Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

First, I thank the Deputies for raising this issue and I welcome the opportunity to discuss it in the House. Moreover, I acknowledge the range of Deputies across the parties, as well as Independent Members, who have expressed in the Chamber this evening a broadly similar view. I stated recently that personally, I would not use the term "homophobe" to describe those who disagree with me on issues of gay equality in general or gay marriage in particular. I thought it was too loaded a term to be used to categorise all those who hold contrary views on a matter for legitimate public debate. As Deputy Wallace has just noted, some people I know and whose views I respect may have misinterpreted those comments. They state I do not appreciate the subtle and insidious nature of homophobia. I thought I was making a somewhat different and subtle point of my own.

Issues like this are informed by deep-felt religious, moral and social considerations. Opinion undoubtedly will be divided and the best one can hope is that people debate the matter calmly, in good faith and with respect for opposing viewpoints. However, it is of no assistance at all if we lump together our opponents, all those who will vote "No", by borrowing from the lexicon of liberal intolerance.

I also stated last week in the same statement that I hoped people who hold themselves out as commentators on, or contributors to, public debate fully appreciate that debate can be robust, heated, personal and sometimes even hostile. Politicians are expected, including I suspect by some of the litigants here concerned, to function in such an environment as normal. Consequently, why do they apply a different norm to themselves, although at least some of them are not averse to name-calling politicians on occasion? It would be a matter of serious concern were recourse to the defamation laws to have a chilling effect on public debate on this issue in the lead-in to the referendum. While the defamation laws are outside my remit, the Broadcasting Act is not. At present, section 39 requires every broadcaster to ensure that nothing is broadcast that may reasonably be regarded as causing offence. That seems to me to be an unfeasibly rigorous approach. We all know how easy it is for some people to be offended, even where offence was not intended and is not objectively ascertainable. I intend to propose miscellaneous amendments to the Act shortly. Among them, I now am considering an amendment that would require broadcasters to avoid causing undue offence. That seems to me to be more objective and more in tune with the realities of public debate.

As everyone knows, RTE is an independent public service broadcaster. It is obliged to be responsive to the interests and concerns of the whole community, to reflect the varied elements that make up the culture of the Irish people and to uphold the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution, especially those relating to rightful liberty of expression. The Broadcasting Act 2009 provides that the company is independent in pursuance of these objects.

I, as Minister, have no role in managing editorial matters, making decisions around programming or dealing with litigation claims. I have no intention therefore of interfering in RTE's management of this specific case. I have read yesterday's statement from the managing director of RTE Television. RTE has a crucial role in the conduct of public debate and it remains fully committed to ensuring the full and free exchange of information and opinion on all matters of legitimate public interest.

While RTE is answerable as a public body, it does not, and should not, operate under political supervision, either at ministerial or parliamentary level. I have seen the invitation to RTE from the Oireachtas communications committee. Provided the engagement takes place at the general level of principle, without reference to the specifics of individual cases, I fully agree that the committee is entitled to hear from RTE an outline of its approach to libel complaints in the context of its obligations as a public service broadcaster. The committee is also entitled to satisfy itself that RTE will continue to discharge its public service obligations without fear or favour. However, it would not be desirable for the committee to become embroiled in the management of particular claims. Ultimately we rely on our broadcasters to provide a forum for matters of public debate and, indeed, controversy and to ensure that, when these take place, the necessary level playing field is provided for all concerned.

See this speech in context