I thank the members for agreeing that I can now act as temporary Cathaoirleach. Apologies have been received from Deputies Alan Kelly, Pádraig Ó Sullivan, Aengus Ó Snodaigh, Micheál Carrigy, Sinéad Gibney and Malcolm Byrne. This meeting has been convened to consider the 2025 Supplementary Estimate for public service for Vote 33 - Culture, Communications and Sport, which stands referred to this committee by Dáil Éireann. I welcome the Minister, Deputy O'Donovan and the Minister of State, Deputy McConalogue, and their officials to the meeting here in committee room 4. As the Ministers are present, it is not expected that officials will speak in public session. I also wish to advise that opening statements and any other documents submitted to the committee may be published on the committee website after this meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The format of the meeting will be as follows: I will invite the opening statements from the Ministers, which will then be followed by questions from members on the basis of the speaking rota circulated. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Before we proceed to the opening statements, I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside of the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite the Minister, Deputy O’Donovan, to make his opening statement.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gcoiste as an deis na Meastacháin Fhorlíontacha don sheirbhís phoiblí a chur i láthair thar ceann na Roinne mar Aire Cultúir, Cumarsáide agus Spóirt.

The Supplementary Estimate I present today comprises both a substantive and a technical element. The substantive Supplementary Estimate will increase funding for the communications programme, specifically with regard to the national broadband plan, NBP. The technical element will increase funding in multiple programme areas, from savings arising elsewhere across the Department's Vote. It will also provide for the redistribution of funding within the broadcasting programme area due to an increase in projected TV licence receipts. The substantive Supplementary Estimate seeks total additional funding of €42.658 million, which comprises the additional requirement of €45.049 million for the national broadband plan, offset by savings elsewhere in the vote of €2.391 million. The additional funding does not represent an increase to the overall NBP project budget of €2.7 billion but rather a reprofiling of the multi-annual spend to facilitate the advanced progression and earlier delivery of the project. It is anticipated that the deployment phase of the project will be completed by the end of 2026, on budget and ahead of schedule. When completed, Ireland will rank in the top tier of EU member states in the provision of ubiquitous, high-speed broadband connectivity to citizens, communities and enterprises. As of today, more than 430,000 premises have been passed, representing over 76% of the total intervention area, with some 440,000 premises forecast to be passed and ready for service by the end of 2025.

Connections to the network are significantly exceeding initial projections with more than 153,000 connections made and more than 4,500 new connections monthly. The NBP is expected to provide access to high-speed fibre broadband for approximately 65,000 farms across Ireland, representing 69% of all farms, with more than 40,000 farms having access to the service, and approximately 17,000 already connected. Take up is high. In addition, 955 broadband connection points, including 672 in schools, are now operational, ensuring communities and young people in every corner of the country can participate fully in the digital economy. Incremental benefits of up to €5.9 billion are projected for the national broadband plan over a 25-year appraisal period, representing a significant return on investment.

Moving to the technical element of the Supplementary Estimate, I propose to re-allocate €26.503 million across my Department, including the distribution of television licence fee receipts, which are up to €6.8 million higher than originally estimated in the Revised Estimates Volume, REV, which will be disbursed to RTÉ and the broadcasting fund under the provisions of the Broadcasting Act. Savings in arts and culture and sports programmes arise mostly in the context of a later-than-expected drawdown in terms of capital grants and projects. Such projects can be complex in nature and providing an accurate timeframe for the provision of funding can be challenging. There are savings in terms of the National Concert Hall, NCH, as the full State funding was not required due to the strong financial position of the NCH in 2025.

In the communications programme area, savings on the development of the public warning system, subhead B6, arise as final procurement has not yet advanced on the system pending a number of operational issues which are currently under discussion, while delays at an EU level saw savings on the quantum computing project.

On the media side, savings of €2 million arise in terms of an Exchequer allocation to An Post under subhead C4 in relation to ICT and process changes to the TV licence collection system. As the detailed design and implementation of these changes will necessarily be based on the outcome of Government consideration of the report of the technical working group on TV licence reform, this funding will not be expended this year. The report of the group is expected by the end of the year. While €2.391 million of these savings will be used to offset the additional ask for the national broadband plan, and €6.8 million represents the technical distribution of TV licence receipts, the remaining €17.312 million will be redistributed to meet pressures elsewhere in the Department. An additional €1.391 million is to be provided to the National Museum and the National Library to assist with pensions pressures due to a higher than planned rate of retirements.

In the communications programme, in addition to the savings offsetting the NBP, €2.248 million is required under subhead B5 to cover both current and capital expenditure under the Digital Hub Development Agency, DHDA, with the capital element required to meet charges to support emergency works at buildings held by the DHDA. The current element will be directed towards the payment of property-related taxes and charges.

In the media programme, a further €1.09 million is to be provided to facilitate the production of 2026 programming commenced in quarter 4 of 2025 and commencement of new production projects during this year.

An additional €810,000 is being provided to subhead C7, Coimisiún na Meán, to meet fines imposed by the Court of Justice of the European Union arising from the delay in notification of the transposition of the audiovisual media services directive, which required both enactment of the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act in 2022 and subsequent making of the regulatory codes by Coimisiún na Meán.

While the subhead relates to Coimisiún na Meán, the payments are being processed by the Department directly. A further €100,000 is required in respect of expenses that will be incurred in 2025 by Coimisiún na Meán in respect of implementation of the media mergers provisions of the European Media Freedom Act, EMFA, an EU regulation which entered force in August 2025.

Under sport, the adjustment to the Dormant Accounts Fund is a straight swap from current to capital due to the nature of projects presented for funding by Sport Ireland. The redistribution of €8.66 million required is to address costs for major sports events under subhead D8. This relates to the hosting of the very successful NFL game in Croke Park in September, which arose as the result of a Government decision earlier this year.

Finally, it is now estimated that TV licence fee receipts may be up to €6.8 million higher than projected in the Revised Estimates for 2025. To allow these increased receipts to be disbursed in line with the Broadcasting Act, the following technical adjustments are necessary. The first is an increase of €4 million to subhead C3, grant to RTÉ from TV licences. It is important to emphasise that public funding for RTÉ in 2025 will still be at €225 million. Any increase in the payment of TV licence receipts to RTÉ will be offset by a lower Exchequer payment to RTÉ. The second is an increase to subhead C6, broadcasting and media fund, of €2.8 million, which reflects payments to fund the sound and vision scheme operated by Coimisiún na Meán. All of these technical subhead adjustments, including the allocation of increased TV licence receipts, will have a net zero effect to the Revised Estimate allocation and are a net zero cost to the Exchequer.

The additional funding sought is solely in relation to the national broadband plan, which does not represent an overspend against the overall project, but is providing for an accelerated timeline to completion.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I invite the Minister of State to make his opening statement.

I welcome the opportunity to be here today to speak about this Supplementary Estimate as it pertains to sport.

The main spending pressure on the sports side arises from the Government decision earlier this year to sanction the hosting of an NFL game in Ireland. The Croke Park fixture, which took place in September between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Minnesota Vikings, was a resounding success, attracting global attention and reinforcing Ireland’s reputation as a world-class host. The game proved very popular, with over 74,000 in attendance in a fully seated Croke Park. The broadcast reach was also significant with over 500,000 viewers domestically and 7.9 million viewers in the U.S, making it the second most-watched NFL international game there has been so far.

While all payments have not yet been finalised, it is likely that the event spend will come in under the Government-approved allocation of up to €9.95 million, excluding VAT. This budget included support for once-off infrastructural investment in Croke Park. While work is being finalised on a detailed post-event evaluation, it is expected that the projected €64 million in economic benefits will be exceeded. In view of the success of the September game, consultation with key stakeholders and engagement with the NFL is under way regarding possible future games. Any decision in this regard will be contingent on a satisfactory contractual agreement with the NFL and a Government decision.

The additional allocation required in respect of the subhead D8, major sports events, is €8.66 million. The savings on the sports side arise from the community sport facilities fund, CSFF, and the large-scale sport infrastructure fund, LSSIF. The community sport facility fund is, as we know, the primary means of providing Government funding to sport and community organisations at local, regional and national level throughout the country. The programme aims to foster an integrated and planned approach to the development of sports and physical recreation facilities, and assists the purchase of non-personal sports equipment. The aim of the LSSIF is to provide Exchequer support for larger sports facilities. These projects are where the Exchequer investment is greater than the maximum amount available under the CSFF. This year will see record levels of expenditure under both those funds. Over €70 million will be spent on the community sport facilities fund by the end of the year, with up to €25 million spent on the large-scale sport infrastructure fund.

However, it is to be expected that capital projects will not always match forecasted drawdown targets and that is why there are some savings both in the D3 and D7 subheads. It is expected that the strong rate of expenditure under both subheads will resume in 2026. Accordingly, we are seeing savings of €1.199 million arise in respect of the community sport facility fund under subhead D3, and €4 million with regard to the large-scale sport infrastructure fund, under subhead D7. The other adjustment on the sports side relates to projects supported by the Dormant Accounts fund in subhead D6. This is a straight swap of €1.013 million from current to capital, due to the nature of projects, which were presented under the Dormant Accounts funding application to Sport Ireland.

I thank the Minister and the Minister of State for attending this evening. It is always great to have one Minister but it is extra great to have two in attendance. I appreciate their time.

It will probably be no surprise to anyone that I will start with a number of questions on sport. I am particularly struck by a line in the Minister of State's opening statement to the effect that "the main spending pressure on the sport side arises from the Government decision". We all know it was a Government decision but that is really accepting accountability that this has led to pressure on the sport. This struck me as strange that the line is in there but it is very honest at the same time. I wish to tease that out a bit. We all know that is about the NFL match and I do not want to take away from the success of that. It was brilliant for the economy; that is widely acknowledged. Subhead D8 provides additional funding of €8.66 million to address the costs. Both the Minister of State and the Minister referenced that in their opening statements. What I do not understand is that the majority of this additional funding is met from €4 million savings under subhead D7, which is the large-scale sport infrastructure fund, and another €1 million in the community sport facilities fund. Again, I am aware that this was referenced in both opening statements but will they explain to me how there can be savings in both of these steams of funding when they are both oversubscribed? We have had many interactions about the LSSIF. Last year, there were 96 applications amounting to €665 million. Is the Minister of State telling me that all the sports clubs and organisations that were rejected, most of them run by volunteers who put in immense work into applications and had great ambition to evolve their clubs and whatever their respective sport might be, are now looking at funds that could have been allocated to them having been moved by a Government decision to host an NFL match? It just does not marry up for the general Joe Soap. I get what the Minister of State is saying. Drawdown is slow and money is sitting there. Could that not be redirected into an interim pool of funding that somebody who is shovel-ready and perhaps able to move on their project could avail of instead?

It is because we had provisioned for the demand under the community sport facilities fund and the large-scale infrastructure fund for 2025 - as we did in the most recent budget - for the level of demand we expect for 2026. We had not provisioned in the past year in the budget, which would have come in at the end of 2024, for an NFL game during the past year. There was around €8 million in the budget for large-scale events but we did not necessarily foresee at that stage that there would be an NFL game. That opportunity arose. Regarding our engagement in how we could fund that, the Government was willing to approve that game but we had to, in the first instance, assess whether there were any underspends within the Department that could then be, as in the Revised Estimates at the end of the year, reallocated to that. We do not know until the end of the year. If we look back each year over the past number of years, normally when we get to the end of the year there can be some underspend in capital projects, though not always. We are seeing that here in quite a small amount. We are seeing around €1 million in the community sport facility fund projected between now and Christmas. Then the large-scale sport infrastructure fund, which can be more lumpy in the way it comes in, is projected by the end of this year to underspend slightly by €4 million. In the first stance, in relation to paying for the NFL game, it is where any underspend is arising. We have provisioned for next year for both the CSFF and the LSSIF in the most recent budget. That is based on looking at the number of projects that would have been awarded and the normal trajectory of drawdowns for both the club grants and the large-scale grants and what that looks like for next year. We have provisioned appropriately for next year for those two. Of course, through both funds we are investing and have given commitments to a record number of clubs. The most recent CSFF was €270 million which was at least €100 million more than had ever been given in a round previously. The fund has started to spend more significantly all of the time as well, and we have provisioned for that next year. Sometimes, it can be the other way. Sometimes we can be underprovisioned in a budget for it. As it happens, as we get towards the end of this year, there is some small scope there therefore that has been reallocated towards the NFL game.

I thank the Minister of State for that. The Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, has reported of the Department's 2023 budget, that €56.4 million went unspent. A total of €21.5 million was carried forward into the 2024 budget allocation, if I am correct. However, my understanding is that the remaining €34 million was returned to the Exchequer. This was highlighted again this morning in the publication of the report of the Committee of Public Accounts. Can the Minister of State guarantee there will not be significant underspends again? Coming back to my earlier question, I am thinking of all the sports clubs and arts organisations under his Department that are frustrated, or perhaps deflated, when they see underspends like that and millions of euro being returned to the Exchequer when their projects are fit for purpose and ready to move.

Speaking just from the sports side, all we can do is look between now and the end of the year and see where we are at for this year's budget. We have already looked ahead to next year's budget and secured the funding in the most recent budget to provide for the full drawdown for both funds next year. By doing this reallocation now, it means that there will not be a return to the Exchequer. We are looking to see what the scope is between now and the end of the year and reallocating money if there are budgetary pressures elsewhere, which there is because the NFL game came about earlier in the year after last year's budget was done.

The majority of that money relates to the national cultural institutions, which involve large capital projects. As the committee will appreciate, and we discussed this in the Dáil last week, with many listed buildings, conservation areas and things like that, we have to adhere to the public spending code and there are several different gateways we have to go through with the Department of public expenditure. It has not gone as quickly as we would have liked.

I made reference to this last week when answering questions regarding the Crawford Gallery. All the delays are also adding considerable costs. In the case of building inflation at present for protected buildings, structures and areas that are architecturally constrained, inflation is running at about 40%. Unforeseen delays are adding a huge amount of cost that we have to absorb. However, we have to have regard to the allocations also being made.

Regarding the sports element of this, we would not have been in a position to make allocations to sports capital outside of the normal criteria that were set out because who would we allocate them to? If we knew we were going to have an underspend this year, which we did, and it was out of this that I brought a memorandum to Government that funded the bulk of the NFL expenditures, the reality was that in the absence of an NFL expenditure - and I said this to Government - we would be returning a lump of money to the Exchequer. We would have had the worst of both worlds, rather than being able to have a situation where the second most watched game internationally in NFL was broadcast from Dublin.

From a capital point of view, the GAA did well out of it because we had to refurbish locker rooms, training rooms and things like that. We also had to put in some additional facilities in the stadium and they worked with us on that. It was on that basis that I brought forward the proposal to Government to use those savings. Otherwise, it would have been returned to the Exchequer anyway.

I am not taking away any success of the NFL game or any of the people or clubs that benefited from it, but does the Minister accept that to people who do not understand the workings of this are asking why that money cannot come to them and why a parameter is not in place that if there is an underspend, there would be whatever funding stream, whether it is arts or sports?

The reason is whether it relates to culture and sport. If we distribute an underspend without having regard to the public spending code and to normal rules of capital expenditure, we would have an entirely different Comptroller and Auditor General report from the one we had today, which would be very critical for us. I am sure committees like PAC would be looking for heads.

We cannot operate outside of the procedures laid down by the Department of public expenditure and the Comptroller and Auditor General, with regard to the expenditure of capital moneys. We can in some elements convert capital to current expenditure, which we are referring to here but that in itself is not something that is accepted lightly. It is often frowned upon because we are going outside of two envelopes and messing up one envelope with another.

Next year, we do not expect an underspend on the cultural side, as a result, any wriggle room to make any adjustments within the capital envelope for either media or sport. We do not expect on the cultural side to have any underspend on capital, by virtue of the fact in January, we will commence on the ground in the Crawford Gallery in Cork. A lot of that pent-up reserve will start to be spent in 2026.

That is to be commended. The Minister brought up concerns about the Comptroller and Auditor General. His report identified serious weaknesses in the Department's performance measurement framework, particularly in relation to arts and sports funding. It sounds like the Minister is confident now that this is part of days gone by and he is not concerned about that going forward. I apologise, a Chathaoirligh; I understand I am over time.

I am concerned about it going forward. The first decision I made when I was appointed by the President, on foot of a conversation I had with the Secretary General, was to initiate a process into examining what exactly happened in the Arts Council and how so much public money could have been wasted on a failed IT system. That report is imminent and I understand the relevant persons to whom that report is reflected upon have had their various chapters circulated to them. I have not seen it but I hope to see it before Christmas or early in the new year. I will bring it to Government and publish it. If there are recommendations in it, we will implement them.

However, separate to that, we also internally worked with the Institute of Public Administration on how we operate as well. I will be the first to say, historically, we could have done things an awful lot better. Certainly, one of the things I want to do is build our own capital capacity within the Department where we are not reliant on external advice to the same degree as maybe we were.

For instance, all the national cultural institutions are in the ownership of the Office of Public Works, yet the money for their remodelling, modification and upgrading is channelled through our Department and onto the Office of Public Works. That is not great because they are not really our buildings, yet they are our institutions. Similarly, not all the money that goes to sport goes directly to an agency we have direct responsibility for, such as Sport Ireland. Some of it goes to national governing bodies. In the latest round of CSFF, the GAA got close to nearly 50% of the total €277 million, with €107 million going into it.

We are reliant on external agencies, which are often delivery agents not under the remit of the Department, to ensure the work we are signing up to is done on our behalf. We want to strengthen the oversight within the Department and build a capital unit within it. Communications has under the remit of the Department. The officials in that area have a lot of experience with large-scale capital programmes, particularly the national broadband plan, which the bulk of this Revised Estimate relates to. It is ahead of schedule, ahead of budget and the reason I am asking for a re-profiling of moneys is it is not one of these laggards. It is not delayed or behind schedule. It will finish more or less a year ahead of schedule. The experience the communications team is bringing is heavily capital-orientated and it is from that I hope to be able to bring in reforms with the Secretary General around the delivery of capital projects within the Department.

I thank the Deputy for that.

Regarding the criteria and the fact there was excess funds, I see the work that goes into putting in an application and I cannot understand how the criteria could be so wrong if they are clearly laid out. Could the Minister comment on that?

There is nothing wrong with the applications and there is nothing wrong with the allocations either. The Department, based on historical engagement with organisations, profiles over the year how much money is expected to be drawn down. Sometimes people hit delays. Weather is a big one. Sometimes they might have to go back to the local authority in terms of an adjustment with their planning application. Sometimes they have issues with regard to making sure their own voluntary element, in terms of their own local fundraising, might have fallen behind time.

The departmental office in Killarney in the sports section are constantly dealing with clubs. For one reason or another, they might want to change the allocation. Let suppose they have an allocation for lights but feel it is a bit early to do lights and instead want to do a walkway, they will engage with the Department and the Department's role in this is to make sure the places are upgraded and it wants to spend money. The profile is over the three or four years in the run-in to another announcement of the sports capital programme. Normally, it is fairly accurate. It would not be unusual that there would be a bit of an overhang and it is better to have a buffer than to have everybody producing invoices to Killarney and for us to have no money to meet it.

However, I understand the question being reflected by the Chair and Deputy Byrne: "Is this not terrible for those who did not make an allocation?" This is always profiled in to first make sure we have the required amount to meet all the invoices. I also should have said that historically, some local authorities have been atrocious at this. The small soccer or GAA club has not been delaying this. When I was Minister of State with responsibility for sport, some local authorities did not even know they had allocations against their names.

In the event they were to draw down a portion of it or all of it, we have to profile that cash to ensure there is something there to meet it. It is not to try to make sure nobody else is included or that there are people out there being left behind; on the contrary, this is a buffering and is being used for that purpose.

I thank the Minister for that.

The projected increase of €6.8 million in TV licence income comes as a pleasant surprise.

Can the Minister outline that for me?

After the television licence income collapsing because of the scandalous situation in RTÉ, the television licence income imploded. The Cathaoirleach Gníomhach is right that the income is better than expected but it means that the total sum that goes from the public will not exceed the agreed limit, in other words, the €255 million remains the same. The amount that will go from the Exchequer will be reduced by the amount that has been increased in television licence receipts above and beyond what was expected. It will be the same amount. It will be just going from a different source.

I will use this opportunity to again encourage people to pay their television licence fee and to thank those who are paying the television licence fee. It forms an important plank of public service broadcasting. It is needed. For the likes of this, it is needed as well. We cannot communicate a message as an Oireachtas without having a functioning public service broadcaster.

An Post is an agency under the remit of the Department as well. We have to do more in terms of collection and encouraging people to pay. I thank those who have paid and I encourage those who have not paid to try to think again because public service broadcasting is an important plank of our democracy.

In relation to broadband, I note the figure of 69% to all farming or rural areas. Is the other 31% in the plan? What percentage of rural Ireland does the Minister see this covering?

The Chair will recall that the intervention was done on the basis of commercial companies which would not face into certain terrain such as west Wicklow because, to be quite frank about it, it was not going to pay them and unless the Government went in under the auspices of somebody, no one was going to go in there. Places in north Wexford and west Wicklow are being accommodated through the national broadband plan by virtue of the fact that nobody else was going to go in there. Miraculously, when the Government turned up with the chequebook, all these companies which would not go in there previously have now turned up as the retail providers, but we welcome them. It is great to see them there. Those are the areas.

There are a lot of areas that are covered by commercial operators - I live in one of them - where they are not in an intervention area. Many farmers are residing outside of intervention areas anyway and they have a very high take up. I live in an area that is not a national broadband plan intervention area, but yet is a rural area. That is replicated around the country.

However, in the areas in which there is an intervention, obviously we are happy with the take up. We will work continuously to make sure that, first of all, people are aware. Some people, of course, are in existing contracts. I will be bringing something with regard to mobile telephony contracts to Government shortly. Some people are in existing contracts and once they wash themselves through, it will give them an opportunity to swap over to national broadband-related contracts. The pick-up, we expect, will accelerate dramatically in the next couple of years.

The most important aspect from our point of view is there has been great co-operation from the local authorities. We could not have done this without the county councils. Area engineers have been critical in knowing where the infrastructure is, the support, etc. We also could not have done it without the support of the physical companies that are erecting the infrastructure all over the country. From the point of view of showcasing a good infrastructural project being delivered on time, ahead of budget and on schedule, it would be no bad idea for the committee to engage with National Broadband Ireland and invite it to make a presentation in the not too distant future with regard to its experiences in this regard because it has been in the round quite positive.

Absolutely. There are so many boxes ticked. When you talk about rural Ireland, people automatically think of the farming community. There are the elderly. The benefits to them mentally from getting access in their houses or whatever is incredible. I have seen it at first hand.

In relation to major sports events coming up, did we get bang for our buck?

I am thinking, in particular, of the NFL game. Of course, we have the annual college classic, which has been happening every year as well in recent years.

On the NFL game, in particular, to look at it most recently, the initial projected economic assessment of it indicated that we were expecting €64 million of economic activity resulting from it and there was a State investment of €10 million towards that. The final figures are not in yet but the sense would be that we are likely to exceed that because it went really well. There were 75,000 people in Croke Park. Almost one third of those travelled from the States, for example, and many of those would have travelled around the country as well. On the direct tax take from the game, it was expected in the initial assessments that there would be approximately €20 million of direct tax return for the €10 million the State invested to help make it happen. It was very successful.

We have engaged with the NFL around the potential for hosting further games. That is something we will engage with them further on but the experience would lead us to want to repeat it.

In relation to the FAI, we all saw in the last few weeks what a successful soccer team means to the country. We have not seen it in decades. Thankfully, I was around the last time they were successful. It lifts the mood of the country. It is incredible to drive down the country and see children going around with footballs. It is just incredible and we are all on the same page about it. We spoke about that privately. What is the relationship now between the Government and the FAI in relation to its debt? That cannot be missed in the euphoria of the success on the field.

We know the background of the situation the FAI got itself into a number of years ago. We are now 18 months into the second memorandum of understanding between the Government and the FAI whereby the Government is giving specific dedicated funding to the FAI in order that football, particularly grassroots football, across the country can be supported. The implementation of that memorandum is something that we monitor closely through Sport Ireland. There is regular engagement to make sure that the governance and the work that is required as part of that memorandum of understanding is being implemented and adhered to.

We have also, of course, in the most recent budget taken an initiative, which was an important and progressive step by the Government, of funding the need for the development of football academies across the country. We secured €3 million in the budget to ensure that across the country we can see the development of underage footballers to give young people the capacity to reach the maximum of their potential. Particularly coming out of Brexit a number of years ago, where previously young people would have gone abroad, they can no longer do that until they are 18 years of age. It is important we provide that, at local level and domestically. We are engaging closely, again working through Sport Ireland, with the FAI as to how that will be established and set up to make sure that the proper structures are put in place early on so that it will deliver in the way we want to see it. There is significant engagement going on with them in relation to how that will be stepped out.

Is there engagement with the FAI regarding capital expenditure on the Aviva Stadium itself?

Obviously, the Aviva Stadium is jointly managed between the IRFU and the FAI. They have, as part of the structure, a certain amount put aside each year for the stadium's maintenance needs. We keep an ongoing engagement with the stadium management company as well in relation to how that is progressing and we will continue to do that.

Speaking of stadiums, can the Minister of State outline the spend of €9.95 million on Croke Park?

Given the particular needs - American football teams' squad sizes are much bigger than what an average Gaelic football team would be or even those of other sports which have been hosted in Croke Park previously - to be able to host the NFL game, there needed to be alterations made to the dressing rooms and expansions made and capital works as a result of that. As part of this year's allocation, a minority of that went towards the works at the stadium.

Some of the work that happened as well was the upgrading of IT infrastructure and camera infrastructure to be able to produce it to the standard that the NFL would normally work to. That is work which will stand to the stadium. It is work that is done. It is work that will hold as well for any future engagements. It will not need to be repeated should we host - which, hopefully, we will - an NFL game there, this year and in future years.

I thank the Minister of State.

The total was €2 million.

Minister, I know you are awaiting the full report, but do you think the Arts Council is currently fit for purpose?

I will have to reserve comment on that until I see the report. As soon as I have the report, it is my intention to take it to the Government. Whatever recommendations are in it we will make, but it has left a sour taste in an awful lot of people's mouths that we wound up investing a substantial amount of public moneys from the Arts Council in an IT system that never saw the light of day. I will reserve comment on my confidence or otherwise until such time as I see the final report.

Will you comment on the Bill Deputy Ó Snodaigh brought forward in recent weeks to recognise comedy? I was not happy because I felt we should have brought Comhaltas in. Why are these not funded? Why is it not a level playing field?

It is a very good question. I had no idea until I became Minister for arts and culture that Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann does not receive any money from the Arts Council. It receives its money directly from the Department, which is a bit of a bonkers situation and points to a very poor relationship. Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann is a vital cog in the wheel in terms of the intrinsic value of cultural output from a traditional music point of view. I have also said on a number of occasions that I cannot understand why, for instance, comedy, country music, line dancing - whatever it is people want to do - are not regarded as art forms but other things are. I do not accept that just because this is the way we used to do things, it should be the way we do things now. If we do not change, change is foisted upon us. I reserve the right, as a Minister, under the existing legislation, to issue policy direction to the Arts Council. I will not do that until I see what Niamh Brennan's report comes back with. I have not seen the report, and that is why I asked Deputy Ó Snodaigh not to proceed with the comedy Bill. I do not have a problem with the Bill at all. I do not have a problem with any legislation that widens what is and is not regarded as an art form. What I think is a bit premature, though, is to bring forward legislation now, in the absence of knowledge and where I probably will bring forward another Bill in January or February with regard to exactly the same thing. I am prepared to wait another couple of weeks. I believe Deputy Ó Snodaigh to be honest about this and to be passionate about the arts, and I do not believe he has any motive other than trying to see this progressed. He and I agree that Ireland is a nation of storytellers and yarns and people who are well able to add humour. For comedy not to be categorised as an art form I found absolutely bizarre, and it is something I am committed to changing.

Before I go off that point, do we need a Bill for the Arts Council to fund comedy and drama?

No. It could do so tomorrow morning if it wanted to. It could have done so last week if it wanted to. This could have been done for years. However, it has left me in a position now where a policy direction is issued, a new Bill is brought in or the council gets on and does it. I would have hoped that it would have done the latter but it looks like it will be the former.

I agree with you on that. I feel it is elitism.

I feel that it is exclusionary and I have always felt that it is exclusionary. If I were to use the same agenda with regard to sport and decide that Sport Ireland were to have no relationship, for instance, with the Gaelic Athletic Association, which is essentially what the Arts Council has with Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, the public would be horrified. Or if I were to decide that it was okay for Sport Ireland, for instance, not to fund boxing or not to fund swimming because it was a sport that maybe the upper echelons did not agree with, I do not think I would be long around here, Chairman.

Do you have an approximate timeline for the roll-out of the next sports capital funding?

I hope to be able to bring a memorandum to the Government, having discussed it with the Minister of State, Deputy McConalogue, in the spring, to open applications in the first half of 2026 and to make allocations in the second half of 2026.

In relation to the sports capital funding, I know I have brought it up before, but in relation to areas such as Arklow and towns that have not been affected before-----

I agree with you. As you said-----

Yes. I took your answer on board. It is not only the Government that should fund this; local councils have a huge role to play. Why a town like that was left-----

I have a very simple question for you, Chairman. Why is the Wicklow county manager not before this committee or the Wexford county manager not before the public accounts committee? Deputy Byrne referred to the work of the public accounts committee and she is absolutely right. Why is the Louth county manager not brought before the public accounts committee? It is 2025 and these guys are hiding behind legislation that has been knocking around since Job was a boy. It is about time the county managers were brought in here and made accountable for their actions because in local authority chambers up and down the country they are not accountable, and I have a huge problem with that. We are voting through billions annually from this Oireachtas to local authorities and, miraculously, every single one of them gets a clean bill of health every single year from the local government auditor. I believe in a lot of things but in that I do not.

I agree but I will disagree on a small point, that we cannot throw the water on all councils.

No, but I am-----

I am just looking at Wexford. There is an awful lot of work being done in Wexford and there are huge gaps in south Wicklow.

There are some very good local authorities around the country.

Absolutely.

I know that from previous Departments I was in, including the Department with responsibility for the Office of Public Works. There are some shocking ones, and you only need to look at the allocations that have been made down through the years from my Department under sports capital to local authorities. They do not even know they have it. Maybe the LGMA is an organisation you should call in here and ask why local authorities are getting sports capital grants and not drawing them down. I encourage you to do that. You should bring in the Local Government Management Agency and ask it what it is doing.

And about the disparity in this.

Not a lot, I would say.

Thank you for your time.

I have just a couple of brief questions. The Minister and the Minister of State both referred to the dormant accounts funding. There is just over €1 million. I know it has just been moved to capital. It is a straight swap-over. However, the dormant accounts action plan is allocating €46 million or €47 million for 2026, and I think that is going across 11 different Government Departments. If we are serious about increasing participation in sport, why is the allocation so small? This is not necessarily a criticism of the Minister or the Minister of State, but why is the allocation so small when all the funding schemes are underfunded and all applications outstrip supply by multiples? Is there not a case there to bang the drum to show that the need is there, that if there were an increased level of funding to go towards sports, it could bring benefits to our communities and our society? I could be here all night listing them off: mental health, well-being, fitness levels, general health. There is so much of a case to be made for additional funding out of that. The just over €1 million is relatively small.

The dormant accounts funding comes originally from the Department of rural and community development but is limited as to what is available. It has been static or going slightly down in recent times. Within our Department, we look to get as much of an allocation of that for sport as we can. It makes a real impact whenever it is distributed among sports clubs, mainly for the purpose of participation. It will not be there forever because it is shrinking. We have to make sure, with the funding within our Department, that we fund sport very strongly. Whether it is in relation to capital for facilities or current for high performance or for Sport Ireland, we are significantly stepping up and increasing sport funding.

It is a double-edged sword, though. The more we invest the more participation increases and the more the demand grows. We will therefore always have this problem that the Minister and the Minister of State say they are increasing investment and it is going well, while we sit here saying it is not meeting the demand. You are damned if you do and damned if you do not. As regards the parameters around the Dormant Accounts Fund and what it is being used for, it might not necessarily be for the Minister or the Minister of State to make that decision, but sport should receive much more than just over €1 million out of €46 million.

We received €10 million for 2025, so the €1 million is the part that has been changed from current to capital. There is no underspend here.

No, I know that.

It has all been allocated. It is just the nature of the projects that came in.

The initial current to capital profile was 90:10 and the outturn now will be 80:20 because €1 million has been transferred into capital.

Finally, it has been estimated that the basic income for the arts pilot scheme will cost €35 million for a full calendar year for 2,000 participants. Only €18 million has been allocated in the 2026 Estimate so where will the shortfall be made up?

We will only do the scheme for half a calendar year because we still have to agree the parameters of the scheme and select the people who will be involved, which I mentioned in the Dáil the other day. We still have to get a Government decision. While we have a Government decision that there will be a continuum, we still have a lot of work to do in terms of the sector, with the Department and with colleagues in government. We have funding up until the end of February. It was to be quenched at 31 December. I felt, to be quite honest, that it would have been a fairly horrible time of the year to close off so we did fund the first two months of next year out of our own resources. By the time we have a new scheme, new people selected randomly, an application process and everything like that, the Department and I agree that six months of the year is ambitious for us to have a new scheme up and running that will run on for the years after that. It is not that this is a 50% reduction; it is 100% of what we need. By the time we have everything done we will only be able to manage half of the calendar year. We will have two months of the first half so it is really four months of the year that we will be in a transition period, which we will keep as short as possible.

I thank the Minister and I must now depart.

In wrapping up, I totally understand that grants and sports promotion are vital as they get young children to join clubs, not gangs. It is as simple as that. I also understand the other side, which is accountability whereby Joe Public must know he or she is getting value for money. We see with what the Minister and Minister of State are doing that they are going down that track and, in turn, they must be comfortable that the people working in all the areas who will receive money are accountable and I do not think they were fully accountable before.

They clearly were not, Chair.

Yes.

If they were then we would not have had half of the debacles in some of the organisations that we have at the moment and we would not have the bailouts that the State had to enter into. It is not unique to sport. There are other organisations in receipt of public expenditure that were not doing exactly what they claimed they were doing and the State had to bail them out. Governance changes have been introduced, particularly in the area of sport over the last number of years. When I was previously the Minister of State with responsibility for sport, we tried to get more women on the boards of sport organisations to make it more diverse. However, the Cabinet Minister at that time unceremoniously dumped all over that idea, as he was prone to do with a lot of things, and set the role of women in sport back five if not more years. Thankfully, Deputy Jack Chambers, when he was the Minister of State, took up the issue again at national governing body level, and with the then Minister, Catherine Martin, did a lot of work on this. We must also ensure that the work done at a national level trickles down or in other words, that those organisations, clubs and affiliates to national governing bodies are not beyond the reach of governance because if they are, and if they continue to be, it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle like the national governing bodies were once upon a time and that is the next area. In the memorandum of understand between ourselves and the FAI, for example, there is a clear commitment for increased levels of governance reform and modernisation at affiliate level. I am not happy at the pace at which that has been happening, to be frank. We need to do more about it, and show more enthusiasm and energy in respect of reform at affiliate and club level as well.

Going forward, does the Minister feel the governance is there?

Yes, I do now but it has taken the current leadership-----

Both in arts and sports?

Yes. We have an arts problem.

There will be a document.

I will probably be back before the committee after Christmas with a report. I have not seen the report or got any indication of it but, having seen the fact that so much public money is gone with no IT infrastructure to show for it, I do not imagine it will make for pretty reading. We have been down this road before with regard to sport. Unfortunately, the same levels of due diligence and governance were not in place in the arts sector as have been in place in the sports sector, for instance, for a number of years, which has resulted, I believe, in us being where we are.

Has the module for arts capital funding been rolled out yet or the criteria?

No, but I will bring a proposal to Government early in the new year. We have started with a small sum of money of €6 million for the first year. This is something that we will grow year on year. We will exclude all of the national cultural institutions and all of those already in receipt of largesse from places like the Arts Council. This funding is specifically aimed at those organisations and community groups and local authorities who cannot access funding for basic things like light, sound, stage, curtains or very basic stuff. On top of that, we will continue the arts centre capital schemes and I identified these in the Dáil the other day. If local authorities are interested in partnering with us on the provision of arts centres around the country then we would certainly be open to discussions with them on that. I want to make it very clear from the start that these are local authority run and led institutions. While we are there to support them in terms of capital, we expect that they will provide the current year on year funding to run them.

Exactly. There are two sides to that. Number one is the construction of it and number two is the business model to make sure that they are not going to haemorrhage money afterwards but they need support from the council, which is exactly what has been said.

If they are built into the business case of the council-----

Yes.

-----and built into expenditure. Some councils do this very effectively and some councils do not do it at all. It is the very same with swimming pools. Some councils expect the State to build the swimming pool and run it. That is not the way this works. The swimming pool strategy is very clear that if the State builds a swimming pool - which is probably anything up to 80% - we expect the local authority, which is their role, to run it. In many cases, local authorities rake in large sums of money under development levy contributions schemes from housing estates that have been built all over the country and, in some cases, I wonder what are they doing with the money. They are not providing, in many cases, sports facilities, amenities or arts centres but they are, in many cases, the first in the queue to say, "this is a Government problem". It is not only a Government problem.

I want to make a point about the accountability and processes that are in place in sports. The situation has radically transformed over the last generation. If you go back 25 years or so, in advance of Sport Ireland there was not the structure in place to provide oversight and co-ordination. As for what we do now, the vast majority of non-capital funding that goes to support the development of facilities that clubs have is administered through Sport Ireland, whether that is around €30 million a year for high-performance funding or just under €30 million a year, for example, that goes towards the national governing bodies. In return for that, Sport Ireland provides a lot of oversight.

On the capital side, which the Acting Chair will see in his own constituency as we do around the country, in respect of the funding we put in to the community sports facilities fund, the amount of value for money that we get for that in the return on the development of facilities is exceptional. The amount of voluntary effort that goes in alongside the funding that we put in and the fundraising that is done alongside that also are exceptional. We do get tremendous bang for buck and it makes a tremendous impact on communities. It is one of the best things we do at Government level in terms of the return and the impact for the funding that we put in. That is why, from a Government point of view, we have seen it increasing in recent years and why we are so committed to continuing that too.

I agree that it is a key part. The Government is investing in the social fabric of every single town and village in Ireland.

Yes.

That concludes our consideration of the Supplementary Estimate for 2025 for Vote 33 - Culture, Communications and Sport. I thank the Minister, the Minister of State and their officials for their assistance today.