Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I thank my colleagues for their comments, particularly those that were supportive. I am a little disappointed by some of the comments because when we make light of psychic services in that way, as Senator O'Toole appeared to do, it can have a chilling effect on legislators trying to legislate in the public interest. We are talking about channels coming into people's living rooms, not pay-per-view. We are operating in a world where people of all ages are watching television at all hours of the day. Although I have an amendment that refers to a watershed of 9 p.m., in many ways watersheds are a theoretical phenomenon because people are watching television at all hours of the day.

Senator O'Reilly outlined the way in which people can be vulnerable and be gulled, and how young, immature people can spend a fortune. That was a much more healthy contribution than that of my esteemed colleague, Senator O'Toole, who gave the vaguest hint that telephoning psychics is a bit of fun.

I have no problem with people going into Gypsy Lee at the Ballinasloe horse fair. The question is whether Gypsy Lee can advertise on television. I ask people not to be nervous of protective legislation. Senator O'Toole talked about going too far by way of regulation but Senator O'Reilly more correctly points to the fact that there are vulnerable people in society who get hurt in different ways. Senator O'Toole would be the first to come into the Chamber and speak strongly in favour of the consumer if we were talking about false advertising of some product. This is exactly what is going on in respect of psychic services. People are being told that they can have certainty about their future lives and are being encouraged to pin their hopes on it at considerable cost to themselves.

That is my major theme, religious advertising is a minor theme but the contrast is remarkable. One is legal, the other is not. One is in the public interest, the other is not, but it is the one that is not in the public interest that is allowed to operate untrammelled. It is interesting that RTE has no truck with this advertising but other commercial stations do. I encourage the Minister to state that this is an area that must be examined.

Senator Norris suggested I was making an ideological point. I do not know what he means by that. My only ideological point is that we should not be afraid of having the law exercise a protective effect where, in the case of tarot cards or sex chat lines, people are being exploited. Their personal sense of inadequacy is being exploited and their pockets are being filleted at the same time. In the case of chat lines there is the collateral damage of objectification of women in particular because it tends to be women that one is invited to dial up late at night.

Can we move beyond these fears? These debates suffer from a backwash from the 1960s, when people were scared stiff of moral debate because they thought it was taking us down the road of having to subscribe to some religious dogma. We have moved on from that. Ireland is a free country, and always was, but never more than today are people free to choose how to live their lives and to what values they adhere. Can we get back to the discussion on legislating in the public interest to protect the more vulnerable members of society? It is not good enough to suggest the television advertising of high-cost services offering to tell people about the future is some harmless fun when we hear repeatedly of vulnerable people being gulled into spending large amounts of money. Are we so market-oriented that we do not care about that and are happy for it to go on?

Let me give the House proof that we should consider restricting this area. I do not suggest that there should not be channels for which people can pay to have access to these services but we are talking about the public thoroughfare in broadcasting terms. Is it not interesting that although we show the races on a Saturday and give the betting prices, we never invite people to dial a number at high cost to place a bet on Lucky Lad? We recognise that there are people who would gamble away a lot of money, not only at their own expense but at the expense of their loved ones. We make a distinction, the law does operate in a protective way and we do establish standards. It is not for any desire to recreate a nanny state that I put this on the agenda. I do so because it is in the public interest. The debate deserves better than the nudge-nudge, wink-wink, "This is all a little bit strict, Reverend Mother". That is not where we are at in the 21st century and we should legislate in the public interest.

I agree with Senator O'Reilly's point that if we were to lift the ban on religious organisations advertising membership or merits, there would have to be a regulatory structure. This is where codes come in, it is not a question that the law would establish a free-for-all. Given that the State has established a structure for dialogue with religious organisations and non-faith based organisations, it has a mechanism to decide what groups it does and does not talk to. By the same logic could we not have a code permitting certain kinds of ads and excluding others? Judgment calls must be made.

I have referred to tarot card and chat lines. I have two other amendments that are being discussed in this group. One relates to fairness and balance, a proposed amendment to section 42 of the broadcasting code, the other is an amendment to section 42. The broadcasting code deals with advertising and I have suggested the insertion after section 42(2)(f) of: "A broadcaster shall not broadcast an advertisement which is sexually explicit in nature,". Everything that I have said in respect of chat lines can be applied to this without my going on ad nauseam.

The rationale involved is about the law exercising a protective effect with confidence, not worrying about the sneers. We already have codes on alcohol advertising to the effect that it should never promote sexual or social success. By the same token, and given the fact that watersheds are increasingly a theoretical concept and people of all ages watch television at all hours of the day, our legislation should specifically prescribe that advertising should not be sexually explicit in nature. This can be characterised as a narrowly moralistic aspiration but I remind Senators, not that they need reminding, that to do otherwise would be to condone exploitation. We have had the debate on trafficking and we know that women, in particular, are exploited in the sex industry, which is run on trafficking. Anything that adds to that by engaging in the exploitation of people, especially women, is not in the public interest nor is it conducive to the common good. Under our employment law, the display of sexually provocative or explicit posters or calendars in the workplace can constitute sexual harassment. By the same logic, is it not a form of public harassment to engage in advertisement which is sexually explicit? I am not saying there is a huge problem in this area at present but we might be getting there, particularly as broadcasting services become more commercially driven. An axiom in the advertising industry is that sex sells so for that reason, we should have a specific legislative bar on advertisements which are sexually explicit in nature.

Turning to the issue of fairness and balance, I propose the deletion of paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 42(2), which relates to broadcasting codes. I propose that all news broadcast by a broadcaster be reported and presented in a balanced, objective and impartial manner. The word "balanced" appears twice in my amendment. The reason is that the issue of balance is a very controversial one.

During elections, referenda or in situations of intense public controversy, complaints about impartiality are often made. I have tabled another amendment which refers to the need to speed up adjudication on such complaints. I believe the "Liveline" programme engaged in discussions with women who had abortions and had not regretted them a day or two before the 2002 abortion referendum and before there could be any redress on the balance front. It was a highly ideological intervention in a matter which was to be determined by the people. That type of thing goes on from time to time.

I hope one does not have to be a social conservative on some issue to see the point because it is visible from outer space. I mentioned on Second Stage that RTE's former director general, Bob Collins, said in the wake of the divorce referendum that if somebody had come down from Mars, he or she would never have thought the referendum result would be as tight as it was given the type of media coverage of the issues at the time. I hope people on all sides of the argument would be willing to be authentic liberals and see that there has been a problem in this area in the past.

As I said on Second Stage, it is not only in regard to controversial social issues that this arises. There may well be other bodies who feel that broadcasters and public service broadcasters steal a march sometimes and allow their own agenda to be set in the context of supposedly fair and balanced coverage. The absence of any clear obligation on RTE — I would argue there should be one — to provide urgent redress in such situations can allow individual broadcasters to conduct totally partisan and biased interviews, for example, on the eve of an election or referendum even though a moratorium is supposed to be in place — I gave one such example — safe in the knowledge that no redress can be sought until it is too late.

I am aware of occasions where people have made complaints to RTE. They have received letters which state it must be fair and impartial but that it does not have to be balanced. It has sought to be "Jesuitical", if I may use that word, on the issue of its obligations to balance. Senator Alex White is a former producer with RTE and I look forward with interest to hearing what he might say on this amendment if he speaks on it. There has been a repeated failure on the part of our public service broadcaster to ensure objective and impartial programming.

The Minister said on Second Stage that he was promoting a light regulatory touch and he sought to reassure us that fines would not be too punitive in certain situations. However, the possibility of financial penalties where there is a failure to comply with broadcasting duties, including the issue of balance, needs to be examined.

Only in the past couple of weeks there were debates on stem cell research and same sex parenting and those debates were not balanced. Whatever one might think of the issues, where one introduces a real life, emotionally wrenching story and then tries to have a two person interview, supposedly to debate the intellectual dimension when the emotional agenda has already been set, is a very subtle kind of agenda setting and I do not care whether it is the liberal or conservative side of the debate which is on the losing end on any occasion. It should not happen.

My amendment would require a very explicit commitment not only to fairness and objective and impartial programming but a guarantee of balance. In considering this amendment, will the Minister consider the precise mechanism under which this commitment to balance would be brought about and more thoroughly enforced than has been the case to date?