Alex White (Labour)

I have reflected on the question of religious advertising. It may help the debate for me to point out that, as the Minister may be aware, an EU court authority is considering the proposition that it is lawful to exclude religious advertising from public broadcasting. I do not have any of the relevant papers with me. This matter has been the subject of some discussion and controversy at EU level. I have some sympathy for Senator Mullen's argument in this regard. Superficially, it seems reasonable to suggest that it is somewhat excessive to say one can never carry an advertisement advocating a particular religion or religious viewpoint. I suggest to Senator Mullen that if we move towards a regime in which religious advertising is allowed, we will inevitably change the manner in which the broadcasting sector engages with religion and religious topics and controversies. Not only will such issues be the subject of controversy and debate in current affairs programmes, but they also will be the subject of advertising. I respectfully ask Senator Mullen to pause for a moment to question how such a move would change the character of broadcasters' engagement with these matters.

In fairness, Senator Mullen has not proposed a similar deletion or amendment in respect of political advertising. Many of the same issues arise in that context. His argument does not fall down because of his failure to propose the deletion of references to political advertising. An analogy can be drawn between the two. I would be resolutely opposed to any suggestion that our broadcasters should be allowed to carry political advertising. One only needs to examine the position in the United States to see that the manner in which politics operates and is funded is transformed when political advertising is a factor. There is a marginal risk that if we were to provide for or allow religious advertising, the bigger, more powerful and better funded religions might prevail in such circumstances. I am putting that out as a thought. Senator Norris mentioned earlier that RTE has been a little too restrictive on one or two occasions when interpreting the question of what constitutes an advertisement advocating a religious position. RTE might have been a little more generous in its response to a request to advertise a certain book, for example.

The second issue I would like to address is the question of balance in programming. A Senator mentioned that I worked as a radio producer for ten years. I gained some experience from that background. I do not suggest that I have a particular interest to declare in this regard, as 14 years have passed since I worked in broadcasting. When people ask me whether I miss RTE, I have to remind them that a decade and a half has passed since I worked there. It is not as if I have a direct involvement in RTE, although I am interested in the subject of broadcasting. I would like to respectfully say to Senator Mullen that I am opposed to the introduction of the word "balanced" to sections 39(1)(a) and 39(1)(b) of the Bill. As Senator Norris said, public and private broadcasters have to give coverage to a wide variety of opinions and arguments, including those which may seem extreme or one-sided. They can do that as long as a regime is in place to ensure a measure of fairness and impartiality across each broadcaster.

I would like to give the example of an interview about the Lisbon treaty on tonight's 9 o'clock news. That might not be a particularly good example at a time when we are just over a week from the referendum. I do not think anybody feels a strong view on either side of the debate on a big issue of public concern needs to be immediately balanced with the opposite view. Audiences are sufficiently sophisticated to tell that someone they hear on the radio is strongly in favour of or against a certain proposition. People tend to have a reasonable expectation that the strong views they hear will be matched at some point by similarly strong views from the other side. That might not happen tonight or tomorrow night — it might happen on some other evening. We can rely on the good sense and professionalism of broadcasters to ensure the overall sweep of the coverage of any issue is balanced. Senator Norris hit the nail on the head when he suggested that the notion of a "mechanical" balance is completely anathema to the concept of a free press or, in this case, free broadcasting. We must give broadcasters some latitude. The quality of our broadcasting system would be undermined if we were to provide that there needs to be balance within a half-hour or one-hour programme devoted to a person with strong views on one side of a controversial issue. Senator Norris mentioned Robert Fisk, but one could think of many other examples. It would be wrong to advocate such a mechanical way of managing broadcasting.

I respectfully remind the House that the wording of sections 39(1)(a) and 39(1)(b) is familiar to broadcasters. A similar wording was used when changes were made to the Broadcasting Acts in the 1970s. A great deal of it was used in the Broadcasting Authority Act 1960. It has served us well. People will continue to make complaints when they feel a debate is focused too strongly on one side and is not balanced with the other side. I do not wish to belittle what Senator Mullen has said when I say I have often found that people tend to perceive an imbalance in the context of where they are coming from themselves. It may sound patronising, but I do not mean it like that. When people are genuinely upset, they have a right to make a complaint. A comprehensive complaints system, which I welcome, is carefully provided for in this Bill. It would be wrong of us to require what Senator Norris has rightly called a "mechanical" type of balance in each programme. It would change the nature of the news and current affairs sectors of our broadcasting system. I have given my observations in respect of these amendments.