Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have a number of small amendments in this grouping. To be honest, the most fundamental and most important amendments have been put by the members of the Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media, Senators Cassells and Warfield.They reflect the views of the Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media and those amendments are fundamentally in tune with the mandate from the AV directive.

I talked at the beginning of this debate about there being a core EU principle, that of exception culturelle, and a very clear mandate from the AV directive in line with that which is that cultural content cannot be solely left to the market and the role of the state is not simply to regulate a market in this regard but that it is, in fact, the right and duty of a state, and indeed of the European Union as a whole, to seek to promote cultural diversity and the idea of different voices being raised and reflected. This, again, is not a market incentive for European works, or whatever, but it is a public duty to promote cultural participation and different and diverse voices, and that culture serves crucial social and cultural functions. These provisions are not then simply a nice add-in to the commercial regulation of a sector but the provisions within the AV directive that allow for European works to be promoted are core to the origins of the EU directive itself. It is the protection, the function but also the promotion and participation mandate. That is why it is very appropriate that Senators Cassells's and Warfield's amendments tried to ensure, not simply that it is provided that there may be European work schemes, and so forth, which is there in the Bill, but to seek to put flesh on that and to give a hard signal that it is going to be given weighting and import.

Some of their amendments also speak to the importance of ensuring that there are, for example, independent media providers in that space and are given a clear amount of that space. That, again, is around ensuring that there are diverse voices and issues expressed. Their amendments talk to the need for this to be a substantive area, be it 3% to 5% or more, of expenditure. My amendments are a whole series of little ones and are around that diversity piece, along with a few others.

I will go through them quite quickly now. I will not be moving my amendment No. 211 when it comes up because I do not believe it is correctly placed and we have already discussed that issue, which is of the danger the other content levy and this content levy and how they might be interpreted in respect of each other. I will put that aside and will not go into that for now.

Amendment No. 216 seeks to amend section 159F by adding that the funds under the European work scheme supporting new audiovisual work would recognise the diverse experiences of the people of the island of Ireland. We know that people's experiences are very different. Today there was a very powerful protest outside the Oireachtas around Traveller mental health. We also know and the Seanad group I am a member of has put forward legislation that Traveller culture and history is very important. That has been quite a different experience of life in Ireland.

There are also things we have seen in the literary space such as Oein De Bhairdúin's collections on folklore and Rosaleen McDonagh's play Walls and Windows. There is a rich depth of Traveller culture in Ireland which has not often been recognised and reflected. Very often Travellers have had the experience where they are covered in the media usually around discussing the problems, difficulties or obstacles they may be facing rather than their cultural representation. That is an example of why diversity is something important to remember.

Amendment No. 217 seeks to ensure that the scheme would not only support audiovisual works engaging with the experiences of persons of Irish ancestry living abroad but those of Irish origin or ancestry living abroad. For example, this would apply if one has lived in Ireland for a number of years and has now moved to another country, regardless of whether one's parents were Irish. That is important because Irish ancestry has tied it to a kind of genetic connection rather than one which is of Irish origin. If, for example, people grow up here for 20 years and then moves abroad, they may well be able to make an important contribution on the Irish experience even if they have moved abroad.

Amendment No. 218 is important in respect of biodiversity, environmental sustainability and climate change. It is because we know that we are in this climate change crisis and one of sustainability around materials, resources and all of that, but biodiversity is something a little bit different from sustainability. Biodiversity is a very important subject matter. If someone wanted to pick something that was place-based and about our country, the network of ecological biodiversity, which is different again from environmental sustainability, but the ecology, species, plants in our country and that biodiversity piece is something that is very valuable. It is something a little different from just climate change and environmental sustainability as it is adding something different. It would be appropriate to insert that in amendment No. 218.

Amendment No. 219 seeks to delete the word "including" because the way this is worded in the Bill at the moment is that equality, diversity and inclusion are made as subsections or subsets of human rights. Human rights are, in fact, reflected in our human rights and equality legislation, that is, it is not human rights "including" equality but is human rights "and" equality. The importance of this is because while equality relates to human rights, equality is wider than simply human rights as there are many equality provisions which go wider than just the scope of fundamental human rights. It would be appropriate then to have human rights, equality, diversity and inclusion rather than human rights "including" equality, diversity and inclusion. Making it a subset is out of line with other legislation and is inconsistent with many provisions, including the provisions of our Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act.

Amendment No. 220 would add a new paragraph which describes audiovisual works which might be supported by the scheme. I seek in that to include works which support literacy. It is different to having Irish language content but is also to have works which promote literacy in the Irish language or in Irish Sign Language and in programming. I previously mentioned in respect of Irish Sign Language that the Seanad and the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, indeed, played a very key role in securing official recognition of Irish Sign Language. In delivering on that recognition we should be supporting programmes which feature or engage with Irish Sign Language.

On Irish language literacy, the scheme could play a very important role in fostering better engagement through the language in the audiovisual programming which would be mentioned.

I perhaps reserve the right to mention that there may be other languages which may not be covered. I have focused here on the Irish language and on Irish Sign Language because they have official recognition but Cant, which is a Traveller language, is another example. Perhaps that may come under the cultural or a diversity provision rather than under other provisions. I have an example here of Irish language content which is not Irish language literacy content but language content. We are seeing in the film "Arracht" and in "An Cailín Ciúin" some very exceptional content which has been developed in that area and which are of an international standard. It would be very important that this work scheme supports that kind of content which is exceptional.

Amendment No. 221, and my apologies but this is our last clump, unfortunately, has a great deal in it. This amendment adds the provision that the scheme will again support new audiovisual works which promote digital empowerment and data protection awareness. I have spoken about this at length and the Minister is aware of my concern and of the fact that we have a very low levels of digital skills here. In fact the 2020 EU Digital Economy and Society Index said that 45% of people in Ireland lack basic online and digital skills where one can perform basic functions. Amendment No. 222 seeks to provide that the scheme would support works and research, assessments of need, feasibility studies or pilot projects in relation to programming and measures reflected in paragraph (c). It basically states that it would also support capacity building for the delivery of such artistic works. This is important if we think of under-represented and under-reflected communities, perspectives or voices in Ireland. It would allow for building the capacity to produce materials appropriate to this kind of sphere. It simply strengthens that provision.

Amendment No. 225 provides that in preparing a scheme, the commission would seek to ensure understanding and enjoyment of new audiovisual programmes by people with a disability. Again, the principle of participation applies. It is not just the enjoyment of programming but participation in the production of such materials. We have already discussed this issue at length. The Minister will recall that amendments from across the House proposed to reflect the evolving understanding of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD, and the principles of cultural participation, not only cultural consumption but participation in the creation of materials.

Amendment No. 226 again refers to the need to support cultural and social participation for users of the Irish language and Irish Sign Language.

Amendment No. 227 provides that, in preparing a scheme, the commission would have regard to the need to support the development of new audiovisual programmes of interest to children and young people under the age of 25. It states that having regard to the need to support the development, it would also encourage development. I seek to go a little further because while the legislation recognises some markets or areas that exist, this is one area that could be strengthened.

That was a long set. My amendments are all small and aimed at tweaking the Bill. I support the more substantive amendments from Senator Warfield and Senators Cassells and Byrne, as they probably go to the core of the matter, the hard fact of how much money gets designated to this area and how it is apportioned.