically because we want to establish what the baseline level is in terms of swimming pool provision across the country to see where we stand and then to see how we can best respond to that. It identified a number of challenges, including accessibility and particular gaps in terms of general swimming pool provision. Through the community sport facilities fund, which will operate this summer, we are examining how we can try to address some of those issues, particularly around disability. It is important not only that we maximise the usage of the pools we do have, particularly those in public ownership, but also that we assess the general swimming pool asset across the country to make sure there is as much access to it as possible by the public and on the larger level then in relation to addressing particular gaps and needs. That obviously has significant financial implications because of the scale of investment required. The large-scale infrastructure fund is the fund which has carried that until now. We will consider it in that context and in the context of how we can respond generally to the issues raised in that report.

I call Senator Mullen.

I welcome the Minister and the Minister of State. I am sorry I was not here at the beginning. If I am cutting stubble or going back over ground they have already covered, they might let me know.

I would be grateful if the Minister would bring me up to date on his current thinking on the question of young people's access to and use of social media. He will be aware of our committee's report on online safety. I get the impression that despite developments in different jurisdictions - Australia and France, for example - there is a degree of pushback against the idea that young people under the age of 16 should be protected in some way from being exposed to social media. I notice there is a failure to recognise that it has not ever been proposed, to my knowledge, that young people would be denied access to social media pure and simple but, rather, that there would be restrictions on tech companies from opening accounts for young persons under 16. That seems to be the key issue because it is argued that this would contribute to protecting young people from the kind of predatory approaches taken by such tech companies. Once young people have signed up for accounts, they can be got at, have stuff pushed at them and so on. I would be grateful to know what the Minister's current thinking is on this. I believe very strongly that there should be a restriction on tech companies opening accounts for young people under 16 on social media. I think the jury is not out on the damage that access to social media has been causing, although there is more that needs to be said, and we might get to that in a minute in terms of screen time generally. Would the Minister care to let me know where he is at on this? What way is he leaning at the moment?

We gave a number of different commitments in this space. One of the things we said we would do is have a youth forum to gather the views of a cross-section of people between ten and 17 years old who would be randomly selected with the support of the Ombudsman for Children. That will take place next week in the National Concert Hall. Their views will probably shed a bit of light on this. The Senator referred to the committee's report. No more than there is in any natural or normal discourse, I think there was a variety of opinions enunciated here, and I am not so certain that there was a clear and unambiguous decision on the landing spot. I would say that is a fair reflection of where Europe is at, to be honest. At the last European Council, there was a substantial change in some member states where I could sense that this is now the single biggest issue at the European Council of communications ministers, where this matter is discussed. There certainly is quite a movement towards individual member states in the first instance doing their own thing but also requiring the European Commission to do more. The Digital Services Act, DSA, is the overriding European legislation in this regard. It empowers member states to do certain things while at the same time not in any way impacting or impairing the Single Market. The Commission, I think, at the last Council got a fairly clear reflection from the member states, including from me, that this is the single biggest issue the Council must face. I have laid out our priorities as a Department for our Presidency. Really, there is just one, as far as I am concerned, which is the protection of children online. I would prefer to have seen under the Cypriot Presidency and under the Danish Presidency that we would have moved some way towards consensus at a European level on this. We have not.

There are still a number of countries that do not believe there should be any intervention by any state or entity, including the European Union, on the basis of free speech. As a parent, in the first instance, I do not think that is where the vast majority of Europeans want to be but I do think that there needs to be a movement of commonality. We will have a number of conferences in Dublin and a European Council informal meeting will be held in Limerick during the Presidency, which will dominated by a single-item agenda.

I am sorry to interrupt but the Minister knows the way it works here with time. It is clear in so many different areas that Europe is not always able to act quickly, decisively and in complete unity. It is time to get off the fence on this and the Minister is the man to do it because he has spoken with some passion on this issue before. I asked this committee to hear from Professor Jonathan Haidt and his group but an issue arose that it was late in the day to do it. I would be comforted if I heard that the Government and the Minister's Department were engaging with experts like that, who are probably the foremost experts in the English-speaking world in terms of the impact of social media and screen time in general on young people.

To that second point, it seems to be the case that early and excessive access to screens by young people is a big problem. One of the points that has been made is if there were legislation, for example, restricting smartphones in schools, that would take the pressure off teachers when it comes to insisting on a norm. This is one of those areas where State intervention may very well be justified on protective grounds.

I still think it is a scandal that it is easier for a young person to access pornography online than to buy a pair of shoes, gamble or buy vapes, all of which require the use of a credit card, which would in turn, as I understand it, prove that a person is over 18. Yet, young people are still exposed to the most severe dangers online. Coimisiún na Meán, on its own, is not able to deal with this. We need legislation criminalising those who would provide such content online and allow young people - under 18 years in this case - to access it. I would be grateful for the Minister's thoughts on that also.

Age verification is a policy priority for us. It is a matter for the Department of public expenditure and reform, under the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, to build the infrastructure around age verification. My understanding is that is well advanced. Following that, we have also agreed, which we took to Government, that we would initiative a pilot. Obviously, that pilot will have to be voluntary led. We will require volunteers and parental consent to get an indication as to whether the existing controls work within the social media sector. This morning, I met representatives of the Children's Rights Alliance. I have no issue with the Department engaging with anybody on this matter. In fact, we will have a number of conferences in Dublin during the Presidency. I am open to hearing a wide range of views on this.

I will contradict the Senator to a certain degree with regard to Europe being clunky and that it cannot respond. Europe responded very well to Covid, which was the last major public health emergency. It responded in a weekend. If there is a desire across the European Union that the protection of children online and the protection of their innocence is a priority-----

I just mentioned that some countries are taking a laissez-faire approach. That is going to block it unless the Minister acts.

Unfortunately, Europe is established under the European treaties. We do not operate on the basis of a dictatorship. We do operate on the basis of consensus. It is about bringing member states with us as opposed to dictating to them.

I thank the Minister, the Minister of State and their officials for coming here. I commend the Minister on extending the basic income for the arts scheme. It is very welcome that the scheme has now been put on a permanent footing.

I will ask about the arts capital programme that was due to start on a pilot basis this year, of which the committee and I are very supportive, Will the Minister indicate when it is intended to open the scheme? A sum of €6 million has been allocated for the initial pilot scheme. The Minister will appreciate that not many capital projects can be covered by that. How many projects is it envisaged will be covered by the funding? Will the scheme be extended in 2027?

The scheme is ready to open. I am waiting for Department of public expenditure and reform approval to open it. The matter has been with the Department for a while and I am waiting for its consent to open it. The scheme is very ambitious. It is a scheme that has been long looked for. It excludes national cultural institutions, purposefully, because they get enough money from the State. It is aimed at small community-based organisations and is for drama groups, musical societies and choirs. It is not needed for instruments because a scheme already exists. The Deputy is right that the allocation is €6 million to start with but we want to clearly demonstrate the level of demand and need. It is my intention to put the scheme on an annualised basis and run it on the same basis as we run the sports capital programme in my Department's unit in Killarney. We have the scheme ready. It covers a number of different facets. It covers large, medium and small projects. It is open to local authorities. The scheme will provide up to 95% funding for groups and a maximum of 70% funding for local authority applicants. It will be a very generous scheme.

I welcome it. The Minister said that he ultimately wants to put the scheme on the same footing as the sports capital scheme. Could the scheme have the same level of funding?

The last time I was the Minister of State with responsibility for sport we jumped for joy because we got €37 million in 2016 for the sports capital programme. These schemes have to start somewhere. The first thing we want to demonstrate is need and the second thing is demand. The only way to do that is by opening a scheme.

The Deputy acknowledged the basic income for the arts scheme. That scheme is capped because a limited amount of money was made available to us from the Department of public expenditure. We had to cap it at 2,000 but, so far, we have had over 10,500 applicants.

That is great. The Minister has our full support for the scheme. I commend the Minister on the support that he has given to amateur theatre and musicals. I understand that an agreement on funding will be reached soon with the Arts Council on support for that sector, which is very welcome.

The Minister and I may have disagreed on what is being called "the Netflix levy" on streaming services, but there is a bit of a problem for commercial public service broadcasters in Ireland, such as Virgin Media, local radio and so on. As the Minister knows, they are required to pay levies. In the case of Virgin Media, there is a broadcasting levy and a video-on-demand levy. Those levies have been increased. I am not sure it is entirely free in that the streaming services are not being required to contribute towards the Irish broadcasting ecosystem, yet there is an expectation on commercial public service broadcasters - Virgin Media and local radio stations - to do so. Is there any way that matter can be addressed?

First, the levy is included in the Bill that went through Committee Stage in record time. I am glad to see that there were no amendments. I have made my position very clear. We are in a cost-of-living crisis and the last thing that people want is to pay more. I do not accept this narrative that companies will absorb levies. Show me a levy that has not been passed on.

The difficulty concerns the competitive environment. The Minister and I know the importance of local radio, Virgin Media, etc. We have a very healthy media in Ireland. Part of our problem is that we are looking at a situation whereby the State is guaranteeing to RTÉ the sum of €0.75 billion over a three-year period. I am very supportive of RTÉ and public service broadcasting. However, it is not quite the same when it comes to the commercial public service providers, such as Virgin Media and local radio. Even when we look at the Sound and Vision Fund, which is the one hypothecated area of the licence fee that does not go towards RTÉ, it is still a case of RTÉ, and to a lesser extent TG4, taking the bulk of the money coming from that. How can we ensure that we continue to support commercial independent television and radio broadcasters?

We do. I will give a basic example of one of the things that we have done. Last week, I met representatives of Independent Broadcasters of Ireland who wanted to acknowledge the fact that we give a lot of support to the commercial radio sector in terms of courts reporting, local democracy and other funds they can gain access to, such as audiovisual and things like that, which make a big difference in terms of them being licensed elements. A number of other colleagues have raised the issue with me. I will point out that the legislation around the imposition of the levy is very clear. It is a function and a matter for Coimisiún na Meán.

I have met Coimisiún na Meán and relayed a lot of the concerns that have been raised with me by Members of the Oireachtas and members of IBI as well.

I appreciate that but with respect, the Minister will be aware the Netflix levy, or the levy on streamers, was intended to be a function of Coimisiún na Meán and it was a recommendation of this committee that it proceed and the commission was going to proceed. The Minister then intervened to say it is going to be a matter for the Minister of the day. Here is a situation where, with respect, he is saying it is Coimisiún na Meán that is now going to be dealing with the levies when it comes to Virgin and local radio. All I am asking is that it should be a level playing field.

The Deputy was a member of the committee that passed that legislation when I was not the Minister. I would probably have taken a different view had I been. I know the Deputy is a big advocate for increasing the price of people's Netflix subscription but I am not. I do not believe people should be paying levies on streaming services they are already paying for.

What I am in favour of is a level playing field so commercial broadcasters and local radio here can be properly funded. We do not have a level playing field at the moment. I am also an advocate for using the resources that come from a levy to fund independent production in Ireland.

The Deputy will find that in the legislation I am putting through the Dáil, with regard to RTÉ for instance, it will have a minimum threshold of 25% it must adhere to in terms of-----

I totally support that but that does not address-----

-----independent broadcasters and independent production companies.

With respect, that does not address the question of the need to support and provide a level playing field for the likes of Virgin Media and local radio.

I think the Deputy will find that for Virgin Media and the commercial radio stations, the supports that are there from Coimisiún na Meán have been laid out by it and they have been increased. The Sound and Vision scheme, for instance, awarded over €14 million in 2025 and €15 million was announced by Coimisiún na Meán in January to support journalism, news and current affairs. That is not exclusive to any particular broadcaster.

Most of that has gone to RTÉ and TG4.

That is not the case. Off the top of my head I think Virgin got €3 million, so it is not the case that they are not getting money, and Coimisiún na Meán is the organisation that is charged under the legislation. The Deputy will recall that because he was here to pass it and set those levies.

The upcoming Nations League Israel fixtures must not go ahead. We cannot engage as a State in the sportswashing of a genocide. Yesterday Nathan Collins, the Ireland captain, said:

For players, we just have to trust the FAI. We have to trust the Government that they know what they’re doing. We’re picked to play football ... It’s a tough situation for us to be in ...

It is an incredibly difficult situation for our international team and I have from the start of this controversy recognised that we need to recognise the players' voice and understand their situation. It is the cowardice and inaction of this Government that is putting the players in this awful situation. People from across the Irish football landscape have come out against the fulfilment of these games. Some 63% of players surveyed by the Professional Footballers' Association of Ireland do not think it should go ahead. Brian Kerr, Stephen Bradley, Louise Quinn and other sporting leaders have unequivocally said these games should not happen. Israel is responsible for the brutal slaughter and maiming of thousands upon thousands of Palestinian children and now the abduction and torture of European citizens who were in international waters. Will the Minister and Minister of State commit to covering any sanctions against the FAI if it chooses to do the right thing and refuses to play Israel?

This is something we have answered on numerous occasions and made our position very clear on. From the point of view of leading out on Israeli actions in Palestine, seeking a peaceful resolution and calling out the unacceptable use of force and loss of life, our Government has led out politically internationally and continues to do so. Indeed, in recent days it has committed to bring forward the occupied territories Bill before the end of the year.

Will the Minister of State commit to covering sanctions against the FAI?

We have made clear the decision on playing the match is one for the FAI. It is one for UEFA to decide upon.

Did the Minister of State discuss with the FAI that the Government would be supportive of covering sanctions if it chose to take a different decision?

No, because it is a matter for the association to decide upon. The FAI, on behalf of its members, brought a motion to the UEFA general council, which was not supported. I think one other country supported the FAI motion, so UEFA has made its decision and the FAI has to work within that. It is a matter for it to decide upon. It is a very different situation from that which pertained with Russia, where, from a political point of view, we had EU sanctions on Russia and second, from a sporting point of view, UEFA decided to exclude Russia from competition, which it has not done with Israel.

Has the Minister of State sought legal advice about the potential sanctions the FAI might face were it to make a decision-----

No, we have not. It is a matter for the FAI to decide for itself, working within-----

The Minister of State heard that statement, however - "... we just have to trust the FAI. We have to trust the Government that they know what they’re doing". I am not comforted that the Minister of State is taking this seriously enough. He is saying it is the FAI's decision and then simply stepping away from it-----

It is simply a matter-----

-----without investigating what those sanctions could mean and how much the Department might support the FAI in bearing those sanctions should it decide to go ahead with the right decision. The association is going to be coming under increasing pressure from the Stop the Game campaign, which is only gaining momentum from within the sporting community and the general public in Ireland. Despite all the Minister of State is saying about this Government leading on this issue, he knows that is not a commonly held belief in the country, and in regard to this where he specifically has responsibility, I am not comforted by his just saying it is up to the FAI and that the Government is backing off.

It is not even me who is saying it, in terms of us providing leadership internationally and politically. The Palestinian leadership would have said that themselves-----

I am asking about the Minister of State's specific involvement in these fixtures.

When it comes to the issue of playing the sporting match, it is a matter for the FAI to decide. Obviously, there are significant repercussions for the association within the UEFA system for it to consider. It has made its call and we support its decision.

The Minister of State supports the decision of the FAI.

I think it is the right decision for the team to play the match and we support the FAI's right to make that decision as well.

Does he believe it is sportswashing?

From a political point of view, we continue to lead out, seeking to-----

Does he believe it is sportswashing?

I believe it is a matter for the footballing bodies to decide. UEFA has done that. The FAI has to make-----

Does he believe it is sportswashing?

The FAI has to make its decision within that.

Does he believe it is sportswashing?

No, I do not believe it is sportswashing.

The Minister of State does not believe it is sportswashing.

No, I do not believe it is sportswashing. I believe it is a matter for UEFA-----

Did he believe it was sportswashing when the women's basketball team had to face machine guns within the venue where they were playing?

I believe it is a matter for the footballing bodies to make their decision on. We as a Government have made a decision, I believe. We have led out and continue to lead out in setting the tone internationally on the Israeli actions in Palestine and we will continue to do so.

I have further questions about the fixture. Has the Minister committed to supporting RTÉ to get out of its contract to broadcast the Israeli fixtures?

RTÉ has made no approach to the Department with regard to the coverage of the match.

Has the Minister made any approach to RTÉ?

The issue of the coverage of the match, as the Minister of State has said, is a matter for the FAI in the first instance. My understanding is other international organisations have gone to neutral venues and that remains an issue the FAI has to address, but that is a matter for the FAI.

Will that affect the broadcasting opportunity or the broadcasting contract?

That will have to come once the FAI has made a decision, and my understanding is-----

The FAI clearly has made a decision.

My understanding is the FAI's decision at the moment is that because of the imposition of UEFA rules whereby it would be excluded-----

I get all of that. I have heard all of that. How does that play out? I am trying to get down to what the Minister is actively doing to deal with this.

Deputy, if you ask a question I think the least-----

Let the Minister answer.

-----you can do is listen to the answer. We have raised this with the FAI on a number of occasions and it has it made it very clear that on the basis of-----

Chair, the Minister is just repeating what I have already heard and the information I have.

Yes, but you ask a question and you want-----

I am asking about RTÉ.

I have answered you about RTÉ.

But you are not listening to my further questions about RTÉ, such as what you are doing to talk to RTÉ about this fixture. It is my position that this fixture should not go ahead.

Deputy, if I-----

If it was allowed-----

To be helpful, will the Minister clarify whether there has been any contact with RTÉ about this?

If I made any attempt to contact RTÉ with regard to the editorial content of anything, the Deputy would be the very first person-----

The Minister's Government is obliged by the Genocide Convention-----

When RTÉ made a decision-----

His Government is obliged by the Genocide Convention.

When RTÉ made the decision it made with regard to the Eurovision, I said it was entirely a matter for RTÉ because-----

The Government is committed to the Genocide Convention.

You might let me speak. You are doing a great job of shouting me down.

You are doing a great job of evading-----

This is what you always do.

Excuse me. The Minister to conclude.

If I did anything other than what we have done with regard to RTÉ, you, Deputy Gibney, would be the very first person, with your indignation, saying I had overstepped my remit. That is what you always do.

I call Deputy O'Sullivan.

I apologise to the Minister and Minister of State for being late. I was at another committee.

To follow on from Deputy Gibney's line of questioning, I understand the decision that both the FAI and RTÉ seem to have made so far, but I wish to ask a question in a personal capacity. I go to all of the Irish home games, and have done for a number of years, but I have made the personal choice to stay away from that specific match when it is played later this year. Do the Minister and the Minister of State intend to do the same or would they consider it as a form of personal protest rather than dictating such to another Government agency?

I will not be going to the match.

I do not intend to attend the match either.

Those are straight answers, fair play.

I want to move on to pay and salaries in RTÉ because it was a topical issue last week. As I said then, I do not want to go into specifics and I am not here to hound anybody, but after meeting RTÉ's chairperson and director general, is the Minister satisfied with the way that salaries and allowances are outlined in general and the explanations he was given? Is he broadly satisfied with the explanations that were given to this committee last week?

I did not see all of the committee's deliberations. I read a good chunk of them. I suppose I am as satisfied as the Deputy is.

I am not satisfied.

Maybe not, but I would have preferred it if we had not been here again. The last time that this matter was deliberated on in this room and another room, I spent most of the time in a hospital bed watching it. While it was gripping viewing, I thought that was the end of it.

This recategorisation came to light internally, as the Deputy knows. It should have come to light earlier, to be quite honest about it. It also should have been dealt with earlier. When I was asked if I thought that we were going to be satisfied with just looking at 2025 and not going backwards, I said that we would not be satisfied and that RTÉ had to go backwards.

In going backwards, it has to some degree laid out that this is potentially an isolated issue. Every time I have met RTÉ, and the Secretary General of the Department is aware of this, I have asked whether there is anything else I should be made aware of. I get the same answer every time, which is that it is not aware of anything. To be fair to them, I am not here to defend the current chair and director general but what I am here to do is to account for my engagement with them. I am satisfied and believe that they have put the whole picture out on the table at the moment.

To be fair, the director general said as much last week. More pointedly, does the Minister like the model that RTÉ has where someone can be paid as a presenter, producer and contractor and have multiple contracts? Is that something the Minister thinks is appropriate?

No, it is not, especially where there is an issue with regard to the amounts that are paid from some sources that might not be readily identifiable. That is why I asked for a spreadsheet, which I understand the committee was facilitated with.

We were. It was very helpful.

It includes the whole cost because people are not really interested in salaries. They are interested in the total cost, and the total cost includes a pension, car and any other allowances. It needs to be the whole cost. The work that the committee has done should be used in other committees with regard to examining other semi-State organisations and public bodies because sometimes the salary is not the figure to look at all. Rather, the total cost of actually keeping the person in the job is the figure to look at.

The reason I ask is precisely the same reason the Minister is alluding to. I do not have an issue if star X is paid salary Y because, ultimately, RTÉ has a way of gauging this, whether it is the number of people who tune into a programme or whatever it is, but I do have an issue with the fact that there is a certain level of concealment. That is the thing that I and others here did not appreciate as much. I confronted the director general on it last week. I am not naming any individual, but in theory, if someone has three contracts external to their presenting, production capacity or whatever, they could be earning multiples of what the director general is with the way it is set up at the moment. Surely be to God that needs to be reviewed, as it is not acceptable.

I said as much to him as well. By the way, in 2011 and 2012 when I sat where the Deputy is now, I was like a dog with a bone with RTÉ when it came to freedom of information and everything else. I was a backbench TD asking about presenters' pay, and I was told by the then director general with a straight face that I would find out what people were being paid at that time in three years' time, which was a bit of a bizarre thing. RTÉ said it was concealing it for three years because those people might leave. I do not know where RTÉ thought they would go in 2011 and 2012. One person said that if Enda Kenny ever became Taoiseach, that person was going to leave the country. Enda Kenny did become Taoiseach, and that person was one of the highest paid presenters in RTÉ for a long time.

The Deputy is right. There has been a cultural problem there for a long time. It has shifted dramatically under the current director general, and he makes no apology for that.

This is not intended to be a "gotcha" question. It might appear to be, but that is not my intention. Regarding the current director general, a senior post remuneration committee recommended to the Department that his pay would increase. The Minister then referred that on to the Department of public expenditure, and it is ultimately its decision. However, in the current climate and the context of what we are talking about where the director general said that no presenter would earn more than him, does the Minister think it is acceptable or should even be an open question that if he gets a pay rise, whether it is €20,000, €50,000 or whatever, the knock-on consequence is that everybody else employed there could potentially be in line for a similar increase if they made the case or merited it? What is the Minister's position on that?

The Deputy raises a very relevant issue, and it is not just an issue for RTÉ. It is an issue for other semi-State companies and organisations as well where the CEO's salary may not necessarily be at the top of the apple tree. There is a role for the Department of public expenditure and reform here. The final decision on CEOs' pay will ultimately have to be taken to the Government but it would be helpful if we got a greater level of guidance and instruction on banding or whatever with regard to what was and was not tolerable.

Our salaries as Members of the Oireachtas are disclosed. Everybody knows them and if there is an increment due or someone is a Minister or Minister of State, they know exactly what it is. I do not think there is anything wrong with the public sector - by that, I mean the commercial semi-State sector and public bodies - having full disclosure of the full figure because the full figure is the actual figure, not the salary. The salary is the rabbit hole that people have been taken in and out of. The salary is not the full figure in many of these cases. It is the add-ons that have brought them to the level they are at.

I apologise; I was chairing next door. I will keep on the subject of RTÉ. I am trying to dissect this. First, there is the issue of public confidence. I feel that due to this drip feed, public confidence in RTÉ is at an all-time low. Second, a crucial issue is that of staff morale. I have spoken to people in my constituency, and they say that it has never been at a lower level. Does the Minister have confidence in the structures and people in place there?

I will give a simple answer: I have confidence in the chair, board and director general. That is on the basis that they inherited a bag of you know what and they have had to try to untangle that and put it back together after the way in which it had been run for years. There is a combination of issues as to why it was run the way it was run. There was probably a bit of an "If I have it, I will spend it" attitude. Then, they did not have it and could not spend it, but they continued to spend it.

There is no doubt about it that the current generation of leadership in the organisation has inherited more than its fair share of you know what. In the intervening period, it has done some really important stuff in terms of editorial. Deputy Gibney thinks that I can decide who is going to present the news. If only it was that simple.

Deputy Gibney is not here.

I know that, but she referred to editorial content a while ago and then left. In fairness to RTÉ, with regard to some of the editorial content that it has, it has made some brilliant programmes in the last number of years. There are plenty of candidates in this country who will probably be queueing up to get into the next round of "The Traitors Ireland", which has been an unparalleled success for the organisation and brought a lot of people back to watching RTÉ who might have left. It was the talk of the place when it was on. When you went into a barber shop, coffee shop or anywhere, everyone wanted to know what was going to happen next.

This generation of leaders has done a lot of very positive work. Deputy Brennan is right though that there is a morale issue. The company itself would say this, but the only way that is going to be addressed, which the Deputy will know as well, is when it sees the continued positive output of the organisation, including the change, rationalisation, modernisation, the injection it needs in capital and things like that. I firmly believe it is on the right track.

On that point, financially there is a commitment of €750 million. Has the Minister looked beyond that stage and the final payment? Will that be automatically rolled out again and again? How is that going to be judged?

How will what be rolled out?

Supports to RTÉ from the Government.

No, absolutely not.

How is the Minister going to play that out?

We cannot continue to have a situation like we had. We are going to have some difficult conversations in government about the future of public service broadcasting. We have proposals from An Post, which also falls under the remit of my Department, on the collection of the licence fee. We have lost huge revenue from the licence fee. Some difficult questions have to be asked about the future plugging of the hole. Can the hole be plugged saecula saeculorum by the Government? I do not think so. Does it become entirely a public body like the BBC or something like that? That is a huge policy question that would have to be asked at some stage in the future unless the organisation is able to grow its own commercial revenue. To go back to Deputy O'Sullivan's point, to grow commercial revenue, anchors, presenters and programmes that attract big numbers are needed. The company constantly tells me that to get that, people have to be paid, otherwise there is a risk that they will go. If they go, they will take the commercial revenue with them.

The feedback I got from the director general of RTÉ who was sitting in the Minister's chair last week is that we were not plugging a hole. They are looking for a long-term commitment. That is the feel I got.

I will put it this way: some Deputies were in this committee, including the Chairman and others, when that very big hole was created. If what is now my Department did not come forward with its proposal that was consented to by the Government at the time, the current operation of RTÉ would not have been able to continue. That can be dressed up whatever way people want but in my language that is the plugging of a very big hole.

I thank the Minister.

I have a question for the Minister of State. There has been a lot of discussion about the Israel game. I am asking on behalf of a lot of clubs at grassroots level, so that they are not forgotten in this drama. It is a huge issue. I know there has been incredible commitment by the Government to bring the FAI on from the issues it had. We can see it happening at ground level. I am just looking for an assurance today so those clubs on the ground will not be lost in this turmoil. Some of the argument has been exaggerated and is being used to build up people's personal profiles.

There is no doubt it is a challenging situation for the FAI. It has to work within the UEFA structure. It has made its decision on that. The Government is fully committed to working with everyone across Irish football, including the clubs and the FAI, to support the development of football and what it does in communities. Over the course of this year, the Government has made a €3 million investment is the development of academies. That speaks to one aspect of what we are doing. We are also making investments through the various grants in grassroots football right across the country. That is something we will continue as well over the course of this summer with the opening of a new round.

I have two other quick questions. Is the Government in favour of the Katie Taylor fight going ahead? Is it going to be able to give a financial commitment to that fight in Croke Park?

We would love to see it go ahead. Katie Taylor is a national icon, one of our greatest ever sports heroes. I welcome the fact she has announced that she plans to have her final fight in the country later this year. She said that publicly. We have not received any proposal in relation to support for that. If we do, we have a clear policy as to how that would be considered. The bottom line is that it would have to make sense from the point of view of spending taxpayers' funds on it.

Could the Minister of State briefly comment on the GAA in New York? Numbers are being depleted over there. Does he have a comment on the strict regulation policies that are coming in?

The GAA does tremendous work internationally, including in the United States. It is a matter we would have to put to it, but we certainly would support it in its ongoing efforts, including through funding and supporting its work on the ground. That work is more important than ever given the pressure many in the Irish community might feel.

I welcome the Minister and the Minister of State. I support the call, as I have in the past, for a certain percentage of the licence fee to be available to other broadcasters outside of RTÉ, including regional radio stations.

I also agree with the recommendation within the broadcasting Bill that is coming forward that we should try and force more of the streaming services to purchase Irish product, ahead of putting additional levies on them because ultimately those levies are going to be put on the public.

Could the Minister comment on Coimisiún na Meán's increase in the levies for regional radio stations? Does he have a view on those increases? I know they are a percentage of the costs. Coimisiún na Meán has turned into an organisation of more than 300 people and that is the reason for the cost.

I welcome the support for An Post. It is well-known that I am a postmaster. The support that has been given by the Government for the next five years is fantastic. It was a €5 million increase to bring it up to €15 million a year. That is an investment into nearly 1,000 communities around the country, so I welcome it. The Minister can take those two questions first.

I thank the Deputy. With regard to Coimisiún na Meán's levy on independent broadcasters, I met representatives of the IBI last week and it pointed out that some of the broadcasters are in receipt of increases of the order of 39%, or almost 40%. They went through it in terms of some of their membership and what it means for them and how they are proposing to try and deal with it. On the one hand, they have said the Government has been very supportive through the Sound and Vision scheme, young journalism schemes, court reporting, reporting on local authorities and local government but then they got a demand for an increased amount. I would like to point out the legislation that set up Coimisiún na Meán and the ability for it to levy makes it very clear that Coimisiún na Meán is independent of the Department and the Minister in deciding the size of the levy. It is supposed to be a levy that covers the cost of the regulation. Last week, the IBI quite frankly disputed some of what it believes to be regulation as opposed to administration. There may be an opportunity for the committee to engage with the IBI in public session to see what it has to say. There are a lot of people around here whose indignation would be inexorable if I said anything about Coimisiún na Meán. They would say the Minister was overstretching his remit by telling Coimisiún na Meán what to do.

We are going to get an opportunity to meet with the IBI on the radio stations.

I come from a sporting background and I am contacted by a lot of clubs in Longford-Westmeath about community sports facilities. I have said the final terms of the scheme are not in place so I am not going to be making any recommendations. When will a final scheme be in place so that we can go out and tell people exactly what is eligible? Is the Department looking at doing a roadshow on the schemes going forward?

It will be open over the summer. We are finalising it at the moment. The Department has put a lot of time and effort into developing the new system. It is the first time in 25 years or so that it is on a new IT system. Work has progressed well on that. We are engaging with the Minister for public expenditure on seeking consent for the overall scale of the round. We are on course to have it open over the summer, with the objective of having funding announcements as close to the turn of the new year as possible. Once we publicise that, we will have a comprehensive communications plan in place as well to get the message across to clubs on applying for funding.

The Deputy also spoke about the increased allocation of €15 million to An Post. That is a significant follow-through by the Government on the programme for Government commitment to support post offices. It is something for which the Deputy has advocated very strongly. Putting it in place for An Post will require a very minor adjustment to legislation in respect of which we have made a request to the committee for a waiver of pre-legislative scrutiny. We would like to get it through by the summer and it would be helpful if that could be facilitated. It is a one- or two-line amendment that will enable us to deliver that funding to An Post this summer. An Post is already paying the postmasters and this provision will enable us to back-pay those moneys.

There has been significant investment in the large-scale sport infrastructure fund, which was reopened 12 or 18 months ago. Being parochial, we are looking at developing a large multi-sport centre of excellence beside the county GAA grounds in Longford. We might be a small county but we are ambitious and we bat above our level. We are prepared to put in the work but we will be seeking Government support, similar to what other counties have received over the years. When will there be an opportunity for Longford to get support under the large-scale sport infrastructure fund?

We expect the scheme will be opened up within 18 months to two years. There will be one round of funding during the Government's term. The project in Longford is a very good one. I have met with those involved and I am aware that a site has been bought in the centre of the town. It will be a transformative development. There will be one round of funding towards the end of our term. We expect it to open somewhere between 18 months and two years from now.

That is good. The Minister indicated that we are on target and on budget in regard to broadband roll-out. The decision to push ahead with that a long number of years ago, despite objections from others, was one of the best decisions ever made by a government. What are the future plans in this regard? It would be good to have a date for when every household will have access to broadband.

Our party was the only one that advocated for the roll-out of broadband. Everybody else said it would be a total waste of time and money. We even had senior civil servants, who went on to become more senior, saying it was a total waste of money. As we now know, it has been transformative, and certainly so during the Covid period. My broadband speed in Monagea in County Limerick is faster than my broadband speed in Dublin. When I came into the Dáil in 2011, I could not attend any meeting without the word "broadband" being mentioned by somebody.

As far as I know, having checked before the meeting to see what issues are of interest to members, I have not received a single priority question from the Opposition on broadband or on RTÉ since I became Minister. There are a lot of people jumping up and down and levitating over certain issues at the moment but I do not think I have had a single priority question on those two matters in 16 months. This tells me that not all is wrong. There are many positive things happening in those two areas as well, particularly broadband. If there was anything wrong with broadband in rural areas, I am sure there would be wall-to-wall coverage of it.

Deputy Carrigy will be glad to know that County Longford is one of the first counties to be fully finished in regard to broadband roll-out. Kilkenny will be the first county to be fully signed off, with Longford and Louth following shortly thereafter.

I apologise for being late to the meeting. I was attending another committee. Since becoming an Oireachtas Member and as my party's spokesperson on arts and media, I have welcomed the many proposals that have assisted artists in this country. In particular, the extension of the basic income for the arts scheme has been an absolute game-changer for many people. I look forward to seeing how we can expand it, particularly budget-wise, in the coming years.

My colleague Deputy Byrne spoke about the possibility of an arts capital fund. How would that work in respect of community projects? We have a small enough theatre, the Droichead Arts Centre, where I live in Drogheda, County Louth. We would like it to be larger. In the past couple of years, an absolutely beautiful design has been drawn up for a state-of-the-art arts centre. It is badly needed and there would be a great warrant for it. How might such a project apply to an arts capital fund? What options would be available to it and to the many projects across the county?

As I said earlier, the scheme is ready to be released. We are just waiting for consent from the Department of public expenditure. As it is the first of its kind, it will be a small scheme to start with but I hope to grow it. I will do so, first, on the basis of need, which I expect will be demonstrated by the clear demand.

As in sport, in respect of which local authorities deserve to be criticised, and I have been heavily critical of them, councils should be doing more in this area. Some of them are very good and others are brutal and do nothing. We need local authorities to do far more with regard to civic amenity spaces, including museums, arts spaces, concert venues and so on. They cannot abdicate responsibility for this and leave it to community volunteer groups. They should be doing more. Support is available to them from the Arts Council, my Department and the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht by way of town and village renewal funds. There is a way in which the large projects the Senator is talking about can be developed if there is ambition to do so. I met with a group from Wicklow this morning. However, I emphasise that unless local authorities are tied in from the very start, these things invariably are destined to fail.

With respect, local authorities, and Louth County Council in particular, have been remarkable in terms of small-scale funding. However, when it comes to a large-scale project like Droichead Arts Centre, such funding just will not cover it and organisations end up scaling back repeatedly until the project is really only on a par with what is already there. We must look to the Department and to an arts capital grant for large-scale projects.

The Department has a long tradition of supporting such projects. However, one of the things it does not do is construct or acquire buildings. We expect either the national cultural institutions, which will be excluded from this scheme, or, indeed, local authorities, to do the heavy lifting in terms of being the owner and operator of the facility. Whether in relation to a sports amenity or an arts centre, it is often not the building of it that is the most difficult part but, rather, its maintenance and ensuring the local authority has the necessary resources in its annualised budget in terms of ownership, operation, management and maintenance, as well as a sinking fund to ensure that when a slate is blown off the roof, it has money to rectify that and does not have to ring the Department. This is where the business cases at the start are very important. Unless they clearly demonstrate that these places are capable of washing their own face, they will not fly and will not be supported. If they do not wash their own face, it will not be possible to have a sinking fund and they will not be able to manage their day-to-day operations, management and maintenance.

I caught some of Deputy Gibney's contribution on the FAI, Ireland's upcoming match against Israel and the lack of interference by the Department and the Government in decisions like that. While fully respecting the independence of the GAA as a sporting body, I would like to know whether the Minister and Minister of State have concerns about the apparent inconsistency in the application of sanctions. I have in mind a few very high-profile recent incidents, including the 12-week suspension of the Dublin football manager, Ger Brennan, and the sanctions arising out of the Kerry-Donegal fixture. Does the Minister of State agree there is a real need for greater transparency? I am not saying there should be interference in sanctions but there needs to be some sort of consistency. I note my question has been met with great amusement.

I will make no comment on the Kerry-Donegal game because I have a vested interest there. It has been a great summer of sport thus far and I hope it continues. Disciplinary procedures are a matter for the GAA and every other organisation. We expect every organisation to carry them out well, which they do, and to have due process procedures in place. There are very strong systems in place.

I understand what the Minister of State is saying but when it comes to GAA matches or any kind of sporting events, they are very family- and community-orientated. When children, young people and families witness events like that and see no sanction or penalty applied, it really sends the wrong message in terms of the community and family ethos of organisations like the GAA.

I agree with the Senator in terms of the absolute importance of games being conducted with respect for one's own and other people's welfare.

It is important that is the case across all sports. In fairness to the GAA, the change in rules we have seen over the past year has been very welcome and has led to many matches being conducted in a much better way. It is incumbent on every organisation to ensure matches are conducted in that manner and there are systems in place to properly address any issues that arise.

Before we go to the second round of speakers, and we also have some non-members here, I have some questions.

First, regarding the arts funding scheme, how long has the Minister's submission been with the Department of public expenditure? It might be able to help him here.

Just weeks.

When does he expect it to be signed off? Does he have any indication on that?

Imminently. We are ready to proceed with it.

There is great interest and support for it within this committee, so that is why I ask.

In fairness, the Minister of State, Deputy McConalogue, has spoken about the community sports facilities, but what is the Minister's view? Earlier, he said there is engagement across government in finalising details. Many people are looking for this. As I understand it, this is not signed off and is nowhere near signed off. The Minister presumably also has to go to the Department of public expenditure, so what stage is it at?

We are waiting for sanction from the Department of public expenditure and reform. We cannot open a scheme until we have that.

Are the details of the scheme finalised?

No, the details of the scheme are not finalised either. They will have to be brought to the Government before we open it. Once I have bottomed out the amount of money that is available, we will then be able to make a proposal to the Government with regard to its parameters. Being honest, it is not really possible, based on the need and demand that was there from the last time. We know the demand is going to be very big, but if we were to open a scheme, it would want to be as good as, if not better than, the last one. Based on anecdotal information, the volume there is so big that we would want to have as good an amount as the previous round.

The details of the scheme still need to be finalised.

The scheme is not finalised, no.

Does the Minister have a timeline for it? Will it be done before the summer?

That is our hope, but it will be predicated on a final envelope of money from the Department of public expenditure and reform-----

And finalising the scheme.

-----and a decision from the Government.

When it is finally announced, will the Department be doing information evenings with roadshows and stuff like that?

Like last time, there will be maybe a dozen or ten regional centres that will be picked by the officials of the Department in Killarney. At that stage, the scheme will be finished and animated. We have a new IT system that has been invested in and trialled, and it works. If people did not register under the previous OSCAR system, we will ask them to register once that system goes live. They will need their tax reference number and things like that, but yes, there will be a roadshow.

Does the Department have limits? Obviously, the scheme and the details have not been decided yet, but will there be caps as regards the amounts that organisations can apply for? What is the Department thinking there?

We will have to look at the caps as well, because we will have to take into consideration inflation from the last round. Inflation in construction has been particularly heavily hit, with steel and concrete being the obvious two, but we will also have to look at the overall envelope. If that is smaller, which it could be, the caps will have to reflect that too.

The Minister of State, Deputy McConalogue, had an information night in my own county last night. Was that just a party political thing? I assume it was not official. Considering the scheme is not concluded or signed off on, I presume that was not an official meeting.

I attended a very well attended meeting with Deputy O'Meara and Senator Goldsboro. As I go across the country, I get lots of interest from clubs regarding sports capital, so I engage with them as much as possible in that context.

I appreciate that; I am just running out of time. It was not an official meeting because there is no scheme signed off on yet.

No. As I said earlier, we are finalising the budget and the scheme. We are working on the basis of trying to conclude that in the next few weeks.

There are no official details as to the scheme yet; I am glad we are clear on that.

I want to talk to the Minister about RTÉ. I think we are on the one page. I said at our meeting last week that having a list of the top ten or top 20 earners is an absolute waste of time considering what we know now. Would the Minister agree with that?

In terms of presenters-----

Yes.

As I said to Deputy O'Sullivan a while ago, people want to know the whole of the cost associated with the person in the organisation.

Exactly. The figures in the document the Minister sent to the committee were helpful because they showed a greater level of transparency. To sum it up, we all agree that the meeting was this and that. However, it is absolutely pointless to give out a list of the top ten presenters when there are multiple buckets through which they are being paid. The only way you are going to have transparency is a whole-of-cost approach that includes, in addition to salary, any amounts that are being paid through other companies, whether they are companies they own or other companies paying them for work. RTÉ, via the taxpayer, is paying for that. Does the Minister think we can get to that point? We have to get to that point.

That point is fast approaching, to be quite honest, once the legislation passes through the Oireachtas, with the committee's help. The Chair and I know, as former members of the Committee of Public Accounts, that the Comptroller and Auditor General will not suffer fools gladly. If he sees that people are being paid out of multiple buckets, as the Chair calls them, he will not look at the biggest number; he will look at the total number. It would be in RTÉ's best interests to report the totality.

Ultimately, we want to get to a point where if RTÉ wants to continue with this - by the way, it does not have to be presenters; it could be anyone working in RTÉ - it is about the transparency around the total amount and the total cost.

Yes, the total cost. That is what I said to the director general when he came in to meet me with the chairman. I said I am not interested in the salary; I am interested in the total cost associated with the retention of an individual and I would say the same-----

No matter how they are paid.

I do not care how they are paid, and I would say the same of any semi-State organisation I have responsibility for. This committee is able to make recommendations, and this is something it could possibly recommend to the Department of public expenditure.

Yes, I think we will. Just to let the Minister know, with regard to an earlier question, Independent Broadcasters of Ireland is in front of us here on 10 June.

On the broadcasting levy, obviously the Minister heard what this committee member said, as well as his own colleagues and everyone in the Oireachtas. The Minister might give us more information and detail as regards his conversation with them relating to Coimisiún na Meán and the increase. To be fair to the independents, they were very taken aback.

To be fair, Chair, we all were. You are no different from me; you are a good purveyor of the use of Tipp FM, as I am of Live 95. There is an explanation to be given with regard to the size of the increase, which is quite considerable. However, I have to be very conscious of my role because some people will levitate with the faux anger they are well able to direct at me that I am overstepping the mark. I have asked them merely to reflect - I have not done anything else - so let nobody go with this big exposé that the Minister is after interfering.

The Minister asked them to reflect on it.

Of course I did. As a constituency TD, would I not be mad not to?

Yes, you would.

We will go into the second round, starting with non-members. Just for the non-member who is here, the second round is always three minutes for everyone. Deputy Boyd Barrett is very welcome.

I am not sure whether the Minister or the Minister of State is answering, but how much has the private consortium that is seeking to build two ice hockey rinks and a conference centre in Cherrywood asked the Government for? I have asked this question twice. How much has it asked the Government for? It is floating a figure of €190 million for two private ice rinks. I have heard a rumour that the Government is being asked for a third of that money, which would be north of €60 million. That is a lot of money. I have asked the Government twice how much it has been asked for, and I have only been told that it is considering the issue. I have nothing against ice hockey - I would like to see an ice hockey rink somewhere - but I can tell you the list of priorities for sports organisations in my area. They are crying out for money for astro pitches that are inadequate. The club that Paul McGrath started with, Sallynoggin Pearse, is looking for a clubhouse. It has been fighting for one for more than ten years, in conjunction with Granada, which is a big youth soccer team. We are fighting, but we cannot get the money for a clubhouse.

A sum of €60 million might go out for a private ice rink in Cherrywood when there are clubs desperate for stuff and I cannot even get a straight answer on much they have asked for. Could somebody please tell us how much was asked for?

I do not have the specific note here, but from memory it is in the region of €50 million to €60 million. That is what the ask is. We, in the Government, get many asks, as the Deputy can understand, and if we were to follow through on every ask we got, we would be spending a multiple of what we spend. That request came in. It is something that is receiving consideration by the Government. We will respond directly to the consortium once we have completed that consideration.

The Deputy's point is fair. Any decisions we make have to be taken in the context of impact, including impact on participation. We have to balance any Government decision against competing interests and make sure that we are delivering the best impact for the taxpayer and the ordinary citizen-----

Is what they have asked for in the region of €50 million to €60 million?

It is in the region of a third of the overall investment.

It is not on the list of priorities for people in the area.

Surely, we cannot treat as normal states that are in the dock and one that our State has said is guilty of genocide. The Government has said that Israel is guilty of genocide. Nathan Collins basically pointed the finger at the Government when he was asked about this yesterday. He said that if the Government thinks it is okay-----

Does the Deputy want an answer?

Yes, I want an answer. Why does the Government think it is okay to play a football match against a state that is in the dock, which the Government has said is guilty of genocide?

We have always been clear that it is a matter for the FAI to decide. It brought a motion to UEFA which it did not get support for. Unlike with Russia, UEFA has not banned Israel from football competitions and the FAI is fulfilling its obligations within its footballing structure. We, as a country, continue to lead out in relation to the activities of Israel-----

The players were pointing at the Government yesterday.

The Government has always been clear in terms of where the decision lies here.

In relation to the sports capital programme, I just cannot emphasise enough how important it is. We call it a sports capital grant, but I call it a capital "social fabric of every village and town in Ireland" grant. It really is that. Small villages, such as Ballygarrett, which is a crossroads down in Wexford, have slowly built up facilities. It has not all been from sports capital grants. Local people have got involved as well and it has taken young people off the corners and got them joining clubs. In the age of the famous phone, which we have discussed here, that has never been as important. I fully support the programme and I warmly welcome the arts capital fund as well. It is long overdue and much-needed also.

Will the issue of levies on Netflix and Amazon ever be revisited? I am looking at it in relation to the levies on our local stations that we have discussed. I brought up a figure last week that RTÉ is giving 2FM approximately €4 million. We give our 33 local stations approximately €3 million, which is an average of €100,000 per station. I do not feel that is a level playing field. Someone said last week that 2FM is washing its face. It is very easy for it to wash its face if it is getting supported with €4 million.

I do not disagree with the Deputy. Deputy Byrne, who is in Deputy Brennan's constituency, and I have been down this road a number of times. I do not like levies on entertainment. I will use the opportunity to ask people whether they have bought a television licence and would they encourage someone else to buy one because the reality is that none of the alternatives that are there for the funding of public service broadcasting in Ireland are palatable or ideal. I heard someone suggest last night that we should increase the property tax and throw RTÉ in with it. Deputy Boyd Barrett is gone now, but I imagine he would be the first out of the traps to oppose that because he does not believe in any tax. No matter what is done here, somebody is going to be opposed to it. The last time that this committee examined it, it came back with a multiplicity of options. Deputy Byrne was here at the time. There was a multiplicity of options, all of which were unpalatable, but the committee made no decision on which one it would recommend.

Is the amount of money 2FM gets a level playing field compared to local radio stations?

My own preference in any particular order on any particular day, and I am showing my age, does not include 2FM, but it has an important role to play for particular audiences. It does a very good job but it is in a competitive environment, particularly with that age profile of 18 to 35. It has to try to maintain a significant market share. It has a headwind now over the last number of years. It has come through that and has grown its numbers, but some of the JNLR figures from the last round would give anyone who bought a television licence cause for concern.

To go back to RTÉ, we had the director general in last week. It was widely reported in the media that his salary is €250,000, which we now know is incorrect because his package is €340,000, when we add in his car allowance of €25,000 and his €65,000 pension. I noted that the Minister said that he has full confidence in the director general and chair of RTÉ. Was there a recommendation that the director general's salary be increased? Is that correct?

No. There is a report from my Department with the Department of public expenditure and reform at the moment.

Does it recommend an increase in the director general's salary?

To address salary issues in the organisation, yes.

Would that have a knock-on effect in terms of the top earners?

It potentially would, but it is remarkable that the director general or the CEO of a particular State entity does not have to be the highest paid person in that entity. That is important to point out. As Deputy Byrne and the Chair said earlier, if people are being paid out of multiple pots and the level of transparency is not there, it is very difficult to see where they are. That is why I asked for the spreadsheet that committee members got. It was a whole-of-cost spreadsheet. We should try and keep away from the word salary.

That is fair. Is it proposed to increase the director general's package from €340,000 to €360,000?

No final decision has been taken on that.

There is no final decision, but it is with-----

It is with the Department of public expenditure and reform because there are two shareholders, me and the Minister for public expenditure and reform.

The Minister said that there has been a cultural problem in RTÉ for a long time. Most people and commentators would accept and agree with that. I agree with the Minister 100% on that. In terms of the reform claims that RTÉ makes about cultural change and improvements in morale, etc., does the Government independently verify RTÉ's claims about reform, or does it just take the executive and management at their word?