I welcome the Minister and his officials to the meeting. No apologies have been received. This meeting has been convened on the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill 2026 on Committee Stage. It is important to note that in order to participate in a division in committee, members must be physically present. They cannot vote from a remote location. We will now proceed to consideration of the Bill.

Amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Joanna Byrne has been ruled out of order as a substantial charge on revenue.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 17 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 7, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:

"(c) by the insertion of the following after "section 89(1)" in the definition of "director general":

“, and a director general shall be referred to only by the Irish language title of "ardstiúrthóir" by the corporation",".

These amendments are self-explanatory. They are based on the committee's pre-legislative scrutiny report, recommendation 5 of which is to have the director general, as currently known, to be known as the ardstiúrthóir in the future. It is quite self-explanatory. I do not intend to delay the meeting, but it would be in line with Government policy across State appointments that titles should be as Gaeilge where possible. This is one of those instances where we can see that and where we can put it into legislation. It captures that. Sin é.

I thank all the Deputies for all their amendments.

The pre-legislative scrutiny for the committee made a wider recommendation that both ciste na meán and director general, or ardstiúrthóir, should be used in the Irish language only. I considered the recommendations carefully. I agreed with the reasoning of the committee in respect of ciste na meán. The broadcasting fund is being renamed in the Bill and it is appropriate that ciste na meán should be used. The term "media fund" has not yet entered common usage and given the focus of the fund is on the national sector, it will not be used in an international forum or forums.

In contrast, the director general of RTÉ has been referred to in the English language since 1960 and the amendment proposed by the Deputies would prevent use of the English language title, both nationally and internationally. In my view, this would serve to cause confusion, not only at home but abroad as well, in the long usage of the English title and would not advance the everyday use of the Irish language. It would also present difficulties in international forums in circumstances where titles are usually translated to the language in which the meeting is conducted. For those reasons, I do not propose to accept the amendments.

Is Deputy Ó Snodaigh pressing the amendment?

I will respond. The idea is that the use of Irish titles would normalise the use of the title and we have to start somewhere. Just because something has been wrongly titled "director general" in the past, or people have not been encouraged to use the Irish language version of it, does not mean that we should not start here. If the Minister wants to delay it for a number of years, or that we use both titles at the same time for a duration, that might be better. It would advance the use of the Irish language. International forums do not have a problem when it is a different language. Why should it be so with the Irish language? I will be pressing the amendment.

I support amendments Nos. 2 and 17. I agree with the rationale, presented by Deputy Ó Snodaigh, on the international forums. In fact, it is quite welcome when we share our culture, heritage and Irish language. Having them run parallel for a number of years will allow for that transition period.

On the sentiments expressed by Deputy Ó Snodaigh, and the Deputy will be aware I am a former Minister of State for the Gaeltacht, we have an issue, which has been relayed to me at home and abroad, with regard to the name "Coimisiún na Meán". I am every bit as much a supporter and proponent of the Irish language as Deputy Ó Snodaigh is, but it creates difficulties in an international context, for instance, with regard to the regulatory environment that we are asking Coimisiún na Meán to operate in. It has established legal title because it is a new agency but I think the Deputy will accept it leads to a bit of confusion.

The director general of RTÉ is around now for a long time. That title is well established and rather than adding to it in legislation, it is open to the DG of RTÉ, in the use of headed paper, business cards or anything of that nature, to use the Irish language if he sees fit. However, putting it into legislation and tying that person's title, considering that the title has been well-established since 1960, could cause us some difficulties. I understand the sentiment of what the Deputy is trying to do but I think he will appreciate the precedent that has been established here. If RTÉ were being established today, I would have no problem whatsoever in saying that it must be "the ardstiúrthóir".

The argument does not make sense. I will not delay on it, but it is not open to State bodies to use whatever headed paper they please at this stage. The purpose of Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla was to change the branding when the opportunity arose. That was the way it was presented so that you did not go around changing all the signposts and everything else, but only when the opportunity arose.

This is one of the instances where an opportunity has arisen to indicate properly that the director general is in effect the ardstiúrthóir. The headed paper should indicate that anyway, or should be bilingual at the very least. The title of any organisation set up by the State is to be in the Irish language in the future. That is why Coimisiún na Meán is called "Coimisiún na Meán". We have already moved. One of the consequences of that is that the titles of positions within those organisations are as Gaeilge. I have not come across an instance where there have been difficulties. Maybe the Minister could cite whether there are problems internationally with Coimisiún na Meán not being recognised as Coimisiún na Meán.

It has been relayed to me that in meetings that there is no difficulty with the words "Coimisiún na Meán" if there is a strapline or addendum such as the "Irish media commission" or something of that nature. There are two official languages in Ireland, constitutionally. When we have a regulator that does not just have a responsibility to a domestic audience but has an international audience as well, it helps - especially for multinational regulation - if we make sure we do not use a prohibitive bar for people to engage with that regulator. I do not think anybody would really want that. I do not have a difficulty with the sentiments that are being expressed but unfortunately I cannot accept the amendments.

Amendments Nos. 3, 8, 16, and 20 to 22, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 7, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

“ ‘competent in the Irish language’ means an ability in the Irish language defined and assessed as equivalent to level B2 or higher under the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages;”.

Again, these amendments relate to the Irish-language recommendations from the pre-legislative scrutiny report. Amendment No. 3, which is based on committee recommendation No. 4, seeks to define being "competent in the Irish language" as having "an ability in the Irish language defined and assessed as equivalent to level B2 or higher under the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages”. According to the Government's national plan for Irish-language public service, level B2 in the Teastas Eorpach na Gaeilge is the minimum level at which a person would be comfortable fulfilling their duties through the medium of Irish and providing a level of service that the customer and the public expect. It suggests that level C1 under the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages would be suitable as a requirement for more senior roles through Irish. When we are talking about senior roles responsible for Irish-language media, we are talking not only about TG4 but also about RTÉ as a bilingual broadcaster. We must not forget that Raidió na Gaeltachta falls under that as well. We believe those officials should be able to view the material they broadcast and engage in a discussion on strategy, policy and human resources in the language their workers are using. We had a debate on whether Irish should be a required skill for certain board and committee positions. We believe that level B2, at a minimum, should be required to reflect the specific role of RTÉ, and TG4 in particular. I take it as a given. I will come back to that.

Amendment No. 8 requires that "No fewer than 20 per cent of the members of a review committee shall be competent in the Irish language". Again, that reflects a report recommendation from this committee. It also reflects the 20% target under the Official Languages Act for recruitment to public service bodies. We should be reflecting that in State boards and State commissions, recognising that public service media has a particular responsibility in regard to both the nationwide Irish-language community but also specifically to the Gaeltacht.

Amendment No. 16, which seeks to insert “and, in the case of at least 50 percent of the members of the board of RTÉ, to the board of RTÉ", reflects committee recommendation No. 21, which is that "competence in the Irish language, defined and assessed as equivalent to level B2 or higher ... must be a requirement for the entire membership of the Board of Irish Language broadcaster TG4". The purpose of this is to ensure that a proportion of the RTÉ board can fulfil its full duties through the Irish language. The committee also recommended that "a proportion of the Board of RTÉ [50 per cent] would also have" a competency in the Irish language. Again, that would allow the board to properly discuss and interrogate the strategies and proposals in relation to the Irish language. In particular, this is a recognition of the Irish-language radio service that RTÉ has.

Amendment No. 20, which also arises from a recommendation of the committee, proposes the establishment of "an additional audience council specifically for the Raidió na Gaeltachta service whose members shall all be competent in the Irish language and able to conduct the business of the audience council in that language and which shall include at least one member from each of the districts identified" as a Gaeltacht area. Again, this is based on one of our recommendations. Raidió na Gaeltachta is distinct and its audience is distinct from RTÉ's audiences given that it is in the main, fully through the Irish language and has a specific role in relation to the Gaeltacht communities. It would be a bit odd to have a council for an audience body that does not have fluency to discuss what is happening on their radio channel in that language. At the moment any audience surveys are carried out through RTÉ itself.

The last two amendments in this grouping are in the name of Deputy Gibney.

My amendments are very complementary to Deputy Ó Snodaigh's amendments. Amendment No. 21 mandates that the RTÉ audience council has "at least 3 members" who are competent in the Irish language. This would ensure there are council members who can actually understand the Irish-language content they are there to oversee, along with overseeing RTÉ's Irish-language and general public service remit through that lens. I understand that there is usually around this number who have Irish as it stands, but we believe that representation should be protected in legislation.

Amendment No. 22 similarly speaks to the TG4 audience council members. This legislation tries to reduce the number who should have Irish from "all" to at least ten of the 15 members. This could leave the TG4 audience council potentially having to conduct its business through English, which would be unfortunate.

Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Byrne have proposed amendment No. 3, which proposes to prescribe a fixed definition of "competent in the Irish language" in law. In contrast, the approach adopted in the Bill is that "the Minister may, having regard to the system of standards known as the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, after consultation with the Minister for Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht, prescribe the level of competence in the Irish language required". This is based on the approach taken in the Údarás na Gaeltachta (Amendment) Act 2026, in respect of appointments of the boards of an t-údarás. Deputy Ó Snodaigh and I debated this at length in this very room. It is appropriate to align our approach to two of our largest Irish-language bodies. Accordingly, I do not intend to accept the amendment.

Section 12 provides that Coimisiún na Meán may appoint "a committee to assist and advise" it in the conduct of the three-yearly appraisal and annual review of the performance and funding of RTÉ and TG4, and the three-year review of public service content. Amendment No. 8, proposed by Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Byrne, would require that no fewer than 20% of the membership of such a committee would be competent in the Irish language and that the membership would include one person from a Gaeltacht area. On foot of recommendations from the committee during pre-legislative scrutiny, the Bill as published includes one of the criteria for appointment as having experience or expertise in "the development of the Irish language or Gaeltacht affairs". This reflects the intention that the committees will be primarily chosen for their expertise rather than being representative bodies. Accordingly, I consider that amendment No. 8, which provides for choosing people in respect of criteria other than expertise or experience, would be overly restrictive for a committee.

Amendment No. 16 proposed by Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Byrne provides that 50% of the members of the RTÉ board should be competent in the Irish language. Section 27 provides for reforms to the criteria of RTÉ and TG4 board membership, including in line with the recommendations of the expert advisory committee on governance and culture that all members should have experience and expertise "relevant to the oversight of an organisation of the size and range of activities and level of complexity of RTÉ or TG4". Criteria for membership include expertise in matters pertaining to the development of the Irish language and Gaeltacht affairs. Indeed experience of matters relating to the Irish language and Gaeltacht affairs more generally is one of the areas the chairperson of the RTÉ board has raised as needing to be addressed with me and formed part of my request to the committee with regard to vacancies on the board of RTÉ. Given the criteria regarding board membership already in place, I do not accept that we should introduce specific Irish-language requirements for the board. The chairperson of the board should continue to have flexibility in identifying desired board skill sets that will attract the broadest range of suitable candidates when vacancies arise.

Amendment No. 20 proposed by Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Byrne would require the establishment of an audience council solely for Raidió na Gaeltachta with representatives from each Gaeltacht area. I recognise that Raidió na Gaeltachta offers a service that is distinct from other RTÉ services but however vital a service it provides, it is not wise to create an audience council for a specific service provided by RTÉ or TG4 given the precedent it would set that each service would then have its own audience council. In light of the recommendations of the committee arising from pre-legislative scrutiny, section 38 specifically requires the audience councils of RTÉ and TG4 to have regard to the Irish language and the needs of the members of Gaeltacht communities and I trust that the audience council of RTÉ will be cognisant of this duty and have particular regard to Raidió na Gaeltachta. For that reason, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 21 proposed by Deputy Gibney would require that at least three members of the RTÉ audience council should be competent in the Irish language. We should not be overly prescriptive or impose a quota in respect of RTÉ. As I set out, there are specific duties on the audience council regarding the Irish language. There is also a requirement on Coimisiún na Meán in appointing audience council members to ensure that the membership reflects the diversity of the people of the island of Ireland and I expect that this should be sufficient to ensure that a number of members of the RTÉ council have an appropriate level of Irish.

Amendment No. 22 proposed by Deputies Ó Snodaigh, Byrne and Gibney would require that all members of the TG4 audience council rather than ten out of the 15 members are required to be competent in the Irish language. I took on board the recommendations of the committee in pre-legislative scrutiny and the Bill now provides that a minimum of five out of the 15 members of the TG4 audience council must have expertise in Gaeltacht affairs or experience of Gaeltacht communities. It may seem strange that up to five of the TG4 audience council members will not necessarily need to meet the requisite level of competence in the Irish language required of the other members. However, I am conscious of the important role that TG4 plays in Irish-language learning both in its programming and the school system through Foghlaim TG4. Part of TG4's audience will not necessarily be competent in the Irish language. This is very clear on a Sunday afternoon when most of the people who are watching TG4 probably cannot speak Irish but are watching matches, which is a good thing because at least they are being exposed to the Irish language. It is important that we create the possibility that they may be represented as they may bring an interesting perspective to the audience council. At the same time, it is not the intention of the Bill that meetings or the work of the TG4 audience council should be carried out trí mheán an Bhéarla. I would expect that meetings continue to take place trí mheán na Gaeilge whatever provision is made for those without a sufficient level to participate.

I do not know where to start on that. I will go to the last point. There is no point in having somebody on the audience council if he or she does not understand what is going on around him or her or if he or she cannot even understand the radio channel in the case of Raidió na Gaeltachta or has never listened to it. That seems to have been a view in the past. People took Raidió na Gaeltachta, thought "That's there" and let it away with it in some ways. It looks after itself. It is good news that the meetings of the audience councils and the like will continue through Irish but anybody who has attended meetings knows of ones in which he or she is not fully engaged unless there is a good translation service, which comes at a cost. It means that this person is not as engaged as he or she as should be. There is a distinct radio station and a distinct audience - the Minister is correct in the answers he has given - whether it is Raidió na Gaeltachta or TG4. He is correct that quite a lot of the audience of TG4 at certain times of the weekend, for example, arts, music or sports, are attracted because of the content rather than the Irish language. One focus of TG4 was to expose people more and more to the Irish language. That is not to say that those with Irish are not aware of that. We appreciate that and encourage it. In the case of TG4 and Raidió na Gaeltachta, I still believe that the various boards and audience councils should be fully conversant in the Irish language. Level 2B is the level that has been selected with regard to housing and other aspects so it is not as if I picked it out of the sky and said that this is the appropriate level. Conradh na Gaeilge, those who have lobbied the Minister in the past and others accept that as the standard at which people can converse and do their business at a competent level. It is not the highest level; there is no such thing.

I echo a lot of what Deputy Ó Snodaigh is saying. I will speak to amendment No. 21, which is on the RTÉ audience council. We have very positive representation at the moment. All we are trying to do is copper-fasten that with a legislative mandate. RTÉ has a responsibility under the public sector remit to serve the Irish-speaking community and to support the language and the Gaeltachta and we all know that RTÉ has consistently struggled to adequately fulfil this remit. RTÉ's audience council already has around this number of people with Irish and this would simply copper-fasten it and make sure that the emphasis on fulfilling RTÉ's remit on the Irish language is met.

I have been the chair of a commission, which is essentially a State board, and part of our mandate involved being representative of the population. The Minister said that the mandate to be representative of the population should naturally fill these roles but I can tell him that having been chair of that commission, nobody was fluent in the Irish language so it is not to be assumed that this would in and of itself fulfil the competency or requirement we are suggesting. This is something that exists and we should recognise that is positive and that RTÉ currently has it and simply make it part of the legislation.

Speaking to amendment No. 22, I am quite gobsmacked that the possibility exists that part of a meeting would have to be conducted as Béarla and if not, I assume TG4 would now have to bear the cost of interpreters in its audience council meetings and business because this Bill would essentially mean that the Irish-language broadcaster would have to conduct the business of its audience council through English or else make appropriate measures available for five potential members who do not have enough proficiency to participate in that meeting. If we cannot have an audience council of our Irish-language broadcaster conducting its business in Irish, it is a poor sign for the future of the language and the current ability to protect what little space there is for it in our institutions. We should be bolstering the presence of Irish speakers and their experiences in our institutions not rowing back. If this is the case, I want to see clarity on who is expected to bear that cost. Is it going to be TG4 that now has to pay for translators, interpreters and all the necessary administration around that for the conduct of its business?

Tuigim cé chomh tábhachtach atá an pointe sin faoin gcaighdeán agus an méid Gaeilge atá in úsáid i ndíospóireachtaí bhoird RTÉ agus TG4. Tá sé sin an-tábhachtach ní hamháin don bhord agus do lucht éisteachta agus lucht féachana TG4 agus Raidió Teilifís Éireann, ach d'eagraíocht eile - cé nach bhfuil sé réitithe go dtí seo - is é sin, Oifig an Choimisinéara Teanga.

Tá ról an-tábhachtach ag an gCoimisinéir Teanga maidir leis na heagraíochtaí sna Gaeltachtaí, mar shampla Údarás na Gaeltachta, TG4, RTÉ agus an Roinn, le hiad a choimeád agus a chur in iúl cé chomh tábhachtach agus trom a bhfuil an méid Gaeilge atá in úsáid sa Roinn, in RTÉ agus i TG4. Tá sé an-tábhachtach freisin do na daoine nach bhfuil Gaeilge acu bheith in ann ról a ghlacadh i TG4 agus in RTÉ. Mar a dúirt mé, ar an Domhnach, nuair a bhíonn na cluichí iománaíochta agus peile ar siúl, bíonn daoine nach bhfuil ach beagán Gaeilge acu sa lucht éisteachta agus féachana. Tá sé tábhachtach an lucht féachana agus an lucht éisteachta a fhás ach ar an lámh eile, cé go bhfuil daoine a bhfuil suim acu tacaíocht a thabhairt do na comhlachtaí agus i dtodhchaí na comhlachtaí, b’fhéidir nach bhfuil siad in ann páirt a ghlacadh iontu toisc nach bhfuil an méid Gaeilge acu atá ag teastáil le páirt a ghlacadh i ndíospóireachtaí.

I do not want to exclude anybody. That is very important. Ireland is a very diverse place. If somebody has issues with regard to proficiency in the Irish language but is trying to raise their children trí mheán na Gaeilge and is put on the RTÉ or TG4 audience council, I would see that as something representative of the future rather than the past where we had an attitude where if a person did not have a specific proficiency, he or she was excluded from even the discussion around the Irish language. Tá athbheochan na Gaeilge ag tarlúint faoi láthair, ní hamháin sna Gaelscoileanna agus na Gaelcholáistí ach freisin ar an idirlíon, ar an teilifís, ar an raidió agus sna meáin cumarsáide. Tá sé an-tábhachtach go bhfuil seans ag na daoine a bhfuil suim acu an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn ról a choimeád sna comhlachtaí seo. They might not have proficiency but they might have a big interest in putting forward the Irish language and making sure it is in a far better state than it was when we inherited it. Tá sé sin an-tábhachtach agus is rud é gur féidir linn go léir a cheiliúradh - that somebody is able to get on the board and be welcome and not feel inhibited or like an outsider má tá easpa muinín acu because they have a lack of proficiency in the Irish language. Is ról an-tábhachtach é sin.

I am not restricting any conversations on the Bill. We can go on for months if we want but we have this room until 8.25 p.m. and at that stage we will be concluding. We will not be able to meet again next week; it will be two or three weeks before that happens. I am also conscious that the clerk to the committee has done back-to-back meetings, which is six hours. I want to flag that.

The Minister’s comments are very welcome. I too recognise the importance of the Irish language, and I also recognise the efforts that the Irish language-speaking community makes to include those of us who do not speak Irish as proficiently. That stands. However, this is a very separate issue for me, particularly around the audience council because from my experience, while that welcome is extended and appreciation is there for those of us who are trying to learn and be proficient enough to engage in conversation with people, to do business as an audience council in Irish should not be hampered. That is the difference for me. Extending to newer communities and those of us who do not have Irish is not in any way jeopardised by maintaining within the audience council Irish language as a working language. Unfortunately, these measures do exactly that. That is what they jeopardise. For the people I have worked with, for example, in my own career who are native Irish speakers, it is a much more comfortable place to be to speak in our own language. That is the issue we are proposing here. These are people who are doing huge amounts of work to maintain, preserve and promote our language, and they should be afforded the opportunity to do their business in their own tongue.

I contend that the Deputy’s amendment will do 180 degrees the opposite. It will make it impossible for anybody who does not have a particular standard that she sets in the language to be part of that. It will exclude new Irish communities. I find it ironic that the Social Democrats would be so exclusionary of the new Irish and people who are trying to learn Irish that they would set such a high bar for an audience council of people who might like the Irish language but do not have a clue how to speak it. This would be a very regressive step and I am surprised the Deputy would attempt to exclude the new Irish communities and people who have chosen to make Ireland their home, as well as those in the Irish population who have lost an Ghaeilge a bhí acu nuair a bhí siad sa bhunscoil. There are people who have lost it but would like to relearn it and this excludes them.

Tá cúpla rud le rá agam. Tá sé seo ar fad beagán áiféiseach. The argument the Minister has just made is silly. In fact, it is insulting to many in the new communities who are quite fluent in the Irish language because they do not have a hang-up and many of them learn languages a lot quicker than we have over the years. I am not one of those who learned a language. With my two languages, I grew up with them. I find it difficult to learn other languages, and I have tried. This is not exclusionary; this is the exact opposite. This is to ensure that the services TG4, Raidió na Gaeltachta and RTÉ present are assessed by an audience council that is confident it can do its business through the language of those stations, whether it is Raidió na Gaeltachta or TG4.

I was one of those who sat on the interview panel for the past two appointments of this committee in relation to TG4. We interviewed 16 or 17 people, all of the highest skill level. Any board in the country would be delighted to have most of them onboard, such is their skill level. All of them have proficiency in the Irish language. The board could recommend two for the Minister to appoint. We will do the same, and I presume the nominees will have the same level of expertise because it is a very specific role. There are people with the proficiency already available in some ways, who could play an additional role in terms of the Irish language.

We had the ridiculous situation - and thankfully, this has not been the case of late, mainly because Údarás na Gaeltachta was not there - where some elected members of Údaras na Gaeltachta could not speak Irish proficiently. That was an insult to all of those who sat on Gaeltacht panels and were elected. The idea is that if a person is appointed to any of these boards, he or she should be able to carry out his or her business in the language of that service. That is not to exclude those who do not have the language. There is nothing stopping an audience council deciding to set up a subcommittee to deal with those who do not have the Irish-----

Like a B panel?

It would not be a B panel. It would be a specific panel to look at sports and the volume of sports and how we get those-----

Would it be good enough but not good enough?

No, it would be making a report. Every other institution has the ability to have-----

Would it be an exclusionary panel?

It is not exclusionary.

It absolutely is.

It is not. It would be just as valued and its report would be dealt with.

It is a very unfair comparison to compare TG4 to Údarás na Gaeltachta. Údarás na Gaeltachta does not have a national remit; TG4 does.

Raidió na Gaeltachta does not have a national remit.

Raidió na Gaeltachta is listened to in houses in County Louth and County Dublin as much as it is in the Gaeltacht. To say it only has a Gaeltacht remit is doing Raidió na Gaeltachta a big disservice. Raidió na Gaeltachta would not take too kindly to the Deputy saying it is a Gaeltacht service.

Its title is Raidió na Gaeltachta. I would love to have a Gaeltacht here in the city and elsewhere.

We have a Gaeltacht in Belfast but it is not recognised in legislation as a Gaeltacht. Raidió na Gaeltachta was set up originally by Cumann Chearta Sibhialta na Gaeltachta, which specifically asked for a radio station to service those who were being ignored by those in RTÉ who carried out all of their business through English at the time. If the Minister wants a history lesson, I can go through it.

I do not need a history lesson. I am well able to teach history too.

Can we stick to the amendments, please?

We should not repeat the mistakes of the past. That is what I am saying. We can accommodate those who do not have the proficiency.

On a B list.

On whatever list the Minister wants, but their expertise----

On a discriminatory list.

In the GAA, there are people who provide huge service to teams who cannot kick a ball or play hurling. They are there day in, day out. They do not expect to be on the management team if they do not understand how----

I do not expect the people in the audience of TG4 to be on some sort of B list because they cannot speak the language, yet the Deputy wants to-----

Minister, please. Deputy Brennan is next.

I feel the keyword here is that we are excluding people. I love my two hours every Sunday afternoon watching the GAA. Why cannot someone like me, or someone from a different country who has come here, have a say in how it operates? Why are we excluding them?

Nobody said they could not.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh just wants them on a B list.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh wants to put them on a different list.

No. A subcommittee is part of the committee. They are answerable to the committee.

Why is the Deputy excluding the likes of me from a committee?

Because it is an Irish-language station and the standard should be set on the Irish language.

The Deputy is excluding.

It currently operates in Irish.

There is no suggestion that the committee would not operate in Irish.

I take offence at the comments of the Minister that I am trying to be exclusionary. I am trying to do exactly the opposite. I agree with Deputy Ó Snodaigh that it is offensive to suggest that people cannot develop the level of proficiency who are passionate about the Irish language and want to contribute to the audience council.

You just do not want them on it.

One second, please.

We have an audience council currently for TG4 that operates as Gaeilge, and we are putting forward measures in this legislation which will mean they will have to change their operational business towards operating as Béarla. To me that is just regressive.

They do not have to do that.

They will have to do that.

Where does it say that in the Bill?

If there are five people who do not have proficiency-----

I have the Bill here in front of me and I do not see that in the Bill.

I have sat on meetings and understand how it runs when there are people who do not have proficiency. Measures have to be provided by which they can participate in the meeting, otherwise they are not able to participate effectively. It will slow down the entire business of the committee.

Rather than include them, Deputies Gibney and Ó Snodaigh want to lock them out and put them on a B list.

He will not let me speak, Chair.

That is the new Social Democrats mantra for promotion of the Irish language, is it? You can come in, all right, but you will go on a B list.

Colleagues, we need to call a halt to this type of behaviour.

It is not doing any good to the Irish language.

It is not doing any good to anyone. It is definitely not doing any good to us who have been sitting here for many hours already today. How stands the amendment?

It is being pressed.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 8, after line 37, to insert the following:

“(2) Section 2 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following new subsection after subsection (3):

“(4) Any reference in this Act to the publication of a strategy or report, or to the holding of a consultation, shall be interpreted to mean in the Irish language or in both official languages.”.”

Again, this amendment is based on the joint Oireachtas committee's pre-legislative scrutiny report recommendations, which are all-party recommendations in many ways. We scrutinised this Bill and recommended that clarity be provided in the Bill on whether a strategy or report that is to be published, or a consultation which is to take place, shall be in the Irish language or in both official languages. It is self-explanatory. This amendment will ensure that Irish speakers will be encouraged to take part in the consultation by virtue of the fact that the information on those consultations or in the reports will be available to them in their own language in the media landscape. The amendment provides that all of this work would be carried out bilingually.

I thank Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Joanna Byrne for their amendment. There are aspects of this I agree with. I intend to address it on Committee Stage in the Seanad. Obviously, I will have to take those amendments to the Government. Rather than the Deputies pressing this one, we might have an opportunity to see if it can be dealt with differently. As the Deputies know, section 10 of the Official Languages Act 2003, as amended, sets out categories of documents that must be published in both languages by public bodies. These are major public policy proposals, any annual report, any audited account or financial statement, and any statement of strategy. Accordingly, section 10 of the 2003 Act would cover a number of the documents set out in the Broadcasting Act 2009. It would not cover consultations or reports which are not major policy proposals.

In this context, it is important to acknowledge that Coimisiún na Meán's Irish-language website includes Irish-language versions of its public-facing reports and regulatory codes such as the online safety code. However, I do not think we should extend the language requirement to some of the regulatory reports required under the Act, in particular as they relate to online safety and the Digital Services Act. Given the scale of the activities undertaken by Coimisiún na Meán, this would constitute a significant administrative task. For example, under section 139ZM of the 2009 Act, investigating officers of Coimisiún na Meán prepare a report of their investigations which would include investigations of breaches of the online safety code and the Digital Services Act. Publication provisions applying to those reports are included in section 139ZT of the Act and there is the potential for these reports and accompanying documentation to literally run into thousands of pages.

As part of pre-legislative scrutiny the committee made a similar recommendation regarding the amendment being proposed today, although the recommendation was confined to the provisions of the Bill rather than the whole Act. I intend to address this recommendation of the Oireachtas committee on Committee Stage in the Seanad. While Coimisiún na Meán has a good record in terms of publication of documentation in both of the official languages, it is particularly important that we specify that any report related to RTÉ, TG4 and Irish-language content is published in the Irish language, such as the three-year appraisal, annual reports of both companies and the review of the public service content.

Again, as I said, I intend to deal with the main aspects of the amendment, if the Deputies are in agreement, on Committee Stage in the Seanad.

I would prefer if the Minister would come back to us on Report Stage with an amendment because we have no major control over what happens in the Seanad. I am content with the Minister's response that he is going to look at this and hopefully ensure that the intention of the recommendation will be reflected in the final Bill or, at the very least, the aspects of the Official Languages Act that pertain to an coimisiún, to RTÉ and to all of the bodies. I am mindful of the fact that there is a low level of demand for reports. Nobody is looking for technical reports that are not public to be translated, no more than we are looking for every single piece of EU legislation to be in the Irish language. Public documents that are launched, which are strategies or are related to public consultation, are the ones that need to be fully translated or fully bilingual.

Yes.

I refer, for example, to TG4 having its reports available in the English language or RTÉ having its reports available in Irish. Thus far, it has not always been the case that reports were available at the same time. That is the key. By themselves, they become an aim and can be useful for helping new people to get involved in media in the Irish language and can help us in our deliberations as Gaeilge in this House. I am happy, at this stage, to withdraw the amendment.

What I would say, as the Deputy knows, is that An Coimisinéir Teanga has a big role in this as well. Its annual report often calls out agencies that do not fulfil their obligations. We are adhering to the Official Languages Act but in relation to the main thrust of what the Deputy is trying to achieve, I will endeavour to do as much as I can in the Seanad.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 12, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:

“and

(b) by the insertion of the following after subsection (3)(i):

“(j) support the development of arts broadcasting and promotion, including by progressing the incorporation of regular arts bulletins akin to existing sports bulletins as part of the news service of public service media to inform the public of developments and achievements across all artforms of local and national significance, drawing attention to the launch and exhibition of new artistic, literary and musical works, upcoming performances, competitions or funding opportunities.".".

This is also one of the recommendations we had in the pre-legislative scrutiny report. It is to recommend that in the Bill we ensure there is arts news as part of the category of "public service content" in section 2F. Previous committees have done this. This is an ongoing debate to ensure, the same as sports bulletins, there are regular arts bulletins as part of news broadcasts. There was a report, in 2024, "Future Business Model Plans and Long-Term Vision for the Media Sector." The cross-party committee specified, in its recommendation in that report, that "Coimisiún na Meán undertake work in relation to the development of arts broadcasting and promotion, such as it is due to undertake in respect of sports broadcasting following Recommendations 7-9, 7-10, and 7-11 of the Future of Media Commission’s final report ...". It is to ensure that the arts are central in our coverage. We are in a much better place than other countries, but it is to ensure that in the future that has a specific role. We can then assess it as we go forward to ensure that news coverage covers the arts to its fullest intent and beyond. I am not saying it should ever be limited to the news bulletin no more than sport should be limited to the sports section on the news.

I agree with Deputy Ó Snodaigh. If the Deputy will indulge me, I will come back with a formula that allows this to be achieved without being overly prescriptive in the legislation that is currently drafted. I will reflect on what he has said. I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment because I believe that there should be provision, particularly in the so-called "flagship" news bulletins, to have provision for arts and culture reports, maybe not on a daily basis but certainly on a regular basis because we have seen over the past number of years quite a substantial investment and uptake and interest in the arts.

I would be grateful if the Deputy would be agreeable that I could come back with something. I do not want to tie the hands of RTÉ and TG4 and be overly prescriptive because ultimately I have to respect editorial content, but I may be able within the legislation to put in some sort of guide-rails that these are no more than the promotion of the Irish language on which we had a bit of to and fro. There is a requirement in legislation, for instance, around responsibilities to sport. This could be an opportunity. I will reflect on it with my officials and the parliamentary drafts people as to how we do something around promotion of the arts because I am Minister for the arts as well. If the Deputy is agreeable, I will revisit this in the Seanad.

I am agreeable, once we are discussing it and once we reflect it. This is not a criticism of any radio or TV station. In fact, some of them will have on occasion an arts bulletin that highlights local and national events. It is good that we are talking on it, but you will never see an RTÉ news programme without sports at the end of it. I am not saying you have to have arts - you do not have to have environment. We cannot be prescriptive but if it is a longer news bulletin, for instance, if it is half an hour, there is art happening in every corner of Ireland and they should be able to get some elements of what is happening, nationally and locally, and internationally, around the arts.

I am happy enough that the Minister is willing to look at this and come back.

I will do it either on Report Stage or in the Seanad.

I am happy enough. I am happy that it is being discussed. We had a good session on it in the committee and everybody agreed we need to find some mechanism to ensure those arts bulletins happen.

The section is being opposed by Deputy Gibney.

I oppose section 9 as well. I will speak to both of them, if that is okay.

No. The Deputy can only speak to the section.

Okay, I will deal with them one at a time.

Section 8 amends section 12 of the principal Act to provide that a commissioner does not immediately cease to hold office when he or she or a connected relative acquires a relevant interest, as defined by section 15A of the principal Act as inserted by section 9 of the Bill, in a relevant provider - meaning an entity regulated by Coimisiún na Meán or a newspaper - and that Government may remove a commissioner from office if he or she fails without reasonable excuse to disclose and divest himself or herself a relevant interest in a relevant provider, as defined by section 15A of the principal Act as inserted by section 9 of the Bill. My issue is that I do not see why a commissioner should be allowed to hold these interests for any length of time while in office. A short-lived conflict of interest is still a conflict of interest and so I oppose this section.

The Online Safety and Media Regulation Act 2022 provided for the dissolution of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland and the establishment of Coimisiún na Meán. In line with other economic regulatory bodies, such as ComReg and the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, Coimisiún na Meán was established as a commissioner-led body with the commissioners in effect exercising the role of both an executive and a board. Given the nature of the entities that Coimisiún na Meán would be regulating, it was considered vitally important that there would be no actual or perceived conflict of interest. For that reason, the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act provided that a commissioner would immediately cease to hold office when they or a connected relative acquired a relevant interest in a regulated entity or a newspaper publisher.

The definition of a connected relative is wide, covering a spouse, partner, civil partner, parent, brother, sister or child of the person, or a spouse, partner or civil partner of a child of the person. This was a novel provision in the law, one that does not apply to any other office-holder or employee in any other public body. It may give rise to a scenario where a commissioner ceases to hold office based on the decision of a third party that the commissioner has no knowledge of and has not been party to. For example, if a sibling of a commissioner were given a share-based remuneration in a regulated entity, the commissioner would likely not be aware of this and would have no role in it. However, it would give rise to the automatic removal from office of the commissioner. The Office of the Attorney General has advised that this provision is disproportionate and the absence of an appeal mechanism should a person cease to hold office raises concerns regarding constitutional justice and fair procedures.

To address this, section 8 of the Bill removes the automatic disqualification provision. Instead, section 10 of the Bill provides that the commissioner must disclose and divest themselves of a relevant interest in a regulated entity. Section 8 of the Bill then provides that the Government may remove a commissioner from office if they fail to disclose or divest themselves of a relevant interest in accordance with the Act, subject, of course, to clear process for a removal set out in section 12 of the Broadcasting Act 2009.

I consider that this is a proportional measure. Commissioners will still be unable to hold a relevant interest in a regulated entity as they will be required to divest themselves according to the provisions of the Bill. However, they will not be subjected to disproportional automatic disqualification of office due to a decision in which they had no hand, act or part or, indeed, no knowledge.

I appreciate the Minister's rationale, but I would also invite him to look to tighten this. We must have something here that means that people do not have a conflict once they are holding the office of commissioner. I have experience in this area. I am a big fan of governance and tight governance. This should be something that is looked to be tightened on Report Stage or in the Seanad.

Regrettably, I cannot accept what the Deputy proposes. I have given good reason, with all of the other regulators that we operate under and with the principal Act. Fairness, equity and natural justice have to apply here. We have to be proportionate. I understand what Deputy Gibney is trying to achieve but, ultimately, as I said, if a person has no hand, act or part or, indeed, no knowledge of it, I doubt it is proportionate and that a person would have equity before the law.

Deputy Gibney is opposing this section too.

That is adjacent to the point I have just made because section 9 outlines the manner in which this will be done, with timelines of two weeks for notification and two months for divestment. This is exactly my point: we will have a period during which that conflict will exist and that person will still be in office. That is what I have an issue with. Perhaps the Minister might be open to revising this section on Report Stage or in the Seanad so we could tighten up the ways in which this conflict of interest is handled.

I thank the Deputy. For the same reasons I outlined regarding the previous amendment, natural justice and the principle of proportionality have to attach, so I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 13, lines 38 and 39, to delete all words from and including "where" in line 38 down to and including line 39.

My proposed amendments relate to this area as well. These amendments delete a minimum monetary value for shares, proprietary interests, bonds, debentures and other investments in providers before they are considered relevant for conflicts of interest. My view is that any proprietary interest or investment in a provider is relevant when it comes to conflicts of interest. Why is €13,000 in bonds relevant but €12,999 is not? Just as I have said that time should not be considered where a conflict of interest exists, the amount means that the conflict of interest exists and, therefore, the minimum threshold should not be applied.

In the debate on sections 8 and 9, I have already set out the wider intention of the Bill as regards the new requirement for commissioners to disclose and divest relevant interests. The effect of amendments No. 6 and 7 would be to reduce the maximum value of shares in a regulated entity or newspaper publisher which may be held from €5,000 to zero, and to reduce the maximum value of debt of a regulated entity or newspaper publisher which may be held from €13,000 to zero.

By way of background, the maximum values of a relevant interest were set out in the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act 2022 following a review of other legislation. For example, the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 and the Standards in Public Office Act 2001 provide that shares and debt with a value of €13,000 should be disclosed in respect of the register of members' interests.

The limits in the Act recognise that people may acquire relatively small investments in circumstances where another person, such as an investment manager, may manage the investment on their behalf. I recognise the Deputy's intention but consider that the current provisions are sufficient to address any conflicts that arise within the commission.

I disagree. My point still stands that it is an arbitrary line we are cutting off here, which means that people can essentially have interests that I believe to be conflicts but manage them within the thresholds.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 13, to delete line 41.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 16, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

"(12) No fewer than 20 per cent of the members of a review committee shall be competent in the Irish language, and membership must include at least one member from a Gaeltacht area.".".

Amendments Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive, are related. Amendment No. 10 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 9 and amendments Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive, may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 16, to delete lines 32 to 38 and substitute the following:

"services, and

(g) on the corporations, calculated by reference to its expenses in performing functions in relation to the corporations under—

(i) section 46N(1A),

(ii) section 46OA where the function concerned is performed in relation to a media service code made under section 46N(1A),

(iii) Part 4,

(iv) Part 7, and

(v) Part 8B where the function concerned is performed in relation to a suspected failure to comply with a media service code made under section 46N(1A).",".

Amendments Nos. 9 and 11 are Government amendments. As a general principle of regulation, the cost of regulation should be borne by the regulated entities. Section 21 of the Broadcasting Act provides for this by empowering Coimisiún na Meán to impose a levy on regulated entities to meet the cost of its functions. It may do so by reference to specific categories of regulated entities. This is intended to ensure that sectors that give rise to limited costs, such as radio or television, pay less than those that give rise to greater costs, given the scale of their activity and the risk of harm to society, namely, video-sharing platform services and online services.

In line with this principle, section 13 of the Bill, as published, provided that RTÉ and TG4 should bear the cost of the various specific regulatory activities set out in the Bill that relate to them, namely, the three-year appraisal and annual review process. Independent Broadcasters of Ireland, representing the commercial radio sector, has raised the issue of the levy imposed by Coimisiún na Meán directly with me. I know that the joint committee held a meeting on this matter in June and, as my officials indicated, I am concerned about the level of the increase in the levy on radio service providers.

I subsequently met officials from Coimisiún na Meán and also the IBI, and emphasised the importance of minimising the burden of regulation while maintaining regulatory standards, which is in line with policy. Having discussed the potential approaches that could be taken, I asked Coimisiún na Meán to revert to me to set out the proposed approach to reducing the cost of regulation on the radio sector and to continue to engage on this.

Regarding legislation, I am now proposing further amendments, through amendments Nos. 9 and 11, to ensure that the following costs relating to RTÉ and TG4 are borne solely by RTÉ and TG4: all costs associated with the regulation of non-broadcast content published by RTÉ and TG4; all costs associated with giving ministerial consent for new services by RTÉ and TG4; all costs in respect of the code of fair trading practice, which applies only to RTÉ and TG4 commissioning activities; and the portion of costs associated with complaints made in respect of RTÉ and TG4. In this context, I note that the recent Coimisiún na Meán report on broadcasting complaints received between its establishment in 2023 and the end of 2025 showed that one third of all complaints it receives relate to RTÉ television and another one third to RTÉ radio.

I intend to bring forward further amendments to the levy on Seanad Committee Stage, taking account of some of the points set out in the Cathaoirleach's letter of June to me on this matter.

I consider that section 21 of the Broadcasting Act already addresses the issues raised in amendment No. 10, proposed by Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Byrne. In particular, section 21(9)(c) requires Coimisiún na Meán to take into account the nature, scale and services provided by a provider when providing for the method of calculation of a levy.

I have reflected on amendment No. 10 and the fact that it is already taken into account in the amendment being proposed. I agree on the additional burden on local radio. The levy that was being imposed had the potential to shut down a lot of our local radio stations if it went ahead. It was important that the Minister managed to use this opportunity to reflect on that and put the burden where it is due; on those who are profiting in the main. We are not going to rehash the issues concerning the social media levy at this stage, but maybe some day.

It is coming later.

I know that. Some day the money sitting there can be used properly.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 17, lines 2 and 3, to delete "paragraphs (g) and (h), and paragraphs (g) and (h) do not affect" and substitute "paragraph (g), and paragraph (g) does not affect".

Amendments Nos. 12, 14 and 25 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 19, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

"Amendment of Principal Act

18.The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following after section 46L:

"Duty to support local music

46LA.It shall be a function of a sound broadcasting service which broadcasts music to cultivate and promote the development and awareness of local musical talent within the geographical remit of its service in all its regional, gender, socio-economic and cultural diversity, including composers, performers and singer-songwriters operating individually or as part of a band, group, choir, ensemble or orchestra.".".

Amendment No. 12 proposes to support local music. There would be a duty on our broadcasting services to support, cultivate and promote the development and awareness of local musical talent within the geographical remit of the service, whether it is a regional service or the like. It is self-explanatory. Over a while, we have tried to tease out how to implement this to ensure that this will happen.

My other amendment is No. 25. This one is to ensure that a commitment relating to the use of Irish on radio and television applies to the advertising of music across all genres and that the Irish language is central in airplay for Irish musicians.

Again, we have recommendations from our pre-legislative scrutiny report. I can read that out but the Minister has already read it so we do not need to rehash it. Basically, what we want to see is a specific duty enshrined in law for our local radio services to cultivate and promote the development of the awareness of local musical talent. We can see how when we cultivate that and where it goes right around the world, it helps us to promote our country but also to promote our culture at home and an awareness of the various influences of culture here. There is a dominance of American and British music in Ireland in particular, whereas sometimes in other countries it can be seen there is an onus on the local, maybe by virtue of their own self-awareness. In the likes of France and New Zealand they promote local culture and musicians and in some cases have domestic airplay quotas to protect local artists and musicians. Especially with the rise of streaming platforms and the challenges of AI-generated music for Irish musicians, it is important that we use the opportunity to ensure we control what we can control as much as possible, without overstepping the mark, dictating or forcing editorial control, as we have done with the Irish language. We can cajole the organisations. Some radio stations, especially local radio stations, are brilliant at promoting their local talent. We just want that on a greater scale and across all of the platforms that are within the legislation with which we are dealing.

I thank Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Joanna Byrne for bringing the amendments.

Sorry, I did not speak to amendment No. 14. Building on what Deputy Ó Snodaigh has said, amendment No. 14 ensures the promotion of Irish-composed and Irish-performed music, as well as music in the Irish language, and makes sure this is included in the remit for sound broadcasters. Again, we need to treasure and promote our indigenous culture and make sure it is baked into legislation that this promotion is a mechanism.

I thank the Deputies for bringing forward the amendments. I also highlight that the Bill contains a number of measures already to support Irish music, and music performed and composed by Irish people, from a regulatory perspective following a recommendation of the committee in pre-legislative scrutiny. Section 19 of the Bill provides that Coimisiún na Meán may make media service codes providing for standards and practices to promote a diversity of music composed and performed by persons with a connection to the island of Ireland. Therefore, that issue is already captured.

From a funding perspective, the definition of "public service content" set out in section 5 of the Bill refers specifically to the music of Ireland and to the people of the island of Ireland. This means that musical content will form part of the three-year review of the service content being carried out by Coimisiún na Meán. The sentiments being expressed by the Deputies are covered in that section. As members will know, the coimisiún currently supports the broadcasting of Irish music through the sound and vision scheme, and the Bill will enable music to be funded for the distribution through media services other than traditional broadcast.

Amendment No. 12 proposes to place a duty on sound broadcasting services to cultivate and promote the development and awareness of local music within the geographical remit of its service. As Deputies will be aware, the current statutory media duties, as set out in sections 46J to 46M of the revised Broadcasting Act 2009, are more general in nature than the proposed amendment as they relate to harm, offence, privacy, impartiality, objectivity and fairness in news and current affairs and advertising. In considering any proposals to place any specific duty on a sound broadcaster, I must take into account both the legal and policy considerations. Amendment No. 12, as currently drafted, may lead to unintended consequences in terms of the editorial independence - which Deputy Ó Snodaigh half-referred to - of sound broadcasting services. The proposal requires broadcasters to "promote the development and awareness of local musical talent". While this is a welcome objective, this may infringe on the editorial independence of radio broadcasters by effectively placing a positive obligation on them to amend programming schedules to accommodate additional local talent and content. Part 6 of the Broadcasting Act places Coimisiún na Meán as an independent regulator to issue sound broadcasting licences to radio services and programming commitments for each radio station as set out in the programme policy which forms part of the sound broadcasting contract between a radio station and Coimisiún na Meán. Careful consideration around the potential impact of the operation of existing sound contracts would be required prior to introducing the proposal of any new duty on a radio station. It is important that the potential benefit to local musicians and local music within the State is balanced with the right of the broadcasters, subject to their contractual and regulatory obligations, to determine the type of content they wish to broadcast and to ensure sufficient commercial revenue remains available to them, particularly in the context of the current media climate.

Amendment No. 14 provides that Coimisiún na Meán may make media service codes to provide for standards and practices to promote and measure the broadcast in sound broadcasting services of music in the Irish language. The provision in section 19 of the Bill relating to the promotion of diversity of music composed or performed by persons with a connection to the island of Ireland may already encompass what the Deputy is trying to achieve. Coimisiún na Meán is currently working on the Irish-language action plan, which will be informed by a comprehensive review of the media services carried out by it on foot of a recommendation of the Future of Media Commission. I will examine whether any further legislative measures are required on foot of that plan. Given the timelines for the enactment of this Bill, specifically the stuff relating to the Comptroller and Auditor General, any measures would have to be for future legislation.

Briefly, amendment No. 25 proposes that the methodology prepared by Coimisiún na Meán to carry out a three-yearly appraisal of performance and funding for RTÉ and TG4 shall refer specifically to performance commitments relating to the use of the Irish language on television on radio, and to airplay for musicians.

I agree with Deputy Ó Snodaigh on one thing I am concerned about. I have referred to Coimisiún na Meán through the Department. I do not think it forms part of the Bill but it certainly forms part of a future remit of Coimisiún na Meán which I will have to examine with the coimisiún, with committee members and possibly with the Attorney General. One thing about which I am concerned is the issue regarding syndication. We have seen a growth of syndication in local commercial radio stations around the country with the result that we are in danger of losing the individual identity of radio stations. This is an issue for us in rural areas - in the Chairman's area and my own as well. It is an issue I have big concerns about. I do not think it is for this Bill but it is certainly something for my deliberations with Coimisiún na Meán. If the committee is in agreement, we can come back to that at some other stage in the future.

Yes. Hear, hear. When you are driving at certain times of the day or night you could be listening to the exact same thing on multiple stations. It is syndicated content.

Sunday afternoon is a case in point.

Yes. Deputies?

It will be good to see what proposals will come to look at that, and the same with local newspapers. I refer to the sameness that is now happening. There is a big debate about the future of newspapers and that. We have had sessions here with local newspapers and local radio stations and that is one of the concerns. There is a diversity out there. It used to be great when you were driving along. You went from one area to another and it was totally different. There were different nuances. You knew which county you were in sometimes, just by that. Now there is a standardised news service right across the board. If I am in Dublin and three hours later I am hearing the same news on Radio Kerry or whatever, it does not reflect the nuances from those areas. I think the Minister has taken this point on board. I hope we will be able to develop this further to ensure that music and artistic endeavours are getting their fair play. We have to reflect on that in order to ensure that as Coimisiún na Meán expands and takes on more and more duties, we will have a media in its fullest sense that reflects our society despite all of the dangers and challenges that are out there.

I think we are in a good place, but we could be in a lot better one.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 19, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:

“Amendment of Principal Act-insertion of new section

19. The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 46M:

“Duty to the whole community of the island of Ireland

46MA.(1) RTÉ and TG4, whose national television broadcasting services shall be made available, in so far as it is reasonably practicable, to the whole community on the island of Ireland, in accordance with section 114(1)(a) and section 118(1)(a) respectively, shall pro-actively make every reasonable effort to end the practice of geo-blocking and exclusion of audiences in that part of the island not currently under the jurisdiction of the State from their services, including programming content, audience competitions and visual cartographic depictions of the island and its population.

(2) In the interests of fulfilling their duty in line with subsection (1) as national broadcasters for the whole nation, RTÉ and TG4 shall proactively seek to resolve any competing claims to licencing rights across the island with the objective of ensuring equal access to programming content north and south across service providers, particularly where that content relates to their participation in events of importance to the nation, including in terms of news, current affairs, sport and culture, in line with the entitlement and birthright of every person born on the island of Ireland to be part of the Irish Nation under Article 2 of the Constitution.

(3) The Commission shall, no later than six months after the enactment of this Act, prepare and publish a report setting out ways in which RTÉ and TG4 could be facilitated, assisted and required to make available these services in full to the whole community of the island of Ireland, including how they could work to achieve a resolution and cooperation across rights holders in the case of competing claims across jurisdictions, and toward removing any obstacle or barrier, such as the geographical restriction of their broadcasting rights to one part of the island or the use of geo-blocking to enforce such a restriction, to their equal availability across the whole island.

(4) The Minister shall engage with the British government, and with international organisations responsible for the licencing of rights for international events, with a view to establishing an all Ireland market for television licencing rights, and to resolving any competing claims across jurisdictions, and shall lay a report outlining all such engagements made over the previous year on an annual basis starting from one year following the enactment of this Act.

(5) The reports and engagement referred to in subsections (4) and (5) shall pay particular regard to the importance of supporting the fulfilment of commitments in the Good Friday Agreement relating to the widespread availability of services provided by TG4, and acknowledging the public service duty of RTÉ to the whole community of the island of Ireland, to better facilitate equal access to programming content by the whole community of the island of Ireland.

(6) The Commission shall pay due regard to the need for equal and widespread availability of services across the whole of the island of Ireland when agreeing licences for television broadcasting services.”.”.

This amendment comes from a number of conversations with different Ministers over the years. We had a short discussion on this issue during the pre-legislative security on this Bill. The committee examined geoblocking, trying to ensure negotiations are carried out for the rights and ensuring we have full jurisdiction on the whole island. TG4 seems to manage to do it but RTÉ does not. It is very strange. TG4 sometimes does not manage to do it, but it has workarounds and it has explained how that happens. If TG4 has a cartoon translated into Irish, it is able to show it even though it shows up in English in the North or in England. There does not seem to be a blockage there, or there are ways around it. The issue usually comes up, and there is a furore around it, when there are big sporting fixtures. We saw this when Olympians from the Six Counties were competing for Ireland. Sometimes those in Border areas find it difficult to view GAA matches. We will not go into GAAGO and that, but there are issues and there needs to be a proactive approach to this. When this has been raised with RTÉ in the past, it has said that its hands are tied. I have produced legislation that addresses this question, and it is reflected in this amendment, which provides that RTÉ and TG4, as television broadcasters, must be cognisant or aware of their duty to "the whole community of the island of Ireland" and must "make every reasonable effort to end the practice of geo-blocking". It causes frustration and should not happen. We should use whatever mechanism possible by political means, by negotiating the rights to something or by talking to the international bodies - a sporting body or otherwise - to ensure the dynamics on this island are understood. That means the Olympic Council of Ireland or anybody who is negotiating rights working to ensure there is no obstacle or barrier to broadcasting across the jurisdiction. We encourage the Minister to engage with his counterpart in England to ensure they understand where we are at. It is not something anybody disagrees on.

No.

It is a matter of practical difficulties. This amendment seeks to be one of the mechanisms to ensure it is acted on, more so than anything else. There was a presumption in the Good Friday Agreement that these things would be negotiated out, yet we are here 28 years later still struggling with something that I believe can be dealt with by goodwill, in many cases. We should try to get Coimisiún na Meán involved also. They are the ones with the expertise, not me. Sometimes I struggle to switch the television from one channel to another.

I agree entirely with the Deputy on this. It is a huge cause of frustration, particularly for Olympians and particular sporting events, Gaelic games in particular. The Deputy is right. We have had this discussion previously in the context of TG4 nuair a bhíomar sa choiste Gaelainne agus Gaeltachta agus an deacracht a bhí ann maidir le TG4. He is right that we do not want to draw too much attention to TG4 in case somebody might get the brainwave to-----

Say nothing.

Anyway, we hope that does not happen. I have requested a meeting with my opposite number. I met the British ambassador last week specifically on this issue. I have requested a meeting on a number of occasions with the media minister in the United Kingdom. This issue is covered under the Good Friday Agreement. It is an issue that causes great frustration to people north of the Border and also to people south of the Border, in the Border counties, who are inadvertently victims of this geoblocking practice. There should be a level of maturity brought to the table here. I ask the Deputy if he will accept my bona fides and withdraw the amendment. I would prefer to deal with this issue through the auspices of Coimisiún na Meán. I know it has engaged with Ofcom and the Northern Ireland counterpart. There is a group of Irish television broadcasters which includes RTÉ, TG4, Virgin Media, BBC and UTV and it is facilitated by Coimisiún na Meán and Ofcom. I will be escalating this matter politically in the next number of weeks once I get a meeting with my British opposite number. It is not a devolved responsibility so it has to come from Westminster. We have had the maturity to deal with a lot of issues in this island and we should have the maturity to deal with terrestrial television broadcasts. If the Deputy is agreeable to accepting my bona fides, which I am sure he is because he and I have crossed paths many times before, will he allow us to work separately on this? We can have a separate session of the committee on geoblocking. I think that would be quite helpful. Maybe the British ambassador might like to appear before the committee on the issue of geoblocking.

I am happy to do that. The main thing is that the issue gets an airing wherever possible, whether it is through the Minister, Coimisiún na Meán or the British ambassador.

Maybe we could look at having the British ambassador before the committee.

Yes, we could look at that. I was going to suggest to my colleagues on the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly that we could raise this issue at that forum as well and get some ideas. Those are the types of forums where we can tease things out because this is one of those hiccups that frustrates so many people.

It will be a very big hiccup for Los Angeles in 2028 when there will be people in County Down who will not be able to see a certain athlete on RTÉ. They will have to watch somebody from Cornwall on the BBC and that is not really fair.

Deputy O'Sullivan and I are very supportive of this proposition. This is where we all want to get to. We support that idea.

I am happy that the committee can look at how we table this.

As Chair, I have taken note of that.

The Minister listed the broadcasters who are already trying to work on this issue. Maybe we could ask them for a statement.

They would be delighted to come before the committee, including the BBC and UTV, as it affects them also.

We might have an entire session on the issue.

Definitely.

I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

The evening has not been entirely bad.

We are only getting going now.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 20, to delete lines 17 to 20 and substitute the following:

“(iii) by the insertion of the following paragraphs after paragraph (b):

“(c) the broadcast in programmes broadcast on sound broadcasting services of a diversity of music composed or performed by persons with a connection with the island of Ireland,

(d) the broadcast in programmes broadcast on sound broadcasting services of music in the Irish language.”,”.

I am happy to withdraw the amendment in the hope that the Minister and his team take on my points about the Irish language contained in it.

Amendment No. 15 in the names of Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Byrne has been ruled out of order due to a potential charge on the Revenue.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 25, line 15, after “TG4” to insert “, and, in the case of at least 50 per cent of the members of the board of RTÉ, to the board of RTÉ,”.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 28, line 2, to delete “, or director general, in the English language”.

Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 29, line 35, to delete “shall publish” and substitute “shall publish on a website maintained by the corporation”.

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 33, line 3, after “corporation” to insert the following:

“and an additional audience council specifically for the Raidió na Gaeltachta service whose members shall all be competent in the Irish language and able to conduct the business of the audience council in that language and which shall include at least one member from each of the districts identified in section 26D of the Údarás na Gaeltachta Act 1979 as amended”.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 34, line 1, to delete “inclusion of members” and substitute “inclusion of at least 3 members in the case of the audience council of RTÉ”.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 34, line 2, to delete “at least 10 members” and substitute “all members”.

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 37, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:

“Amendment of Principal Act-insertion of new section

41. The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following after section 105:

“Duties of a Corporation to ensure revenue supports sustainable employment

105A.A corporation shall support sustainable employment where its revenue is used to fund productions, performances and commissions, including by

ensuring—

(a) that no revenue is used to fund the production of content by artificial intelligence;

(b) full compliance with the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 and the Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019;

(c) performers, writers, composers, artists or other workers are not required to sign away their rights to future residual payments for their work, or to agree to a so-called ‘buy-out’ contract, as a pre-condition of work;

(d) that the principle of equal pay for equal work is upheld;

(e) the publication of and adherence to objective criteria for determining employment status and for using contracts of service, which abide by both the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of the Revenue Commissioners and Karshan (Midlands) Ltd t/a Dominos’ Pizza on 20th October 2023 and the Code of Practice on Determining Employment Status.”.”.

This concerns the duty of the corporation, in this instance RTÉ or TG4, to support sustainable employment and that no revenue is used to fund the production of content by artificial intelligence; that there is full compliance with the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000; that performers, writers, composers and the like are not required to sign away their rights to future residual payments for their work or to agree to a so-called "buy-out" contract; and that the principle of equal pay for equal work is upheld, which we should not have to put into legislation at this stage but we know of instances where this is happening or has happened in the recent past in RTÉ. The amendment also requires publication and adherence to objective criteria for determining employment status and for using contracts of service that abide by different judgments, such as the Karshan (Midlands) Limited, trading as Domino's Pizza, case and the implications of that.

We are trying to ensure that in all public services, in this case public service broadcasting, workers' rights are at the heart of them. There has been a litany of scandals within RTÉ involving bogus self-employment. The amendment aims to make sure that it is set out that the creative activity of performers and the like is protected and they are not forced to sign away their residual rights on the basis that if they do not sign it they will not get any work, as has been the case with musicians and other performers throughout the years. That is the hint that is there. There is pressure from musicians and other performers, including Screen Composers Guild Ireland, the Ivors Academy, the Irish Music Rights Organisation and in particular, Irish Equity. The Dáil passed a motion just before the summer break calling on the Government to ensure no State funding for arts content produced by AI so the livelihoods of actors and other human artists continue to be supported. We need to act on that. A number of high-profile artists have raised this. Danny O’Donoghue of The Script was quoted as saying that AI-generated art was intellectual property theft on an industrial scale.

The amendment reflects what the Dáil has said, which is that no public money should be spent on AI-generated content that undermines artistic content. We believe that we should protect Irish performers. There is also a power imbalance between the major players in the audiovisual sectors that can undermine the rights of those artists. It is difficult enough to survive on a small island and sustain yourself on what you can get from artistic endeavours without being forced to see those rights to proper remuneration being taken away. There has been a brilliant campaign around that, particularly from Irish Equity, which has shown us contracts people have been asked to sign by some of the major broadcasting networks here and some film companies. People hope to be able to work in the future but their work is being devalued because they sign away their rights. They could sustain themselves a bit more if they were getting small bits and pieces each year from previous work, as was the intention over the years with copyright legislation. There have been a number of recommendations from this committee on these issues and that is what this amendment reflects.

I thank the Deputies for proposing the amendment. I do not in any way dispute the bona fides as enunciated by Deputy Ó Snodaigh. In fact, I agree with all of them. I want to be clear that I expect RTÉ and TG4 as State bodies established through the law made by the Oireachtas and funded by the people to comply fully with all applicable laws with no exception. This is not a only a presumption when we are drafting and considering legislation but also a wider ethical duty on bodies conferred with important statutory functions and considerable statutory powers. Accordingly, I expect full compliance with all copyright and employment legislation, relevant case law and any guidance issued by any relevant State body. This includes the principle of equal pay for equal work as set out in the employment equality Acts and compliance with the code of practice on determining employment status published by the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Social Protection and the Workplace Relations Commission, the most recent iteration of which explicitly addressed the implications of the Karshan judgment.

The committee made a number of recommendations regarding copyright legislation in pre-legislative scrutiny as these matters related to copyright legislation, which has an effect on all creative workers and rights holders. I wrote to the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment to bring them to his attention as this is a matter that falls under his remit. I am acutely aware of the need to support the creative industries and this Government is doing so through increased investments in the arts, the basic income for the arts scheme and investment in the wider media sector, including an existing legislative proposal to place an obligation on RTÉ to spend 25% of public funding on independent productions.

In terms of artificial intelligence, I again expect RTÉ to comply with all applicable legislation, which would be principally the EU AI Act in this case. The Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment and the Minister of State with responsibility for trade promotion, AI and digital transformation are leading on the implementation of this into Irish law. Article 50 of the AI Act, which came into effect last month, sets out transparency requirements, including a requirement to disclose if an AI system has been used to generate or manipulate text that is published with the purpose of informing the public on matters of public interest. Coimisiún na Meán will be responsible for supervising this regulated entity's compliance with its obligations.

The Deputy's amendment appears to be broad in respect of AI and would appear to prohibit the use of AI as a research tool in addition to prohibiting its use to generate textual, audio or audiovisual content. Maybe that is not the intent of it but it could be an unintended consequence. I accept Deputy Ó Snodaigh's intentions here. Unfortunately, I cannot accept the amendment, which replicates many of the legal requirements that apply not only to RTÉ but TG4 and all of the other public bodies. Later sections of the Bill about the Comptroller and Auditor General will cover a lot of what Deputy Ó Snodaigh is trying to achieve by virtue of the fact that the Committee of Public Accounts will finally have access to question and hold RTÉ and TG4 to account before it.

I will speak in favour of the amendment. I appreciate the Minister's last point about the PAC now finally getting access. I appreciate that it may make some improvements. Nonetheless, this is already a precarious sector. It is a precarious working environment where, despite all the existing legislation, the Employment Equality Act and other law, there are notoriously poor working conditions within the sector. The fact that the Karshan ruling in and of itself has had such an impact will tell you that the existing law is not tight enough.

The AI Act is being governed and overseen by the Department of enterprise. The Social Democrats and I believe there is already a considerable conflict of interest there. I do not think we should assume in such a fast-moving environment as artificial intelligence that it is going to be enough to protect work across all sectors. That is particularly the case in the artistic space where we know it is such a disruptive technology and is already causing havoc through the exploitation of creative output by workers and making it harder and harder for workers to make a living in this area. This is an opportune moment to embed in the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill that AI is not going to impact workers' rights. I support the amendment.

I will answer the Minister. The AI Act is new so we do not know its full effect. In some ways, we wish it well and wish well the Minister and those who will be trying to ensure compliance, given how fast the world is changing in that regard. AI has the potential to devalue artistic endeavour. That is scary. It has already done so in many ways. It has robbed artists of their values and their valuable work in many ways. We should be trying to ensure we protect artistic work in whatever way we can. I accept what the Minister said. There are a number of laws and pieces of legislation there. It is a matter of compliance. However, year after year we are approached by various organisations, actors and musicians who are able to show us documentary proof of where they are being encouraged and pressurised to sign away their future remuneration. While independent production is to be welcomed, some of the independent production companies are the ones that are most pressurising of our artists. We need to ensure that when we are not dealing with section 481 and the likes of it, there is a more stringent approach to State funding and the way in which the State allocates its funds to ensure workers' rights are complied with.

The Minister said that some of this will fall under the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General in the future, and that is welcome. I had such legislation before half of RTÉ fell apart, as it were. We will come to that issue in a few minutes.

RTÉ and TG4 have good wage structures and we hope that at this stage they are as transparent as they should be when they employ independent production companies to do work. More and more, that seems to be the model that RTÉ will pursue. TG4 did it from the start. It is important that when the broadcasters are doing that, they ensure there is a proper liveable wage and not just the minimum wage in the companies they are employing. We must ensure that people are paid properly.

I hear the Minister. I am not going to press the amendment, but these are issues we will keep coming back to until they are properly addressed. I have argued these points with the Minister for enterprise, too. I have argued with the Minister for Finance about section 481. Additional criteria and safeguards should be included with any money that goes towards production. The same would be true of the Sound and Vision scheme. If you are grant-aiding any organisation, whether in the arts or another sector, there needs to be a minimum commitment to workers' protection and the protection of their interests, as well as getting the commission you have asked to be produced.

The EU will play catch-up on this. Sometimes it is ahead of us and sometimes it is behind. We need to take what is best in the EU directives and legislation to ensure we have the best possible protections for our artistic community and broadcasting. If we do, we will have products we will be proud of and that we can sell abroad. That may encourage others to come to Ireland to share with us their artistic endeavours because they know the protections are in place. In some cases, those protections are not in place.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 39, line 3, after "Minister" to insert "by direction to the corporations".

This is a technical amendment. It specifies that ministerial approval and the format of the anonymised information on remuneration in the RTÉ and TG4 annual reports is given by way of a direction to both RTÉ and TG4.

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 41, line 23, after “commitments” to insert the following:

", including performance commitments relating to the use of Irish on television and radio, including in advertisement and music across genres, and to airplay for Irish musicians on radio, including the diversity of musical forms, of artists and of experience,".

Amendment No. 26 has been ruled out of order as including a potential charge to the Revenue.

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 45, to delete lines 4 to 42, to delete page 46, and in page 47, to delete lines 1 to 10.

Amendments No. 28 and 29 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 47, to delete lines 35 to 38 and substitute the following:

"(ii) by the substitution of the following paragraphs for paragraphs (b) and (c):

“(b) he or she is not a qualifying person,

(c) he or she is not a subsidiary of a qualifying person, and

(d) he or she is not a holding company of a qualifying person.",

(e) in subsection (13)—

(i) by the substitution of "qualifying persons" for "broadcasters" in each place where it occurs, and

(ii) by the substitution of "paragraph (c)" for "paragraph (b)",".

Section 45 provides for reforms to the RTÉ independent programming account. The principal requirement is that RTÉ must pay at least 25% of its public funding into the independent programme account annually. The principal purpose is to commission programming from the independent sector. A number of other reforms to the account are being made through the Bill, including a change to the definition to widen the type of programming that may be commissioned through the account, to include video-on-demand programmes and podcasts.

One of the key principles underpinning the independent programming account is that programmes must be supplied by independent producers. For that reason, the intended effect of the Broadcasting Act 2009 has been that broadcasters, their subsidiaries and holding companies are excluded from being commissioned. Section 45 intended to extend the prohibition on video-on-demand services.

Amendment No. 28, which I am proposing, is intended to clarify these points, namely, that neither a broadcaster nor video-on-demand provider, nor a subsidiary or holding company of either, may be commissioned via the independent programme account. Amendment No. 29 provides an exemption to the rule in respect of persons with annual sales from video-on-demand services of less than €1 million. This is intended to address the fact that a number of independent producers make parts of their back catalogue available for sale on their websites and technically meet the requirements for video-on-demand services. Amendment No. 29 will ensure these producers are not unintentionally disqualified from being commissioned by RTÉ through the account.

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 48, to delete lines 9 and 10 and substitute the following:

“ “(14A) In subsections (12) to (14), ‘qualifying person’ means—

(a) a broadcaster, or

(b) a provider of an audiovisual on-demand media service who, in the last financial year before the making of the programme concerned, had annual sales derived from the provision of such services that were greater than €1,000,000.”.”.

Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 48, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:

“and

(h) by the insertion of the following after subsection (15):

“(16) A minimum of 25 per cent of the monies spent through the independent programmes account shall be for content in the Irish language.”.”.

This is to provide a set figure to ensure Irish language content receives at least a quarter of the funding. That means it will be in line with how the State is promoting the Irish language and will give it greater visibility than it currently has. What has been happening of late in terms of advertising and that is great. The provisions in the Official Languages Act have had an effect. This is trying to have the same effect in this field.

Amendment No. 31 simply allows for flexibility for Coimisiún na Meán to meaningfully react to the financial situation and public service remit of RTÉ when deciding to alter any percentage in the independent productions account.

I have raised concerns in committee with the director general and elsewhere that much of the in-house production of RTÉ is being moved outside. While I appreciate the rationale for that in light of the changes of recent years, unit after unit is being shut down with institutional loss of knowledge and expertise in development of these areas. We have seen religious programming and youth programming go. Even though the director general assured me news, current affairs and sports would remain, we have since seen one sports programme go. We need flexibility on this and that is why I have put forward this amendment.

With regard to amendment No. 30, the statutory public service remit of RTÉ sets out a clear duty in respect of the Irish language. Section 114(3)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 2009 sets out that RTÉ must provide a comprehensive range of programmes in Irish, while section 114(2)(a) requires RTÉ to have special regards to the Irish language.

While I recognise the intention of the Deputies and do not doubt their bona fides, I consider the existing statutory provisions sufficient to ensure RTÉ meets its obligation regarding Irish language programming. Under this Bill, Coimisiún na Meán will be responsible, based on its statutory public service remit including the Irish language obligations, for setting RTÉ's performance commitments every three years and monitoring the performance annually. There will be an opportunity for the Deputies and the committee to engage with Coimisiún na Meán and RTÉ on that basis. I do not believe further ring-fencing of expenditure is necessary at the moment. That is not to say it will not be revisited at some stage.

Amendment No. 31 would allow Coimisiún na Meán, with the approval of the Minister, to reduce the minimum amount RTÉ must pay for the purposes of commissioning programming from the independent sector to below 25% of public funding. I understand the rationale. Allowing a lower percentage than 25% would introduce a degree of flexibility to RTÉ's commissioning activity. However, there are clear benefits to setting the commissioning target at a minimum of 25% of public funding, as recommended by the Future of Media Commission. It was recommended to the Department; it was not dreamt up by us. It provides certainty to the independent sector, which is an important part of employment in the sector, regarding the minimum amount of commissioning activity over a period of time, facilitating long-term planning. It also ensures the independent sector is more competitive and, as a consequence, more creative and diverse. The benefits of a minimum target of 25% outweigh any benefits of retaining flexibility. Accordingly, I do not propose to accept the amendments.

I appreciate the points put forward. I know this did not come out of thin air but it is important to recognise the changing landscape and the shifts within RTÉ in recent years. While the recommendation may have come from the Future of Media Commission, we still need to review it in the current context. While independent commissioning is important, we need the flexibility for Coimisiún na Meán and RTÉ to ensure our public service broadcaster produces material in-house and retains that competency, particularly when the private market might not always meet the needs of public service broadcasting. I understand the public service broadcasting mandate is passed on to independent, commercial providers through the commissioning process. Nonetheless, we do not have control over the private market. There are strict demands that could leave workers in a poor situation. We all know the film and television production sector is rife with precarious employment. Many of these practices have been uncovered in RTÉ, but we do not have the same oversight of the independent sector. When we speak to the employment rights of the sector, this is an important metric to be vigilant about. The amendment seeks to give Coimisiún na Meán flexibility as regulator to assess those needs based on the evidence in front of it.

I also appreciate the Minister's point about the consistency and certainty that businesses may seek. I, too, have consulted them, but when we consult independent producers and the commercial space, we need to hear from the workers in those organisations as well. It is not enough to talk to managing directors and CEOs of these companies. We must consider more broadly workers' rights in the sector. That is what this does. It protects workers' rights and our public service mandate. We need to bake in that flexibility for Coimisiún na Meán and RTÉ.

I hear what the Minister is saying but RTÉ over the years has not acted well in terms of the Irish language. Of late, it has changed tack and there seems to be more investment. By this amendment, we are trying to ensure that at least it understands the obligation it has and delivers on it by ring-fencing 25% of funding. While we can come back to it - we can come back to any piece of legislation - it will ensure RTÉ understands its full obligations, especially in an era when it is outsourcing more and more. It is in order that we do not get staid Irish programming while all the big money goes on the blockbuster dramas in English. RTÉ will be answerable in the future to the Houses of the Oireachtas or the Comptroller and Auditor General. It has been answerable to this committee and the Irish language committee in the past. That annual debate with it has allowed us to impress upon it that it has a legal obligation. Beyond saying it is not producing enough, we need to do more. I will press the amendment.

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 48, line 17, after “greater” to insert “or less”.

Amendments Nos. 32 to 44, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 49, line 24, after “preceding” to insert “financial”.

I will speak to amendments Nos. 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43 and 44. These amendments are of a technical nature.

Amendment No. 32 clarifies the reference year in respect of the RTÉ independent programme account should be the financial year. Amendments Nos. 35 to 41 of this group clarify that the information on the cost of programmes in RTÉ's and TG4's annual reports on commissioning activities shall mean the estimated costs of making the programmes when commissioned. This reflects the policy intention of the Bill. If the requirement was to publish actual costs, there might be lengthy delays due to audits or refunds related to section 481 and 487A of the tax credits.

I can speak to Deputy Gibney's amendments in a minute.

Can I introduce my amendments from this grouping?

Yes.

Amendment No. 34 includes reporting on staff wages and collective bargaining. Once again, we are looking at workers' rights here in the reporting of independent commissions from RTÉ. Amendment No. 40 once again ensures that workers' rights and their treatment are included in the assessment and reporting of show costs. These are amendments which give accountability and transparency on the treatment of workers on projects which receive State funding. If public money is financing a production, we need that transparency on the standards of employment and the treatment of workers in these environments. The taxpayer must be reassured that the private production of programmes for RTÉ does not mean that those who work on them have worse pay and conditions.

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 49, line 38, to delete “the band designated under subsection (3)” and substitute “the band of costs, designated under subsection (4) for the financial year concerned,”.

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 50, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

“(k) the percentage of that cost which was used on remuneration for staff on the programme,

(l) the number of people employed by the production and the FTE, the median weekly wage of those employed as part of the production, and whether those working on the production were covered by a collective bargaining agreement.”

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 50, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

“(3) The references in subsection (2) to the estimated cost of making a programme are references to the cost of making the programme as estimated by RTÉ at the time when RTÉ commissioned the making of the programme.”.

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 50, line 12, to delete “(3) The” and substitute “(4) The”

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 50, line 14, to delete “(4) The” and substitute “(5) The”.

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 51, line 4, to delete “the band designated under subsection (3)” and substitute “the band of costs, designated under subsection (4) for the financial year concerned,”.

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 51, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

“(k) the percentage of that cost which was used on remuneration for staff on the programme,

(l) the number of people employed by the production and the FTE, the median weekly wage of those employed as part of the production, and whether those working on the production were covered by a collective bargaining agreement.”.

On both of my amendments in this grouping, Nos. 34 and 40, I did not get a response from the Minister. I think he was prepared to provide one but I just had to introduce them first.

In general, the Deputy proposed amendments Nos. 34 and 40 which would require additional information to be included in the annual reports of RTÉ and TG4 on commissioning activities in respect of each programme commissioned by the providers in respect of remuneration. I understand the overall intention but as the Deputy will be aware, the film regulations of 2019 provide that applicants for the section 481 tax credit are required to provide an undertaking that both the producer company and qualifying company are in compliance with all employment laws, requirements and legislation and will continue to be in compliance throughout the production of the qualifying film. Of course, not all programming commissioned by RTÉ would qualify for a tax credit and the expert advisory committee on contractor fees, HR and other matters in RTÉ recommended that RTÉ should implement a statement of counterparty's employment standards, to be required of all those, including independent production companies, with whom it does business to ensure they comply with all relevant employment laws applicable to their staff. The Deputy has suggested that further specific information be provided, including on the remuneration of staff, employee numbers, median weekly wage and whether the staff were covered by a collective bargaining agreement. I do not propose to accept the amendment at this time. However, sections 46 and 48 of the Bill do allow the Minister to direct that further information may be included in the RTÉ and TG4 annual reports on commissioning activities. I will take the Deputy's proposed approach under consideration in the context of reviewing the appropriate monetary bands which should apply for the purposes of the disclosing the costs of production of each programme. I am aware that there was a lot of discussion around bands by this committee. There is a clear balance that must be struck between the amount of information that is disclosed and the commercial nature of the independent sector which I think everybody would accept.

I appreciate, having had the opportunity to hear from the Minister, that he is willing to take this under consideration in the context of other sections. I am not inferring any malfeasance or breach of law but it is important to get information on quality of employment which is currently not covered. I urge the Minister to look at that. I am willing to withdraw amendment No. 40.

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 51, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following: “(3) The references in subsection (2) to the estimated cost of making a programme are references to the cost of making the programme as estimated by TG4 at the time when TG4 commissioned the making of the programme.”

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 51, line 19, to delete “(3) The bands” and substitute “(4) The bands”.

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 51, line 21, to delete “(4) Subsections” and substitute “(5) Subsections”.

I move amendment No. 44:

In page 51, line 25, to delete “(5) The” and substitute “(6) The”

Amendment No. 45, in the names of Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Joanna Byrne, is out of order because of a potential charge on the Revenue.

Amendments Nos. 46 and 48 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

I move amendment No. 46:

In page 62, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

“(13) The Commission may allow for public service broadcasters to apply for funds under any scheme established under section 152F at their discretion.”.

Funding under the broadcasting fund of Ciste na Meán is currently restricted to the private sector. That has potential consequences for RTÉ and TG4, particularly the latter which has a trove of content that could be archived and made available to the public but it requires appropriate funding to do so. That is what this amendment proposes to address.

At present RTÉ and TG4 may receive direct funding from the broadcasting fund through the Sound and Vision and archiving schemes. The vast majority of the funding for programmes financed through Sound and Vision that are broadcast on RTÉ and TG4 goes directly to independent producers. Over the period from 2020 to 2024, TG4 received no direct funding and RTÉ received €336,000 in direct funding from Sound and Vision. The last archiving scheme ended in 2019, with RTÉ and TG4 receiving €1.3 million, or 40% of the scheme funding in total, directly as sole applicants and a further €800,000, or 26%, as joint applicants. One of the key policy decisions I made when I published the general scheme of the Bill was to prohibit RTÉ and TG4 from directly receiving funding under any other media funding schemes. I intend to introduce a further technical amendment on Committee Stage in the Seanad to absolutely clarify this point. There is a clear rationale for my decision. The public service remit of RTÉ and TG4 is set out in law in sections 114 and 118 of the Broadcasting Act 2009. It includes not only the provision of media services by the providers but it also requires them to establish and maintain archives and libraries containing materials relevant to RTÉ's public service remit. The law is already clear with regard to this. RTÉ and TG4 receive public funding to archive, as per their statutory public remit. Over the period from 2018 to 2025, TG4's public funding increased by 63% and RTÉ's by nearly 20%. The Bill will convert the broadcasting fund to a platform-neutral Ciste na Meán, as we already discussed, which will fund all media funding schemes for the sector including the Sound and Vision scheme. Allowing RTÉ and TG4 to access funding directly from Ciste na Meán would clearly amount to dual funding, effectively allowing them to receive public funding to achieve their objectives under the law and then to compete with the wider media sector for more funding through competitive funding rounds operated under Ciste na Meán. That, necessarily, would reduce the amount of funding available to the wider sector and on that basis I cannot accept the Deputy's amendment.

To clarify, I am not asking for them to be automatically included but I want to ensure that beyond the day-to-day running of providers, they are met with that funding. I am happy to withdraw the amendment but I urge the Minister to take my point on board.

It is good to clarify that. I do not know if the Minister is aware of TG4's new app, Cartlann TG4. It contains its archive material, which shows that TG4 is taking its remit seriously. Obviously, being a new station, it is probably easier for it as it was broadcasting in the digital age almost from the start whereas for RTÉ, it is different. Raidió na Gaeltachta also has an archive but additional funding is required for that huge archive because it is not digital. They have started working on it over the last number of years. They have done work on the recordings - not the broadcasts but the recordings - they did of different characters, musicians and people over the years, many of whom have passed away. To convert that into digital format is important before it is affected by time. I know they are in the middle of that work.

It is definitely ensuring that in the future we all have access to that material that, in some cases, is 50 years old at this stage. It is that length of time since Raidió na Gaeltachta started. RTÉ is in the same boat with the material but given its precarious finances, the diversion of money to ensuring there is a proper archive is not always at the front of people's minds when they are discussing RTÉ. We need to make sure that Coimisiún na Meán reminds RTÉ of its duty, and that if there is a few spare hundreds of millions or so-----

Hundreds of millions?

You would never know. The Minister has deep pockets.

I move amendment No. 47:

In page 63, lines 35 and 36, to delete “on a website and in any other way the Minister considers appropriate”.

Section 56 grants the European works levy powers to the Minister instead of Coimisiún na Meán. Coimisiún na Meán is best placed for this and ensures that the decision is made independently and based on the evidence.

I have been clear in my approach to this issue since I took up office as Minister for Culture, Communications, and Sport. I consider that any charge on the people should be subject to ministerial oversight as the European works levy, which is commonly known as the Netflix levy, could give rise to an increase in prices for Irish consumers. I consider it a matter of principle that it should be subject to democratic oversight. That is why section 56 of the Bill does not, to be clear, abolish the European works levy. Instead, it makes it subject to ministerial direction to ensure that any decision is fully informed. Section 58 of the Bill further provides for the preparation by Coimisiún na Meán of an ex ante report on the possible impact of a levy every three years.

On the recommendation of this committee, such a report must include the probable impact of a levy on supply of public service content in the State, in addition to the probable impact on the prices of the media services in the State. Separate to this, the Bill is a question of whether I, as Minister, will give direction to Coimisiún na Meán. My position on this remains unchanged. I consider that the introduction of a European works levy risks placing an additional financial burden on Irish households already experiencing cost-of-living pressures, particularly in the context of recent international developments. I have no intention of issuing such a direction until I am satisfied that a content levy would not impose an undue burden on Irish households. I assume, at this stage, as we have flogged this to death, that in the context of the cost-of-living issues we have, people are not in favour of increasing the price of people's Netflix.

We may have flogged it to death but we are still on opposite sides of the debate on it. The levy on providers is not a charge on people. Those being levied are responsible for their pricing, not Coimisiún na Meán. I appreciate the committee is trying to get-----

Can the Deputy demonstrate to me any levy that has been imposed by the Oireachtas on any regulated utility that has not been passed on to the consumer?

I suggest that rather than reiterate this debate again, and I appreciate that the committee is trying to get to the end in two minutes-----

We have seven minutes and I am concluding at half past.

I take that as a "No*. The consumers would pay it.

No. I am respecting that the committee is trying to get towards the work-----

I am respecting the fact the Deputy refused to answer.

I move amendment No. 48:

In page 68, line 23, after “programmes” to insert “including feature films, animation, drama, and documentary programmes”

This is an amendment from Deputy Byrne. I reserve the right to raise the issue on Report Stage.

I move amendment No. 49:

In page 69, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 162 of Principal Act

60.Section 162 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following paragraph after subsection (3)(b):

“(c) The duty of the Minister to promote the arts in line with section 5(1) of the Act of 2003, including both traditional and contemporary across different art forms, with particular regard to arts in the Irish language and traditional and sean-nós forms, and to festivals, events and competitions of national importance to a particular art form or of significant public interest.”.”.

I will not delay. This is based on our pre-legislative scrutiny report recommendation 18, where we recommended an amendment to the Broadcasting Act to ensure festivals, events and competitions of national importance, including different art forms such as traditional and contemporary Irish language and sean nós, are broadcast free to air. Under the existing law, the Minister is empowered to designate major events to be broadcast free to air under section 162 of the Broadcasting Act. This power has been exclusively used for sporting events. However, RTÉ for instance, has decided against providing coverage of Electric Picnic. We have seen in England the huge coverage of Glastonbury. That can happen. TG4, in fact, covered it. There is a need to look at more events that could be broadcast free to air, such as the Oireachtas na Gaeilge festival or Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann. We have opportunities to look at expanding what has been exclusively sporting events thus far.

I agree with the broad thrust of the Deputy's points. Cultural events such as Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann are important. In the specific case of the Fleadh Cheoil, TG4 dedicates considerable live television to it and it should be commended on that. However, I do not agree that we need to include a specific reference to the Broadcasting Act of 2009 and I do not accept the amendment. While amendment of the existing provisions is unnecessary, the Department will examine ways in which a broader selection of events could be encouraged and, to the Deputy's point, not just in sport but also in arts and culture, to be brought forward for consideration under a consultation and assessment process for future review. It is my intention to bring forward, with regard to sport, an updated list in the not-too-distant future.

On behalf of the committee, I thank the Minister and his officials for their attendance. I also thank committee members for the manner in which we got this done with one minute to spare. It was very efficient. As there is no other business, this meeting—---

As we are discussing the broadcasting Bill, RTÉ, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the commissioning of independent programming, with what happened in the past week with RTÉ airing programmes that had to be then taken off air—--

That is not relevant. We can deal with that in the normal committee. As there is no other business, I acknowledge the clerk and the staff here. The clerk has done two sessions, one after the other, back to back because he is the efficient clerk when it comes to complicated Bills.