David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for her response. I also thank the Members who spoke in support of the Bill. Drafting legislation is complex. We have to call a spade a spade here because we have all been in this position. We have not yet been in government and, hopefully, at some point we will be. We certainly have been in opposition as has the Minister. Others have been in government and in opposition. When we are in opposition we have very limited staff, as the Minister knows. It is very difficult to draft legislation. I do not ever remember a Bill brought forward by a member of the Opposition where a Minister came in and said it was a perfect Bill, that the Government would support it, that there was no need for amendments and that the job was done. As we know, this is not how a parliamentary democracy works. Even Government Bills brought forward very often have a lot of Government amendments that must be introduced, sometimes at the 11th hour on Report Stage. I am illustrating the point that this is how legislation is drafted. If the heart of the Bill, as the Minister says, is sound then it should be supported and allowed to proceed to Committee Stage.

I will bring this back to what we are speaking about and the reason we tabled the Bill in the first place. What was the rationale for the Bill? Respected journalists were blacklisted and banned from appearing on a certain radio station and certain media outlets because they worked for other media outlets. The owner of that organisation decided he did not like what they were saying or what they were writing and he took this course of action, as other people have said.

6 o’clock

The only thing the Oireachtas could do, including the Taoiseach, was write a letter. That was it. We all wrote a letter and nothing happened. It reminds me of what happened in a completely different situation when we were left powerless when it came to people who needed the support of the State, namely, the closure of Clerys. The Minister may remember the case. The company was broken up, its assets removed and sold and its workers left high and dry. Again, the State could do nothing about it. We saw this in the case of the Debenhams workers when we also raised concerns in the Chamber. All we got from the Government then was tea and sympathy and statements that nothing could be done about it.

We are not powerless. We are the Oireachtas and our job, as legislators, is to legislate and ensure that where wrong is done, sanctions, penalties and recourse to fairness are available. If there is unfairness in how the law is being applied or if a licence issued by the State is being used or misused in any way, we must ensure citizens have recourse to justice and having bad decisions overturned. In this case, there was no such recourse.

I listened to the Minister's contribution and I accept her point on the need for changes to this Bill precisely for the reason I gave, namely, that we can only do what we can with a Bill. I accept there will always be unintended consequences that can be fixed but I do not accept that we can kick the can down the road for 18 months, hope it will not happen again and forget about it because - in the eyes of the Government - Communicorp Media has been sold on. That is not the way to do it. It is exactly what we did in the case of the Clerys workers and in other circumstances. However, what happened to the Clerys workers was repeated time and again and every time it happens the Government asks what it can do, it does not have legislation and is powerless to act. It is as if we are impotent in this House when it comes to being able to solve problems, put legislation in place and address these problems. That is fundamentally untrue. I will be blunt and say the political will does not exist to deal with this issue. It is not that we do not have the ability as legislators to do something about it. We do but the political will does not exist.

It is not clear from the Minister’s speech what the Government is saying the remedy should be. She did not give us even a glimpse of one. She spoke about looking at this issue over the next 18 months. How would we look at it? What would the format of this “looking at it” be? It will not be through the Oireachtas committee because the Bill will not even be sent to the sectoral committee. What will the Department do? My guess is it will probably do very little, if anything. This goes back to the experience of previous speakers when a timeframe is given that a Bill will be revisited in 18 months in the hope that it will go away and even if it does not go away, the Government will not deal with it anyway. It shows real disrespect for the Opposition when that happens.

I concur with the remarks made about pushing back against any attacks on journalism. I have seen these attacks on social media and I have called them out. They are wrong. Journalism is a profession, the same as politics. I have seen many politicians abused on social media, sometimes on my own timeline on social media accounts, and I have called it out. Every time I see what I believe is someone being abused on social media, certainly on my timeline if I have posted and have some control over it, I will call it out. Even if I do not have control and it is not on my timeline, I will call it out. I have done so in the past and I will do again. In more recent times, it was to do with a disgraceful article written about the appearance of certain female politicians. The Minister may remember that case. We have a responsibility to call out abuse, including abuse of journalists.

I mentioned what happened in the United States for this reason. Donald Trump created a toxic culture that the media were the enemy of the people. That was a very dangerous and deliberate tactic on his part to turn a section of the electorate that he saw as his base against the media so that no matter what he did or what wrong was done, the media were the enemy. That is how he wanted his supporters to perceive the media. We can never allow that to happen in this State. We have to protect freedom of expression and a free media and defend journalists, who are not perfect as they will admit. Sometimes we have robust exchanges with people in the media in the cut and thrust of politics but we should always call out abuse when we see it. Equally, we have a responsibility to deal with discrimination and discrimination occurred in this case.

The Minister, in her statement, notes that "As a Government, it is important that we take account of the right of broadcasters to determine the type of programming and content they wish to broadcast". I accept, of course, that that is their prerogative. Broadcasters are perfectly entitled to decide what topic they will discuss and who they will have on their programmes. No political entity should seek to interfere in that, whether with regard to the national broadcaster or any private broadcaster. We can have our view and engage in discussions but we certainly do not have a right to dictate to any journalist what he or she can do.

The Minister's statement continues: “It is a long-established principle that a decision about who should be invited or not invited to appear on Irish radio or television programmes is solely a matter for individual broadcasters.” I also agree with that. However, the Minister also states: “As the Bill could constrain broadcasters' freedom of action on decisions regarding inclusion or exclusion from programming content, the implications of the Bill in the context of freedom of expression would require further research". I do not agree with that statement because what happened in the case we are talking about was pure and blatant discrimination. We, as an Oireachtas, agreed - and I believe the Minister’s party leader signed the relevant letter - that it was blatant discrimination. We have a responsibility to deal with it and to ensure it does not happen again.

To be helpful, a Cheann Comhairle, I will oppose the amendment but I will not call a vote. I would like the Minister, on another occasion, perhaps in private, to communicate to me over the next 18 months how this Bill or its intent can be progressed in order that we can bring about the changes which are necessary.

See this speech in context