Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I recognise the work of my colleague, an Teachta Cullinane, in this regard. It is important legislation and, indeed, as the Minister herself has stated, media plurality and freedom of the press are essential parts of a functioning democracy. I am a bit confused by her contribution. She said she wanted to draw our attention to the adoption of the Council of Europe resolution on the safety of journalists, and went further to state that journalists "also require an enabling environment for freedom of expression and media freedom in which vigorous public debate can thrive". That is grand. That is contained in resolution and it is stated that that should be done. Then we bring legislation to the House, which attempts to go some way towards that. It would certainly make a contribution to that sentence, which, in and of itself, is simply just a nice thing that one might like to do but not a thing that will actually happen. This legislation seeks to put some structure on that, but for some reason, that is not deemed to be a priority and it has to be kicked down the road. That is where there was a contradiction in what the Minister said.

On the one hand, she stated that the legislation is necessary, and I believe her party was a signatory to the letter that was signed at the time the ban was put in place. However, now the ban is no longer in place, she stated that given that the last of the aforementioned bans was rescinded following a change in Communicorp Media's ownership in 2021, the Government does not consider there is an urgent requirement in the short term for legislation of this nature. I find that outrageous, actually. It is either necessary or it is not. If it is necessary, let us build on the work that has been done by an Teachta Cullinane. If it is not necessary, the Minister should say so. We find ourselves in this kind of in-between space, where the Government is not opposing the legislation. Indeed, it is opposing very little at the moment. This is not the only Bill it has failed to opposed outright, as referred to by Deputy Ó Ríordáin. The Government is not opposing the legislation, but it is saying it is not necessary now, although it might be necessary in a while. The Government is just waiting for the next billionaire to come along and put in place another ban and attempt to destroy the career of another group of journalists. They could work for another publication or any organisation. The Government is content to wait for that to happen and then perhaps to act in haste. However, we have time now. The Ceann Comhairle, an Teachta Cullinane and Deputy Ó Ríordáin referred to the practice of kicking things down the road for 18 months with the argument that more time is needed to consider the legislation.

It is like the Government is saying it needs more time to consider it or that it will do it but just not now. This is nothing short of disrespectful to the committee process and the people here who give of their time. The Government does not expect that every piece of legislation brought to the floor of the Dáil will be perfect and will work and will not require scrutiny. This is what Committee Stage of legislation is for. On Committee Stage we have an opportunity to interrogate the legislation.

What the Minister is effectively saying is that we should do it, or perhaps that we should not do it as the Minister is certainly not committed to it, but that we definitely should not be doing it now. The Minister is content to wait for the next billionaire to come along and for the next group of journalists to be blacklisted or banned or whatever word she wants to put on it. This sends a very dangerous message to people working in journalism. Importantly too, as has been alluded to, it sends a very dangerous message to anyone considering a career in journalism.

The Bill seeks to make it a breach of contract or licence under the Broadcasting Act to prohibit a member of the NUJ from communications media for reason or reasons of occupation, employer or employment status. As I understand it, most journalists are members of the NUJ. The Minister referenced other trade unions from outside the State of which they might be a member. They are all part of a European or global union movement. These are small issues that could be addressed. This is exactly the type of thing that Committee Stage would be an opportunity to do.

There was a chilling effect, and it was discussed by my colleague, Senator Lynn Ruane, who commissioned a very important report into this area. A concentration of media ownership is not good for journalism or democracy. It is not healthy. The notion that the Government is content to park this until the next billionaire comes along or there is another chilling effect sends a very poor message. I urge the Minister rather than seeking to kick the can down the road to accept that this legislation is necessary and that it complements the resolution the Minister signed. It does not undermine it in any way but enhances it. It is a necessary element to put some structure on what the Minister has committed to, which is that journalists require an enabling environment for freedom of expression and media freedom in which vigorous public debate can thrive. The Minister is content for this not to happen for 18 months. This sends a very poor message not just to members of the press but to anyone considering a career in journalism.

I urge the Minister to withdraw the amendment and engage with the democratic process we have in the House and the committee rooms. If there are issues those issues can be teased out. If amendments are required those amendments can be considered and made as appropriate so the message goes out from the Chamber to journalists that we respect what they do, that we want them to be protected in their work and that we as legislators are prepared to use our powers to legislate in their favour and in favour of protections for this group of workers.

To do what the Minister is proposing sends out the message that perhaps the Government is not that committed to freedom of the press or protecting journalists, is not interested in doing anything about it now, and is content to wait until the next billionaire comes along. This is a very poor message to send out from the Chamber. I urge the Minister to reconsider the amendment, back the Bill and allow it to proceed, as all legislation must, through the procedures we have so it can be scrutinised, enhanced if necessary and amended as is required.

See this speech in context