Alex White (Dublin South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairman for this opportunity to urge the House to support the Minister for Finance's proposal and to approve the order, including the terms of reference set out for the commission of investigation.

I listened to a number of contributions, including that of Deputy Creighton. It does not seem that the commission of investigation under the Act will be anything remotely approaching something toothless. The commission of investigation has significant powers. The transactions, activities and decisions that are to be comprehended by the terms of reference and the investigation are considerable and cover significant ground - for example, the processes, procedures and controls which were operated by IBRC in relation to the relevant write-offs; whether there isprima facieevidence of material deficiencies in the performance of their functions by those acting on behalf of IBRC, including the IBRC board, directors, management and the staff of the wealth management unit; whether it can be concluded from the information available within the IBRC and relevant evidence and witness testimony as appropriate that the transactions were not commercially sound in respect of the manner in which they were conducted; whether the interest rates or any extension to interest rates or any periods for repayments were given by IBRC on preferential terms and all of the issues that have been raised inside and outside the House; and whether, in respect of any transaction under investigation, any unusual share trading occurred and so on.

It seems to me that the terms of reference and the matters that it is proposed that the commission of investigation will investigate are considerable and wide-ranging and fairly address the undoubted issues of concern that have been raised, for example, in this House by Deputy Catherine Murphy. As such, there is no basis for claiming that the commission of investigation will be toothless, nor does it evince an intention on the part of the Government to refuse to give an account or to refuse to ensure that an account is given for what occurred and the various matters that have concerned Deputies and others.

I do not criticise any Deputy for raising issues on the floor of the Dáil. I have no wish to see any Deputy silenced in any way, whether as suggested by Deputy Creighton or otherwise. It is important that, in our democracy, we have Houses of Parliament in which Deputies and Senators have a very wide latitude to raise issues. They should have that latitude. It is right that it is there; it is a matter of constitutional law that Members should have the freedom to raise issues without fear or favour on the floor of the Dáil or the Seanad.

Media freedoms are also critical. When the matter was raised in the courts, the judge in the case was quick to confirm the clear, manifest truth - frankly, it is difficult to see how it could have been concluded otherwise - that Deputy Catherine Murphy had the freedom to raise these issues in the Dáil and that the media had the freedom to report them. This is the correct position. I cannot remember the judge's exact words, but he said something in the order of it never having been his intent to constrain or restrict Deputies in their role as Members of this House and, critically, nor could it be. There is no wish to silence anyone.

I listened to Deputy Martin on this matter. He was critical of a series of High Court actions and so on that are being brought. I will not trespass on those. As the Deputy fairly stated, citizens have a right to bring actions in the courts. However, it is the courts that make the decisions.

Actions can be brought, but we rely on the courts to make determinations in accordance with the law and in accordance with the Constitution. Any suggestion that the Government was in some way colluding or acquiescing in the denial of media freedom is absurd and quite false. We know this is a matter for media organisations, which are independent in the conduct of their editorial judgment and should remain so. I include the publicly owned media in that. We have seen the consequences of it being otherwise over many years, both here and elsewhere, when Governments or Ministers have taken it on themselves to intervene or interfere in some way in the conduct of editorial decision-making by broadcasters or print media in the public or private sectors.

I reject the suggestion that the Government was or could be in any way acquiescing in any restrictions on the media. Editorial freedom on the part of the media is critical. Frankly, the Government's role in these circumstances is not to step in and seek to put itself into the shoes of the media and go to court to defend the media. It is to ensure the legislative environment in which the media operates is sufficiently robust. I have not heard anything from Deputy Martin or others to suggest that the legislative environment is anything other than robust. It may well be that it is amenable to amendment or change. If so, we should hear what those proposals and criticisms are. Deputy Martin knows well enough that stepping into court to address those issues is not a matter for the Government or any Minister; it is a matter for the media organisations themselves to do so. That is what they did and it was correct that they should have done so. There is no suggestion of an attempt to silence the media.

For many years, and not just because of the position I currently hold, I have regarded the freedom of the broadcasting and print media as being of the highest and most critical importance in our democracy. If the laws are not sufficiently strong to deliver that, or to ensure that is the case, it is open to us as legislators to change the law. We changed the law last year by introducing a particularly strong legislative provision, the Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2014, which contains a significant section relating to media mergers. Indeed, it is the first ever such Act in our jurisdiction. It sets out very clear criteria and a very clear basis on which the Minister can come to a conclusion in respect of media plurality and the undesirability of allowing any one undertaking to hold any significant interest within a sector, or across different sectors of the media business in the State. The legislation in question was debated on all Stages in this House last April. Deputy Martin's party was involved in the debate on it, but it made very little contribution to the debate on the media mergers aspect of it. I take it, therefore, that Deputy Martin and Fianna Fáil were in full agreement with the provisions of that legislation. It is right that they would be, given that for the first time we now have an opportunity for a Minister essentially to intervene in circumstances where there is a belief that there would be an adverse effect on the plurality of the media in this State arising from a particular media merger proposal. These decisions and proposals were brought to these Houses by this Government. They are reforming measures in the area of media.

My colleagues have addressed other areas of reform in the course of the past four years and more in areas such as freedom of information. Legislation dealing with lobbying has been introduced. The Oireachtas has agreed to these practical steps taken by the Government to ensure openness and transparency in our public affairs. None of these things was ever done by the party opposite during the many years it spent in government. It is appropriate now that we should ensure we understand what is our role here as legislators. We need to ensure a Member of the Dáil may raise issues here without fear or favour. The Government has a responsibility to ensure any public concerns are addressed properly, for example, in the form of a commission of investigation, as we are doing in this case. When the judge is appointed, we should allow him or her to get on with the work of investigating the matters put before him or her. He or she should then have an opportunity to report back on the findings in respect of the matters that have been raised. That is the role we have and the role the commission of investigation will have. We should allow the process to get under way now. We should ensure there is a timely response and a timely report, consistent with the opportunity and the necessity for the investigation to deal with each and every one of the matters before it.

See this speech in context