My thanks to Sinn Féin for tabling this motion tonight. This is about far more than artificial intelligence. It is about the value of human creativity, hard work and intellectual property and whether they will continue to be recognised and protected or we allow them to be exploited without consent, without transparency and without fair payment. The success of the arts and the culture sector over recent decades is something that we in Ireland can be and are immensely proud of. From The Cranberries to Fontaines D.C., Dermot Morgan to my good friends Foil, Arms and Hog, Maeve Binchy to Sally Rooney, we have produced a wealth of talent in this country. In Dublin South-West, we are proud to count three-time Oscar winner for visual effects Richard Baneham as someone who is from Tallaght, as a constituent, as one of our own. The famous painter Seán Keating lived in Rathfarnham and painted two beautiful murals in the Church of the Holy Spirit in Ballyroan. WB Yeats was also a constituent, though just slightly before my time. We in the Labour Party are deeply proud of our record in this space. It was Michael D Higgins as the first Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht who helped reshape the vision for arts in this country. We have become a powerhouse across books, poetry, television, documentary, comedy, animation and gaming. Irish directors, writers, actors and craftspeople consistently punch far above their weight and long may that continue. I also highlight the vibrant ecosystem that surrounds creative arts like the festivals, community cinemas and local arts organisations that create space for Irish talent to be celebrated. We have to ensure we retain artistic spaces in our towns and cities around this country. Art is a fundamentally human endeavour. It resonates with people because it reflects our experiences, emotions, imagination and hopes. It should always remain that way, a human endeavour. Every song written, every screenplay composed, every poem published, every performance delivered and every piece of art created is the result of human labour. It represents, as Deputy Gibney has said, years of practice, dedication, talent, sacrifice and lived experience. These works are not data to be harvested; they are the property of the people who created them. For many artists, the royalties earned from those works are not a luxury; they are the income that allows them to pay their bills, support their families and continue creating. Today, that all faces an unprecedented threat. Generative AI is developing at extraordinary speed. Most of us here recognise the opportunities of AI. It has the potential to at least improve productivity or accelerate research, submit parliamentary questions and so on. Like Sinn Féin, the Labour Party is not opposed to innovation. We support responsible AI development, but innovation cannot become a licence for exploitation. There is a simple question. If an AI company builds a billion dollar product using the life's work of Irish artists, musicians, writers and performers, should those creators have any say in how their work is used? Should they be told it has happened? Should they be paid? The answer to all of this is obviously "Yes". Unfortunately, this Government has failed to show any urgency on this issue. For years, artists have warned that they already operate in an industry characterised by low incomes, precarious employment and insecure working conditions. Research commissioned by the Arts Council has repeatedly demonstrated this reality. The basic income for the arts scheme, while very much welcomed by those who can access it, has only reinforced what artists have been saying for decades: that creative workers are expected to survive on unstable and often inadequate incomes. Instead of strengthening the rights of artists and their ability to support themselves in a moment of enormous technological change, Government has been slow to respond. While other countries are actively examining how copyright law must evolve, this Government has remained largely reactive, unfortunately. While all companies rapidly commercialise products built on copyrighted works, Irish artists are left wondering whether their own music, writing or performances have already been used without their knowledge. There is no transparency, and it is pretty obvious that big tech is increasingly retreating from the very idea of that. We have to be more proactive in this space. Research commissioned by CISAC estimates that one quarter of music creators' revenues could be at risk by 2028, representing cumulative losses of approximately 10 billion over five years. Media composers working in television, advertising and film are expected to be among the hardest hit. Streaming platforms are already reporting enormous growth in AI-generated content. Deezer, for example, has reported that approximately 75,000 fully AI-generated tracks are now uploaded every single day. Even more alarming is the finding that the overwhelming majority of streams involving fully AI-generated music were linked to fraudulent activity, diverting royalties away from genuine creators. The exploitation and dehumanisation of creativity by big tech is not some conspiracy. It is already happening. Every day we delay action to address this, the gap between technological capability and legal protection grows wider. If an AI model has been trained using copyrighted music, books, scripts or artwork, artists deserve to know this. Transparency is not anti-innovation; it is the foundation on which trust, licensing and legitimate commercial relationships can be built. At the moment, there is no accountability or meaningful copyright protection. The current opt-out system under European copyright law has proven inadequate. It effectively places the burden on individual artists to discover whether their work has been used in the first place. This is a virtually impossible task when the training datasets are hidden behind commercial secrecy. That is backwards. The burden should rest with those building commercial AI systems, not with individual artists trying to defend rights that already belong to them. This motion also recognises another growing threat, which is the cloning of voices, likenesses and artistic styles. Technology now allows performers' voices to be replicated almost perfectly. Actors, and even TDs, can have their likenesses copied. Musicians can find AI systems generating songs that imitate their unique artistic identity. That is not just a copyright issue. It is an issue of consent and personal dignity. It is also an issue of protecting people's livelihoods. No artist should wake up to discover that their voice has been copied, their image replicated or their artistic identity commercialised without permission. That is why stronger personality rights must become part of our legal framework. I also address a wider cultural issue. Ireland's greatest strength has always been its storytellers, be they writers, musicians, actors or composers. They have shaped how Ireland is understood and viewed across the world. If we allow a future where AI systems endlessly reproduce derivative content trained on those creators without permission or payment, we risk hollowing out the very creative ecosystem that made Ireland culturally rich in the first place. There is an argument that AI can support creativity as an assistive technology, but it can never replace it or exploit it. I think that is the balance this motion seeks to achieve. I welcome that the Government has withdrawn its countermotion because, to date, it has yet to demonstrate the level of leadership required to tackle this issue. Ireland currently holds the Presidency of the Council of the EU. That presents a unique opportunity to lead the European conversation on AI, copyright and creators' rights. Instead of simply administering meetings, Ireland should be shaping policy to protect Irish artists. This motion offers practical and balanced proposals. I will make a couple of points with a view to strengthening what is already in the motion. It calls for support for the creation of collective licensing models. There is a bit of nuance here, in that a one-size-fits-all approach might not be best suited across different categories of artists. Different rights-holder sectors will have different licensing requirements. For example, a collective model might work well for book publishing, but not necessarily for music publishing. The second point is on existing copyright law. The motion states that it is insufficient and, while I do not disagree, a large part of the issue is that it is not enforced as well as it could be. I would have no issue if we were to introduce new legislation in this space, particularly with regard to AI, but we cannot allow the same situation to arise as is currently the case, where it is just flaunted with no repercussions. Overall, this is an excellent motion. I again commend Sinn Féin and Deputy Ó Snodaigh in particular for all the work he has done with respect to the arts. The Government often tells us it wants Ireland to become a leader in AI, but leadership in this area is not just about attracting technology companies to come here. It is about recognising and protecting people from the negative impacts and ensuring the benefits are enjoyed by everyone. We can and we must protect our creative sector while embracing the potential for innovation. Leadership means ensuring Irish artists are partners in technological progress, and not casualties of it. If Government is serious about supporting our creative industries then now is the moment to act. Once artists lose control of their work, it becomes exponentially harder to restore those rights and there is obviously no art without artists. As I said, it is a fundamentally human endeavour. We should reaffirm our commitment to Ireland's creative future, and to our actors, musicians, screenwriters, designers, animators, comedians, cinematographers and all those whose artistry enriches our lives. Above all, we must insist that our creative industries remain industries built on imagination, emotion, experience and collaboration, and not plagiarised AI-generated slop.

Sentiment score: 0.20

Okay; I apologise.

Sentiment score: 0.54