Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I agree with many of the points made by Senator Higgins. Regarding the Minister’s response, this is at the heart of our democracy. I refer to ensuring that all sides of a political argument get aired. It is important that discussion is based on evidence. As the Minister rightly stated, however, the political landscape has changed enormously, and it is important that a broad range of views is well reflected. Senator Higgins should be on television and radio more often. She is well able to articulate her point of view. From the perspective of the Government parties, however, she will understand that it is often felt that the differences of opinions within Government parties are not always aired on substantive policy issues, barring the heat and light debate we had this week. It is usually presented in a sensationalist kind of way. Therefore, this is an important debate.

I appreciate the challenges broadcasters face, one of which relates to the McKenna judgment. This requires, particularly during referendum campaigns, that equal weight be given to the two sides of an argument. I have a bit of a problem with that. I have no difficulty with situations where equal weight is given to evidence-based arguments on two sides. If, however, we have a referendum in the future on tough measures to deal with climate change, for example, I do not believe it would be appropriate that our national broadcaster should be giving 50% of the space in such debates to climate sceptics, although it is appropriate that we would have a meaningful debate around our approach to addressing some of these issues. A similar situation pertains to issues such as the Good Friday Agreement, where there was overwhelming support among all the political parties. Yet, equal space had to be given to fringe dissident groups. In that light, we may need to revisit the McKenna judgment.

This is an extremely important debate and we must have it. I accept that it is much wider in nature and concerned with more than just the legislation before us. I agree with Senator Higgins regarding the importance of there being clear rules, especially during election periods. As we know, however, the political narrative can be very much shaped outside election periods as well. If voices are not being heard, that is a concern. Some of this endeavour relates to different voices being heard. Equally, there is also concern regarding situations where those who represent larger political parties often do not have the opportunity for their voices to be heard.

In light of this reflection, I will be happy to withdraw amendment No. 96 when we come to it. This is about more than the legislation. Part of the challenge we face, and this goes back to our earlier discussion about allowing political advertising on radio and television, is that while we can regulate what is going on within those controlled broadcasting spaces to a certain extent, our bigger challenge concerns what is happening in the online space. I refer to how we can ensure there is fair and balanced debate in that broader space. Certainly, some of what we will see emanating from the electoral commission legislation will be important. It will be key for this regulator to work closely with the electoral commission. I am deeply concerned, however, that if we do not manage to ensure we have evidence-based policy discussion, and ensure that there is fairness and balance in such debate and that reasonable voices are heard, our politics will descend into what is being driven by online polarisation and by some of what we have seen happen in the United States and other democracies. This is a broader debate than what we are discussing involving this legislation. I am, however, heartened by the Minister’s comments. In reflecting before Report Stage, it would be good if some of what was mentioned can be integrated into this legislation. I think the Minister understands the concerns being expressed here.