Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. The new Oireachtas television station represents a major progression in opening up the activities of the Houses and the committees to the public. Insomniacs would have been well served last night by the eloquent contributions of Members of the Upper House through the night. With the advent of digital television, there is great potential to exploit the possibilities of broadcasting Oireachtas activities. Oireachtas business is recorded throughout the day and the technology is available to allow it to be broadcast without necessitating any significant costs.

The Bill provides that all news broadcasts must be reported and presented in an objective and impartial manner. In the case of some of the print media outlets, there is a clear slant in terms of how information is presented to the public. It is vital that there should be a fair and reasonable balance in this regard. There is some confusion in regard to the Coughlan judgment versus the McKenna judgment. The difficulty we are facing relates to the former rather than the latter. As an Opposition Member, it is extremely frustrating that when a Minister is not prepared to comment publicly on a particular issue, the public broadcasters are not necessarily interested in the views of the Opposition spokesperson. Yet, Ministers engaging in set pieces in the Government press office find a willing audience in the media. In such cases, there may not be balanced reporting of the issue. There seems to be a policy on the part of the Government that it is for individual Ministers to decide whether they will contribute to a particular debate. The legislation as it currently stands provides a mechanism to allow the Government to keep the Opposition quiet. We must ensure there is a fair balance in regard to the treatment of political parties and of other issues that have a news content.

The Bill places several restrictions on advertising broadcasts. Most of us are thankful that political party advertising is banned in the State. Anybody who visits the United States and observes the millions of dollars spent on advertising on the public airwaves will conclude that there is good reason to ensure there is no advertising by political parties on broadcast media in this State. This restriction applies also to industrial disputes, religious advertising and in respect of products such as junk food.

However, in the case of religious advertising, some of the decisions taken in recent years suggest we have gone over the top in terms of restrictions. Some time ago, for example, a radio advertisement by Veritas which was aired in the run-up to Christmas and which mentioned the word "crib" was withdrawn by RTÉ. This is ridiculous and suggests there is something seriously wrong with the legislative framework we have in place. However, it is not the legislative framework enacted by the Oireachtas that is the problem but how that legislation is interpreted. It was not the intention of either Government or Opposition Members who debated the last Bill that such an advertisement should be banned. Nevertheless, this is how the legislation has been interpreted.

We often observe that we are now living in a pluralist society. However, one of the defining characteristics of pluralism is that there must be respect for all religious traditions, including the religious tradition that has existed for generations in this State. Pluralism implies a genuine respect for one another's religion and for all associated traditions and rites. As Fine Gael spokesman on immigration, I have spoken to advocates for our immigrant communities who make valid and important points in regard to their needs and concerns. It is important that we respect existing traditions, while encompassing the new traditions introduced by immigrant communities, many of which serve to enhance our society.

Last week, the BBC in Britain banned an advertisement by Veritas which referred to Holy Communion and Confirmation gifts. The basis for this ban was extremely flimsy. I fail to see how cribs or Holy Communion and Confirmation gifts could be deemed offensive to members of any religion. The balance which is lacking must be installed. Mention of the word "crib" is unlikely to cause offence to anybody, nor is it likely to persuade non-Christians to decide suddenly to change their religion. I do not dispute the importance of having regulations in place in regard to religious advertising. However, the objective of our predecessors who drafted the existing legislation, some of the content of which is being transcribed into the new Bill, was to ensure there would be a fair and reasonable balance and that the promotion of cults, sects and other groups which are potentially detrimental to the common good would not be facilitated. It was never the intention that a radio advertisement which made reference to the word "crib" in the weeks before Christmas should be banned. The vast majority of reasonable people believe in religious tolerance and would not find anything offensive in advertisements for cribs or Holy Communion and confirmation gifts. People are not hostile to religion, whether from the Moslem or other traditions currently present in this country. This is about a fair and reasonable balance being put in place. The Minister should re-examine the relevant wording to ensure that "cop on" comes into it, rather than the current ludicrous situation concerning religious advertising. I am not just talking about Catholic or Christian advertising generally — it could be about the Moslem or Jewish communities. For example, what would the situation be if there was an advertisement wishing people a happy Jewish new year? I do not know, but this is about having a fair and balanced system in place. I urge the Minister to examine the matter prior to Committee Stage.

The Coughlan judgment has major implications for the operation of our political system. I do not want to pursue the debate that followed the Lisbon treaty referendum because a committee is dealing with it and should be left to do so. The Oireachtas should not deal with the Coughlan issue before a decision is made regarding Lisbon, but a valid argument has been made about the referendum on children's rights. One could have 99.9% of the population in favour of an amendment, yet if a debate takes place on the public airwaves both sides must be given equal time. The Supreme Court's interpretation of that issue needs to be re-examined by the Houses of the Oireachtas because it is stifling debate. If we have a referendum on children's rights, a very limited debate will take place on the public airwaves, so people will not know what they are voting on. One of the big criticisms of the Lisbon treaty referendum was that people were confused and did not know what they were voting on.

Moving on to the broader aspect of elections and the political system, something needs to be done concerning opinion polls. I have no difficulty with scientifically based opinion polls.

See this speech in context