Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I largely concur with Senator O'Reilly's last point. The right of reply, which is provided for and which we very much welcome, enables the High Court to have the flexibility to use an expert assessor in making a decision. How might that be perceived to work in practice? Might it dilute the ability to exercise the right to reply? Will the Minister comment on this important question?

I welcome the greater flexibility for religious advertising. We debated some amendments on this point. It might have gone further, for example, there is no strong reason why religious orders could not advertise for vocations which are a problem for many of them but they are barred from doing so.

Will the Minister explain the reason behind the change from "taste and decency" to "harm and offence"? I was foolhardy enough to raise at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources an issue about something I saw late at night. I think Senator O'Reilly was present and Senator O'Toole certainly was. Without using the wording, it connected one part of a person's anatomy with another part of a person's anatomy in very graphic terms which crossed the threshold of an obligation under the terms of taste and decency. The Broadcasting Complaints Commission, BCC, decided that it did not breach the taste and decency threshold and I respect its decision. It did say, however, that it was borderline and brought to the attention of the offending broadcaster that this was the second occasion on which it had gone to the outer limits. That was in line with the response of the broadcaster. The incident would not breach the terms of harm and offence but it was a significant breach of taste and decency. Based on that interpretation this amendment is a significant dilution of the barrier for the broadcaster.

It seems that after the watershed time, which is now 9 p.m., anything goes. In my complaint I said that if the incident did not breach the broadcasting obligation I could not envisage what might breach it. We have an expensive apparatus to adjudicate on it which begs the question whether we should have criteria and if we have, how we interpret them. I realise they are subjective. Nine o'clock is probably far too early for the watershed. I asked the BCC for its views on whether it should be extended to 10 o'clock. Between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. is a borderline for children, particularly for young adolescents who may not be in bed and may still be watching television, perhaps in their rooms. That should be considered either in the context of this Bill or in another context because it deals with children's access to material which probably is not in their interests.