Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I am grateful to the Minister of State, the Chair and the House for facilitating the teasing out of this issue but the Minister of State's reply makes matters a great deal worse. What it really suggests is that it is proposed to transfer the ambiguity, lack of clarity and narrow definition into a more general regime which will fall not only on independent broadcasters and those under the regime of the old IRTC and Broadcasting Commission of Ireland, but also that the defects will be transported into the general system. I have some sensitivity about this issue as a former Minister with responsibility for broadcasting, and I am quite aware of the text of section 10(3).

I need not delay the House with regard to the atmosphere in 1988 when the basic Act was passed. The atmosphere in 1988 and before I became Minister with responsibility for broadcasting was one in which there was a considerable interest in the Government of the day having a heavy hand on what were perceived to be excessively autonomous broadcasters. This is something we do not want. With regard to the proposed heads 27 and 40 and the basis of the consultation document, it would appear the Minister of State's interpretation is that we can simply run on with what is in place at present.

The issue is very important. I addressed these issues, for example, during consideration of my decision not to renew the ban under section 31, because we must have confidence in the listening public, in those who professionally make programmes and in the authority one appoints. They must be at arm's length. I am concerned when I hear a phrase such as, "It would give the authority too much power". The authority is there to exercise a discretion that is at a necessary distance from the State and the Government of the day — that is why we have authorities.

I am seriously worried not just with regard to my amendment but with regard to what is anticipated in the general overarching Bill. This does not augur well. When we vote on this amendment, I will most likely lose. However, I will prepare this by way of a separate Bill which I will introduce to the Dáil and it will then be for the Government to deal with it. Real issues are raised in this regard. I agree there are certain issues on which we would not want to allow open season or which could be abused. However, if Members wish to improve the Bill, they can do so when it is debated. The easiest way by far is to end the ambiguity that arises now.

I will not put a tooth in it. This BCI decision is a bad one, taken on a bad interpretation. We did not get an answer to our question — did the board of the BCI assent to this? We can all quote sections, including the sections governing RTE, the independent sector, TG4 and so on. It is a matter of the public interest, however. Why have a board, if one cannot ask questions such as the following. Did the board discuss this? Did it arrive at a conclusion? Did it take a decision? If this is an executive decision, was it submitted to the board for review? If it was submitted to board for review, when was that and at what conclusion did it arrive? Does the board support this executive decision? I would like to know the answers.

It may well be this is the case. If so, we have given the board bad and loose definitions in section 10(3). I am making an attempt to clarify the position. We will have to go further but all we now have is, rather than a promise to redress this issue, a promise to make it a great deal worse by putting a legally fragile position into the basic Act.

One of the great differences between myself and the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is our view in regard to rights. He believes they stop at the boundary of the Constitution; I do not. In this, there is potential serious infringement of the right to communicate. Nobody has the right to stop anybody communicating about the great moral issues. We must remember UN Resolution 1325, which referred to the importance of the integrity of women being realised, ending gender inequality, dealing with female genital mutilation and so forth. If one cannot advertise a campaign calling on one's Government to ratify and support such a resolution, and bring in amending legislation as a result of a United Nations discourse, what kind of a limitation is imposed on broadcasting? It is a difficult issue. We do not want abuse but, at the same time, we do not want a bad decision to be regarded as good law. It is clearly not so.

I appeal to the Minister of State to grant the amendment as an interim measure. If he wishes to change it, he can come back to it in the future. I am not responsible for the main broadcasting legislation; the Government is. If it wants to change what it agrees with the Opposition, it can do this in the Act. Otherwise, we will be left with no other strategy but for me to proceed with what I have suggested, namely, to prepare a Bill which I will place before the House and which we will have the opportunity to discuss. I would be very reluctant to leave matters as they are.

See this speech in context