Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 4, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

3.—(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.

I appreciate the facility afforded to me and I thank the Minister of State for agreeing to it.

The purpose of the amendment I propose is to provide clarification of existing wording in the main Act. The current section of the legislation governing the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland is contained in section 10(3). It states: "No advertisement shall be broadcast which is directed towards any religious or political end or which has any relation to an industrial dispute". It is my belief that it was never intended that that would preclude discussion, for example, of issues of moral concern. I gave an example this morning of when Wilberforce succeeded, after a very long campaign, in securing the abolition of slavery in the British Empire 200 years ago. Slavery was to continue for a very long time after that but we would not be able to discuss that issue, nor would we be able to discuss child trafficking.

Specifically, it appears that the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland's decision was taken on the basis of two principles. One is that it called for a campaign for ratification of United Nations Resolution 1325, which called for gender equality. We would be in the absurd position, having exercised our sovereignty in signing the charter of the United Nations and participating in the discussion on what might be regarded as progressive resolutions and so forth, of finding ourselves precluded from advertising, raising public consciousness or creating moral awareness. I could give many other examples — trafficking, child labour, bonded labour; one could go on.

I suggest in the amendment, which is very clear, that 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, which I then list. I was seeking to bring the definition of "political" within the ambit of the Electoral Acts. I go on to list the following: 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 of the European Parliament; 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 in an election; or otherwise to influence the outcome of an election and then, in the related subsections, to define "candidate", "Dáil election", "election", "European Parliament", "European Parliament election", "political group", "political party" and "Seanad election" to suggest they have the same meanings as the Electoral Acts 1992 to 2001.

This amendment makes it clear that one can be free to make the case for such movements and legislative innovations within the universal discourse and at the same time abuse of broadcasting is not taking place for a domestic, national or European purpose. It is important that we do this because I am not referring only to the most recent case. I expressed concern also that it is not clear to me whether the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland took an executive or administrative decision or whether it represents a decision of the full board. That has never been clarified for me and it is a matter of the greatest import. What I am suggesting is non-partisan because it will assist in clarifying what is meant by section 10(3).

The other important aspect is if we do not do this we would be allowing this confusion to continue. We are in the position where the IRTC, as it was then, now the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland, would be exercising one interpretation which is effectively a limitation on a certain kind of discourse that is important if we are to introduce people to politics. Imagine, for example, if we had not been able to advertise about anti-apartheid. One could give one example after another. I do not believe the legislation was ever intended to function like that.

There is another aspect, namely, the RTE Authority, which takes a different view — in my view a better view — of the definition of public service broadcasting. If in later broadcasting legislation this rather narrow interpretation became the governing interpretation for all forms of broadcasting, we would be presented with extraordinary difficulties. Therefore we should take this as a Committee Stage amendment and agree it to rectify a situation that needs rectification. It would also be appreciated as a contribution to a broader democratic discourse and debate and would assist people who want to become aware of moral, political and human issues in the most general sense.

See this speech in context