Vol. 493 No. 3
8 Ms McManus asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if she has received the report of the review group which was asked to advise her on how best to implement certain recommendations of the Commission on the Newspaper Industry in relation to the regulation of ownership, merger control and concentration of media ownership; if not, when it is expected that the report will be received; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [15776/98]
53 Mr. O'Shea asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment when she will obtain recommendations on the implementation of the report of the commission on the newspaper industry with regard to the Competition and Mergers Review Group; the plans, if any, she has to introduce legislation in this regard; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [15914/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 53 together.
The Competition and Mergers Review Group was established, under the chairmanship of Mr. Michael Collins, by my predecessor with the following terms of reference: to review and make recommendations on the mergers legislation in the context of legislative consolidation; the effectiveness of competition legislation and associated regulations; cultural matters in the context of the Competition Act, 1991, and in particular, section 4(2) of that Act, and appropriate structures for implementation of the above legislation.
I informed the House on 6 November 1997 that I had asked the Competition and Mergers Review Group to advise me on how best to implement certain recommendations of the Commission on the Newspaper Industry in regard to the regulation of ownership, merger control and concentration of media ownership. The work of the review group is complex and wideranging and is making steady progress. I am hopeful that it will report to me later this year. I do not wish to anticipate the findings of the report and will, therefore, wait until I have considered the report's recommendations before deciding what legislation is required.
Is the Minister concerned about the extent of the concentration of ownership in the media? Does she consider an abuse of that dominant position took place in a recent controversy in this House about which I do not want to elaborate?
I am concerned about the concentration of media. There is no doubt there is one major player and I was not happy with some of what I saw recently. I read the Deputy's article in Magill on my way back from the United States last week and he made some valid points.
I commend the Minister's taste in literature and appreciate her remarks. It is eight months since she told the House she had charged the review group with bringing forward advice on the implementation of these recommendations and a great deal of time has elapsed. There are critical issues in terms of diversity and plurality in coverage of public affairs and so on. Is it not urgent that this should be addressed? She said the group will report to her before the end of the year, which is 13 or 14 months after it was charged to do so. Is that not an unconscionably long time?
I wish I had the report earlier and I agree with the Deputy. I am concerned about the dominant position, particularly in the media, where there is a need for diversity and plurality. One of the hallmarks of democracy is having a free press and competition in the media and one must also be concerned about cross media ownership. I wish the group would report sooner, but I understand from my officials that it will report after the summer. Hopefully when I receive the report we will be in a position to bring forward amending legislation. That is my intention. I looked at this issue before referring the matter, as did my predecessor. I looked at the Commission on the Newspaper Industry report and many issues were dealt with such as low cost selling, defamation and ownership and dominance. Many of these issues were examined. Some are not easy to act on because of difficulties they pose, but ownership and diversity is an area where we can move forward.
Is the Minister concerned that it is taking so long for the group to report back? I have tabled questions consistently since she set this task for this group and she has not been able to take any action. Is she willing to adopt the procedure forced on her because of the threat of legal action where she introduced minor amendments to the copyright legislation prior to introducing the substantive Bill? Are there elements of the commission's report that she could implement prior to receiving the report of the review group? Will she consider looking again at the recommendations of the commission to see what elements she could introduce in smaller Bills?
My colleague, Deputy Kitt, has worked extremely hard on the copyright legislation since he took office. It is major legislation given that the law has not been updated since the 1960s and one section of the Department has worked constantly on it for a long time. It is because of complaints at international level that we have to move forward and I accept that. We had to go into fast track and get outside help which has been very useful. It will be two years in September since my predecessor referred many of these issues to the mergers review group. It is a long time and they are very busy people. It is a good group of people and perhaps contact can be made with them so that they could make recommendations in certain areas in advance of their overall report. That is my intention. I do not like interfering with groups that have been established by telling them what to do, but it would be helpful to me if we could see their recommendations on this specific issue sooner rather than later.
I recall the Minister and Michael McDowell were very vocal and at times vehement that this issue be addressed a number of years ago when in Opposition. She was also vocal in regard to semi-State companies and the commercial State sector in which the Government is opening up competition. We have heard the mantra and demands for competition in the semi-State sector in telecommunications, air travel and so forth. This is a double standard. The Minister crossed to the far side of the House and suddenly ran away from competition in one of the most valuable areas of our culture, namely, newspapers.
Deputy Broughan is making a Second Stage speech. A question, please, Deputy.
Will the Minister accept Deputy Michael D. Higgins's Bill at least as a first step towards bringing about real competition in the media?
This is not a simple issue. One has to examine the question of dominance, ownership, cross-subsidisation and below cost selling which is not easy to establish when one is dealing with economies of scale and publications from other jurisdictions. A wide basket of issues has to be addressed. Having read the commission's report and met a number of groups which have concerns from different perspectives in relation to these issues, I considered it was better to give it to the expert group since we are looking at the whole issue of mergers and competition legislation in general. I want to await its recommendations before advancing in this area. It is better to get it right rather than rush legislation. I do not regard this as an emergency. When it comes to issues involving the media, we have to talk about it in its broadest sense, not only the print media but all forms of media to ensure that as far as possible there is competition and diversity. Something that is extremely important in a healthy democracy should be preserved and enhanced as much as possible and the legislation should facilitate rather than hinder that.
I welcome the Minister's assurance about promised legislation. I presume the major player to whom she is referring is a former rugby player. Will the promised legislation ensure that the media and newspapers cannot use front and middle-page editorials to attack Members for statements made in the House, a gross abuse of the position of the media? Will the Minister's proposed legislation control that type of activity?
The Minister mentioned copyright. Is the Minister aware that the name, Enterprise Ireland, is registered and patented by the small firms? Given that the name is associated with small companies and that Enterprise Ireland is geared towards Irish companies will there be a conflict of interest?
When the Minister referred to the media being broader than newspapers, I presume she is referring to the prospect — and to the fact that it has already happened in some areas — of the same source of dominant ownership going into other areas of media, electronic and otherwise? Is she saying specifically that in any prospective legislation that is likely to be addressed? What is her view on the regional argument, in other words the argument advanced that we are in a somewhat peculiar and unique situation in Ireland, given the extent of penetration by English language newspapers from outside this jurisdiction?
In reply to Deputy McCormack, I am not speaking about any particular individual. I am not saying somebody will be prevented by legislation from criticising anyone. That would not be healthy, what we want is freedom, choice and diversity and editorial freedom in particular. In relation to Deputy Rabbitte's comments, I am speaking about the wider issues. I do not know how retrospective it can be. People have been given certain assurances and there are legal entitlements that flow from that. That is the reason that dealing with this issue is complex. Clearly, somebody who has ownership of a vehicle which has the capacity to make programmes, inform, educate, entertain and so on has a dominant position. We need competition throughout the economy. Competition is good for the economy. Competition has brought about change faster than anything else. It gives consumers greater choice and often better quality at lower prices. We cannot be isolationist in the way we view competition. It has to be thorough and we must have it in as many sectors as possible. The Government has an unprecedented record so far in relation to competition issues and agreeing to dispose of some State companies or interest in State companies with a view to encouraging competition, particularly in the area of telecommunications. We cannot confine the issue of competition to some sectors, we have got to ensure every sector is capable of being competitive.
In the context of what we referred to the mergers review group, I hope it will examine this issue in the broadest possible manner with a view to making recommendations. I hope we can have those recommendations as quickly as possible as legislation may be required, either specialist legislation for this sector alone or more comprehensive legislation to deal with the wider issues involved in competition and mergers legislation.
