Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

On Deputy Niamh Smyth’s point, I fully appreciate the work the committee has been doing in regard to the Future of Media Commission. It is tying that in with the future of democracy and of media literacy. That is extremely important. We would hope to be able to make a decision on this soon. However, I would be upfront with the committee and say that the fundamental issue will be how we fund media into the future. This has been the subject matter of previous Oireachtas committees. It will be a matter for the committee to take on the challenge.

The objective is to have a free and independent media to underpin democracy and the fundamental values we share. We can see from Ukraine what the likes of Russia and authoritarian regimes want to do. We see the proliferation of fake news and the deliberate attempts to manipulate media and news. We need a different funding template for Irish media into the future, which encompasses all strands, such as broadcasting, print and online. That funding template must have complete separation between the State and media in terms of influence, or any perception of influence, by the State over annual funding allocations, etc. That is the view I hold. If funding is to be wholly from the Exchequer, there is always the danger that a future or a current Government could decide in a budgetary cycle to say it is going to clip the media's wings and say it is taking out so much. That would not be satisfactory for the independence of the media, which should be at an arm’s length from the Government.

We see even in the European Union that governments are now influencing their own media and there is a proliferation of what is called "government media" and government media channels. It is important that we avoid that in Ireland. Those are the issues that are exercising the Government at the moment in terms of decisions we have to take and the funding template for media. We want to publish the report with decisions and recommendations that the Government is going to take on this. There is no doubt that on the broadcasting front, public service content is under pressure. The national broadcaster is under financial pressure. I acknowledge that.

On the other side, into the future, there need to be checks and balances from a public expenditure perspective. There are now good systems in place with the Committee of Public Accounts, etc. Hopefully, those decisions will be taken in the next number of weeks.

I agree with the Deputy on the resourcing of the commission. There were comments earlier about a drain from the public service. We will have to get real about pay rates. We are establishing commissions and policing mechanisms that are going to police some of the biggest private sector operators in the world. That will have an impact on how we attract talent into the State side, in order to enable us to achieve the objectives of legislation. There must, therefore, be an open mind on how that resourcing happens and the level at which pay and conditions are set for certain key people who we will require to do this job competently. Fully resourcing the commission will involve that. It will also involve numbers because it will be a significant body. There can be no foot-dragging from the beginning in relation to that. It must also have legal teeth.

On the issue of the individual complaints mechanism, I would ask that the committee would reflect on that too. It is popular to do that. We must make sure that we do not create a scenario that would tie up any future commission in a plethora of individual complaints that would be to the detriment of the more strategic objectives of the commission. It is possible the commission could do nothing other than individual complaints into the future. We, therefore, need to be careful about how that is designed. I am just being honest here and expressing my own thoughts on that because I have not had an opportunity to do so in a public platform.

We need to give very serious consideration to that as well. Nobody wants to have the committee tied up almost from the get-go in terms of that strand, as opposed to the other strands that it needs to work on a policy or strategy front and so forth. There are many examples around agencies that we have created. That is the reality. That would not necessarily be the intention, but that could very well be the outcome.

I hear what Deputy Flanagan said on the level of resourcing. This has been a consistent theme of this meeting. A Secretary General will talk to Secretaries General, but I think it is more of an Houses of the Oireachtas Commission issue as well and what it is seeking from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. We certainly did not get an impression, as I said earlier, that there were any major issues here in terms of the overall envelope for the commission.

On Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom’s assertion, I regret the juxtaposition of any idea that unilateral legislative initiative to circumvent the protocol is about the Good Friday Agreement. I would have an opposite view. Any unilateral legislative by the United Kingdom Government that would seek to undermine or circumvent the protocol would have a very destabilising impact on the Good Friday Agreement and would be very unhelpful. I have communicated that to the British Prime Minister. We had a very frank and honest discussion on Tuesday morning last. I stressed that I felt the best pathway was towards an intensification and a professional engagement between the United Kingdom Government and the European Union in respect of the operation of the protocol to minimise any impacts on the free flow of goods into Northern Ireland. I believe that is attainable and it was close to being attained last autumn. Lord Frost made a very unhelpful intervention when he raised the European Court of Justice the night before the Vice-President of the Commission, Maroš Šefovi, was publishing his proposals on medicines, sanitary and phytosanitary, SPS, and customs. Maroš Šefovi’s proposals came following detailed consultation and engagement with all of the northern parties and with northern businesses and industry. This was a result of significant collaboration by him. In addition, he engaged with the European member states. He went much further than perhaps some member states would have wanted him to go. It was an awful pity that Lord Frost intervened at that stage to try to derail it, essentially, and put unionism in a difficult position as well. Unionism’s main concerns were on the movement of goods and trying to minimise checks, which I understand. I understand where unionism is coming from and Vice-President Šefovi does too. The whole idea was to see if we could minimise the impact of the operation of the protocol but the goalposts keep on changing.

I also said to the British Prime Minister that the British Government cannot continue to say that the European Union is being inflexible, is not moving and now we must have a change of the mandate, whatever that means. That is not true. There has been consistent movement from the European Commission but it has not been reciprocated. As a result of the lack of reciprocation, there has been a growing erosion of trust on the EU side. No matter what is produced on the EU side, it does not get reciprocated. There is an absence of clarity around what the British Government’s landing zone is in respect of these negotiations and there has been a continuing and consistent lack of clarity as to what the British Government’s landing zone is in respect of the protocol issue. It seems to change and now we are into a new iteration of this with the idea of a unilateral legislative initiative in the application of the protocol in British domestic law. That would be a breach of an international treaty, which would have very significant negative repercussions for the European Union’s relationship with the United Kingdom and, indeed, with ourselves as well.

In my conversation with the British prime minister, I reiterated that unilateralism is not good here. The Deputy will know from his experience that what had underpinned the peace process before, leading into, and post Good Friday Agreement has been both governments working together. That has been the anchor of the peace process and of the journey we have all been on collectively. There have been great gains as a result of the two governments working to anchor that. Unilateralism flies in the face of that key point. It is extremely important that unilateral actions are avoided because they will only work to the detriment of the situation. We both agreed that it was very important and imperative that the institutions would be restored and that the democratic mandate given to the elected representatives by the people of Northern Ireland would be upheld in the form of taking seats in the Assembly and forming an Executive.

I spoke to all party leaders in the North. They all said to me it is their view that restoration of the institutions should happen. The DUP was very straight up in saying it wants the protocol issue resolved before it goes into the Executive. The leader of the DUP made it very clear that taking up the role of deputy First Minister was not an issue or an impediment to taking up office. I take all leaders in good faith. If there is a will, there is a way. I believe sincerely that there is a landing zone for resolving the issues. One example is the medicines issue. That was highlighted way back as a big concern and issue. There were some legitimate points raised on the UK Government and unionist side. It was comprehensively dealt with. It is an illustration of progress that can be made. However, that was all done on the EU side, obviously in engagement with the UK Government. Nothing ever comes back, and that is a problem.

On resourcing and the heads of the Bill, I will talk to Deputy O’Donnell again some time perhaps on that. The pre-legislative scrutiny could go on for quite a significant time as well if we were just at head of Bill stage. I take what he said in that some aspects are missing. I understand that point.