asked the Minister for Communications if he intends to keep in force the 1987 ministerial order made under section 31 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960.
2.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Section 31 of Broadcasting Act.
1.
asked the Minister for Communications, in view of the anomalies created by the operation of section 31 of the Broadcasting Act and the widespread opposition to the use of orders made under section 31 the plans, if any, he has to replace or amend the order made under section 31 in January 1987 by the former Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together. I am at present reviewing all aspects of the current section 31 order and I shall make known in due course, and after consultation with the Government, what action, if any, I propose on the matter.
It would appear from the Minister's answer that he may soon have to consider making changes to the order. Can he give an assurance that no change will be made to the order until such time as he has had an unequivocal response to the effect that the organisations listed under the order will renounce violence and give their committed support to the democratic process? Can he assure us that until such time as he gets that commitment from them he will make no change in the order and will not allow them access to the State broadcasting services, RTE radio or television, either live or recorded?
The primary responsibility of this and any Government of the State is the security of the State and of its citizens. It was with that in mind that the initial order was made. This position has been confirmed as being a duty on a Government by the Supreme Court in an appeal to that court against a section 31 order a number of years back. The case that has been made and at which I am looking before reporting to Government, both by the NUJ and the RTE authorities whom I have met, is that technology has by-passed the order in the manner in which it was originally introduced because of the large portion, up to 70 per cent, of the population who are now in a position to receive the BBC and ITV channels. There is a further anomaly in that it is an RTE subsidiary which is, in actual fact, bringing to Irish homes these BBC and ITV programmes. In my meeting with the RTE authorities I have told them it is not sufficient to write to me or to my predecessors to ask that section 31 be abolished. I want to know, if section 31 were abolished or amended, what guidelines they would operate under because of their specific responsibility. They have a specific responsibility under section 18 of the enabling legislation which set them up and I would ask them to let me have a look at the guidelines under which they would operate if a change were made. I am not saying a change will be made, but when I have a file on the up-to-date position I intend to bring it to the Government to discuss it with them, at which stage I shall make my position known to the authorities.
I call Proinsias De Rossa because of the fact that his colleague has a question down and then I shall call Deputy Cooney.
Will the Minister allow a debate on the order which has been made which is to come into effect after 21 sitting days of this House, which will be some time early in the next session? There is a motion down from myself and other Worker's Party Deputies seeking to have the order annulled. There has not been any debate since 1976 and we see an urgent need for such a debate. Will he also indicate in any review that he will consider the position of elected representatives and trade unionists who are excluded under this section, from television screens and from radio because of their political affiliation, even from discussing trade union and local authority matters?
The question of a debate in the House is, of course, a matter for the Whips. I shall bring to the attention of the Government Whip the request made by the Deputy. As far as the review is concerned, anomalies such as the position of local authority members not being allowed to be interviewed even in relation to ditches, drains, lights or other issues and the situation of trade union leaders or officials also being barred are two of the points which have been brought to my attention by those who want an amendment of the present section 31. They are matters which will be taken into account and consideration in the file which I intend to present to Government. There is one point I want to emphasise, that in whatever decisions are arrived at the whole question of the security of the State must be the primary objective. For example, we could not allow a situation ever to occur of interviews taking place which would permit these paramilitaries and terrorists to justify atrocities in the North at any time.
Surely the Minister in his reply to Deputy O'Malley is evading the kernel of this issue, that is, that it is indefensible to permit representatives of a so-called political party, Provisional Sinn Féin, which formally advocates murder as a policy option, access to the national airwaves. It is irrelevant to argue that other stations can be received here or that people who might be trade unionists or might want to talk about the local drains should be allowed on the media. If they are members of an organisation which formally advocates murder as a policy the national airwaves should be banned to them. Full stop.
That is, of course, central to the whole debate and central to whatever decisions will be made. As I have said, the security of the State and the safety and security of the citizens will be the primary objective of this Government and their primary duty at all times. However, in view of the fact that section 31 was introduced in the early seventies and that changes have taken place in technology——
The policy of murder has not changed.
——I am taking the opportunity as a new Minister to look at the matter in the light of the responsible representations I have received from responsible groups. The decision may remain the same, but it is my duty, at least, to respond by looking at the situation. I shall bring a memo to Government to be decided upon. The primary responsibility at all times, which we will honour, is the security of the State and of the citizens of this State.
I call on a final question from Deputy Desmond.
Would the Minister agree that there should be no ambivalence or ambiguity on his part in respect of those, be they elected public representatives or whatever office they may hold, who specifically have given under oath their allegiance to the army council of the PIRA whose avowed aim is to destroy the institutions of this State——
Or any IRA.
——who do not recognise the institutions of this State? That responsibility devolved on him, as Minister, takes precedence over any representations from the RTE authorities, the NUJ, or any other source.
I have indicated on three occasions during the course of my response that the primary responsibility of the Government, any Government, is the security of the State and of the citizens. That will always be a prime responsibility with this Government. I have indicated that to the House and to those who have come, as is their democratic right, to meet a Minister. They have a point of view to put, that is, the NUJ and the RTE authorities. I have met them.
Murder is not a point of view.
That is totally unfair and unjust to the members of the NUJ who came to see me, who all emphasised that in no way were they involved or interested in justifying the atrocities of the IRA. They wanted to put a spotlight on them rather than justify them. To say that the members of the RTE Authority — a body of people selected in the main by the administration of which the Deputy was a member — would in any way try to justify murder is really beneath — I will not go on any further. All I can say is that this Government will be guided by the principles of the protection of the security of the State. I believe I am entitled, and that it is right that I should listen to legitimate representations from legitimate people and respond to them in a considered way rather than in any other way.
I am now moving on to Question No. 3. We have already devoted ten minutes to the first two questions.
In view of the fact that I am not familiar with the brisk operation of Question Time perhaps I could be permitted to ask one supplementary as shadow spokesman for Fine Gael on this subject.
The Deputy puts his request in such a way that he makes it difficult for me to refuse. Perhaps he would put a short question.
Is not the thrust of what the Minister is saying completely contrary to what he is trying to achieve, in that he is saying he would seek to exclude discussion of atrocities that had occured? The sort of terms he appears to be talking about — whereby illegal organisations could be on the media discussing non-controversial subjects——
This is a long question, Deputy. Perhaps you would put a short question.
——such as employment and so on would be contrary to the very object and would be the very thing they would want?
The Deputy will have to await the outcome of the deliberations on this.
The Minister's review is welcome.