Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

That is the point I wanted to make. I would be aggrieved by some of the things the broadcasters would say, but I am not sure that it would be of benefit to remonstrate with them. What was happening in the programme was probably not in the financial interest, but it may well have been in the public interest. The issues raised were issues that everybody was concerned about at the same time. At what stage does the Government decide to exercise its muscle to put a stop to this? That is a very dangerous road to travel, and I am sure the Minister opposite is fully aware of that. When he was on this side of the House, he would have led us to believe that he would have concerns in that area. I compliment his proposals to depoliticise the whole broadcasting structure, as this is incorporated in the Bill. I was surprised that he did not comment on that episode of "Liveline" in his speech, because it is fundamental to what we are doing now.

I remember having a debate with a provincial journalist some time ago. He believed that the national broadcaster was the State broadcaster and should at all times be under the influence of the State, which is controlled by the Government. I disagree with that and I would agree more with the Minister's interpretation of that area. However, what becomes the norm over the years usually evolves, takes on a life of its own and becomes acceptable. Policy can develop, evolve by stealth and become accepted as a result. That is a dangerous thing and the proposals raised by the Minister in his philosophical dissertation on the Bill are desirable. However, great care needs to be taken to ensure they work. That comes down to the influence of the State broadcaster and the relationship between the Government and the national broadcaster.

I will come back at a later stage to what might have been the conversation in that famous telephone call to the national broadcaster. I do not know whether the Minister here offered to make a call or whether he was asked to make a call, but I suspect that there was some discussion on those issues at that time. I compliment those brave commentators who spoke on the issue of the solvency of the banking system for quite a long time and who stood over their criticisms, even though they were not loved for it. The moral of the story is that they were right to take their view, stand over their view and not apologise for it. That is the way it must always be, because if we are going to have unimpeded reporting of the facts, then we must allow for that. The idea of interfering with the broadcaster when he or she is attempting to do his or her work is a dangerous one. It smacks of what goes on in some countries where broadcasting is strongly controlled by their governments.

The Minister was very philosophical in this debate and my colleagues in the Labour Party will be equally informative when they speak on it. The Rupert Murdoch system of broadcasting has enormous power and influence. Our own broadcasting services represent a microcosm of that. During the recent referendum on the Lisbon treaty, there were countless outlets broadcasting into this country from other jurisdictions which had an agenda and a particular view. They set about influencing the debate and did it very carefully. They said to the Irish people that they were standing up for us and were backing us up in the pursuit of our independence and our right to make a decision, which happened to be in line with the decision they wanted us to make. That is a peculiar way of going about one's business, but it warns us of the emerging greater power of broadcasters and the influence they can create, as well as the implications that can have for our society, our well-being, our economy and our culture.

I believe that the national broadcasters have a responsibility and should observe those responsibilities, and they largely have done so. We also need to be aware of the competing influences in broadcasting from outside this jurisdiction and the likely social, cultural and economic impact they can have. If lessons have not been learned in the past, then they should be learned now. In the final analysis, for all the people who claim to be our friends in this, we should remember that we are our own best friends and we need to keep an eye on that.

I hope the depoliticisation proposed goes well. It is the right idea. If the system is to work with integrity, then its depoliticisation must mean something. I hope it means that it will be truly depoliticised, and that somebody does not sneak under the door and claim that he is not at all politically inclined. We might later track back to five or six decisions that person made previously and discover that the claim does not add up. However, the concept is a good one and I hope it works out. The whole area of enforcement following the failure to comply with the regulation is a good idea, as proposed in the Bill. It will require some considerable teasing out during the debate. I am one of those who believes that the widest possible debate on Second Stage is very important. I do not accept that we should wait until Committee Stage before we get in to the nitty gritty of things. The broadest debate takes place on Second Stage. Once the general concept of what is proposed is adequately debated, we can move on from there.

The Minister made reference to the codes of advertising and the great amount of influence involved. Deputy Michael D. Higgins made a few comments about this at the beginning. Everyone is impressed by propaganda, but children are obviously the most vulnerable. Everybody wants the nicest, quickest and sweetest foods. The same applies to drink. The advertising of drink is not the only part of the problem because it should be noted that drugs are not advertised. Everyone says that drugs are bad but their consumption is still increasing. It is a question of what is seen to be desirable and promoted as such. The controls on advertising are important and Fine Gael will be tabling a number of amendments to do with this issue.

I welcome the Minister's reference to complaints and the right of reply. However, the right of reply needs to be treated with respect. The right of reply does not in all cases address the issue of the degree of hurt or the impugning of the character of the victim. If any Member of this House or a member of the public believes his or her character has been impugned in some way, either in the print or broadcast media, the right of reply does not necessarily address the issue of dealing with the impact, hurt or injury caused. This area is difficult to legislate for and my colleagues, including Deputy Simon Coveney and others in the Labour Party, will study this aspect carefully. If I publicly or in a broadcast accused another Member of the House of something deplorable, his or her right of reply does not necessarily remove completely the implication of the accusation I have made. This is a very difficult area which I ask the Minister to consider.

The future broadcasting of the proceedings of Parliament will be a successful venture, in my view. I do not accept the argument that nobody will watch such broadcasts. The proceedings would be of great interest to the ordinary people who do not always have the opportunity to observe what happens in the Oireachtas. Everybody in a democracy is entitled to know what is happening in Parliament. We may need to make procedural changes to allow for business to be streamlined. TG4 is to be commended for its work in this area. The Oireachtas channel will nicely dovetail with the existing broadcasting services and will prove to be of great benefit in promoting a sense of national interest, pride and responsibility.

Like many Members, I do not have the opportunity to watch many television programmes because by the time we return home, the television has all but shut down. Deputy Pat Rabbitte used to refer to the "Oireachtas Report" programme as being watched only by those who could not sleep. A few weeks ago, I looked in on a programme called "Big Brother". I understand this is a popular programme and I am sure there are good reasons for its popularity. However, to my mind, one would need to very bored to spend any time other than a quick glance looking at such a programme as it is appalling. It is a programme with audience participation and the producers of such programmes know well that the public are interested in well-known people. I cannot understand how anybody could take time to watch such a programme. Other similar programmes also include audience participation. I may be old-fashioned but I would love to watch a good film in place of something like that.

The Minister referred to home-produced programmes. In this country we are inclined to ape what is done elsewhere. We should be innovative in our television programming, do our own research and produce our own programmes.

This proposal to update the broadcasting legislation is important and it should include the lessons we have learned from the past. I suggest we should bask in the reflected glory of the great broadcasters and communicators of whom we have had many. We even have a few in this House. The public does not always have to agree with one's view and they may often disagree completely with one's viewpoint. However, it is the way in which one puts one's view and communicates a message that is important.

This is an era of competition in broadcasting and I have referred to the Rupert Murdochs and Fox Corporations of this world. All communicators must compete for the time and space available and this has advantages and disadvantages. It is an open market with many languages in use and all broadcasters and communicators face strong competition. Quality programming will shine out as opposed to mediocre programming.

I will conclude with a point about the independent broadcasters. We have a good independent broadcasting sector on both a local and national level and both levels have a significant role to play. It is important they access a fair share of funding locally and nationally. Otherwise, they will be at a distinct disadvantage and will not be able to compete on a reasonably level playing field. There is no reason why there cannot be competition between the public and private sectors in broadcasting. It is important to have that, and that there is a reasonably level playing pitch when undertaking that competition. Ultimately, the consumer will be the beneficiary.

See this speech in context