Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister to the House and thank him for his interesting thoughts on the issue, which were made ad lib as he is not relying on a script. It is interesting to hear his thoughts and philosophical positions and attitudes.

Discussion of broadcasting standards will obviously include an element of subjectivity and it is difficult to agree on objective standards. However, we must take into account the classic example of what the reasonable person might consider as acceptable broadcasting standards. It is fair to suggest that the reasonable person would seek avoidance of open incitement to hatred, violence, exploitative sexual material and graphic depictions of violence or sexual acts. Those would be inimical to the reasonable person and this is as close to objectivity as we can get in this context. It is important that when we reach that level of objectivity or we seek to arrive at standards that would be acceptable to the reasonable person, we do not engage in prudery, McCarthyism or such like. We must be sensible and try to be objective. I take what the Minister said in regard to broadcasters and entertainers having an internal set of standards and a sense of their audience. However, there still must be an attempt at objective criteria.

The broadcasters must give fair editorial treatment to subjects within the context of the freedom of the press. I refer to the relatively recent "Liveline" programme where our party leader, Deputy Enda Kenny, was wrongly pilloried for alleged queue jumping at an airport. A statement was sent to RTE from the Fine Gael press office, but RTE omitted to broadcast the entire statement and selectively broadcast the statement to the detriment of Deputy Kenny. The Broadcasting Complaints Commission admitted as much in its vindication of Deputy Kenny. This highlights the need for tighter editorial control and standards.

I refer to the recent "Late Late Show". A Senator on the other side of the House for whom I have great respect, Senator Ó Murchú, raised this matter in the Seanad last week and I supported him. By any objective criteria, and applying the reasonable person test, the material brought forward by Mr. Tommy Tiernan on "The Late, Late Show" was inappropriate. I thought Gerry Ryan did a great job on that show and acquitted himself well. However, he should have objected or shown a slight level of disapproval, or at least put forward another perspective when Mr. Tiernan make jokes at the expense of Down's syndrome people and Travellers, and about the crucifixion of Christ.

Jokes about people who have Down's syndrome or about our Traveller community are not appropriate, even applying the Minister's criteria. The comedian should have an internal checking system and a sense of an audience but in this case he did not use it. I consider the material he used to be salacious, objectionable and inappropriate if he had any sense of audience in that this was a family show. It was not a niche audience in a theatre where it might be acceptable — even that is a questionable proposition.

The question of standards arises, which is a difficult area. While policing this kind of thing, we must avoid prudery. However, as the host of the show, Gerry Ryan would have had a role in at least indicating there is another view which says we should respect these people. People like Brendan Grace and a plethora of other comedians in this country are hugely successful nationally and internationally without doing that kind of thing.

A point made by the Minister, which I intended to make myself, was that the Bill — I was privileged to be involved in its passage through the Seanad — in a very good way addresses a number of issues with regard to broadcasting standards. In particular, it provides the right of reply. Traditionally, an apology went onto a back page and was a postscript months after the event, following an arduous process. There now will be an up-front right of reply for the offended party, which is important.

The new broadcasting authority of Ireland will be a one-stop shop for complaints about standards, rather than having disparate agencies dealing with complaints. This is to be welcomed. It will be mandatory for the authority to bring forward a code for advertising and programming, which is also welcome. Interestingly, sections 41 to 43, inclusive, suggest there must be objective and impartial standards in regard to current affairs and political events.

There is a question around religious advertising which was discussed in the Seanad. I ask the Minister to consider this issue on an ongoing basis, perhaps by means of a pilot. I consider the Minister a particularly open and intellectual individual who is capable of recognising that there may be a case for doing something different or new. For example, there may be merit in advertising events of religious groupings such as the Franciscans or the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, perhaps social and cultural events or those that involve charity or good works, or even a call for vocations by a group like the Franciscans or any other religious group. There is a case for considering the allowing of that kind of advertising and this should not be seen as offensive to objective good standards in advertising and to objective fair play.

The whole question of religious advertising merits revisiting. We should have an ongoing pilot examination of this and we should be open to change on these issues. Once we are not offensive to decency and proper standards, it is worthy of consideration. The show involving Tommy Tiernan was brought into focus by the issues surrounding Russell Brand, Jonathan Ross and that kind of activity.

When we consider political objectivity and fair play in politics, it is an arguable and commonly-held view among objective commentators, and a strong view in my political party, that "The Late, Late Show" broadcast on the eve of the last general election, which had a very tilted anti-Fine Gael-Labour Party and anti-alternative Government position, was inappropriate in the same sense that the Irish Independent articles on "payback time" in the 1997 context were an inappropriate abuse of a free press, although that was not a broadcasting issue. Again, while no one would for a moment suggest the issue of hepatitis was not a critical issue that merited objective treatment and examination, the "No Tears" programme was calculated, at a particularly late stage, close to the elections, to be damaging to the Fine Gael leader at that time, Deputy Noonan, and to the Fine Gael party. This kind of behaviour needs monitoring because any political party could become a victim at a given time.

We must seek reasonable standards. We must ensure that what we are doing will not distort a situation and give an unfair advantage to any one political party or to the Government. The Bill in its present form by and large offers good methodology, good fora and a good method of establishing broadcasting standards in programming and in advertising. This needs to be grasped and implemented. However, we must be careful that nothing comes across our airwaves that is either objectively detrimental to good standards in our society or salacious in the sense of being discriminatory or prejudicial to the way people, for example, disabled people or ethnic minorities, will be perceived.

My last word — it should be the last word for us all — is that we must ensure a free press and a free broadcasting service and ensure there is no political interference or inappropriate interference by sectional and interest groups with regard to the objectivity and fair play of the broadcaster. At the same time, within the freedom of broadcasters to do their job, there must still be certain objective standards — the standards of the reasonable person — beyond which they cannot go. Our broadcasters cannot be immune to good practice, nor can we as politicians.