Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Quill and Mr. Shanley for being here today to inform the committee. The information we got at the outset was quite shocking. I refer to the Minister's decision, or hope, to bring forward this legislation before the committee has completed its prelegislative scrutiny work. That makes absolutely no sense to me. I have to concur with Senator Cassells that we might as well not have done the work we have been carrying out for the past five or six months. Members have committed to hours upon hours of work each week, as have the witnesses coming before the committee to give their views on this very important legislation. I say that not to reprimand the officials, but perhaps they can carry the message back to the Minister and the Government. The decision reflects very poorly in terms of the regard of the Minister and the Government for this committee and the work we have been doing for several months.

I am also mindful of the fact that the committee became aware on 18 May that elements of the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill 2019 are to be integrated into the proposed online safety and media regulation Bill. Today is 16 June, only four weeks later, and we are now hearing that this legislation will be brought before the Houses in July, before prelegislative scrutiny is complete and likely before the Future of Media Commission completes its work. Can Ms Quill throw any light on why the Minister did not seek a waiver? We all appreciate there is an urgency in terms of infringement proceedings. We discussed that as a committee at the beginning of the process, as Deputy Munster will remember because she was the one to say it was important that we did this work correctly, robustly and transparently rather than just rush it through for the sake of saving a couple of weeks. We need to finish it correctly and properly.

Does Ms Quill have any idea why the Minister did not seek a waiver of prelegislative scrutiny by the committee on the Bill if it was her ambition to push it through in July? I note Ms Quill eloquently described the relationship between the Department and the Future of Media Commission in terms of discussions, close contact and work. Has the Department had a similar relationship with this committee? If it had, I do not think the revelation today would have been so surprising for the committee. I would have assumed that as part of the work of the Department, it would have been liaising with the secretariat of this committee, just as it does with the Future of Media Commission. If that were the case, members of the committee would have been much more aware that this was the intention of the Minister. Two questions arise in this context. Why did the Minister not seek the waiver of prelegislative scrutiny, as she could have done through the Business Committee? Will Ms Quill comment on the working relationship of the Department with the secretariat of this committee in terms of liaising with it, given that the Department obviously has a very good and active relationship with the Future of Media Commission