James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I do not think it applies.

The way forward, rather than enforcing quotas on a certain sector of the output, is to promote stations such as TG4 and Raidió na Gaeltachta. There is no reason RTE could not introduce a new digital radio channel, if it wished to do so, with 100% music with an Irish, what is the expression, "cultural identity". I do not know whether that has been explored.

Ultimately, this comes back to choice and freedom, the choice that listeners make and the choice that a station makes to present. Enforcing quantity as a measure rather than quality will always be a difficult one to balance.

The other point that has been made to me is the question of how this Bill provides a guarantee. The intention, which is extremely admirable and with which no one could quibble, is to promote new music sources, new media and indigenous artists coming through. This is noble and something we all would wish to support. There is no guarantee that under the legislation, as constituted, one could not put a U2, The Dubliners or Planxty song on repeat for 40% of the airtime and let it run. That would satisfy it. We might hear more of the same artists rather than hearing new artists coming through. If the noble intention I referred to is the intention, let us address that in other ways as there are other ways we can do it.

This has been raised already. My understanding, as per the Minister, was that this was introduced, although not into the House. I accept Deputy Penrose's clarification on that.

There were attempts to introduce this in the previous Dáil when the Labour Party was in Government, but it did not get the Minister's approval at the time for some of the reasons we are now identifying as concerns. That is a precedent we look to when something was attempted in the past. The representative body, IASCA, the Irish Association of Songwriters, Composers & Authors, appears to be working with the local radio stations at present and with the industry. I and many Deputies have received multiple representations from the independent radio stations and their representative bodies as well as from industry agencies, groups and lobby groups. The Deputy suggests that they do not mean what they say, but I do not understand that. I can only accept what is in writing before me. If I receive an e-mail or a letter, I accept it in good faith and at face value. I received multiple letters, e-mails and representations along those lines. Again, I must accept them prima facie. They say they are against the legislation for many reasons, including that they consider it unworkable, impractical and because such legislation has not succeeded elsewhere. If it is a language matter, we should look at it in a separate context.

I am a member of the communications committee and I have not seen this on the committee's agenda since I was elected to the House. Perhaps that is the appropriate forum for the Bill. The artists, agencies and different representative groups could be brought before the committee, and I am sure the Minister would join us for that session, and the debate could proceed. Perhaps the Bill could be reintroduced with RTE included and the vagueness around the cultural definition addressed. Let us take some time to refine it by bringing it to the committee. A discussion could be held there before introducing it again in the House. At that point, it might go forward.

My party supports the general intent of the Bill, but as currently drafted I cannot see how it could work in practice. The immediate negative impact on the independent radio sector appears to be too great a price to pay.

See this speech in context