Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 1 Feb 1994

Vol. 438 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Broadcasting Authority Legislation: Motion.

Mr. M. McDowell

I move:

That Dáil Éireann, in view of the continuing campaign of slaughter and destruction in Northern Ireland and in view of the failure of those engaged in or supporting the campaign of violence to accept the Downing Street Declaration as a just basis for developing a political settlement, calls on the Government to make orders under section 31 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960, in the same terms as applied until 19 January 1994, on a two-monthly basis until such time as those engaged in the campaign of violence and those who are in or associated with the organisations mentioned in the orders publicly commit themselves to an immediate and permanent cessation.

Tonight's motion comes at a significant point in the development of the peace process. In recent weeks it has become abundantly clear that the IRA does not intend to give any definitive response to the Downing Street Declaration in the short or medium term which, in this context, means in the coming weeks or months. It is simply not in the IRA's interest to give such a response. There is no downside in delay or prevarication. On the contrary, recent events have put and kept the IRA in a centre stage position. It has never been less isolated or more fully understood. Its viewpoint has never been more carefully parsed and analysed; it has never had such an opportunity to expound its point of view or its agenda. If sympathy, generosity of spirit and a willingness to listen have been absent in the past, they are not in short supply today. However, the killing goes on and the peace process is stalled.

I have spoken thus far about the IRA rather than Sinn Féin because many people here are confused by Provo propaganda into believing that the IRA and Sinn Féin are separate but allied bodies drawing their support from similar bases. Nothing could be further from the truth. The IRA is the controlling element in the Provisional movement. Sinn Féin is not an independent political force. It is controlled and supervised by the leaders of the IRA at every level. It has no independent mind of its own and aspires to none. It could not survive in present circumstances without the IRA. It cannot split from the IRA nor can it persuade the IRA. Its leaders cannot do so either. Sinn Féin is the face of the IRA, the mask behind which the IRA plans and dissembles. The pretence that Sinn Féin is a peace seeking political party that can act as a sympathetic interlocutor or intermediary for the IRA is entirely bogus. Adams and McGuinness are at the centre of the Provisional movement and they cannot and will not stand aside or apart from it. Sinn Féin is not the political ally of the IRA; it is the IRA playing at politics.

It is our thesis and fixed conviction in the Progressive Democrats that allowing Sinn Féin access to the airwaves is allowing the IRA to use the airwaves. Events in the short period since 19 January demonstrate amply that access to the airwaves is, as we predicted, one way traffic for the IRA to flout the authority of the State, to attempt to rehabilitate murder and subversion as a political tactic and to attempt to build status and credibility for the IRA's armalite and ballot boxes strategy. If the ending of the section 31 order had been part of a linked process in which the Provisionals gave up violence, it would not really matter which step preceded the other. If face had to be saved to save lives, it would be arch of any politician to stand on some principled order of precedence, but there is no such linkage and all the signs are that there will be no such linkage in the short or medium term.

The Provos do not accept the basis of the Downing Street Declaration and have indicated that they will not accept it. They do not want clarification; they want it changed by negotiation. The changes they seek are simple to understand although, for all their simplicity, they will not be expounded in public by Gerry Adams who prefers to demand a secret method of dialogue with the British Government. The Provos want Britain to indicate in principle that it will withdraw from the North. If they do not want a time frame for withdrawal they want a "sell by" date or a "best before" label put on the Unionist political aspiration. They have made it abundantly clear that they will not settle for less. In short, they will not accept that the constitutional status of Northern Ireland cannot change without the consent of a majority of its people.

In so saying, they reject what the Dublin Government described as the cornerstone of the peace process. Instead, they are demanding that Britain should undermine and lever out that cornerstone, and all of this is to be disguised as what they term clarification. No such concession will be made because any such concession would tear apart the Northern communities, end the involvement of the Alliance Party and moderate Unionists in the peace process and pave the way to a terrible resurgence of polarised politics and the spectre of unprecedented intercommunal violence.

It is in this context that we must judge the ending of the section 31 order. If the Provisionals were to renounce violence permanently within the next eight or ten weeks, the authority of this State could endure what is happening but if, as is obvious now, the Provisionals are hell bent on kicking out the fragile foundations of consensus in the Downing Street Declaration, on trampling down its fine balance and blasting away its central principles, we are faced with a major political and constitutional challenge which this State must face down. "Clarification," their term, seems to be a process whereby we will see daylight through the remains of the Downing Street accord.

The Taoiseach has made every possible gesture he could properly make and several lapses which he ought not have made, the most recent on Sunday evening when he used the Provo-speak of "demilitarisation". He painted the use of arms in Northern Ireland as a three cornered process and used language that drew no moral distinction whatsoever between the status of the security forces in Northern Ireland and that of the terrorist murderers there. That type of political body language is neither proper nor helpful. It is based on an entirely false premise there is something in common between the security forces and the terrorists they are there to confront. That language devalues the office of Taoiseach and, worse still, it undermines trust with the Unionist community. If we are talking about trust building the Taoiseach must choose his words more carefully in future.

The ongoing process of devaluation, political language and democratic authority in pursuit of compromise is fraught with danger but when it is being done in the face of the facts it is proving to be folly of the highest order. Truth, as usual, is the first casualty in this process. To suggest that there is not a whisker of difference between what we know of the Humes-Adams process and the Downing Street Declaration is false. Senior politicians who compare what is set out in paragraph 5 of the Downing Street Declaration with the stated position of Hume and Adams are making a fundamental error because paragraph 5 sets out the Taoiseach's viewpoint, not the British viewpoint.

In regard to the Taoiseach, that paragraph states:

He accepts, on behalf of the Irish Government that the democratic right of self-determination by the people of Ireland as a whole must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland....

In contrast, the British position is set out in paragraph 4 in terms which are crystal clear. That paragraph states the British Government has agreed that — and these are the important words — if it is the wish of the people of Ireland by agreement between the two parts respectively to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent freely and concurrently given, North and South, it is for the people of Ireland alone to choose to do so. The British acknowledge that such an agreement could, as of right, include the outcome of a united Ireland but — and this is the important point and one about which the Provos are well aware — it equally follows that, in the absence of such an agreement or if such an agreement takes a different course, the majority in Northern Ireland for the time being may, within the terms of the Downing Street Declaration, choose to retain the link with the British indefinitely. That is something the Provos have said they will not wear and that is not the same as the Hume-Adams Agreement as we know it.

It is futile to pretend that the circle can be squared. The British formulation in paragraph 4 is as far as the principle of national self-determination can be reconciled with the majoritarian principle set out in Article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Unless and until the Provos accept that the only way forward is to accept a process built on the reality that the status of Northern Ireland is open both to Nationalist and Unionist aspiration and preference and that a majority of the people of the North will decide its constitutional linkage with Britain or with the South, there is no common ground between the Provisionals and even the most moderate Unionist opinion. There is no prospect in those circumstances for an inclusive peace process without such acceptance.

On this fundamental issue the Provos must be faced down. On this they must be told there is no concession forthcoming. There is a danger that political coinage, such as, using the term "armed struggle" which means murder, will go into wider circulation if, as it has been, it is used by TV interviewers to make their point or to engage in dialogue. There is also a danger that "demilitarisation" will convey the meaning the Taoiseach seemed to put on it the other day, that is, that the Dublin Government is no longer drawing a moral distinction between the security forces in Northern Ireland and the murder gangs which they face.

If the Provisionals persist in their unrealistic and unattainable demands, every political gesture takes on a new significance. The concession that their armalite and ballot box strategy can be dealt with as just another political point of view in the broadcast media is not a concession that any liberal democracy can afford to make.

The path to peace in Northern Ireland lies primarily along the road of trust. Faced with the malign posture of Paisleyism, those who believe in creating trust must of necessity deal with the Alliance Party and the moderates among the official Unionists. Those parties in turn and their supporters deserve to be treated in good faith. If their constitutional aspiration is accorded even some legitimacy it should not be sacrificed in an attempt to persuade the Provos to stop murdering their way to political victory. If Ken Maginnis says that he feels betrayed by the section 31 decision, I will listen very carefully because I will be listening to a man whom the Provos have attempted to murder on a number of occasions. I will listen to Martin Smyth because he has spoken with reason and calm. We are denied the voice of people like Robert Bradford and Edgar Graham because they were butchered by the Provos. Strangely and somewhat sinisterly, the Democratic Unionists have never been subject to the same assassination tactics and it is not hard to see why.

For the time being the IRA has given up killing elected politicians. For the time being the IRA has stopped killing building workers and contractors. For the time being the IRA has stopped killing children. That is all for the time being. It is only killing security force members now. It is killing RUC men and women if it can. It is killing British Army men and women if it can. To what end? To show the British Government that the Downing Street Declaration is not enough, to break the will of the British and to preserve the principle of majority determination in Northern Ireland. Adams in a recent radio interview with Jim Dougall of the BBC sought to explain and justify this change in the murder list of the Provos. Who does he think he is fooling?

The leadership of Sinn Féin is centrally involved in all of this. It is the propaganda wing of the murder, the maiming and destruction. It is using the violence of the Provisional IRA to further its political agenda. It claims a revolutionary mandate, not a popular democratic mandate, for its acts. It expects its barbarous violence to be retrospectively anointed by history.

We in this House, on the other hand, must uphold the authority of democracy, the value of human lives and human rights and the basic legitimacy of democratic politics. We are charged by our mandates to reject and face down the combination of murder with politics. If any party in this House was using murder to achieve its political end, would we countenance it? If Members of this House faced the same fate or threat as Robert Bradford, Edgar Graham or John Taylor, would we allow our Taoiseach to speak of the legitimacy of the mandate of their murderers? If we had to search under our cars in the morning before we come to this place, if we had to fortify our homes to exist in our communities, if we had to have policemen to open up and search our clinics because there could be landmines in them, would we allow the people who pose that threat to us in this House and, indeed, a threat to our Constitution, access to the State broadcast TV or radio media? Would we allow them to be feather-dusted there by impartial reporters on the merits of their threat to this House and its Members? Let us not cod ourselves; we would not.

It is an irony that the real partitionists in this House are to be judged by the extent to which they tolerate north of the Border violence and a threat to democratic values which would be snuffed out ruthlessly if it reared its ugly head and became tangible south of the Border. It is an irony that it is only north of the Border that that can be tolerated. If those things happened in our democracy, if one Member of this House was shot dead, there would be a radically different response from this Government. It is strange that the Border seems to seal us from feelings for the democratic values north of the Border and the people who are the practitioners of democracy up there. It is strange that our feelings and our sense of duty stop at the Border. I wonder why those Deputies who are loudest in their condemnation of partition seem to have thrown a border across their duties to fellow Irishmen and the vindication of democracy in all parts of this island.

I note with some disbelief that the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Higgins, has claimed that the decision on section 31 was not affected or determined by the peace process. He may be speaking for himself but one thing is very clear, he was not speaking the political truth or for the rest of the Cabinet when he said that there may be some ivory tower in which he consults a mirror on the morality of censorship or the limits of liberalism, but if he is so out of touch with reality as to view the issue of whether section 31 should be renewed as having nothing to do with the peace process, it calls into question his judgment on the issue of Northern Ireland.

The Progressive Democrats do not believe that section 31 is, as the Minister seems to have believed for many years past, an issue of political censorship or an issue in which freedom of speech arises. When the National Union of Journalists in Ireland brought its case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, it was rejected as unstateable by the Commission of the European Court of Human Rights, even without a court hearing.

Section 31 orders were not put in place to protect us from hearing the Provo message nor because successive Governments thought the great majority, or even a significant minority, of people were politically immature or gullible. They were put in place to uphold the authority of the State and the democratic basis of politics. They were put in place precisely because we require our broadcast media to be politically impartial. Impartiality and balance, which are statutory requirements of all the media, whether State owned or privately owned independent broadcasters, are not privileges available for those who use the media to undermine the State and to propagate the killing of fellow Irish people nor are they available to those who seek to set aside the rule of law for the barbarism that the Provos — I refer to all of them, whether in suits or in combat jackets — have brought to these islands in the last 20 years.

If we believe in a regime of licensing the broadcast media, in requiring them to be political and impartial, and in prescribing by statute a code of impartiality by which they must abide, it follows that they are in an entirely different category from the print media of whom we do not make such demands. There have been specious arguments launched repeatedly by people asking why should RTE and broadcasters, be prevented from broadcasting material which any newspaper may print. Nobody says of any newspaper in this country that it has a duty to be impartial. Nobody licences the newspaper media here. Nobody tells a newspaper it has been unfair. There is no newspaper complaints tribunal, as there is a Broadcasting Complaints Tribunal, to redress the wrongs or to force newspapers to treat issues fairly. We have in our democracy newspapers that are privately owned and free, as the Minister well knows perhaps to his cost, to be as unfair as they choose, to put forward whatever viewpoint they choose and to lay whatever emphasis they wish. Nobody has ever proposed, and I hope nobody is proposing, that a system of State licensing of newspapers would be appropriate.

However, in distinction, we say in relation to the broadcast media that they are too important to be left to private individuals to establish and run in accordance with their own prejudices, that they are two important for programme editors — the equivalent of individual columnists — to run programmes in accordance with their political prejudices. We say that the broadcasting media are too important to hand over to people who are under no duty of impartiality, fairness or balance. If that is true then it follows that there is a radical distinction between the print and broadcast media. It follows that, as a matter of Irish law, it is specious to say that what applies to one must necessarily apply to the other.

The proof of the pudding has been seen in the last fortnight. Skilled broadcasters, whose training and background taught them to be impartial, deferential to a point and polite to a fault, have been confronted with skilled, devious and determined propagandists for murder and they have not knocked a feather off them with their feather duster. They have made no impression whatsoever. The net effect of access of Sinn Féin to the airwaves in the last fortnight has been that they are becoming a part of the legitimate establishment of this country while holding on to the right to blow out someone's brains or to blow up children when it suits them. That is what has happened in the last week or two. That is why Gerry Adams is feted in New York, that is why there are cameras in RTE to welcome him, even at the door of the studio, when he goes to speak to Brian Farrell or David Davin-Power.

All the deference and civilities that are shown to democratically elected people are being shown to people who are engaged in a murder campaign on this island. We have achieved nothing in the last fortnight which in any sense fulfils the great boasts made by the deprived broadcast media during the section 31 regime that they would be able to expose the falsity and barbarities of the Sinn Féin campaign. There has been no evidence whatsoever that they have made any progress in denting the IRA's status or standing in the community. However, there is clear evidence that we have set in train a process for which the Government, by the foolish error it made in lifting the section 31 ban, must take considerable responsibility; we have put in train a process whereby the use of murder as part of politics is no longer seen as a stigma which deprives those people who use both murder and politics to achieve their end access to the democratically controlled media. People will become progressively numbed to seeing on their screens those who engage in murder, talking not merely about their campaign of murder but about every other subject under the sun. We are normalising and institutionalising Sinn Féin's presence in our broadcast media and that will have the effect, as time goes by, of numbing people to the reality of the barbarities of the Sinn Féin-IRA campaign.

Those who claimed that the section 31 orders prevented us from knowing the truth have been confounded utterly by the experience of the last fortnight. For the Provos the victory is simply being on television and radio. They have been kept to less than 2 per cent support in recent Irish elections, and rightly so. What is the difference between them and the Nazis in Germany or the extreme right in countries such as France? The difference is that this country has taken a stance based on the moral authority of democracy to deny these people equality of status with constitutional politicians, and it has been successful. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. They have, within our democracy, been kept to a small lunatic fringe status. However, this is capable of being thrown away by what I suggest is the unwarranted folly of this Government in making a gesture to the Provisional movement in present circumstances.

The IRA has a deep rooted contempt from human rights. That organisation has killed hundreds of people. Sometimes we forget those circumstances, but surely now and then we can recall the horror of the RUC men who have been blown up in their cars outside their homes. What about the wives and children who see the aftermath of those explosions? These events merit a tiny fraction of the newsprint that is accorded to the tortuous meanderings of Mr. Adams' political thought process in some of our newspapers. When an RUC man is blown up the story gets only a few column inches in the papers. Will RTE interview that man's widow? Will the full horror of what happened ever be conveyed to the people of the Republic? No. I defy people in this House to recall the widows and families of UDR men, RUC men and British Army men who have been interviewed in the same probing way about the extent of their loss and grief as have many other victims of violence in Northern Ireland. It strikes me as grotesque and obscene that even our newspapers of record which devote half pages to long, meandering statements of justification for this murder campaign, consider that the families who are destroyed by barbarities, the people who are murdered and tortured by the IRA, merit far less coverage than the people who are directing the political face of the campaign that is doing so much evil.

Do we need to be reminded of what happens to those whose conscience gets the better of them and inform the police about planned murders? We should remember that they are regularly stripped naked, hooded, tortured in unspeakable ways, shot through the head and dumped by their murdering former colleagues in ditches along country roads near the Border. That is the IRA at war and Sinn Féin is the IRA playing politics. The people who direct the Sinn Féin political thrust are the same people who take part in planning the campaign that deals with its dissidents in that way. Those are the rights about which this State and this Oireachtas should be concerned, not a specious and entirely fallacious view — the European Commission on Human Rights rightly found — that the human right of freedom of speech was in some sense curtailed by section 31.

We cannot excuse the bombings at Enniskillen, La Mon, Guildford and Birmingham, nor can we excuse Adams or McGuinness of the moral blame for the killing of Robert Bradford and Edgar Graham and the attempted murder of Ken Magennis. Their view of democracy is that those who stand in their way can be blown out of their way.

Of course, it is true, and I accept, that the evil IRA campaign was conceived in circumstances of injustice and hatred. Of course it is true that there have been enormous wrongs done in Northern Ireland. I am conscious as is my party, that we always remember the killing by the Army in Northern Ireland, all the torture at Palace Barracks, all the beatings carried out at Castlereagh, all the miscarriages of justice in Britain and Ireland, all the harrassment and all the repression that has taken place, but they are grist to the mill of the IRA. Such is the nature of political terror: it feeds off injustice, it creates injustice, it draws forth injustice, and all to propagate further injustice. It is to the remedying of such injustices that every political sinew of ours must be strained.

There is no injustice on this island that could possibly justify another person to be killed, another person to be maimed, blinded, paralysed, scarred or bereaved, or to be a young witness to such barbarities. There is no moral, legal or political right — I say this particularly to the Minister in the House — to claim that these acts are right, excusable or merely regrettable but necessary or inevitable. There is no constitutional right to organise politically in support of, or in conjunction with, such barbarities. There is no constitutional freedom to propagate the destruction of others under the protection of the law, directly or indirectly. On the contrary, this State is under a clear constitutional duty, legal and moral, to protect people from the IRA wherever they are on this island and to suppress and to prevent the strategy of the armalite and the ballot box. The phrase "the strategy of the armalite and the ballot box" needs some consideration because I believe that neither the armalite nor the ballot box — I use those words advisedly — should be available to anyone who will use both together.

It is not the fate of liberals to have to falter, to implode or to fall on their own political swords when they are confronted with political violence. The section 31 orders were not repression. Under our Constitution the airwaves were, are and will be available equally to every person in Ireland provided they are not engaged in the systematic extinguishment of other people's right to life. That minimum standard of access to the airwaves is not censorship; it is vindication of people's human rights — the right to life and the right to freedom of speech.

It is false, and has always been false, for Members of this House and for a minority of people to portray the section 31 issue in terms of political censorship. It is not, and never has been, the case that the people of Ireland have been under any misconception as to what the Provos believe or what they are about. They are a group of men and women who have set about the destruction of the State in which they operate but they are also a group of people who have on their agenda, when they are finished that work, to set about the same work in this State. That is their stated political agenda and it cannot be obfuscated, dressed up or manicured into any different message. A liberal democracy owes nobody who is about the business and the business of murder the privilege of propagating their views in the media which it is required by law to control and keep impartial. A liberal democracy owes nobody such a duty; a liberal democracy owes everybody the duty to prevent that from happening.

During the Adjournment Debate on the Downing Street Declaration before the Christmas recess the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs informed the House that one of the factors which affected his judgment and that of the Government in relation to an extension of section 31 was that the orders under that Act could not be made for any period of less than one year. That is false. The Act, as amended by the 1976 Act, makes it very clear that orders under the Act could be made for any period up to a year, and that includes any lesser period. There is a basis in law for what the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs told this House, and I am surprised he has never taken the opportunity to correct the impression he created on the last day of the last Dáil term. I am surprised he has not informed the House that the advice he tendered to the House about the legal implications of section 31, as amended, were incorrect and that it was possible for him to make orders of a lesser duration than 12 months.

The Progressive Democrats believe that if the Provisional IRA gives up and renounces permanently the use of violence on every part of this island, they and anybody else who is so minded should have access to the airwaves on an equal basis with the rest of the community. The Progressive Democrats believes the converse; until the Provisionals give up murdering people they are not entitled to use the airwaves of this country to propagate their point of view. It is not simply a point of view, it is an opinion that kills. It is not simply one of a number of political points of view which it is equally legitimate under our Constitution to hold that you can use murder to further your political aims. On the contrary, it is a viewpoint which the Constitution enjoins upon the State to keep off the airwaves and to keep out of the media to the extent that it subverts the authority of the State. It is not a matter of the Constitution being neutral as regards protecting the authority of the State. There is in Article 40 a clear direction to the Government and the State to prevent the media from being used for the propagation of subversive propaganda.

In conclusion, the Progressive Democrats have not come into the House to suggest the reinstatement of section 31 because we want to drive a hard bargain with the IRA. We have not come in here to suggest that section 31 should be reinstated because, on balance, we feel an error was made on 19 January. We have come into the House to seek the reinstatement of the orders under section 31 because events of recent weeks have demonstrated beyond contradiction that the IRA intends, so far as it can, to give no response to the Downing Street Declaration, to parade its objections to the Downing Street Declaration in public and to parade its process of consultation among members as though it were a legitimate process of consultation within a political party. It is no such thing, and nobody should be fooled by the nature of what is going on at present. Adams and McGuinness have a clear agenda — to prevaricate, to delay and to avoid making any clear commitment to the Downing Street Declaration.

In the euphoria of the public reception for the Downing Street Declaration the Government made a decision that it would make a gesture of goodwill to the Provos, an indication, perhaps, of what would happen if they were to give up violence in the expectation that that is what they were about to do. However, the reality is that that generous gesture has turned out to be a gesture which, in the last analysis, will be seen as being generous with other people's lives.

The Progressive Democrats reject the proposition that section 31 was ever an issue of political censorship; we believe it is a matter of the State upholding its authority; we believe it is a matter of democratic politicians vindicating the values of political democracy. Therefore, we call upon the Government and the Members of this House to reverse the error they made on 19 January and to put back in place the proper protections for the authority of this State and the vindication of human rights throughout this island which were in place, which were effective, which were appropriate, which were proportionate and which should never have been taken away.

Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht (Mr. M. Higgins)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann, recognising the maturity of the Irish people, welcomes the Government decision not to renew the order under section 31 (1) of the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Acts, 1960 to 1993 and expresses confidence in the professionalism of Irish broadcast media journalists in carrying out their responsibilities in compliance with the terms of Article 40 of the Constitution, the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989 and current broadcasting legislation".

I propose to share my time with Deputies Gallagher (Laoighis-Offaly) and McDaid.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. M. Higgins

My attitude towards the making of statutory orders under section 31 (1) of the Broadcasting Authority Acts, 1960 to 1993 has been clear and consistent down the years since the enactment of the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1976 which gave this statutory power to the Minister of the day. Deputies, if they wish, may refer to my contribution to the debate on that Act in the Seanad. I believed then as I do now that the potential abuse of freedom is no excuse for repression.

I listened with great care to what Deputy Michael McDowell said and I respect the views he holds. I note he does not respect the views I hold with the same enthusiasm. I also note suggestions in his speech that were exercises in casuistry and in moral innuendo, that is when he referred to my motivation for bringing forward a recommendation that the order not be renewed. I also listen carefully to those who ask how we defend and define rights.

The most recent order made under section 31 (1), which was allowed to lapse on 19 January 1994, was signed shortly before the present Government was formed and therefore before I took up office. Since my appointment as Minister with responsibility for the matter I have not concealed my lack of enthusiasm for the type of restrictions imposed on broadcasters by the existence of the order. I made it absolutely clear that I would not automatically recommend to Government that the order be renewed when the matter came up for consideration towards the end of 1993.

I have used the time to review this matter in all its complexity. A fundamental difference between Deputy McDowell and me is that he sees the public as inevitable victims of television; I believe they are mature viewers capable of arriving at a decision. These are matters upon which people differ but I have never said it is a simple black and white decision and I have consulted widely with interested parties with differing views on the matter. I have discussed it with my Cabinet colleagues, particularly those who would see an impact on their own statutory responsibilities. I have been available during Question Time to share with this House the shape of my thinking during the course of an extensive and careful review of the issue. Finally, I presented proposals to Government and on my recommendation the Government, taking all relevant factors into account, decided that the order which was made last year should be allowed to lapse when it expired on 19 January last.

I must reject at once another view that I have seen written and heard expressed that I and the Government have acted in some undemocratic way in making this decision. As I have already said, I have answered extensive questions on this matter in the House. The Oireachtas, through the enactment of the provisions of section 16 of the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1976 — which inserted the current provisions in section 31 (1) of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960 — has entrusted the Minister of the day with the power of making an order under this section. Both the Oireachtas and the Minister of the day are entrusted with the power to extend the period during which the current order remains in force. Despite the fact that I made my position clear on a number of occasions that the order under section 31 would not be automatically renewed, some Members chose that I should not exercise this power. It is clear that my actions in this matter, in exercising my democratically accorded statutory functions which have been traditionally exercised with the approval of the Government, have been totally in accord with the democratic process. Indeed I believe I saved them from some embarrassment by not replying directly saying that they had lost their opportunity. They wanted the recall of the Dáil which would have simply pointed out to them that when they had an opportunity they chose not to use it.

I am most disappointed that the Government decision not to renew the section 31 order has been portrayed by some in the narrow context of the effect this will have in relation to one group or another. Criticisms have been levelled along the lines that by allowing the order to lapse, this will give a platform to those who wish to support or justify a campaign of violence and murder. The wording of the motion before us is a case in point.

This criticism ignores two fundamental points. The core issue, as far as I was and am concerned, is not whether Sinn Féin per se or any other group covered by the order is allowed access to the Irish air waves. My recommendation to Government that the order be allowed to lapse is about expressing confidence in the maturity of Irish people and about their right to see and hear comprehensive news and current affairs coverage that is essential to support a fair and informed national debate on issues of national importance, to hear all views and shades of opinion and thereafter to make up their minds on the issues involved. It is a basic issue of freedom of information and expression versus censorship.

I have heard the argument that censorship is invoked to serve a higher category of rights and the assumption is that the public cannot draw distinctions between arguments and nuances of arguments. I choose not to have a determinist view of the impact of television, to trust the public and also to regard the basic right of access to information as one that is essential in a democratic set of practices of communication.

The second fundamental point ignored by the critics and the tone of the Opposition motion is to ignore the existence of sections 17 and 18 of the Broadcasting Authority Acts, section 9 of the Independent Radio and Television Act, 1988 and the provisions of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989 which have applied and which will continue to apply to all broadcasters as well as others.

Can anyone seriously believe that the comprehensive coverage in the print media, which is unrestricted by any specific statutory provisions along the lines of that which has applied to broadcasters, of the tragic events in Northern Ireland over the last 25 years has been a bad thing? Has it contributed to a prolongation of the agony? Would anyone seriously argue that this coverage has not improved our understanding of the situation there? How, therefore, can anyone seriously believe that access to such information and reportage through our broadcast media will result in the undermining of the authority of the State or lead to an upsurge in public support for the men of violence? Irish print media journalists have, in the main, an honourable and valuable tradition in their reporting of and expression of opinions on this issue. I see no reason to believe that the broadcast media, freed of the restrictions of the section 31 order, cannot perform the same vital function and enhance our understanding of events in Northern Ireland. In virtually every article, speech or commentary on broadcasting these days, we hear about the revolution that is taking place in telecommunications technology which is providing options for a diversity of programmes, views and services to every home in the world. To my mind, it is high time that we allowed this technology to assist us more completely in our attempts to understand and to find the way to peace on our own island. To some extent, at least, this is to put these breathtaking technologies at the service of the people rather than at the service of those who see television and radio as simply an effective means of selling us their goods and services. With the existing corpus of statutory constraints that continue in force for broadcasters it is not, as the motion before the House suggests, to put the broadcast media at the service of the men of violence, as if I were handing like an advertising manager, the national media to a group of people who did not believe in democracy but who condoned murder.

Let us examine what has actually happened here. On the one hand, the Government has decided, on my recommendation, that the Order under section 31 should be allowed to lapse. On the other hand the RTE Authority has to abide by the provisions of sections 17 and 18 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960 as amended by the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1976. Section 17 provides that in performing its functions the RTE Authority shall in its programming, inter alia:

—be responsive to the interests and concerns of the whole community, be mindful of the need for understanding and peace within the whole island of Ireland, ensure that the programmes reflect the varied elements which make up the culture of the people of the whole island of Ireland, and have special regard for the elements which distinguish that culture and in particular for the Irish language.

Section 18 (1A) of the Broadcasting Authority Act prohibits the RTE Authority from including in any of its broadcasts anything which may reasonably be regarded as being likely to promote, or incite to crime or as tending to undermine the authority of the State. Section 9 of the Radio and Television Act, 1988 places similar prohibitions on independent radio stations operated under the auspices of the Independent Radio and Television Commission. The fundamental difference between section 18 (1A) and the terms of an order under section 31 (1) is that, in the first case, it is the responsibility of the RTE Authority and the independent radio operators to decide what contravenes the law whereas, in the second case, the Minister forms his opinion on what should not be broadcast and imposes a statutory ban. In addition, we have the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989 which prohibits a broadcast which is intended to or likely to stir up hatred. It is my view that the public good is sufficiently protected by these provisions which remain in place and that it is unnecessary for a Minister to be dictating to a broadcasting authority what is unfit to be transmitted.

One of the first Bills which I initiated when I became Minister was the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1993 which was debated in the House not too long ago. I can remember that most of the Deputies who took part in the debate on that Bill referred very positively to the contribution made by RTE to our way of life and how it had changed. Many Deputies from all sides of the House spoke in particularly glowing tones about the hugely positive impact which the fledgling independent radio sector had made in a few short years in giving local perspectives on national and international news stories and as important avenues of expression of local culture and values. I agreed — and still do — with most of these views. However, I must put the question: what has happened in the eight months or so since this Act was passed? Why are we now not prepared to trust these very same broadcasters to behave responsibly and to obey the law? The time has come to let them shoulder their full responsibility as broadcast journalists.

I can appreciate the fear of change expressed by the Deputies who have tabled this motion. After all, RTE has not operated without either a statutory order or a statutory direction being in force in this area for 20 years. Therefore, it is not surprising that there would be resistance to change but I believe that their fears are groundless.

Let us, for the purposes of this debate, look at the section 31 order within the context of the tragic conflict in Northern Ireland. One of the difficulties with a debate of this nature is that it is impossible to quantify the effect of the existence of the Order for over 20 years on the Northern Ireland situation in any definite way. We cannot say categorically that it has contributed in any way to a lessening of violence in Northern Ireland. Indeed it is perhaps worth noting that at present a majority of the population of Northern Ireland cannot receive RTE television programmes.

There are those who seem to believe that the removal of the Order will allow those who support violence and murder an uncritical platform from which to justify and to generate support for their abominable atrocities committed in the name of both communities on this island. Those of us who take the view I do condemn those atrocities unconditionally and unequivocally. Those who want to use the orders under section 31 as some instrument have no monopoly of moral outrage. There are also those who have believed that the existence of the orders has led over the years to an unhealthy reluctance on the part of journalists to investigate and report on the issues fully for fear of breaching the provisions of the Order. They argue that this reluctance has frustrated sections of the community in Northern Ireland as they can see no avenue for expressing their legitimately held views. In short, some would argue that the orders have at least contained the violence while others would claim that the conflict has been exacerbated as a result.

For my part, I find it difficult to be convinced that the existence of the orders and directions over the past 20 years has contributed in any meaningful way to the securing of peace in Northern Ireland. There is also the anomaly that an ever increasing number of households on this side of the Border have access to United Kingdom television services where, until quite recently, there was no ban on the appearance of representatives of organisations covered by the order under Section 31 and where since the ban has been imposed broadcasters have devised ingenious ways to circumvent the spirit, if not the letter of the ban. I am not convinced that access by an ever increasing number of viewers in this part of the island to United Kingdom services has led to any increase in support for organisations covered by the section 31 Order.

I have no doubt that our population has become more mature and sophisticated over the past 20 years as is evidenced by our questioning of previously strongly and even rigidly held views about social and moral issues. We have come to realise that not everything can be painted in terms of black and white. Tolerance and compassion have come into our understanding of how we have to live with one another on this island. This growth in understanding has allowed us to see the representatives of those organisations engaged in or supporting violence for what they are. The vast majority of the population would probably welcome the opportunity to see and hear representatives of these organisations being subjected to rigorous scrutiny and being asked to justify their actions on our radio and television services. The vast majority of the population are clearly revolted by the atrocities perpetrated in the name of Ireland by many organisations covered under the Order and supported, or at least condoned, by their political wings. We have seen in recent years a desire for peace that cannot and will not be frustrated by the men of violence.

I referred earlier to the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989. This Act makes it an offence to broadcast material intended to, or likely to, stir up hatred.

In July 1993, the United Nations Human Rights Committee reported on Ireland's compliance with the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which Ireland ratified in 1989. The Order made under section 31 (1) of the Broadcasting Authority Act was brought to the attention of the committee by the Irish Council of Civil Liberties. In its final comments issued at the end of July the Human Rights Committee stated that

the prohibition on interviews with certain groups outside the borders by the broadcast media infringes upon the freedom to receive and impart information under Article 19, Paragraph 2, of the Covenant.

The option proposed in the motion before the House, that of the recurring renewal for short periods until those prohibited by the order renounce violence is one which I considered briefly and I have to say, rejected. To accept the proposal in the motion is to refuse to take a decision and to allow an organisation such as Sinn Féin to set the agenda of the Government — in broadcasting matters — as to its attitude to the fundamental question of principle on censorship of broadcast news and current affairs. It is far better to grasp this nettle firmly now and to make a decision rather than dither on from month to month wondering if a particular organisation will allow us place our trust in the people and in our professional journalists. That is the nub of the matter this evening.

I believe, as Minister with responsibility for broadcasting policy, that censorship of news and current affairs coverage is unacceptable. While I am cognisant of the views expressed in the Supreme Court judgment in 1982 which referred to the obligations imposed on the State by Article 40 (6) of the Constitution, I believe that the current situation is not such that warrants the State intervening directly to determine what may or may not be broadcast. The Oireachtas has imposed a responsibility on the RTE Authority and the operators of independent broadcasting stations to ensure that nothing is broadcast that may reasonably be regarded as being likely to promote, or incite to, crime or as tending to undermine the authority of the State. This statutory responsibility should now be exercised by the RTE Authority and the independent sector. Accordingly, I proposed to Government that the Order in force until 19 January 1994 should be allowed to lapse.

Let me be quite clear about my thinking here. I fully subscribe to the provisions of Article 40 (6) of the Constitution which guarantees the liberty of citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions but also imposes an obligation on the State to endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State. I accept wholeheartedly that television and radio services must not be used to justify murder or to incite others to violence. It is my contention that the State's constitutional obligations are fully met by current broadcasting legislation and the provisions of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989, which I mentioned earlier, and that there is no longer sufficient justification for Orders under section 31. In the unlikely event that our broadcast media journalists are somehow hoodwinked into allowing their programmes to be used in an illegal fashion, the power to introduce an order remains. Unlike the proposers of the motion before the House, I am confident that no such need will arise.

I should also make it clear that I do not see myself as some kind of watchdog vetting every news and current affairs programme to search out possible abuses of these new freedoms. The RTE Authority and the Independent Radio and Television Commission have been established by Acts of the Oireachtas as the custodians of the airwaves on behalf of the nation. They have been given statutory responsibilities and duties and are autonomous in these areas. They, in their wisdom, have drawn up guidelines on the operation of the relevant legislative provisions. It is the responsibility of both organisations to monitor and ensure adherence to their guidelines. It will also be their responsibility to amend or revise them if they consider it necessary to do so in the light of experience.

The Broadcasting Complaints Commission is charged with the investigation of complaints of alleged breaches of the legislation and it is important to stress this point — the commission will investigate alleged breaches of legislation rather than guidelines. As I said, it will be up to the RTE Authority and the Independent Radio and Television Commission to adjudicate on the adequacy of their guidelines in the light of experience. The kernel of the matter is that, in a democracy, the Government should not have to intervene in the detail of broadcast programmes, particularly news and current affairs programmes.

As Deputies will be aware, there have been some interviews broadcast recently which would not have been permitted if the section 31 order had been renewed. I do not wish to place too much emphasis on the content of these interviews or on the individual or organisation involved. Without wishing to impinge in any way on the autonomy for our broadcasters, it is safe to say that these interviews have ranged from what could reasonably be described as a publicity stunt on the part of one broadcaster, regardless of the contents of the interview itself, to the normal integration of such interviews in news and current affairs programming. It is inevitable that the first such interviews will excite a certain element of novelty interest and comment. I would expect that within a very short time, decisions by broadcasters as to whether interviews with spokespersons representing organisations covered by the order will be taken in accordance with standard editorial judgment regarding the relevance and importance of what these people have to say.

Before I conclude I would like to acknowledge the possibility that in the future there may well be one or two occasions where a particular programme or contribution to a programme may give cause for concern. If such instances occur, I ask Deputies to bear in mind an extract from a report made by the Federal Communications Commission, which regulated broadcasting in the United States, as far back as 1949 which says:

. . . the standard of public interest is not so rigid that an honest mistake or error of judgement on the part of a licensee (this means a broadcaster) will be condemned where his overall record demonstrates a reasonable effort to provide a balanced presentation of comment and opinion...

I ask Deputies to share the confidence expressed in this extract in our maturity, judgment and competence and I urge them to take the opportunity to express similar confidence in the people by supporting my amendment to the motion.

Mr. Gallagher

(Laoighis-Offaly): I oppose the motion but support the amendment proposed by the Minister. The motion proposed by the Progressive Democrats is ill-conceived in its understanding of the purposes of broadcasting and access to the airwaves and the current negotiations on the future of this island on the basis of the Downing Street Declaration. Under the terms of the motion access to the airwaves is to be used as a carrot and stick with which to alternatively coax and beat certain organisations into changing their views. They could do this by proposing an extension of the broadcasting ban on a two monthly basis until they make certain commitments, and by doing so they fail to recognise that this approach has failed for almost two decades. Neither is this the purpose for which our radio and television stations were established.

Article 40 of the Constitution guarantees liberty subject to public order and morality for the exercise of the rights of citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions. Such a right is too important to be used as a tool in a game of cat and mouse as proposed in the motion. Furthermore, a simple reintroduction of the broadcasting ban as it existed until January would ignore the High Court and Supreme Court decisions in the O'Toole case. The nub of the problem is that this motion proposes to limit rights guaranteed under the Constitution, not because of what a person may say but because he is supposed to belong to a certain organisation. This is a ham-fisted and patronising approach and encourages laziness and a lack of discrimination in broadcasting and listeners alike. It harks back to the mentality espoused by many in this country in former times that your betters know best and it is still being promoted by certain guardians of democracy in this House who consider that they should be the judges of what the people are fit to hear and see. Limiting the constitutional right to freedom of expression should only be done in exceptional circumstances and for reasons of what people say rather than who they are or the organisation to which they belong. This is clearly provided for in section 18 of the Broadcasting Act and the guidelines laid down by the RTE Authority and the Independent Radio and Television Commission since the section 31 order lapsed give effect to this while still allowing, as far as possible, freedom of expression.

Granted, it imposes greater obligations on broadcasters and challenges listeners and viewers to be more critical and discriminating. What is wrong with that in a democracy? Most people I met who heard Gerry Adams in recent days have been well able to form critical opinions of his views and would very much welcome a chance to put those views to him or to have them put on their behalf. The ban gave people such as Gerry Adams an aura of mystique which tended to elevate their importance and turn the journalists who reported on them or the actors who imitated them into oracles to be consulted for a sign of what the mysterious creature might mean. Thank God that day is gone and we may now find the deities are mere mortals like ourselves.

The motion is ill-conceived in that it tries to link the abolition of the broadcasting ban with acceptance of the Downing Street Declaration which was welcomed by a wide range of opinion inside and outside this House. We know that strong efforts are being made to have the declaration accepted by Sinn Féin and for the commencement of genuine talks on the future of this island. In the process leading to the Downing Street Declaration I am sure many things were worried about but I am fairly confident that section 31 was the least of these, if it figured at all. Similarly, the current efforts in regard to Sinn Féin are proceeding on the basis of the inherent merits of the declaration and on whether Sinn Féin and its supporters can be convinced that their aspirations can be pursued via this framework. I do not believe that Sinn Féin's acceptance of the declaration will be enhanced either by the promise of reward by way of non-renewal of the ban or by the threat of its reimposition. The process is much larger and more complex than that.

Ms F. Fitzgerald

There is a very real danger that there will be a steady erosion of this State as a result of the removal of section 31 and the access to the airwaves by Sinn Féin. The Supreme Court said that the IRA and Sinn Féin are one. If this is the case, despite the protestations of Gerry Adams, then what we are seeing on the airwaves over the past weeks since the removal of section 31 is a new PR drive by an organisation with violence and criminality as an integral part of its political agenda.

There is no evidence from the interviews I heard so far of the radical new agenda of Sinn Féin. What I have heard is a disturbing, old style rhetoric. I get a feeling, from the interviews, of a predestined outcome, not of a man or a party approaching the situation with any real investment to self-determination of the people of this island, but a calm, cold certainty that their way is the way. The lines used are persuasive in their simplicity. According to Gerry Adams, the "British occupation" is itself sufficient justification for the "armed struggle"; simple, appealing and wrong, ignoring completely the fact that Ulster Protestants have been rooted in this land for nearly four centuries with their families, traditions, expectations and civil rights.

All of that can be so easily glossed away in the emotive phrases of a practised politician, because — let us make no bones about it — Gerry Adams is a practised politician; a practised speaker who knows how to persuade and how to survive debate and a man, above all else, who is possessed of a frighening undemocratic certainty. That certainty and practised eloquence are profound challenges to the democratic discourse. I believe those challenges have been met with a certain unpreparedness in our reaction to section 31.

We should be addressing the real credibility conferred on Gerry Adams by inclusion in mainstream programming politicians who, despite their limitations and faults, have always been committed to democracy.

There has been little examination of the problem of constitutional politicians who do not believe they should share a platform with Gerry Adams because they believe it would provide him — as a man who has not renounced violence — with a normality and acceptability we should not extend to those who promote violence. Instead, the removal of section 31 has, first, put Gerry Adams centre-stage, positioned him as the visiting celebrity whose interviews are to be fought for and promoted, and turned him into a figure of glamour and interest.

It seems that the holding of centre-stage by Gerry Adams in the past few weeks has blurred in a worrying way the most progressive stance outlined in the Joint Declaration which envisages and sets a framework for us living together on this island, where there will be "parity of esteem" for Nationalists and Unionists alike and the other areas mentioned in the Joint Declaration and the further development of North-South institutions.

I am concerned that the fact that Mr. Adams got a visa to visit the United States resulted in a United States audience being prevented from hearing the views of constitutional party leaders from the North of Ireland.

During my visit to Belfast last week it became clear to me once again that if we are to solve the problems on this island we have to take great care to be extremely balanced in our approach to both the Unionist and Nationalist perspective. I am concerned that this balance has been upset by the removal of section 31 and the unfolding saga of Sinn Féin's access to the airwaves. At this extremely delicate time I am worried that this will push the balance away from the possibility of peace and back into the neverending saga of violence.

We must strive continuously to keep the balance and move towards peace. The decision to remove section 31 at this time may prove to have been easy and popular but ill-timed and ill-judged. I worry that Gerry Adams on prime time television in the United States will be putting forward a view of the Joint Declaration which is not an accurate view, and because of the publicity surrounding the granting of this visa his view will be the view that will get most prominence.

There are some questions I should like to ask. Can Sinn Féin-IRA move towards peace given the level of criminality with which that organisation is involved? I also question whether the granting of this visa to Mr. Adams will erode the delicate consensus on the Joint Declaration currently in place. Will the Ulster Unionist Party be further undermined and marginalised and will we see greater support emerging for the more extremist DUP in the North of Ireland?

We should not be so desperate in our efforts for peace that we lose sight of the unfolding dangers of the central position which is being given to Gerry Adams. How many further concessions will there be before the balance is tilted too far?

The Minister in his press release announcing the changes in relation to section 31 mentioned that he had got the RTE guidelines and that he was awaiting guidelines from the Independent Radio and Television Commission. Is the Minister happy with the variation in these guidelines? Can he spell out how he intends to monitor the situation, as he said he would when he made the announcement of the change in relation to section 31, although I notice in his speech tonight that he has made some variations on that? Let us also hear what Gerry Adams has to say to the Taoiseach's analysis about the State's international obligation on self-determination. Can Sinn Féin consistently ignore this? Is it really the British Government that Gerry Adams is still calling on to clarify, or is it that he does not wish to hear the clarifications coming from our democratically elected Government here on the future; the Government which has the support of the Opposition parties on this Joint Declaration? The Joint Declaration also has the support of the parties in Northern Ireland with which the vast majority, both the Nationalists and Unionists, consistently vote.

It now seems that Sinn Féin must clarify their position and listen to what Irish people North and South are saying. They must be aware that the exercising of this right of self-determination on this island, for the vast majority of people on this island, does not include the use of violence. It is clear to me that Sinn Féin do not like the questions being asked and instead of answering are distracting. The lack of the democratic mandate of Sinn Féin stands more and more starkly illus-trated in recent weeks.

The Joint Declaration lays ground rules for affecting change up to and including a united Ireland but does not specify what change will take place. It has been said it is like the electoral law, it tells you how elections are conducted but not who will win. Sinn Féin-IRA know very well what is meant by the following statement in which the means of achieving a united Ireland are clearly spelt out.

The British Government agree that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right to self-determination on the basis of consent freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland if that is their wish.

They do not accept that consent in the North is necessary before British withdrawal and they reject the constitutional guarantee reiterated by Britain in the Joint Declaration. They want Britain to state an intention to withdraw and to persuade or "force" the Unionists to accept some form of all-Ireland government. In other words they want their strategic objective conceded as a precondition, irrespective of the reality of the lives of the two communities. Mr. Adams is constantly seeking clarification but withholding, as Deputy John Bruton has said repeatedly, specific questions about it.

As I have outlined, I believe the lack of specific questions illustrates the reality of the position of Sinn Féin-IRA. Let us not forget — Deputy Michael McDowell reminded us tonight — the violence, injury and destruction that has been caused by paramilitaries on both sides. Now is not the time to take decisions which support extremes on either side. For this reason Fine Gael fully supports the motion put forward by the Progressive Democrats.

Peace is the prime objective in a country committed to an inclusive culture on this island, inclusive of difference. We have to be willing to change Articles 2 and 3, willing to move on social issues and willing to build an Ireland that is genuinely pluralist and inclusive. What we have seen in the past number of weeks, shorn of all the hype, is a depressing return to a much more narrow, excluding vision.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Jim O'Keeffe.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

The failure to renew the section 31 ban damages the peace process. I honestly believe that it reduces the prospect for peace on this island, that is why I so strongly support this motion and the reason I am so critical of the Government's decision.

Let us be clear that one of the continuing objectives of Sinn Féin-IRA has been to obtain access to the airwaves. I am not saying they will decide to accept the Joint Declaration just for that purpose, but it is one of their objectives. They have achieved that objective without renunciation of violence. They are not in from the cold but at least they have one of the prizes which would be available to them on coming in from the cold. The follow on from that is access by the Sinn Féin leader, Gerry Adams, to the United States. Let us be quite clear about it. It was a natural follow-on to the failure to renew the section 31 order. I have no doubt that the Irish Government was consulted and raised no objection to a visa being issued to Mr. Adams. How could the Irish Government raise an objection at this stage? How could there be an objection when the Irish Government allowed the Sinn Féin President access to our national television and radio? It was just a further objective achieved, a further prize in hand, without a renunciation of violence. This process damages the prospects for peace because if one removes all the incentives, why should they bother renouncing violence? Will their attitude not be to continue on and on?

There are two aspects to this question which it is important to bear in mind in the light of the Minister's speech. There is the issue of the ban, and I do not accuse the Minister, Deputy Higgins, of inconsistency in this regard because he always objected to it but the same cannot be said about any of his Government colleagues. This may be an indication of the powers of persuasion of the Minister but it certainly does not indicate common sense among his colleagues in Government. That aspect must be looked at separately but a more crucial aspect is the effect on the peace process of the failure to renew the ban. For 20 years every major party in the State supported the ban. There is a fundamental principle of law going back to Cicero or Plato —Salus populus suprema est lex— that the safety of the State is the first law. In that context the original argument developed that those who seek to undermine the State should not be given access to the airwaves to carry out their mission. A group that does not even recognise the State was denied access to the airwaves. Why should sensible people or the Government of a democratic State give access to the airwaves to those who would undermine the State, who do not even accept its legitimacy? Through the years, but particularly in recent years, there has been much violence in Northern Ireland. There has also been violence in the South. Have we forgotten Senator Billy Fox, Garda Morley and all their colleagues who were killed on this side of the Border? That is not to say the decision should have been made just because of violence on this side of the Border.

There is a fundamental difference between the proposers of the motion and the Government as to what this ban is all about. The Minister, Deputy Higgins, talks about it being a question of the basic issue of freedom of information and expression versus censorship. That is where we part company. I do not see that as the issue. The issue, as far as I am concerned, is whether Sinn Féin, the IRA, or the groups covered by the order, were to be allowed access to the airwaves to spread their message of violence and to be given an opportunity to dispense propaganda. The maturity of the people is not an issue, nor is the professionalism of the broadcasting media and journalists. Propaganda is very subtle. If these people come on the airwaves openly advocating violence they will be stopped but that is not how propaganda operates. It is an art which is central to the whole process as far as Sinn Féin and the IRA are concerned. If we try to relate this issue to the maturity of the Irish people or the professionalism of the media journalists, we are producing red herrings. It is enough for me if Sinn Féin or their spokespeople on the airwaves can convince even one person to become a killer pursuing a false ideology. The vast majority of the people will not be prevailed on to join the IRA or to become killers but impressionable young people will be affected.

Another aspect is what young people and not so young people will think of a situation where, as a matter of course, spokespeople like Mr. Adams are allowed access to the airwaves? Does that not give them credibility, an acceptance as a normal part of our political furniture? However, they are not a normal part of our political furniture. Mr. Adams in one programme virtually equated himself with the Taoiseach or the Prime Minister, Mr. John Major and said he was quite willing to meet them and so on, but he is a different category of person, a leader of an organisation which does not condemn violence as a means of achieving political or other objectives. The difficulty with removing the ban is that he is now given that respectability and credibility.

I was in Northern Ireland at the weekend, and I was led to believe that a decision has already been taken not to support the Downing Street Declaration, that in fact Sinn Féin and the IRA have already decided. It seems they are involved in a propaganda exercise at the moment and are being given further possibilities for spreading propaganda because of the failure of the Government to renew the ban. What sort of mandate have these people to continue their work? They are entirely unrepresentative. They have no mandate; they have 1.6 per cent of the vote in the Republic and even in Northern Ireland where they are more significant they have 10 per cent of the vote in national elections and 12.5 per cent of the vote in local elections. What mandate is that?

We are talking here about a major political question at a time when serious political decisions are to be faced on this island. The core difference between those in Opposition and the Government is that we are not talking about freedom of expression and censorship but about allowing people who continue to support violence access to the airwaves. We are talking about allowing them to continue spreading their propaganda on our radio and television. The carefully argued speech of the Minister does not clear that point because the Minister has argued from an entirely different perspective.

The Minister talked about the Constitution. The devil can quote scripture so I will quote the Constitution as well. Article 40 of the Constitution imposes an obligation on the State to endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State. How can the Government uphold that obligation by allowing access to State television and radio to those who do not accept the authority of the State? These people are not on the airwaves to talk about potholes, they are spreading propaganda based on the criterion that they are not prepared to condemn violence or to accept the authority of the State. In allowing them such access I am concerned that we are pushing back the peace process. Because they are able to do that why should they bother to accept the Downing Street Declaration? Why should they come in from the cold? They have already been given the warmth beside the fire. That is the real difficulty and that is why the Minister — I accept good faith on his part — has made a huge error of judgment. The Government who accepted his recommendation has done a major disservice to this country in failing to renew the ban.

Debate adjourned.