I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I wish to share time with Deputy Róisín Shortall.
Media Ownership Bill 2017: Second Stage [Private Members]
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the Minister, Deputy Naughten, and I hope he is semi-recovered, at the very least.
We are very pleased to bring this Bill before the House today. The Bill is short because it is deliberately focused. Of course, while we know there is a range of measures to be addressed in the media area, we believe this group of points must be prioritised as a matter of urgency. In the first instance, there is a major problem in that there is a lack of any kind of a database which details exactly who owns what on the media landscape in Ireland. This applies across all platforms, including the digital, broadcast and print media, and it urgently needs to be addressed.
The regulatory measures cannot just be about box ticking. There will either be regulation that works or there will not, and it is obvious it is not currently working. The regulations have been found wanting at the first ask, which surely indicates the need for urgent change. The regulations were introduced in 2015 and set a maximum figure of 20% for a significant interest test, and anything above that was deemed to pose a threat to the public interest. The issue is a topical one at present, not least because of the proliferation of fake news and fears for the objectivity of the press internationally. It is also topical at home because we are in the process of a public consultation in the context of the proposed acquisition of the Celtic Media group by Independent News and Media, the dominant print media company in Ireland.
The issue is not new. It is important in a much wider context and has been unsuccessfully handled for decades due to Government inaction on the issue of media plurality. In its plainest definition, media plurality is defined as ensuring there is a diversity of opinion available across media outlets and preventing any one media owner or voice having too much influence over public opinion and the political agenda. Many issues were raised at the communications committee yesterday, an important one being the sustainability of titles if this merger does not go ahead. However, what of sustainability if the merger does go ahead? We know employment practices and working conditions have changed dramatically at INM, with significant functions being outsourced to the UK, resulting in job losses here. For example, there was a loss of 16 jobs in the print setting function and the work of photographers will be used across a number of titles, which will reduce the amount of work they get and the sustainability of their employment. Of course, the recent example of the treatment of the INM pensioners shows the position of workers' rights within that company. In addition, this business model puts pressure on the viability of neighbouring titles, which will ultimately further reduce diversity.
Plurality is not simply defined by plurality of opinions. It is also defined as diversity of persons with control of a media business so as to mitigate against one news provider becoming so powerful that it exerts too great an influence on the opinion-forming of citizens and of the political agenda. It is accepted that the media has a crucial role in the creation and sustainability of well formed and healthy democracies. One of the safest ways to protect against fake news or partisan reporting is to do everything in our power to protect the diversity of ownership on the media landscape.
As I said, it is not a new issue. As far back as 1973 the National Union of Journalists expressed concerns regarding media plurality. While there have been various flashpoints over the years, effectively, nothing has changed. There is an ever-increasing concentration of ownership in the hands of a smaller and smaller number of entities. The most obvious of these flashpoints was in 1996, when a commission on the newspaper industry in Ireland was established following the Irish Press group closure. In a reply in December of that year, following the report of the commission, Deputy Richard Bruton, who was the Minister with responsibility at the time, said: "The social, political and cultural role of the indigenous newspaper industry which distinguishes it from other industries consists primarily in its duty and in its ability to reflect a sense of national identity in an informative, integrative but also critical fashion." The report of the commission itself warned: "any further reduction of titles or increase in the concentration of ownership in the indigenous newspaper industry could severely curtail the diversity required to maintain a vigorous democracy." That was 21 years ago and those points appear to have been forgotten, as we watch the ownership of the media become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
Even within our public broadcaster, the informative, integrative and critical element can all too often be questioned. We know that RTE dominates the broadcast media in Ireland, yet there are legitimate concerns as to how panels are chosen, the diversity of opinion and even issues such as the gender make-up of programmes. Of course, there are some superb journalists working in the industry and there are fantastic examples of good journalism being practised here.
This week there was the "RTE Investigates" documentary. There have been superb pieces of work by journalists such as Peter Murtagh in The Irish Times, Justine McCarthy in The Sunday Times online, Tom Lyons in The Sunday Business Post and Paul Melia in the Irish Independent. I could go on naming people. It is important not to let the bigger concerns regarding diversity cast a shadow over the work of individual journalists who continue to provide impartial and objective journalism. However, we cannot ignore the very clear warning signs heralded by many of those journalists working in the industry. Eoghan Harris, in a notable example, wrote a piece in the Sunday Independent explaining why he felt he could not write anything on the Siteserv scandal in the Sunday Independent. Sam Smyth wrote in his Mail on Sunday column that when the management changed in Today FM, management instructed him not to discuss the Moriarty tribunal or the mobile phone licence which had been won by the station's new owner. Anne Harris claimed she came under pressure for her editorial line while editing the Sunday Independent. Those warning signs are easy to address with a very simple move by the Government to make it clear that nobody who already exerts too great an influence in media ownership outlets will be allowed to increase that influence and, where it has proven to be too great an influence, it will take the necessary steps to rectify that situation in the public interest. Regulation is vital and Government most certainly has a regulatory role. The Ryanair-Aer Lingus share issue was one pretty good example. The intention of the recently introduced rent regulations capping increases at 4% is correct, although the system is flawed. It is in the public interest and satisfies the public interest test.
The business model for the newspaper industry in the early part of the 2000s relied heavily on the construction and property sector for advertisement. That model was unsustainable for the media industry in the same way as it was unsustainable for the economy and Irish society. The construction sector effectively became the paymasters. It is not fake news; it is a fact to say that the same construction and property sector was one of Fianna Fáil’s biggest funders. When election time came, funding came out to play, giving Fianna Fáil the opportunity to run huge advertisements in the local and national media. It effectively gave that party a competitive advantage and further contributed to the proliferation of groupthink that was so evident during the boom and ensuing crash. I am reminded of a quote by the former Fianna Fáil Minister for Defence, Paddy Power, who was very funny and could always find a way of capturing something. He might not appreciate me rehashing something he said. I might even be quoting from the wrong piece of scripture because I am not particularly au fait with it. I think he said it was about St. Paul on the road from Damascus. He repeated this over and over again, "Lord, make me pure but not just yet." I can hear him saying it even now. He might have been describing Fianna Fáil, which continually says it wants to be principled but it is really a hostage to pragmatism. If Fianna Fáil Deputies agree with the principle of media plurality, they have to vote in favour of this Bill. If they disagree, they should vote against it but they should not insult us by abstaining. The Second Stage debate is the debate on the principle. Committee Stage is where we make the amendments. We have supported legislation that Fianna Fáil has put forward on that very basis, where we have concerns. We are perfectly willing to accept amendments. We hope this Bill gives the Government the opportunity to make the simple declaration of intent with regards to protecting media plurality in Ireland.
I too wish the Minister well in his recovery. As my colleague, Deputy Catherine Murphy, has said, the issue of concern about media ownership is nothing new. The concentration of ownership of the media in Ireland has been a constant point of concern. The NUJ has been raising this issue over a period of approximately 40 years and it has been a feature of the political agenda since the mid-1990s and rightly so because we should be concerned about it. The protection of a free and pluralistic media is a key component of a functioning democracy. This principle is enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. While some progress has been made in addressing the matter in recent years, our media markets remain among the most concentrated in the OECD. Recent research conducted on behalf of the EU Commission found that our media plurality is at high risk of an over-concentration of ownership. This is specifically due to an absence of clear legal barriers and any kinds of thresholds of maximum media ownership. I believe all sides of the House will acknowledge that Deputy Murphy has done very important and Trojan work on this issue. The aim is to progress the Bill she has brought before the House this afternoon. That does not necessarily mean that everybody has to agree with every word in it but need merely to accept the principle underpinning the legislation and on that basis, we are seeking support for the Bill.
As it stands, responsibility for this area is divided between the BAI, the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, CCPC, and the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment. However, it is the Minister who has the final say on the approval of media mergers. The Bill does not interfere with this distribution of power in any way. It extends the remit of the Minister and provides far greater scope to the Minister’s regulatory function on existing media arrangements. While the BAI and CCPC play a key advisory role, neither their remit nor skillsets are necessarily aligned with the important public interest. We have seen them adopt a strictly economic approach in the past. For example, as Dr. Roderick Flynn has noted, during its discussions of Communicorp’s 2008 acquisition of Emap’s radio holdings, the CCPC’s predecessor, the Competition Authority, exclusively focused on the potential impact on the radio advertising market. Consideration of the 9% holding by Communicorp's owner in Independent News and Media was explicitly excluded on the ground that the newspaper advertising market was entirely separate to the radio advertising market.
With this in mind, the centrality of the public interest within the provisions of the Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2014 was a positive step forward. The Act grants the Minister the authority to draw up guidelines on media mergers and to outline the criteria against which their potential impact is to be judged. Crucially, it also gives specific consideration to ensuring diversity of ownership in defence of the public interest. The current guidelines set 20% shareholding in a media business as the upper limit for a significant interest and a potential threat to the public good. However, transactions have taken place in the past which exceed this threshold. The Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom cites the lack of a legally specified maximum threshold on cross-media ownership as a point of concern in Ireland. Furthermore, it suggests that decisions taken prior to the introduction of the 2014 Act have facilitated a concentration of media across the print and radio sector in particular. As a result we must consider how we can rebalance this situation to protect the public good. In the age of fake news and alternative facts, never has protecting a free and diverse media been of greater public importance. This is not to say there is necessarily some nefarious intent behind all such mergers and acquisitions. For the organisations involved, the economic logic of expanding their reach is sound. Reproducing or repurposing existing content costs a fraction of its initial production. Businesses seeking to take advantage of economies of scale is the natural result of a poorly regulated market. That has to be accepted.
The impact of this behaviour has the potential to be hugely damaging. If allowed to continue unabated, the number of media platforms may remain constant but the scope of the views represented within them may become increasingly limited. We know all too well about the impact that a lack of dissenting views can have. In the years leading up to the economic crash, for example, the property bubble was often ignored or even denied outright. All too often the narrative of a soft landing was put forward. However, it is important that we do not solely judge the impact of concentrated ownership on the editorial line of a platform alone. We must also be cognisant of its influence on the resulting business model.
The attitude of media owners to the importance of quality journalism plays a key role in determining their output. Increasingly the public interest value of output plays second fiddle to viral content generation and advertorial pieces. Reduced public service content and editorial resources inherently lead to less coverage of public bodies, local authorities and the Parliament. This content, which may have little value in attracting revenue, plays a vital role in holding those in positions of power to account.
If the marketplace of ideas is to survive, it is vital that we ensure there is space for alternative interpretations to be expressed. We cannot allow a small group of companies to dominate the media across all its platforms. We believe that to achieve this, media mergers must be assessed on their cumulative influence across all aspects. The Bill proposes that we accomplish this by amending section 28A of the 2002 Act to include consideration of the combined digital reach across its platforms. While the Minister may currently give consideration to these factors when assessing a potential merger, placing this provision on a legal footing puts beyond any doubt the need to assess media companies on the sum total of their influence. To allow the current situation to continue unchallenged is to do a disservice to the public, and allows a clear threat to a fundamental pillar of our democracy to stand. The importance of a free and pluralistic media cannot be overstated.
This Bill from the Social Democrats is limited in its scope but it clearly sets down a marker which should be supported by Members on all sides of this House because we know that the importance of a free and pluralistic media is central to our survival as an open and free parliamentary democracy. I therefore urge Members on all sides of the House to support the Bill.
I call the Minister. He has ten minutes. I join other Members in welcoming his return to the House.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle and the Members for their kind words.
I thank Deputies Catherine Murphy and Shortall for facilitating this debate on media plurality as I believe a strong and pluralistic media is at the heart of a free and open democracy. An important tool in protecting and supporting media plurality is the current media merger regime established under the Competition Act 2002, as amended. This process provides for the assessment of proposed mergers and acquisitions which qualify as a media merger under the Act. During this process, a proposed transaction is first assessed by the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, CCPC, on competition grounds. Should the CCPC clear the transaction to proceed, it is then referred to me to conduct an initial assessment of the likely impact of the transaction on plurality in the media in the State. In making my initial assessment, I must have regard to the relevant criteria provided for in the Act, the guidelines on media mergers prepared by my Department and the notification material provided by the parties, among other matters.
Following my assessment, I have the option to allow the transaction to proceed, to allow it to proceed with conditions, or to refer the transaction to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland for a phase two or full media merger examination. In those cases that are referred for a phase two examination, the authority must make a recommendation whether the merger should be allowed to proceed, whether it should be allowed to proceed with conditions, or whether it should not be allowed to proceed. I must then make a final decision on whether the merger should be allowed to proceed, whether it should be allowed to proceed with conditions, or whether it should not be allowed to proceed. Many of the terms used to conduct these assessments are defined in section 28A of the 2002 Act and these definitions are of crucial importance to ensuring the effective operation of the assessment process.
Turning to the Bill, I want to address the second amendment first, as it raises a number of serious concerns. The main issue here is the proposed power to retrospectively break up media businesses. Serious concerns have been raised regarding the location of the proposed amendment to section 28L of the principal Act, which provides for the guidelines on media mergers. I am advised that such a power would require primary legislation and, as such, the location of the proposed amendment is therefore inappropriate.
On the subject of retrospective action, in the current legislation the Oireachtas has not provided for powers to retrospectively examine, review or intervene in past media mergers from a media plurality perspective because to do so would raise significant constitutional issues.
One of the difficulties that would require to be balanced is the right to private property, as enumerated as a fundamental right in Article 43 of Bunreacht Na hÉireann. While provision is made for the Oireachtas to regulate private property rights, interfering with these rights on an ex post facto basis raises a myriad of legal complexities, including the potential for compensation, none of which is addressed in this Bill.
Another difficulty is giving a Minister the power to break up an existing media business if its share of a media sector or across media sectors exceeds a certain threshold. The latter is not defined in the Bill. One of the consequences of the proposed use of a definite threshold is that, as one media business fails, another media business could, by default, find itself above the thresholds set, and the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and the Environment would have the power to break up that business. Furthermore this proposal directly interferes with the freedom of the media. What media business would criticise the Government if the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and the Environment had the power to break it up at any time? This level of uncertainty and risk is not conducive to a healthy media sector and could lead to a situation where media businesses could close because investors were afraid to invest, which - despite the good intentions behind the Bill - would damage media plurality.
I want to briefly turn to the first amendment, which is redundant because "reach" is already defined in this section as "the proportion of a population or audience that consumes any part of the output of a media business in a given period" and this definition encompasses any "reach" associated with a media business, whether digital or analogue. Furthermore, if we were to delete other appropriate measures, it would weaken the legislation as it would restrict my ability as Minister for Communications, Climate Action and the Environment to use other metrics for measuring diversity of ownership as they become available.
I want to address an issue Deputy Catherine Murphy highlighted. She said that no database exists of the ownership of media, but that is not the case. A database of ownership is contained in the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland's Report on Ownership and Control of Media Businesses in Ireland 2012-2014.
I have said previously that there is an issue with respect to how we support quality journalism. We need to consider having a broad debate on journalism and content, because it is important that we have content on which people can rely. So-called "fake news" is an issue that came up in the US presidential elections. It was an issue that I addressed at a debate in Dublin a month prior to it raising its head during the US presidential election. It is something that is a big challenge in this technological time but there is no viable way of legislating to prevent it.
Investment in quality journalism, I believe, is the only way. This may be through supporting journalists individually through bursaries or it may be that one would support some kind of public service remit across journalism, whether in print or broadcast. I have no fixed view on it but, as Deputy Murphy knows, I have asked the members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment to consider these complexities surrounding the funding of quality journalism and come forward with their suggestions. I look forward to hearing their proposals in this regard.
The public has respected institutions such as our national newspapers. As with our national broadcasters, it is important that this trust remains. It needs to be supported and this broader debate is taking place on my instigation.
Finally, I believe the current regime to assess media mergers is working well. The matters and criteria which I must take into account when conducting an initial assessment, and which the BAI must take into account when conducting its full assessment, ensure that I, as Minister, can make a decision which protects media plurality in the State. I do not intend to make any amendments to the current system, especially amendments which, I am advised, are legally unsound, despite the Deputies' best intentions. For these very important reasons, I oppose the Media Ownership Bill 2017. Despite the good intention, I therefore recommend that the Bill be opposed.
I too rise to show Fianna Fáil's recognition of the sentiment behind the Bill.
I wish to address some of the comments Deputy Catherine Murphy made about the decision we have taken to take an abstentionist position on the Bill. It is clear that our party believes strongly in a free, independent and pluralist media landscape. The State has been served exceptionally well in the main by the media generally across the State and through the generations. We have great concerns that the media might be controlled or dominated by a small group of people. This would not be in the best interest of the State and the question as to how to deal with it has bedevilled a number of Administrations over the years.
In Ireland, the Competition and Consumer Protection Act requires that new media mergers be assessed to ensure they are in the public interest and will not result in socially undesirable levels of ownership and its concentration. However, the Bill seeks to extend this by making it possible to retroactively address ownership concentration. This presents significant legal and financial issues. It is for this reason that we will abstain on the Bill. I do not wish to be unkind to Deputy Catherine Murphy but, while the intention behind the Bill is worthy and is recognised by me and my party in that regard, the means by which she seeks to execute it are such that it would be difficult to amend the Bill on Committee or any other Stage. I do not see a foundation on which one could amend the Bill. The nub of the legislation Deputy Murphy presents is retroactive in nature and, while I am no legal expert, it would be news to me if that principle existed in Irish law. To the best of my knowledge, it does not. Over successive issues that have arisen over the years, various Attorneys General have found that the enactment of such a law, or of laws generally within that space which seek to address retroactively a matter of concern, is not in line with the Constitution. From what the Minister has said, it seems to me that this also is the advice available to him. For this reason alone, I do not think the Bill is the vehicle by which we should seek to address an issue of importance. The fact that we will not vote against it should make clear that we believe very much in the principle Deputy Murphy seeks to highlight. Had she sought to take a different strategy and in the same Private Members' time sought to address the matter by bringing a statement or motion to the House, rather than seeking to raise the matter through the enactment of legislation, I believe we would have found more common cause.
Fianna Fáil recognises there are issues with media ownership in Ireland being too concentrated. We believe in a diverse and independent media and support steps to ensure it is delivered. However, as I said, I believe the Bill as is is unfit for purpose and has the potential to be unconstitutional. I am not qualified to tell the Deputy for sure that it is but it is clear there would be real issues there. As I said, there are significant legal concerns associated with creating legislation that is retrospective. There is also the potential for financial issues. I think there would be the question of compensation if, as the Minister has stated, he was empowered or minded to break up certain entities in a manner done at a point at which legislation was taken to be retroactive. Divesting individuals of their media property rights could require the State to pay out hundreds of millions of euro to affected parties. I acknowledge the Deputy's bona fides and I do not think she would want this to happen as an unintended consequence of any such legislation. For these reasons, the Fianna Fáil Party will abstain on the substantive issue of the Bill. However, in principle, we are happy to work with Deputy Catherine Murphy and others in this House who believe there is a necessity to protect this media landscape on the broad, independent and pluralist foundation on which it finds itself. We also recognise, however, that in a time of such flux and change, the very significant changes occurring to print and to digital media in particular, even apart from the broadcast media, pose very significant challenges and have the potential to allow for an over-concentration in one ownership rather than the broadly-based approach I think every right-thinking person in this House wants. We are happy to work with Deputy Murphy and others to try to find an appropriate solution to this issue.
I too commend the Deputies on their Bill before us. Its intention is worthy and the issue affects many regional newspapers like The Anglo-Celt in County Cavan, the Westmeath Examiner and others, which will be hugely affected by what may happen in the future. There is no doubt but that the print media are certainly under pressure in the context of their importance and integrity in journalism. They are hugely important. With Twitter, the digital media, Facebook and all other such media forums and outlets, true and worthy media and storytelling are hugely important. Technology has moved forward so quickly that the print media find themselves under a new type of pressure, which must be addressed. However, Fianna Fáil will abstain on the Bill. We will work with those involved in journalism in our regional newspapers on what we can do to find a way forward so that there is security in those local jobs and that the independence and integrity of the media are forthright and of paramount importance in all of this.
I join my colleagues in welcoming the broad intent of the Bill. I understand why the Deputies have proposed this legislation. While its intention is good, we must consider the impact the legislation will have. We agree that media plurality is vitally important for a number of reasons. We know we must ensure that we have a diverse media and that it is independent and can provide the public service it has provided for many years. This public service, providing news and information in detail to the public, allows us to have a properly functioning democracy, something we all value, particularly those in this House as parliamentarians. Every day we see democracy in action. We see the work the Parliament does and know the vital role the media play.
However, we must also ask ourselves why this merger is taking place in the first place. Many small news publications are struggling to come to terms with the changes happening in the media today.
One of those publications is one of my local papers, The Connaught Telegraph. It provides a very good news service which means a great deal to the community, but there are several jobs at stake as well. We cannot forget that people are employed in several of the publications which are the subject of this merger. The media is changing. While I do not think this Bill is constitutional or will solve the problem, it starts the conversation and allows us talk about the changes in media and how we want to address those. It also raises the question of what the State should do to help with that change and ensure we have a vibrant, functioning media that continues to provide a public service.
I share the Deputies' concerns as I do those expressed by many Deputies and media commentators as to the potential for one or more individuals to have too much influence over or ownership of our media. I fully appreciate the challenges and the difficulties this could bring to our democracy and country and want to address this issue. We have probably let the ball drop on this matter and it has probably progressed too far for us to address what happened in the past. I want to work with them to address the issue but we cannot ignore the fact that retrospective law is bad law. I know the Deputies have put forward the public interest argument. If, however, we take it on this issue, where do we stop? Retrospective law means that something which is fine today will be illegal tomorrow. As citizens we must ensure we know the laws we operate within daily. If I do something today that I believe is legal and am told tomorrow that it is not, this presents an array of difficulties and challenges and we should not get into that area.
Deputy Catherine Murphy said that Fianna Fáil is a hostage to pragmatism. Being pragmatic means doing things sensibly and realistically. I hope and always aspire to be pragmatic in my work as a legislator. We have to be because the laws we pass affect the citizens outside this House. Being pragmatic, realistic and sensible about how we do our work should be the cornerstone of how we legislate.
I disagree that we can address concerns raised here today on Committee Stage because amendments will never address the unconstitutional issues this Bill presents. The Deputies have failed to address adequately the serious constitutional concerns raised in the House. This was brought to their attention prior to today's debate. As Deputy Dooley pointed out, they have also failed to address the serious financial implications of this Bill for the Exchequer were it to be passed. These are serious concerns that deserve to be addressed and I do not see how they can be addressed on Committee Stage.
The talk about fake news and recent campaigns in other democracies have brought this issue to the fore, but we cannot react irrationally. We must maintain a properly functioning democracy. We must work to ensure all our legislation is properly passed and scrutinised and that we consider the implications of that legislation post enactment. The Deputies have failed to consider properly the implications for the jobs of the individuals concerned in, and the communities served by, all those titles subject to this merger.
While I join my colleagues in commending the intention behind the Bill and sharing the Deputies' concern about media ownership in this country, and while I agree with Deputy Dooley that we need to work together to address this issue, the Minister was correct when he spoke about the need to resource our media and journalists properly. In recent years journalists do not appear to have time to be journalists. The push and the demand is to get news out immediately. It can often be at the expense of verifying whether the information is correct. This is a broader issue that we as a Parliament need to address seriously because it is spiralling out of control. While I appreciate the concern in respect of this merger, one of the good things that bringing this Bill to the House has done is to highlight the question of how to protect a properly functioning media to ensure we have a properly functioning democracy. Fianna Fáil will abstain on this Bill for the clear reason that we support the intention behind the Bill but we cannot support its unconstitutional aspects, knowing it is bad law and will not address the issues the Deputies seek to address.
First, I should declare my involvement in the media. I worked as a presenter and producer with Shannonside-Northern Sound for 20 years. I also presented a programme on Irish television for a period agus uair amháin bhí mé ag obair do TG4 ar chlár ceoil. I was also a local correspondent with the Longford Leader. I have a major interest in this issue.
Like my colleagues, I acknowledge Deputy Catherine Murphy and Deputy Shortall bringing this to the House and giving us an opportunity to discuss something very important. We should focus on this continually because we do not want our media to be controlled by a few. Media are very important in this country because the first radio broadcast took place on 24 April 1916, the time of the Easter Rising. Since then, there has been a huge expansion of media, print, broadcasting, film and Internet. According to a survey, 85% of Irish people consistently and daily listen to national, regional or local radio. Fianna Fáil introduced local radio in 1989. Prior to that there was pirate radio. Commercial radio was not allowed. That brave decision opened up regional and local media. It was a very good decision. Local media cover stories well and make sure all issues of concern are aired or printed. That is very important.
The importance of media plurality is recognised through the new regime established by the Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2014. That Act introduced a new media merger system. Decisions on individual media merger cases are now officially the responsibility of the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment. At the time Deputy Bruton referred to it as the ultimate decision, whether a media merger is in the public interest.
The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission will determine if a merger has taken place and should be allowed go ahead on competition grounds. That happened not too long ago under the 2014 Act. Maybe in the future we will need to review those Acts to ensure the plurality exists. I am a protector of and advocate for free media, ensuring it is not owned by a few outlets or powerful individuals. I do not think the people would ever allow that to happen.
There has been a lot of talk in the debate about fake news. It is amazing that, although many of us do not like the policies of the man who introduced that, Mr. Trump, we are all talking about fake news. It is interesting that it has been brought into the debate. It is important to acknowledge the very good journalists in the print media and on radio and television in this country who have exposed many situations that needed to be exposed. The Deputies should not come to the view that because we are abstaining on this Bill it is a bad thing. It is obvious to us that there are parts of the Bill which we would agree with and we would work with the Deputies to improve them.
We fully support what they are trying to do in the Bill in relation to plurality. It is very important we keep a focus on that. As my colleagues, Deputies Timmy Dooley, Niamh Smyth and Lisa Chambers, have pointed out, there could be constitutional issues with this legislation. As a party, we do not feel we can support it at this stage. Therefore, like my colleagues I will be abstaining.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. The issue we are discussing goes to the heart of how society is organised, who calls the shots and who does and does not have influence. Although we have some very good journalists in this country, I do not think anybody could deny with a straight face that some people have a dominant degree of power, control and influence or that a strict ideological line is peddled in certain sections of the media week in, week out. We welcome the introduction of this Bill. We will support it and vote in favour of it. The current rules with regard to media monopolies in Ireland can stop future monopolisation but cannot deal with the current status of media monopolies in Ireland. This Bill is important, given that Independent News and Media is attempting to expand its ownership empire by purchasing the Celtic Media Group. This would give it an additional seven regional titles across five counties.
In October of last year, a report on the concentration of media ownership in Ireland was launched by KRW Law and Doughty Street Chambers, having been commissioned by my party colleague, Lynn Boylan, MEP. The report highlights a number of concerns regarding the development of a media monopoly in this country. Ireland currently has one of the most concentrated media markets in any democracy. The report correctly points out that media plurality is an essential component of a well-functioning democratic society. It is dangerous to have Ireland's media market dominated by the State broadcaster and one individual. The difference is that the State broadcaster has a public broadcasting role. We saw that in action on Monday night when "RTE Investigates" did good work to highlight the plight of those who are living on waiting lists. Our media landscape is potentially on the verge of a further loss of diversity, depending on the decision on the proposed purchase by Independent News and Media of the Celtic Media Group. I urge the Minister to prevent this from happening.
In March of last year, the state of media ownership in Ireland was heavily criticised in a report conducted on behalf of the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom by Dr. Roderick Flynn of Dublin City University. The importance of media plurality was recognised in the Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2014 which ensures nobody will be able to acquire a share of more than 20% in a particular section of the media. However, it contains no mechanism for adjusting the status quo where one individual or body already controls such a high level of media ownership. The provisions of the Act are confined to new entrants into the market. It is disingenuous to suggest there is no possible way of addressing this situation. This dismissal is challenged in the report which acknowledges that there are constitutional issues in Ireland with regard to retrospective legislation. I heard the possibility of change being dismissed again today by politicians who lack the will to take this issue seriously.
Article 43.2.1° of the Constitution, which relates to private property rights, sets out that, "The State recognises, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this Article ought, in civil society, to be regulated by the principles of social justice." Article 43.2.2° states, "The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good." There we have it. That is the Constitution. Therefore, these rights to private property are qualified by rights that must have regard to the principles of social justice and the common good. What issue of the common good could be more important than free expression, by which I mean giving all sections of society an opportunity to enjoy fair coverage, to express their views and to receive accurate information? I believe there is nothing in the Constitution that would restrict the Government from taking action on the concentration of media ownership. If there is, we could have a referendum.
It occurred to me as the discussion was developing here today that since I was first elected to this House six years ago, I have developed a pain in the back of my neck from listening to nonsense about unconstitutionality every time we go to do something. When the Labour Party and Fine Gael went into government together in 2011, they made a big commitment to do something about upward-only commercial rents, but each time the issue came up there was a suggestion that there might be a constitutional issue. They said they could not take action because private property rights were protected in the Constitution. We have had referendums in this country on important issues. Depending on where one stands politically, one might agree that we have also had referendums on not-so important issues. Even if we feel the constitutional position in this regard is not sound, we can always have a referendum on it. The next time a referendum is due, we could print one more ballot paper to enable the people to make a decision on this matter. The people are sovereign. We should stop using the Constitution as a reason for doing nothing. We are supposed to be living in some kind of a republic. If it is a republic, the people are sovereign. We should get on with it and stop using the Constitution as an excuse every time this issue comes up.
The lack of media plurality is having a damaging effect on our democracy. Legal threats against the Oireachtas and Members of the Oireachtas are being carried out at the moment in an attempt to prevent us from discussing legitimate concerns about the banking affairs of Mr. Denis O'Brien with the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation. Given that the bank in question was owned by the State, surely all of its activities are in the public interest. In this light, it is simply untenable that the purchase of the Celtic Media Group by Independent News and Media, which would add more regional and local titles to the vast empire controlled by Mr. O'Brien, will be allowed to go ahead unchecked. According to the KRW Law report I mentioned at the outset, the extent of Mr. O’Brien’s media ownership, combined with his willingness to use the State’s restrictive libel laws, creates a "perfect storm which threatens news plurality and undermines the media’s ability to perform its watchdog function". This is evident in the way the media has attacked and misrepresented those who want to create a more equal and fair society. The evidence is there. One can see it when one opens certain newspapers. Any objective examination of the newspapers in question will see where the balance of coverage is.
When I raised this issue with the chief executive of Independent News and Media at an Oireachtas committee meeting yesterday, he said that left-wing views are carried throughout his newspaper. That is not the case. Those who buy a certain newspaper have to go to the back page before they find the Gene Kerrigan column. Week after week, the newspaper in question runs page after page of articles attacking the party I represent. It churns out partial and false information as part of its anti-Sinn Féin rants. That is the best way I could describe it. It is all about consolidating the financial position and the wealth of the people who own these titles, which I would describe as viewspapers rather than newspapers. These people push certain views every week and every day to consolidate and hold onto their positions. Mr. O'Brien launched an all-out attack on the KRW Law report when it was published because he does not want any criticism or examination of the dominance of Independent News and Media.
The Government does not seem to be taking the issue of media plurality seriously. It should be getting more attention at a time when media moguls and people who own sections of the media are running to the courts to try to silence Members of the Oireachtas. The report I mentioned earlier recommends that the Government should establish a cross-disciplinary commission of inquiry to work with the Council of Europe's recently appointed committee of experts on media pluralism and transparency of media ownership to provide accurate information and expert analysis on the position in Ireland.
A commission of inquiry has also been requested by the National Union of Journalists, which has done good work over the years in this regard. The Government should take these recommendations on board and establish this inquiry to protect Ireland's media market and ensure diversity of opinion is heard into the future. We have reached a point where those with vast wealth also have vast influence. In the case of Mr. Denis O'Brien, it goes much further, as along with having the vast influence, he has a dominant position within the media industry which is responsible for conveying news and information to the nation.
We are meant to be in a republic and for any individual or small group to have such power and influence over this vital industry is very damaging for democracy. It cannot be tolerated in a State that calls itself a republic. People of all views and none should have their views published.
Deputies Mick Barry and Bríd Smith will share time.
The Anti-Austerity Alliance will be supporting this Bill on media ownership. We believe the concentration of media in the hands of a small number of rich, ideologically driven people has been the trend in this country since the foundation of the State and before it. The example springs to mind of Mr. William Martin Murphy, who begged for the blood of Mr. James Connolly in the Irish Independent, and Mr. Eamon de Valera, who launched the Irish Press as a vehicle for the Fianna Fáil Party. We now have Mr. Denis O'Brien, with a majority share in Independent News and Media, INM, after wresting it from the hands of the former billionaire, Mr. Tony O'Reilly, trying to purchase Celtic Media. Another billionaire, Mr. Rupert Murdoch, recently increased Newscorp's stake in the Irish media with the purchase of a number of radio stations to sit alongside his newspapers.
Reports conducted by the European University Institute have ranked Ireland as having a high risk to media freedom, measured at 74%, because of concentration of ownership. They claim, correctly, a lack of media plurality, which is put at 54%. The position was summed up well by the socialist, Leon Trotsky, who spoke of the division of labour among the owners of the press. The gutter press told lies nine times out of ten and the quality press told the truth nine times out of ten to make the lie more effective. Despite the battles between the billionaires to own more of the media, one factor unites all their titles, which is a hatred of the left and the working class if it threatens their interests.
I can give some examples from recent times in this country. On 18 November 2014, the Daily Mail had the headline of "Democrats who believe in mob rule" after the Jobstown water charge protest, accompanied by pictures of Deputies Ruth Coppinger and Paul Murphy. "Democracy under attack", stated the Sunday Independent the following week, again after the water charge protests. The media latched on to the peaceful sit-down protest in Jobstown, with quotes like "Pure thuggery", "mob rule", "fascist intimidation led by people with no interest in democracy", "a violent element hijacked the protest" and "hooligans". All these were an attempt to damage and divide the biggest working class movement in decades on the issue of the water charges and ensure those charges stuck.
In recent weeks, right-wing ideologues like Mr. David Quinn have freely denounced Deputy Paul Murphy and the Jobstown Not Guilty defendants as having engaged in "street battles". Deputy Murphy and his co-accused have been found guilty in the press before a trial has even occurred. Apparently, in the name of democracy, a climate has been created in which a 17 year old boy could be found guilty of false imprisonment and a major attack on the right to protest could be launched, with a democratically elected Deputy potentially being removed from his position at the behest of a judge. Defendants could face years behind bars for protesting. The Jobstown Not Guilty campaign will ramp up in the next two months before the trial and it will bring out what really happened on the day and at the protest, as distinct from what we are hearing in the millionaire-owned press.
Some of the other Deputies have mentioned that in 2015, it was reported that Ireland is exposed to a high risk because of its concentration of media ownership. According to findings of a report from the European University Institute Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom, we are at risk. Deputies in Sinn Féin referred to the report commissioned by Ms Lynn Boylan, MEP, which indicates Ireland has one of the most concentrated media markets of any democracy, with the two main controlling entities being RTE, the State broadcaster, and an individual businessman, Mr. Denis O'Brien. Along with the ownership of Communicorp and his shareholding in INM, Mr. O'Brien's "litigious profligacy", as it is termed in the report, in other words, his tendency to sue - the report details 12 lawsuits he has taken against Irish media outlets and personnel in the past six years - is noted. He is listed among the 200 most well-off billionaires in the world. His company, Communicorp, has 40 radio stations across Europe, including two main stations in Ireland, Newstalk and Today FM. He is the largest shareholder in Independent News and Media.
I have sat through a number of lectures in recent days on the committee. I note the Minister is not here now and he was not present when we had these discussions. We were repeatedly told that media plurality and diversity would not be threatened by the further amalgamation of media involving Mr. O'Brien and INM. I find it ironic that Ms Boylan's serious and significant report was covered widely by the likes of the The Sunday Business Post and The Irish Times, to name but two newspapers, but practically ignored by the Independent News and Media group.
I am not for one moment suggesting that media concentration means Mr. O'Brien or his solicitor will ring an editor or columnist in the Meath Chronicle or any such paper, but without any direct instruction or suggestion, there is what is called in the trade a chill effect. This means one knows, as a journalist or columnist, that to say or write something would not be in one's interest. For anybody to suggest otherwise is pure nonsense.
Some people hold the romantic idea there was once a golden era in the newspaper and media industry when we held everybody to account. I do not hold that idea and, like Deputy Barry, I believe the majority of the media has always been on the side of the rich and powerful and against ordinary workers and protestors. We have never had papers siding with protest movements and people power movements that try to deliver change. However, we must be aware that a concentration of the power of the media in the hands of very wealthy people is a very regressive step for the future of democracy in the country. It is farcical when a Deputy in this Chamber who was the subject of an investigation has been sitting on a committee to examine this robustly. I am referring, of course, to Deputy Lowry.
I support those who have moved the Bill and thank them for doing so. There may be elements that require amendment but we will support it because it is an attempt to deal with an extraordinary position regarding the plurality of the media. This is not just a business matter and it is a question of fairness, democracy, transparency and access to media.
We have always been aware of the impact and power of the concentration of media in certain companies. The Ceann Comhairle will remember that in 1997, when we went out on that fateful election day, the Irish Independent had the headline "Payback time", which was directed against the outgoing Fine Gael and Labour Government. In the run-up to the 2007 election, we saw the rapprochement between the then Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, and the Independent group of newspapers, which also provided a fortunate background to his going to sleep as a defeated Taoiseach and waking as a continuing Taoiseach in that election.
In the report from Ms Lynn Boylan, MEP, she references the Media Reform Coalition report in the UK, which indicates a clear concentration because of three newspaper groups controlling 71% of the newspapers bought in the UK.
I remember the 1992 election in the UK in particular. The Sunday Times, which is part of the Times Group, printed the famous headline urging people to hold their noses and vote Tory after 18 disgraceful years of a reactionary Conservative Government. Of course, following the efforts of Mr. Blair and his triangulation policies or strategy, News International changed course in the run-up to 1992 and began to support the Blairite approach. Unfortunately or fortunately, some years later News International changed tack again. In the past two UK elections, we have seen relentless assaults on the UK Labour Party. We have also seen the relentless campaign by the Conservative newspaper cartel and media platforms. They advocated against the European Union with all manner of spurious scares and claims. Undoubtedly, this formed the backdrop to the concerns of the British people over developments in Europe.
I warmly congratulate Deputies Catherine Murphy and Shortall and the Social Democrats on the work they have done in respect of the Media Ownership Bill and for bringing it before the House today. Deputy Catherine Murphy has had a long interest in the question of media concentration. Her interest began long before the Siteserv issue arose in the House.
The intention behind the Bill is to protect the plurality of the Irish media landscape, which is a critical foundation stone for a democratic society. It would allow for the amendment of the Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2014 and enable the provisions to be applied retrospectively. The Social Democrats Bill is an attempt to ensure that the 20% public interest test that applies to any media merger now could be applied retrospectively to any individual with more than a 20% interest in media platforms.
I listened to the Minister's speech earlier. I am unsure as to what he is doing or whether he will do anything. The position is weak in this area. The Competition Act 2002, the Broadcasting Act 2009 and the Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2014 do not seem to be performing properly on the basis of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland report on ownership and control of media businesses in Ireland for 2012-14. Lynn Boylan, MEP, commissioned a subsequent study, entitled Report on the Concentration of Media Ownership in Ireland. The report clearly showed we are high on the scale. We are not exactly at the level of Russia, Turkey or Saudi Arabia. However, we are certainly up on the scale and there is considerable concentration of ownership. The report also references the report in the UK which showed that concentration was at 71%.
As others have said, the media landscape is changing dramatically and there has been an incredible change in how people are accessing daily news. Hard copy newspapers are effectively dying as more and more of us read freely online. We have seen how the millennial generation tend to eschew buying newspapers. They access the news on free sites or else access free articles in newspapers that are trying to migrate onto websites. Online news sites include Google, Yahoo, those of our newspapers, TheJournal.ie, BreakingNews.ie, Huffington Post and Mediapart in France. These sites are being used by people and are accessed using smart phones by people on daily commutes. The newspaper culture seems to be disappearing. Some sites require subscription but it is difficult to get the generation that has become used to free news to begin to pay for it now. The current newspaper groups have a major advantage in trying to migrate from the hard-copy newspapers to the digital platform. They have a considerable head start over the rest of us who might decide to establish online news sites.
Having said that, media ownership remains concentrated. Indeed, Irish media has always been concentrated. Other speakers have referred to the same chorus every year on budget policy. Most articles advocate for cuts in spending and staying the fiscal course. Many supported the blanket bank guarantee. Historically, the Irish Independent was fiercely and bitterly opposed to Independence. The Irish Times represented the old Unionist ruling class. Indeed, Eamon de Valera and his colleagues had to try to establish their newspaper platform, the Irish Press. Like many others, I greatly regretted the demise of the Irish Press because we lost a fourth essential voice.
Of course, local radio has been a major success. However, efforts to launch serious competition to RTE television and radio on a national level, with TV3 and UTV Ireland, have been poor enough.
We have seen the continual growth of the power of Independent News and Media. This brings us to the main purpose of today's Bill, that is, to protect both diversity of ownership and control of media businesses in the State and the plurality of the media. It is not healthy for the principals of one group to have extraordinary control of the hard copy newspaper industry and, at the same time, control of a swathe of radio news sites.
I referred earlier to the report commissioned by Lynn Boylan, MEP, which provided some invaluable figures for Ireland and the UK. It refers to us scoring 0.7 on the scale from zero to 1, where 1 represents total concentration of media power. We have seen in the past how people have spoken with one voice. Previously, I tried relentlessly to raise the issue of pyrite problems and problems with building in this House. It was a long time before the two major newspaper groups, Independent News and Media and The Irish Times took up the story. For years, they offered extensive property supplements, with nice cosy write-ups about developers' plans and so on. Indeed, they are back at it again. The property supplements are in one section but they are funding the newspapers. Then there is the editorial side. Some of the famous journalists include Stephen Collins, Pat Leahy and John Downing. There is little evidence of them writing articles about the influence of the property industry on the newspapers and what happened to our country in 2009. I warmly support the Social Democrats Bill.
Concerns around media ownership have been doing the rounds since 1999. At the time the report of the Council of Ministers adopted recommendations on measures to promote media plurality.
Radio stations such as Tipp FM and Tipp Mid West Radio are my local stations. Deputy Eugene Murphy, who has just left the Chamber, was a voice of local radio for many years. I compliment his party - I was a member of the party at the time – on setting up local radio on a statutory footing in 1989. There were many pirate radio and community radio stations at the time. We still have wonderful community radio in Tipperary, for example, Tipp Mid West Radio. I compliment the station on the exposure it gives all of us, including myself. Some people complain about it.
Was the Deputy ever involved in broadcasting?
No, I never did any broadcasting but I try to get my message out to the media. I do other types of casting but not broadcasting.
The recommendation presented measures which member states could take in six areas. These included: ownership; regulation of new communications; technologies and services for digital broadcasting; content; editorial responsibility; and public service broadcasting and support measures for the media. All of these areas remain of significant concern. Little if anything has been done at Government level to protect consumers and citizens from the bias that inevitably emerges when the media, in all its forms, are controlled by people of one dominant ideology. We have heard much of that in the debate this evening.
Of course, the Internet and social media have changed the landscape considerably. I salute websites such as TipperaryTimes.ie, run by Paddy Ryan, a Templemore man, as well as AgriLand.ie and similar sites. They are doing what the media should be doing at certain times in exposing situations. I salute RTE as well. We bash the station often enough. The "RTE Investigates" programme on Monday night offered an excellent exposé of the shocking scandal, cover-up, massaging of the figures and deception over waiting lists. I compliment those involved.
It is now possible, by and large, to express views and opinions that would never have seen the light of day in the printed press 20 years ago. This brings with it challenges and opportunities. We have seen that. We have heard debates in recent days about abuse at Facebook and what goes on in Facebook. People are more informed than ever before. They have the opportunity to hold the Government to account in a manner that would once have been inconceivable.
Monopolies are seldom, if ever, a good idea. The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission is toothless and useless and has no effect in any area. We have seen that in many big business areas. Given how important the media are to a functioning democracy, it is even more important that the public view is not shaped by a media monopoly, be it that of Mr. O'Brien or anyone else.
I recall that Denis O'Brien had three daughters fine but was troubled by all the fellas who were coming to court them. Members might remember the song, "O'Brien had no place to go" which was played on a lot of local radio stations, including Deputy Catherine Murphy's local station, I am sure. We are talking here about a different Denis O'Brien, however.
There is wholesale avoidance of covering the banks and vulture funds that are evicting people every day of the week, as well as what is going on in the courts. That is hardly getting a syllable in the media. Why? It is because of all of the advertisements and the property pages, as Deputy Broughan said earlier. That is not democracy. That is not decent media. I occupied a bank one day with a family from Wexford who got an awful beating by thugs on the road. I was weak from doing interviews with every media outlet, including RTE, but not a syllable appeared anywhere because a big public relations firm marched in and all of the media outlets were threatened with advertisements being pulled if they mentioned a word about it. That is despicable in a democracy but that is what is going. It should not be allowed to happen.
It is often said that if we do not read the newspapers, we are uninformed but if we do read them, we are misinformed. That is a fact. The issue of President Trump and how he was elected was mentioned earlier. The media were not very kind to him but people saw through what was going on there. President Trump spoke about fake news and there certainly is a lot of fake news out there. In my native county, a monopoly is buying up every parcel of land that can be bought. Coolmore is a wonderful group in the equine industry, in terms of its prowess and the employment it provides. However, it is the new landlord in Tipperary, the new Cromwell. The only media outlet that will print any words that I utter here on the matter is AgriLand.ie. None of the other newspapers want to touch it because Coolmore is a big, fancy company and it is neither sexy nor proper to criticise it. They mix in the same circles and there is huge sponsorship at stake. That is a denial of what is going on. Families are being destroyed but the media are not interested. It is disgraceful. It was covered on Tipperary Mid West Radio, to be fair. We have good newspapers in Tipperary, including South Tipp Today, the Nationalist and Munster Advertiser, for which the journalist Eamonn Lacey works, and The Munster Express. These are local papers which report local news, thankfully. The national newspapers, however, are not interested which is a pity. There are a lot of very good journalists out there and I am not blaming them for not covering evictions or the occupation of Allsop's, for example. I am blaming the editorial staff. The journalists are interested and come along but when their stories are ready to go, they are pulled because of advertising. Money decides what is printed in newspapers and that has no place in a modern democracy.
This Bill is an effort to address the problem. I am surprised at Fianna Fáil. We might organise a training course for it on how to vote because it seems that it will be abstaining again tonight. There are three voting buttons in here and perhaps they are confused.
We are where we are with the media. There is some open and honest reporting by journalists but at editorial level, that is not happening. I have seen that in so many areas. I have seen it with the cartels in the concrete industry in the context of Roadstone but there has not been a syllable about that either. The media will not criticise cartels like that because they are too powerful. Advertisements and money are more important than the true stories. Deputy Broughan referred earlier to the pyrite issue and for years attempts were made to raise that but it was not covered because certain cement people were too powerful. The small people have been driven out of that industry. We have met small suppliers at Oireachtas committees who told us that the Competition Authority stood idly by and told them that it did not have enough resources to investigate. We have the same situation now with companies buying up other companies. The Competition Authority approves the takeover but they are only taking companies over to close them down so that they will have a monopoly in the market. That is bordering on corruption. I will not say that we have a lazy, inept and lethargic media because we do not; we have good journalists. I know many of them and they work hard but editorial staff are bought and kept and they are not fair or democratic. They have a duty to report issues like those I have just mentioned but they are taboo. So many people have horror stories to tell about bullying, intimidation and evictions and about their fear but there is not a syllable in the newspapers about it. In terms of the Citizens' Assembly and the pro-life argument, again there is a huge media bias against the ordinary people of Ireland who have views they are entitled to express. They want to express them but they are not catered for.
I am very happy to support the Bill presented by the Social Democrats and to have the chance to consider the wider issue of media ownership in our society. The main intention of the Bill is very rational, sensible and reasonable, that is, to take into account a changing, evolving and more digital media world. In a digital world, broadcasters and publishers are acting across a whole range of different platforms and it makes sense to amend our legislation to recognise that reality and to give the existing Competition Acts tools to consider the cross-media ownership issue. That is the central intent of the Bill and I find it hard to understand how people would argue against that. It seems to be a rational description of the reality we face. We all agree on the benefits of media plurality. Therefore, it makes eminent sense to assess media ownership across different platforms and the extent of media reach is one of the key metrics in determining whether there is sufficient competition.
That case was well presented yesterday at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment. That committee, under the 2014 competition legislation, was charged with the task of recommending to the Minister a perspective on the proposed merger between Independent News and Media, INM, and Celtic Media, a smaller grouping of newspapers in counties Cavan, Monaghan, Westmeath and Meath, as well as other publishing endeavours across the country. If one just looked at it as a straightforward newsprint media merger, the case would be reasonably strong because there is no overlap between where INM currently has newspapers and where Celtic Media has a presence. However, I articulated my concern at the hearings yesterday, as did all of the academics present and the National Union of Journalists, NUJ, that if one uses the spectrum of cross-media ownership, the picture is different. The owner of Communicorp, for example, is also the largest shareholder in INM and there is a real concern about crossover. The idea of the owner of Newstalk radio and other local and national stations, which also has a significant interest in some of the main national newspaper titles as well as local newspaper titles, having ownership of more local newspapers raises real concerns. It raises concerns for me. We have not reached a conclusion as a committee. We will divide on the issue, I would imagine but my advice to the Minister would be to exercise caution and to seek to protect media plurality by recognising that cross-media ownership is a real issue.
The presentations from the management in both INM and Celtic Media were very good. I do not dispute the integrity or the professionalism of the people in either company. One comment from the Celtic Media management really struck me. The company is obviously trying to survive in a changing media world. It is trying to develop a digital media presence because, as the Bill before us recognises, digital reach is a critical factor in the evolving media evolution that is taking place. Some local newspapers produce very good digital output but Celtic Media has found that, as good as it is, its digital output is a cost stream rather than a revenue stream.
We must consider what is happening in the media world and in the ownership of media in this country and acknowledge that a large amount of the money generated is now going to international organisations that have huge power. It is not just the media outlets. Sky is cleaning up in terms of being able to get huge amounts of money from subscriptions without having to engage in any additional production of local news here, for example. It does some production for its overseas business, which is welcome, but it does not provide local news content. It is also able to insert advertising with very little regulation and no charge. It carries RTE services at very low transmission costs and is able to benefit tremendously from that. Similarly, cable companies like Liberty Global are able to make very significant revenue here. The transmission companies are benefitting and generating huge revenue.
That has added to the kind of competition that local indigenous media companies are facing because there are companies such as the hugely successful and popular Netflix that often uses subscription revenue streams to provide content. It is very hard to compete against these types of companies because the quality is very good and they are international organisations.
To make it more difficult for local media companies, there are companies like Google and Facebook that take something like €300 million a year in advertising from the Irish market. Increasingly pertinent questions are asked of companies such as Facebook as to whether they are publishing companies or just technology platforms or whether they have editorial responsibility for the stories that are shared on their networks. This increasingly complex digital media world we are in is, more than anything else, characterised by a large number of significant and powerful international companies and a dwindling advertising pie for indigenous companies.
It is the same for print, radio or broadcast companies. RTE is in crisis, as is TG4 and I would say that TV3 is also having a tough time in that advertising market but it has survived, thank God. Local radio stations are in real difficulty, as are our local and national print newspapers. We have a problem. The words used in the committee yesterday were that there was a fire across the media world in the State at the moment. As public policy makers, we have a duty of care in the public interest to protect those companies, to protect local content and local journalism and to create the potential for local stories to be told and content created.
I was taken by one of Deputy Lowry's comments at the committee yesterday. He said that "When it comes to the crunch this is about business..." My retort to him was that no, for me when it comes to the crunch it must be decided on the basis of the public interest. As difficult and as challenging as the media environment is nationally, I do not believe the solution can be just a conglomeration of all the local news media sources into a small number of national media companies that might compete or survive in that competitive world against all those international companies. This Bill is correct in looking to protect diversity of ownership and plurality of opinion. It is a cornerstone of democracy and we have an intrinsic interest, maybe more than anyone else, in this issue because we realise that for people to participate in a democracy, the presence of a free, varied and impartial press is critical to the health of that democracy.
The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment has started a public consultation process on the funding of public service broadcasting but I believe we can and should widen it out. We will hold a forum on the future funding of public service broadcasting. The technology companies, the radio stations, the newsprint people, the academics and the advertising people must be brought into it to try to understand what is going on here and how can we achieve that dual objective of maintaining Ireland as a centre for innovation in digital services and technology, while at the same time maintaining the State's proud and long tradition of good quality, independent journalism and plurality of media ownership and of public service broadcasting. RTE is not competing with just a number of other Irish independent media organisations; in a sense they are all competing for some of the advertising and other revenues that increasingly is going to large international platforms rather than to the Irish media industry.
I am conscious that the Minister has today come out with statements on digital social networks and how he is going to manage bad behaviour and so on. I welcome that, as do we all. Some of the characteristics of the social networks are very uncertain, but I believe the Minister has to be careful in how he defines what that behaviour is and in understanding one of the first principles we apply in this evolving digital media world before we start legislating at the tail end in restricting communications one way or the other. It is just a word of caution from one of the news stories I heard today. One of the first principles that we adhere to is the plurality of media ownership. This Bill supports that principle; we support the Bill and commend our colleagues in the Social Democrats on using this opportunity to present it.
I will begin my closing statement by echoing the earlier statement by the Minister, Deputy Naughten, which is that any debate on media plurality is to be welcomed. A robust and pluralistic media is vital to the democratic process and to the daily lives of the Irish people. I thank all the Deputies who have participated in the debate. I share the Minister’s concerns about the proposed amendments to the Competition Act 2002 contained in this Bill. The Minister, Deputy Naughten, set out in his opening statement the reasons why both amendments are legally unsound.
I will focus my contribution on the stated focus of this Bill, which is to provide the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment with the power to take retrospective action against media businesses that exceed certain thresholds of ownership within a media sector and across media sectors. The impetus for the current regime for media mergers arose from the recognition of the importance of an open and transparent media and the acceptance that the evaluation of media mergers needed to include an assessment of the impact on media plurality in addition to the standard competition assessment that applies to mergers in other parts of the economy. The matter was debated in great depth during the passage of the 2014 legislation as befits a topic as important as this and the issue of retrospection was also debated at that time. As stated by Dr. Roderick Flynn at the recent Newsocracy conference on media plurality, held in Dublin last Tuesday, ownership is one factor which must be considered when addressing media plurality in the State but there are others which must also be considered. Dr. Flynn’s upcoming report for the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom in Europe will point to risks he has identified around diversity of content, as well as the access of women and minorities to the media. These issues are also among the criteria and factors which must be considered by the Minister, which include but are not limited to, ownership and control, governance and editorial management and content, including diversity of content.
Section 28D of the Competition Act 2002 sets out all of the issues which the Minister must consider in making his initial assessment. It is only when all of these factors have been considered individually and collectively that the Minister can come to a conclusion as to whether a proposed transaction is a matter for concern.
Ireland’s media landscape is unique due to our size and location on the edge of Europe, our linguistic heritage and our membership of the European Union. As a result of these issues there are real constraints on the power of the State to ensure a pluralistic media, and changes which occur internationally can have a considerable effect here. The current regime seeks to take account of these issues, and provide a responsive, and to a certain extent future-proofed, process for protecting media plurality.
I agree with the Minister, Deputy Naughten, that the current regime to assess media mergers is working well. The matters and criteria which he must take into account when conducting an initial assessment, and which the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland must take into account when conducting a full assessment, ensure that he, as Minister, can make a decision which protects media plurality in the State. The amendments proposed by the Deputies are legally unsound and would have serious negative consequences for an industry in which revenues are decreasing or static at best. These are the important reasons that I am opposing the Media Ownership Bill 2017. I therefore recommend that this Bill be opposed.
It must be said that when we talk of the media as an industry, and when we look at industries that produce widgets or whatever, we must realise the media is a very different industry. The importance of this was recognised in Article 40.6.1° of the Constitution under fundamental freedoms which says "The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema ... " and it goes on. Obviously this predated television, digital platforms etc. but they could equally be applied. The media must be seen as different because it is a different industry. It is an industry with a central public importance. The former Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Keane, in a Supreme Court ruling he made on any measure which challenges the right to private property - and private property comes under a different article of the Constitution - stated that it must be rationally connected to an objective of sufficient importance to warrant interference.
I accept that view but, as I said, it is different when it comes to the media. There is a public interest test to be met, which would have failed in respect of the Celtic Media Group merger if the regulations were working. I absolutely dispute they are working well, because all the evidence points to the opposite. The media are one of the basic democratic pillars of our society. The Minister said that under current legislation, the Oireachtas has not provided for powers to examine, review or intervene retrospectively in past mergers. In fact, the Celtic Media Group merger suggests those powers do not even extend to future mergers, given the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission's willingness to allow the merger to proceed.
The Minister dismissed the provision in our Bill which seeks to recognise the digital platforms within which media operate by claiming existing legislation already encompasses that issue. The 2014 Act refers in the context of media ownership to "the market share of those media businesses as measured by listenership, readership, reach or other appropriate measures". Our argument is that it is necessary to refer specifically to digital media, digital reach and multimedia platforms due to their major role in how media are consumed. To dismiss that requirement is an oversight.
The database on media ownership to which the Minister referred details only the titles that fall under particular entities. It does not show the full shareholdings of each media business. The point I am making is that one cannot possibly measure media ownership if it is not counted and documented. How is the Minister measuring the process such that he can say it is working well? I do not see how it can be working well if we do not have something by which to measure it. We cannot have a silo-based approach in regard to the media. Oversight must be done across all platforms if we are to have a true picture of reach and influence.
Deputy Dooley said the media have served us well. One of the main conclusions after the crash was that we had an issue of groupthink in the media. The advertising revenue that more or less became the basis of the business model for the survival of the media at that point was a major influence in terms of the type of coverage that was given on issues and the dismissal of alternative views. The media lost the diversity that was needed to challenge the view, for example, that the property sector was not overheating. If one does not accept that 20% is the threshold above which the concentration of media ownership is a problem, does one propose it should be 30% or 40%? Will the same issues arise every time there is a merger and will it essentially come down to a choice between jobs and diversity? There must be something more to it if we are to protect this fundamental element of our democracy. We all know our democracy is not perfect but there are some very good aspects to what we do have. Diversity of media is something we have been identified as being at high risk of not retaining. When we identify such a risk and see that what is happening is not in the public interest, it is incumbent on us to take action. A succession of failings has led us to this point and there is every chance the situation will get worse. I am very unhappy with the description of the oversight process as working well.
There are other issues to consider concerning the media that are beyond the scope of this Bill. The content that is provided to the media and the way politics operates, for instance, are important factors. The Government is very much responsible for much of the media manipulation we are seeing in respect of political reporting. The handling of opportunities for the media to engage with the Taoiseach is a good example of this. I have heard from several political correspondents that the Government press officer will often choose who is entitled to ask questions. It is not up to that individual to choose. It should be a matter for the press corps itself. It is a fair criticism to observe that many public figures on the international stage make themselves much more accessible to the media than the Taoiseach does.
In other words, it is not just about media mergers but also about how we treat members of the media and whether we value them as part of the democratic process. If we do, there must be engagement and transparency so that people can do their job. Everybody in this House knows that trying to get answers to parliamentary questions is hit and miss. It very much depends on the particular Department or Minister whether one will get a comprehensive response. People, including parliamentarians and the media, cannot do their jobs when there is that approach.
The focus in our Bill is on media ownership and diversity, but there is a lot more we need to put right. To give another example, consideration should be given to reviewing the defamation laws and imposing limitations in respect of the taking of libel cases. When we have people with very deep pockets potentially putting a title out of business by virtue of a successful action in the courts, it goes beyond the question of protecting a person's good name. Ordinary citizens do not have the pockets to take that type of case. These are some of the issues that need to be addressed into the future.
As I said, I do not know what measure the Minister is using when he says the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission is working well. In fact, it is a completely opaque process with no transparency as to how decisions are made. The advisory panel is chosen from a small pool of media professionals in Ireland, but the reality is that we live in a small country and this is a relatively small industry. Sometimes it is necessary to look to external expertise to have a fair assessment of where we stand. Deputies Dooley and Lisa Chambers spoke in platitudes about supporting the principle of the Bill. The problem is that if we keep making excuses every time we breach the threshold, when do we get to the point of principle where it is acknowledged we are at risk and where diversity trumps the other arguments? I am disappointed the Government is not supporting the Bill and Fianna Fáil is abstaining. I welcome the comments by others in support of the Bill. I hope the debate has been fruitful in at least identifying the very serious problems that need to be addressed, but I am sorry they will not be addressed at this time.
Question put.
In accordance with Standing Order 70(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Thursday, 9 February 2017.