David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I doubt I will take the 15 minutes. I welcome the Minister. This is a Bill I moved a number of years ago, I think in 2019 - the name of the Bill is the Broadcasting (Amendment) (Protection of Journalism) Bill 2019 - responding to particular circumstances of which I am sure the Minister is aware. It was in the lottery of Bills and I am happy it has been selected.

I introduced the Bill, as I said, in 2019, following Communicorp Media's outrageous act of blacklisting in 2017 from its radio stations certain journalists, including highly respected and award-winning journalists, Tom Lyons and Ian Kehoe. In October of that year, Teachtaí Dála from all parties signed a joint letter to Communicorp Media urging an immediate end to the ban with the support of the then Taoiseach and all party leaders. The ban on Currencyjournalists ended in December 2019, thankfully, but the ban on journalists from The Irish Timeswas not lifted until the acquisition of Communicorp by Bauer Media Audio over the summer. I commend the integrity of those journalists who stood in solidarity with their peers in The Irish Timesand who limited their engagement with the offending party until the ban was lifted. It is welcome that this practice was ended by the new administration but it is worrying that it could occur in the first place. It has set a precedent that we must act to end.

The Bill would amend the Broadcasting Act 2009 to make it a breach of contract or licence under the Act to prohibit a member of the National Union of Journalists from communications media for reason or reasons of occupation, employer or employment status. It would ensure that the targeted censorship we have witnessed could not happen again without a mechanism for accountability. At this point in time, there is no accountability and no such mechanism. No journalist should be banned from any communications platform on the basis of their occupation, place of work, who their employer is, the status of their employment or the type of work they perform.

A free, independent and pluralistic media based on freedom of information and expression is a core element of any functioning democracy. We have seen free speech and the free media attacked in very recent times from some quarters in the United States. We in this country who believe in a free press stood against that type of intimidation of the media, and we should not tolerate any intimidation of the media in this State either. No entity, government or private corporation should have the ability to manipulate the media and censor or silence journalists who are recognised as journalists by their adherence to the relevant professional standards. It is not for a private corporation to determine for itself what those standards should be. It was extremely disconcerting when one of the largest media corporations in the State was able to ban respected journalists from respected institutions, whether this was to protect commercial interests or for some other reason.

Large media conglomerates are becoming more dominant and more globally intertwined. Our laws must be robust if they are to ensure protections for a free and open press in a more global and less accountable environment. I am not insinuating there is foreign or corporate interference in the press but we must ensure the safeguards are in place, learning from our experience to prevent any further unjustifiable restrictions.

I have limited the scope of the Bill to members of the National Union of Journalists, NUJ, for a number of reasons. First, professionalism in the media is essentially governed by the terms of membership of the NUJ, as well as the integrity of individuals and editors. The union plays an integral role in protecting the free press, editorial independence, and the rights of journalists and their sources. We have seen that happen time and again. As part of the International Federation of Journalists, it plays a part in the collective, global effort to ensure the safety of media workers, freedom of information, open government and, crucially, plurality of the media.

Second, as we do not have a legal definition of "journalist" in law, to apply the legislation to journalists more broadly might open broadcasters to the possibility of court cases being taken by any person who uses the label "journalist". This could result in frivolous cases being taken that are designed to punish broadcasters for what might be a genuine reason for not including a person or persons on a programme. Limiting the scope of the Bill to NUJ members creates a certain standard or threshold as to who can, or cannot, avail of the legislation, if passed.

Finally, and importantly, I am proposing this threshold as I believe in trade unions and that all journalists should be in the NUJ or another union. Workers are stronger for being members of unions and the legislation supports this. Unions are self-governing democratic organisations and are an important pillar of democracy. They have a wide, constructive and institutional role to play. For these reasons, I am proposing membership of the NUJ as the test for whether a person would qualify for protection under the proposed section 78A to be inserted in the Broadcasting Act 2009.

I will not be accepting the Minister's amendment, the rationale for which is seriously lacking. It is not the first time the Government has proposed to impose a delay on the Second Reading of a Bill brought to the House by an Opposition Member. The Minister is proposing that she needs 18 months to look into the matter and deal with any anomalies she might find in its provisions. This makes a mockery of the process we have in the Oireachtas whereby we propose Bills on First and Second Stages. Committee Stage is there for a reason and I have no problem, as the proposer of this Bill, coming before any committee of the Oireachtas to do what needs to be done in terms of amendments the Government or any Opposition Member might wish to put forward. I do not like this practice of simply kicking the can down the road for 18 months, especially given that this Bill was introduced in December 2019. It seems the departmental officials, in the almost two years since I brought it forward, either did not examine the scope of the Bill to determine what they might see as the complications or unintended consequences arising from it, or this is simply a tactic to kick the can down the road. If the Minister's officials genuinely believe that a huge amount of work needs to be done, that can be dealt with in committee. That is why we have Committee Stage. As I recall, the Ceann Comhairle has raised this issue in the past.

It is very important that there be a consensus across the political divide that the actions by Communicorp Media some years ago were absolutely unacceptable. For a renowned and respected journalist to be blacklisted in a modern democracy is entirely unacceptable. It is equally unacceptable that there was absolutely no recourse whatsoever to achieve accountability. How can that be? The company was simply allowed to get away with its actions until it was bought out. We cannot tolerate that. There must be standards and they must be enforced. That requires legislation, which is why I am proposing this Bill.

See this speech in context