asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs whether he intends any change in section 31 of the Broadcasting Act.
28.
Ceisteanna-Questions. Oral Answers. - Section 31 of Broadcasting Authority Act.
27.
asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if he is aware of the widespread opposition of journalists and broadcasters to the operation of section 31 of the Broadcasting Act; and whether he will consider withdrawing this section.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 27 and 28 together.
I do not intend to introduce legislation to change section 31 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960.
I am aware that some journalists and broadcasters have expressed opposition to orders made under this section. I have recently made an order exempting the television series "Ireland, a Television History", written and presented by Robert Kee, from the scope of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960 (Section 31) Order of 1981. I do not propose to make any other change.
I am sure the Minister will appreciate that, as a member of a political minority myself, I must resist political censorship. But has the insistence on the inclusion of this section not the implication that a case could be made by the Provos, a convincing, valid and sustainable one, to which those of us who are opposed to them have no worthwhile reply? Does the Minister not agree that there is in this kind of censorship a certain taint of patronising elitism, which reminds us of a predecessor of his in his Department, which tends to take the view that the ordinary people, unlike us politicians, are not capable of judging between right and wrong? Is it not an implied criticism of the integrity of journalists generally and of their ability to expose the many dangerous weaknesses and contradictions in the Provo case?
I do not know specifically what previous Minister the Deputy means, but there is evidence that some journalists and broadcasters are unhappy with the operation of section 31 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960, as amended.
Is it not a fact that there are a number of fallacies, including the one the Minister has just quoted of the exemption of Kee's programme because it is a BBC programme? Why should it be chosen rather than our own programmes? The Minister would also recall the other fallacy——
That is possibly on account of their allegiance to Britain at the moment.
Please let Deputy Browne ask the question.
——of the case of the man who was a witness in the Bundoran trial who was not allowed to give evidence. Then there is the other one of the public representatives. Does the Minister not think it is very unfair, if the public are able to elect these people, that they should not be allowed access, like the rest of us to the media?
In regard to the question of a fallacy concerning the most recent programme the Deputy mentioned, that is a matter of opinion. Second, I certainly could agree that perhaps when supporters of the Provisional IRA who are members of county councils want to talk, for example, about the question of a drain or a by-road, they could speak. In all such acts certain parts of them seem to be extreme and others not. That is the way I would suggest any legislation would be interpreted.
Is there no hope that the Minister would reconsider the suggestion that the operation of this be lifted for a trial year?
No.
Deputy Browne has put a finger on the point that I want to raise. I understand that there was a suggestion that the order presently in operation might be lifted temporarily. Have the Government given any serious consideration to the proposal that was made of a trial period, perhaps not for a year but for a lesser period, and perhaps with the right to reimpose it if it is clear that considerable offence could be caused?
Does the Deputy's party suggest that we should?
I am asking the questions here now. I asked has any serious consideration been given to this proposal which comes from very responsible people?
No. The Minister did not consider it.
Would the Minister not consider that such a proposal, coming from responsible people, should have been given careful consideration?
I beg the Deputy's pardon?
Would the Minister not accept that such a proposal, coming from responsible people, should at the very least have been given careful consideration?
Is the Deputy speaking specifically about the proposal of lifting the ban?
The proposal that was made by a number of journalists, as I understand it, was that for a trial period the ban under section 31 would not be reimposed. I think a period of a year was mentioned. I asked the Minister was any consideration given to that proposal and the Minister said "no". I am asking the Minister whether he considers it improper that a serious proposal made by a serious group of people should not have been given serious consideration? Would the Minister not accept that that proposal should have got serious consideration?
I fail to understand the question as outlined specifically by Deputy O'Keeffe because I do not believe the circumstances warrant it.
So the proposal is rejected out of hand?