Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I appreciate this opportunity to speak about a decision that was recently taken by the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland, the BCI. I hope the controversy about the decision will encourage everybody to be even more generous than they have been in the past in donating money to Trócaire's Lenten campaign.

The construction the BCI has put on Trócaire's campaign advertisement, citing section 10(3) of the Radio and Television Act 1988 in doing so, is as extraordinary as it is unacceptable. The 1988 Act, which was brought into force before I became Minister with responsibility for broadcasting, was introduced by my predecessor, the former Minister, Mr. Ray Burke. Section 10(3) of that Act states that "no advertisement shall be broadcast which is directed towards any religious or political end or which has any relation to an industrial dispute". Those who crafted that legislation, as well as those who discussed it in this House and the other House at the time, did not have any intention of extending its remit to cover campaigns of a moral character. I refer to campaigns which aim to advance the philosophy, principles and practice of the United Nations, for example. Section 10 of the Act was introduced to eliminate any potential abuse of the broadcasting medium for religious or political purposes within the Irish State, for example during elections and campaigns to institutions governed by the Irish State or the European Parliament, for example.

The construction that is being put on the word "political" by the BCI means that any campaign — against bonded labour, child soldiers, trafficking or slavery, for example — could be precluded from broadcast even if it were the subject of a UN resolution. A further and more dangerous consequence flows from the fact that the basis of the BCI's decision may have been that it regarded as political the call for a Government action plan to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1325, which relates to gender inequality. Either of these constructions, and the conclusions which flow from them, would be appalling — one would exclude campaigns with a moral basis and the other would constitute censorship. In the month in which we will celebrate the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire, which resulted from the long campaign of William Wilberforce and others, it is sad that we regard the prosecution of an international campaign in support of the equality and protection of women and girls as being so political that it is not suitable for mention on radio.

I suggest, to be practical and to help to resolve this matter, that a simple amendment be made to the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill 2006 on Committee Stage. The amendment, which would amend section 10(3) of the 1998 Act, should clarify what is meant by the word "political" in that section. The words I propose are as follows:

(1) For the purposes of section 10(3) of the Radio and Television Act 1988, an advertisement is directed towards a political end if and only if it is directed towards one or more of the following purposes namely:

(a) to promote or oppose, directly or indirectly, the interests of a political party, a political group, a member of either House of the Oireachtas or a representative in the European Parliament;

(b) to promote or oppose, directly or indirectly, the election of a candidate at a Dáil, Seanad or European Parliament election or to solicit votes for or against a candidate at an election; or

(c) otherwise to influence the outcome of an election.

(2) In subsection (1), "candidate", "Dáil election", "election", "European Parliament", "European Parliament election", "political group", "political party" and "Seanad election" have the same meanings as in the Electoral Acts 1992 to 2001.

Such an amendment would clarify the situation by removing the basis for the confusion which has arisen. It is appalling that damage has been done to a campaign that would help women in Darfur, for example. Trócaire has supplied a great deal of evidence in support of its Lenten campaign. A woman from Burundi has suggested how international campaigns aimed at the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 of 2004 could help vulnerable women and young girls throughout the world. I do not attribute any malevolence to anybody in this regard, but it seems that bad judgment has led to this appalling error. The amendment I have suggested should be included in legislation in the appropriate place if that error is to be rectified and not happen again.

See this speech in context