Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

However, Senator O'Toole may go too far. If the Minister and the Department become overly prescriptive, some of the independence will be removed from the joint committee's evaluation. A process is required and it is important it works effectively because it may provide a template for future appointments. All the members of the joint committee are anxious to get this right and to do justice to the initiative which the Minister has taken in giving a joint committee a say in what has always been the prerogative of the Minister and the Department. The initiative is progressive and welcome.

I would like to see the joint committee bringing forward a list of criteria and, perhaps, fine-tuning the criteria in consultation with the Minister and the Department. Rather than being presented with a complete menu of the expertise the boards will require, could the joint committee not compile such a menu, present it to the Minister and have him make the appointment? The sequence in which things are done is important to the functioning of the process. Some thought should be given to this area. Members of the joint committee discussed the question of gender balance, which is the only requirement stated in the Bill. There is also a need to have a range of expertise.

We should not become too concerned about this matter. We are capable of meeting the challenge before us. We should accept it in a constructive way. I agree with Senator O'Toole that some fine tuning is required to ensure the joint committee and the Minister do not end up at cross-purposes. The worst possible outcome would be for the joint committee to recommend four names and for the Minister to accept one and appoint three other people. That would leave us all with egg on our faces. We must focus our attention on avoiding that.

I note that the objectives of the BAI were amended in the Dáil. I support some of the amendments. According to the note I received, the regulatory environment will be required to sustain independent and impartial journalism. I am not sure if the word "sustain" is accurate. It might be the case that it might engender independent and impartial journalism. I am not simply referring to the national broadcasters, although I could comment on them, but also to those at local level. I am aware of a current affairs programme whose main presenter has no difficulty saying the Government is appalling and that he is totally opposed to what it does. He injects his own opinion. I do not mind this broadcaster having a guest on the show who makes these points, but I am not sure that the presenter should make them, particularly when he is from a particular political background. It jaundices the matter. There is a need not for sustaining but for ensuring independent and impartial journalism. In that regard, if the BAI intends to operate like the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, BCC, it will tend to be reactive. When one brings something to the attention of the BCC, it will say it is not its job to monitor. Unless some citizens are sufficiently energised to make a comment or complaint, these issues are not examined. I wonder if that is correct and whether it justifies the expenditure we make on these regulatory authorities.

There is also a need to sustain compliance with applicable employment law.