Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I wish to advise the House of the following matters in respect of which notice has been given under Standing Order 39 and the name of the Member in each case: Deputy Pat Buckley - To discuss the need for Gaelscoil Choráin, Youghal, County Cork to be included in the DEIS urban band 1 programme. Deputy Pearse Doherty - To discuss the impact of the new PSO contract for flights between Donegal and D…

3. D'fhiafraigh Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh den Minister for Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht an nglacann sé le focail an Bhreithimh Humphreys san Ard-Chúirt sa bhreithiúnas maidir le cás Wild Ireland Defence CLG in aghaidh an Choimisiúin Pleanála, an Aire Tithíochta, Rialtais Áitiúil agus Oidhreachta, an Ard-Aighne, agus an Aire turasóireachta, cultúir, ealaíon, Gaeltachta, spóirt a…

Tá an cheist seo dírithe ar an Aire toisc an breithiúnas a rinne an Bhreithimh Humphreys san Ard-Chúirt maidir leis na scéimeanna teanga. Dúirt sé go bhfuil sé "seafóideach" agus "áiféiseach" le rá go bhfuil feidhm dhlíthiúil fós acu. Cathain a bhfoilseofar na caighdeáin teanga atá le teacht i gcomharbas orthu siúd?

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. Is léir ón bhfreagra go raibh comhairle dlí i gceist agus gur aithin an Roinn go raibh fadhb bhunúsach ann. Gealladh dúinn nuair a bhí muid ag déanamh plé ar Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla go mbeadh na caighdeáin ann sar i bhfad. Ó thaobh an dlí de, ba chóir go mbeadh siad ann roimh dheireadh 2024. Tá na scéimeanna teanga as ord. Ní ann dóibh. Tá sé seafóideach agus ái…

San idirlinn, an bhfuil sé i gceist leanúint leis an leasú a bhí an tAire ag cur chun cinn maidir leis an mBille a bhaineann le toghcháin Údarás na Gaeltachta? Is féidir é sin a chur chun cinn mar Bhille ann féin agus an reachtaíocht maidir leis na toghcháin a chur ar athló, mar atá déanta ar aon chaoi, mar tá éigeandáil ann anois nach bhfuil aon fheidhm dhlíthiúil ag na scéimeanna. D'fhéadfaí rún…

After three and a half years, next week or the week after we will reach the cliff edge for the pilot basic income for artists scheme without any sign of the promised successor scheme, nor any clarity as to when the new replacement scheme will open for applications or even what it will look like. I ask the Tánaiste to enlighten us as to the shape, size, cost and timing of the Minister, Deputy O'Don…

Tá an tAire agus an Rialtas ag dul sa treo mícheart leis an reachtaíocht seo. Níl siad ach chun tuilleadh praiseach a dhéanamh den chóras cíosanna tithíochta agus cur leis an bhfadhb bhunúsach tithíochta atá sa tír seo. An t-aon leithscéal a bheadh ann as dul sa treo seo ná go bhfuil an tAire dall go hiomlán ar cé chomh dona is atá fadhb na tithíochta faoi láthair agus le blianta anois, agus nach …

Everywhere is going up.

Nobody is shouting and roaring.

The Taoiseach used half the time to make his point of order.

I move amendment No. 1: In page 3, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: "Amendment of section 38 of Principal Act 2.In subsection 1(b)(i) of section 38 of the Principal Act, to insert the following after "programme service to a licensing body": "for the purpose of remunerating jointly the copyright owner in the sound recording and the performer(s) whose performance(s) are incorpor…

I am disappointed that the Minister of State has not seen the need to adopt these amendments, which are clarifying a situation that she says does not need to be clarified because it is already in law. Obviously, it is not in law and it is not clear if two different organisations with their legal teams had a look at this. My own legal advisers had a look at this and they all said that, to avoid dou…

I move amendment No. 2: In page 3, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “(a) in subsection (1), by the substitution of “which is comprised of a share of any and all payments collected or collectable by or on behalf of the copyright owner under section 38(1) after deduction of justifiable and documented costs of collection” for “where the sound recording of the whole or any substanti…

I move amendment No. 3: In page 3, to delete lines 16 to 32, and in page 4, to delete lines 1 to 14 and substitute the following: “(a) by the substitution of the following subsections for subsections (4), (5) and (6): “(4) Subject to subsections (5) to (9), and unless otherwise agreed by or on behalf of the persons by and to whom it is payable the amount of equitable remuneration payable under…

The likelihood of somebody returning a year later is as unlikely as somebody taking a case in the first place, unless they have money behind them. That is one of the issues when we resort to the courts. It is not as simple as that. I accept that an individual can take a case but even if a person represents himself or herself where there is a grievance, he or she usually requires legal advice. Lega…

It is just strange. All of the other disputes concerning licensing arrangements under the Act will continue to be dealt with by the controller. That also seems to stray into adjudication. That is the concern. Only one part of dispute resolution is being shifted from the controller to the courts. Disputes under section 38 will still be dealt with by the controller. A difficulty arises under the doc…

I move amendment No. 6: In page 4, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following: “(d) by the insertion of a new subsection (11): “(11) The calculation of equitable remuneration due to each individual performer shall be carried out in accordance with subsection (4) by a licensing body for performers’ rights registered under section 280 in respect of a scheme that includes management of the r…

The Minister of State said these amendments are outside the scope of the Bill. Obviously they are not because they have not been ruled out of order. They have been found to be in order. The matter is within the scope of the Bill because we are talking about CMOs representing both the producers and the performers. Part of this has to do with who represents the unrepresented, those who have opted ou…

I could go on and on.

I am trying not to delay. As the Act is currently structured, a producers' CMO is put in control of the collection of licence fees to be shared with performers, not all of whom will be represented. In circumstances where the Act does not give performers' CMOs an ability to carry out extended collective licensing, and in the absence of an arrangement between the producers' CMO and the performers' C…

I move amendment No. 7: In page 4, to delete lines 19 to 36.

I move amendment No. 8: In page 4, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 280 of Principal Act 4.Section 280 of the Principal Act is amended by— (a) the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (g) of subsection (6): “and (h) where the scheme is intended to include and to be operated not only on behalf of rightsowners who have authorised the appli…

I move amendment No. 9: In page 4, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 281 of Principal Act 4.Section 281 of the Principal Act is amended by the substitution of “otherwise authorised it, as specified in that certificate” for “exclusively licensed it, as specified in that certificate”.”.

I move amendment No. 10: In page 5, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 288 of Principal Act 5.Section 288 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of “, or, it is incorporated in a sound recording which qualifies for copyright protection under Part II of this Act” after “this Chapter”.”. This discrete additional amendment to section 281 is to address …

I welcome the fact that the Minister of State is taking on board that there may be a need for further examination. In some ways, when you put amendments, you hope you are proven right but you are also hoping you are proven wrong because that means the officials and those who are better at drawing up legislation have covered the angles where, on this side of the House, we sometimes see an issue, an…