Mr. Kevin Bakhurst:

I will pick up on that before I answer the Deputy's other points. I share Mr. McGuire's views that this was a news event. The TV news coverage of the water protest had water protesters' voices in it. The important thing is that over time there is balance and that we have interviews with Government representatives or others. The view we have not heard enough of is the voice of those who are choosing to pay their water charges and are prepared to do that. That should also be part of our coverage across time. When there is a news event, inevitably one gets people who are featuring in the news event rather than bringing in a range of outside voices.

In response to the Deputy's first question on the McKenna judgment and the referendums, there is an ongoing discussion about the nuances of the McKenna judgement, on which we have taken advice from senior legals on the various referendums. The Deputy's core point is correct, that we have to represent in a balanced fashion the debate that is going on. We have done a lot of coverage of both referendums, more on the same-sex marriage than on the other referendum. We have steering groups and we are looking ahead at the coverage. There will be set-piece debates, ongoing discussions and interviews, as there have been in the past.

The point made about the range of voices is a good one. This is particularly problematic for us, and I do not pretend it is not, in that there is a limited number of voices who are prepared to speak against the proposed referendum or the changes to same-sex marriage. It is a problem for us to find a wider range of voices. Part of the difficulty is the heat of the public debate and the response that people get when they are talking about the subject. One ends up falling back on familiar voices. There is nothing wrong with the individuals but a wider range of voices would be very welcome from our point of view.