Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 97:

In page 50, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:

“(4A) Subsection (1) should not be interpreted as constraining a broadcaster or a relevant media service provider from appropriate examination, investigation, interrogation, debate or questioning in respect to news or current affairs which—

(a) concerns public policy, or

(b) the actions of a Government, a Minister, a designated public official or a public body.”.

This amendment relates to the same issue of ensuring that we maintain appropriate accountability. I suggest that a new subsection be added to this section regarding news and current affairs that makes it very clear. It would read:

Subsection (1) should not be interpreted as constraining a broadcaster or a relevant media service provider from appropriate examination, investigation, interrogation ... or questioning in respect to news or current affairs which— (a) concerns public policy, or

(b) the actions of a Government, a Minister, a designated public official or a public body.

There is a concern in that the way in which this is framed must be such that the treatment of current affairs, which includes matters which are the subject of either public controversy or current public debate, is fair to all interests concerned. Public controversy and current public debate are very narrowly framed in that regard in that there is no consideration of, for example, public policy or the fact that there may sometimes be issues which are not the subject of current debate or controversy. I would love to see the media cover issues not simply because they are the subject of controversy or debate but because they are issues of public policy that need examination or actions of Ministers that need interrogation. There is a concern that, because of the way in which this is framed, there could be a sense that if, for example, a documentary were to highlight a new area of concern, it would be effectively through the fact of its interrogation by the media that it would become a matter of public concern or public debate. Similarly, nothing should constrain the challenging of a Minister, a public official or anybody else by interrogation by an interviewer. The present framing is a little strange. I would like clarification to the effect that it shall not constrain a broadcaster from examination, investigation, interrogation, debate or questioning. That would give a sense of a greater safeguard.

Is there a grouping or is this a stand-alone amendment?