Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Feb 1994

Vol. 438 No. 2

Private Members' Business. - Broadcasting Authority Legislation: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Deputy Michael McDowell on Tuesday, 1 February 1994:

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 19th 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.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

To delete all the 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 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.

(Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht.)

Mr. Currie

I am grateful to my colleagues for sharing their time with me and I am glad to see the Minister in the House. I do not really blame the Minister for this decision. He was consistent on this matter when he was in Opposition and so far he also appears to have been consistent in Government, a rare quality in this Government. He has probably struggled with his conscience about this matter. I am not suggesting that he is similar to a Secretary of State I once knew in Northern Ireland of whom it was said he was always struggling with his conscience and the problem was it always ended up in a draw. Clearly, in this instance the Minister came to a decision which he believes is the correct one. However, I think it would be fair to say that he is starting off from a different premise to me and does not properly understand the ramifications of the decision for matters in Northern Ireland.

I blame the Government for this decision. I blame those members of the Government who have been deeply involved in Northern Ireland matters — the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice. They know the score and I thought that their attitude would have been different.

There are certain matters one has to bear in mind when speaking about this issue. The Minister told us "It is a basic issue of freedom of information and expression versus censorship". I wish that were the case; I wish it were as simple as that. If it were as simple as that, then both the Minister and I would be on the same side. However, the matter is not as simple as that; it is more important than that. The greatest civil right of all is the right to life and it is in that context that this decision must be judged. It is also in that context that the conditions which pertain in Northern Ireland today must be considered. Those conditions cannot be divorced from the appearance on television of people who support and condone violence. I do not think the Minister is sufficiently aware of that and I hope I can make him more aware of it.

Unfortunately, we have had another illustration of the partitionist mentality to which I have referred on a number of occasions since I became a Member of this House. It is clear that no consideration was given to the effect of the lifting of the ban on areas of Northern Ireland where RTE is widely watched and heard, particularly in those areas where there is a big Nationalist population — for example, Derry, mid-Ulster, Fermanagh, South Tyrone and West Belfast, where people have gone to very considerable lengths to ensure that RTE is available to them.

I can tell the Minister of my own experience in this regard. Unionists and committed constitutional Nationalists will not be swayed by honeyed words, those whose relatives have been murdered by the IRA are outraged and the morale of IRA activists and supporters has been increased. I say that from experience. During recent elections in Northern Ireland the ban was lifted and Sinn Féin candidates were allowed to make party political broadcasts and to be heard and seen on television interviews. I know the effect that has had not only on the relatives of Protestants who have been murdered by the IRA but on the relatives of Catholics who have been murdered by the IRA. They are disgusted to see on television people who are prepared to condone and support those who were responsible for those murders. I have also seen the effect of this on the morale of those who support Sinn Féin and the IRA. The appearance of their people on television, drawing around them the cloaks of the Nationalists position, suffering, etc., has increased their morale and reinvigorated their efforts at the polls and in other activities. The appearance of these people on RTE will have the same repercussions on those areas in Northern Ireland. I say that more in sorrow than in anger. I should like the Minister to bear that point in mind.

It is only two weeks since the section 31 ban was lifted. We have seen a lot of Gerry Adams on RTE and on other stations since then. I would not be surprised to turn on my television tonight and to see him on "A Prayer at Bedtime" or some other similar programme — he has turned up on almost every programme in the past two weeks. Of course, it is too early to make a final judgment on the confident prediction of a number of interviewers as to what they would do when they were finally able to cross-examine Adams and other Sinn Féin leaders. So far they have not, in boxing terms, laid a glove on Adams. I should say that there has been one exception to this rule. Two hours ago Myles Dungan managed to do that on his "Today at Five" programme. No other interviewer has done that — they do not know the nuances and do not recognise the code words. They have allowed Adams to draw around him the mantle of defender of the Catholic population, escaping from a "war zone" which he has helped to create in Belfast.

Only last night on "Tuesday File" a Sinn Féin councillor was allowed to portray the IRA as the people's army. He was not asked to condemn IRA atrocities. He might express his regret or abhorrence but he will not condemn them. Of course, under instructions from the Ard Fheis and the IRA Army Council, they are not allowed to use the word "condemn". We should always note that: they will use every word except "condemn". However, journalists do not understand this. Neither he nor any other elected representative interviewed was asked why he was pledged to give unambivalent support to the IRA. Despite the great contribution it has made, I wonder what will happen when these people are being interviewed on local radio. As the Minister has acknowledged, that has already been a publicity stunt by one broadcaster. I am sure the same will happen again.

Since the Downing Street Declaration Sinn Féin has achieved two of its long sought objectives — it has been allowed on the national airwaves and Gerry Adams has been admitted to the United States. There has been no cessation of violence or even a ceasefire. There has been nothing in exchange; there has been no quid pro quo. In their media appearances members of Sinn Féin have attempted to project the image of a normal political party which is separate from the IRA, taking its own political decisions and dodging the central question with the response “that is a matter for the IRA”. Of course, the truth has been well documented over the years. The IRA is the dominant partner and Sinn Féin is subservient in every respect; it is tied into the IRA structures in terms of organisation and personnel and has no independent existence.

In three weeks' time Sinn Féin will hold its Ard-Fheis in this jurisdiction. Will the Ard-Fheis receive a report from the IRA Army Council? Will it end the requirement that all candidates for public office must pledge unambivalent support for the IRA? Will it allow Sinn Féin representatives to condemn IRA atrocities of which they disapprove? The answers to these questions will give some indication of whether there is even the slightest effort on the part of Sinn Féin to create a separate identity and some basis upon which to make a judgment of its professed desire to bring about a cessation of violence. The Ard Fheis will allow a basis for judgment on whether the calls for consultation and clarification have been serious or whether they have been a cynical exploitation of the yearning for peace. I should also give an answer to those who, despite the continuation of the IRA campaign, have supported the lifting of the section 31 ban.

In conclusion, the lifting of the ban under section 31 following a permanent cessation of violence by the IRA would have been a powerful symbol of the entry of Sinn Féin into constitutional politics. Along with Sinn Féin participation in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation it would have ushered in a new era of hope and confidence. Unfortunately, as the violence continues and as Sinn Féin-IRA use the airwaves for propaganda, the symbol has been thrown away and unfortunately the hope is, day by day, diminishing.

Dr. McDaid

I wish to share my time with Deputies Michael Kitt, Costello, Ó Cuív, Martin and Bree.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is in order.

Dr. McDaid

I would like to take issue with Deputy Currie on a number of points, in particular his reference to a Sinn Féin councillor being allowed to take over the airwaves on a programme last night. Having seen that programme it appears to me that the Deputy is saying he is of superior intellect to the people of this country, that they are not also able to make up their minds about the content of what was being transmitted over the airwaves last night. We are not of superior intellect and that is why we are removing the ban under this section.

I regret that the time of this House has been taken up by a clearly negative motion from the Progressive Democrats when more positive thinking should be the order of the day. I would have welcomed a motion designed to encourage the Taoiseach and the Government in the great crusade for peace. The public is well aware that since the publication of th Downing Street Joint Declaration the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have been untiring in their efforts, on a daily basis, to turn the hopes of that document into reality. Instead of seeking to turn the clock back, the Progressive Democrats would have been better advised to afford Deputies an opportunity to add to the collective wisdom of the whole peace process.

Before the Government decided against the renewal of the ban under section 31, many alarm bells were sounded. We were led to believe that the airwaves would be bombarded by evil people who would use their devilish skills to convince us that terrorism was the answer to all their prayers. I represent a Border constituency that has been all too close to the murder and destruction of the past 25 years. Shortly after the dropping of the ban under section 31, Highland Radio in County Donegal broadcast a detailed and probing interview with Martin McGuinness and Pat Doherty of Sinn Féin. The programme was repeated later that day, as have quite a number of programmes since, and I am happy to inform the House that there is no evidence of an immediate stampede of Donegal people into the ranks of the paramilitaries.

I did not have the opportunity of watching Gerry Adams being interviewed by the redoubtable Brian Farrell on Sunday last. However, I am reliably informed that Mr. Adams gained very few friends by the manner in which he responded or failed to respond to some of the questions. Faced with a professional broadcaster he has shown himself to be just as vulnerable as most of us in this House — so much for the fears expressed in those quarters.

I listened to the arguments in favour of this motion and have yet to be convinced that the Government's decision was wrong. I do not think I can be accused of jumping onto any popular bandwagon. On the night before the Taoiseach became leader of my party, I urged him strongly to seriously consider the removal of the ban under section 31. Later, in November 1993, with my colleague, Deputy Michael Kitt, I tabled a motion for discussion at a meeting of our Parliamentary Party. That discussion convinced me that it was proper to remove the ban under section 31. However, the Minister agrees with this— if it should be proved in future that my faith in the integrity of broadcasters and the good sense of the listening public has been misplaced, I trust that with my colleagues on this side of the House we would have the grace to acknowledge our mistake. In this regard I am reminded of the late Séan Lemass, a great believer in the maxim that a man who never made a mistake never made anything. Future events will prove that the removal of the ban under section 31 was no mistake. I ask the House to reject the motion.

Mr. M. Kitt

In my years in the Oireachtas, we have not had much debate on the broadcasting legislation of 1976 or, indeed, the order under section 31. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It was always assumed that the order would be renewed each January, usually when the Dáil was in recess, and for that reason I congratulate the Minister on the action he has recommended to the Government and the action the Government has taken. I particularly compliment him on his belief that the potential abuse of freedom is no excuse for repression. I warmly applaud that view because we are all aware that freedom of expression and freedom of speech are easy to concede to those who hold uncontroversial views but the real test comes in the case of those who hold more contentious views. It is not simply a question of the Government allowing the section 31 order to lapse; the RTE Authority must abide by the provisions of sections 17 and 18 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960 as amended by the 1976 Act. Section 9 of the Radio and Television Act, 1988 also contains certain prohibitions on independent radio stations under the auspices of the Independent Radio and Television Commission.

We need a proper balance between freedom of speech and the right to information on the one hand, and the need to prevent the airwaves from being abused for subversive purposes. I have confidence in our broadcasters to do this. I am confident they will do the job legitimately expected of radio and television in our democracy. For example, it is possible for broadcasters to ensure that certain types of material do not appear on radio or television. Interviews can be and very often are recorded, especially for news and current affairs programmes.

Journalists and broadcasters have spoken of how the section 31 order distorts day-to-day news coverage. In the normal course of events politicians from all sides could be brought together round a table for interview. However, under section 31, a listed organisation issues a press statement, the statement is read out but the listed organisation is not challenged or questioned. This results in publicity for the organisation and for the statement with no accountability.

The question of publicity also arises during election campaigns. Under section 31, for example, a Sinn Féin candidate cannot be interviewed but usually a photograph of the candidate is shown on television with information on the candidate and his or her policies. This is simply publicity and free advertising for candidates from proscribed organisations.

I am glad the Government has allowed the order under this section to lapse. Much of the debate over the past two days has been principally about Sinn Féin, the Provisional IRA and Northern Ireland but it should be about much more because the decision not to renew the order under section 31 should open up the whole debate about the North and the future of the people on this island. The right to freedom of information far outweighs the urge to censor. In the words of Justice Louis Brandais: "Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom".

Sections 17 and 18 of the 1960 Act and the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989 are adequate safeguards and this is the legislation under which our broadcasters can work. If there are difficulties with that, as my colleague, Deputy McDaid said, the order can be renewed but I have sufficient faith in our broadcasters to allow them get on with their job and do it in a first class manner.

Mr. Costello

I wish to congratulate the Minister, Deputy Higgins, on his bold decision not to renew the order under section 31 of the Broadcasting Act. The decision is in accordance with the long-standing policy of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the National Union of Journalists and, indeed, of the Labour Party. I welcome this oppoortunity, provided by the Progressive Democrats, to discuss the issue of section 31. I regret that no party in the course of the year tabled such a motion to permit Members in Private Members' time to discuss the issue.

The motion, as it stands, is rather silly and, if agreed, would hand over the initiative in relation to broadcasting to Sinn Féin. In those circumstances Government policy on section 31 would be determined largely by Sinn Féin policy, we would be a laughing stock, ineffective and responding mechanically to every whim of Sinn Féin and IRA activity. We would be like yo-yos, if this motion was agreed.

Indeed Deputy Currie's remarks were in the same rather negative vein, an expression of irrational fears, depicting a bogey man scenario as though the people of this country were intellectual weaklings, children unable to make up their minds, without maturity, vision or rationality. I regret the attitude by the Opposition — one of "out of sight out of mind; we do not want to hear about it".

This decision follows a long period of review and consultation by the Minister. It is not a response to the Downing Street Joint Declaration on peace as suggested by the Opposition.

The order under section 31 of the Broadcasting Act, 1960, was recognised universally as a blunt instrument, that it was the Minister exercising a diktat, telling RTE and the electronic media how they were supposed to behave; it was Big Brother political power, allowing no editorial flexibility or judgment by the broadcasting media while, at the same time, allowing ultimate judgment to the print media.

The Minister's response in the House was not a response to the Downing Street Joint Declaration on peace, it was a response to the constitutional rights of our citizens to freely express their convictions and opinions. Indeed it is a constitutional right to freedom of information which must be guarded and strongly preserved by all citizens. It was a response to the Supreme Court decision in the Larry O'Toole case and primarily transfers the right of access to the airwaves based not so much on who people are as on what people say. Likewise, it was a response to the need to fulfil our international obligations under Article 19 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights of the United Nations Convention on Human Rights, criticised so roundly last July and which has been the subject of review until this decision not to renew the order under section 31 was taken.

Since the order was introduced more than 20 years ago there has been additional legislation, namely, the Prohibition on Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989, which covers much of what the order under section 31 was intended to deal with, when introduced initially, in the area of promotion of sectarianism, crime or religious discrimination. Indeed further, under section 18 of the Broadcasting Act there is room for strong editorial control of what emanates from the airwaves.

Perhaps what is most important about the decision not to renew the order is that it takes us out of our 20 year old bunker. Sometimes we think that only the Unionists have adopted a position of no surrender, who have put their heads down, are not prepared to appear above the parapets, who shout "no surrender". We have our own bunker, which has been the order under section 31. We have banned what we do not want to hear in relation to Northern Ireland. Ours has been a principle of "out of sight, out of mind; hear no evil, see no evil" hoping that problem will go away. That is no longer the position. By its decision the Government is now proactive, confident of the integrity and validity of its position on Northern Ireland. It is prepared to take on all comers; it is a sign of our political maturity, our certainty that our agenda in relation to Northern Ireland is correct, that the people will see it as such and that we can argue it with them. Already the resounding endorsement of the Downing Street Joint Declaration on peace by the people is evidence of the right direction we are pursuing in seeking a solution by wide-ranging dialogue, to resolve the impasse on Northern Ireland.

The Minister made the right decision. I do not think we should be worried about the scaremongering because the existing powers will be properly and responsibly exercised by RTE.

I commend the Government amendment to the motion.

Mr. Martin

I welcome this opportunity to debate the decision to allow section 31 to lapse because I have consistently opposed it. It was ineffective in the context of the Northern Ireland conflict. Looking back over the period of its operation, the degree to which one ghettoises a community, or a particular segment thereof, means that the position becomes worse.

In many ways the operation of section 31 helped Sinn Féin and the Provisional IRA. Certainly it allowed Sinn Féin, over a period of time to develop in a cocoon-like fashion in that it fed on itself in its own community, very often talking to itself — talking to the converted. Indeed instruments like section 31 reduced the degree of exposure to alternative viewpoints, the capacity to respond instantaneously in the broadcasting media. For example, at times of major atrocities, Sinn Féin was always able to run away, to hide behind the written statement, which it could fax or send to the print media but did not have to answer for in any immediate sense on a broadcasting medium, radio or television.

When people are exposed to alternative viewpoints over a period, their position and policies tend to change. Therefore, the ghettoisation of certain sections of the community in Northern Ireland has not made a contribution to the peace process or to the achievement of peace on this island. It is an insult to people's intelligence to suggest that they will be easily fooled by proponents of violence, or by those who advocate violence, as a means of achieving Irish unity or resolving the Northern Ireland problem. For a long time, many young people in particular have been restricted in terms of access to information, to a comprehensive, informed broadcasting coverage of affairs pertaining to Northern Ireland. The majority of broadcasters and journalists agree that it has been a restrictive feature in terms of being in a position to comprehensively report and investigate affairs in Northern Ireland through the broadcasting media.

We must not overestimate — or underestimate — the impact of section 31 on the overall position. Nobody in this House has a monopoly in terms of opposition to the campaign of violence of the IRA. Members who favour the abolition of section 31 are as committed to opposing the acts of violence by the IRA as those who favour its retention. However, in itself, it would not be a major determining factor is deciding whether the Provisional IRA cease its campaign of violence; there are other, fundamental issues at stake.

I feel also — and this point was made by the Minister — that nobody can really argue that Sinn Féin's access to the print media over the past 20 years, in itself, prolonged or exacerbated the conflict or led to increased acts of violence.

Furthermore, when one looks at developing technologies, one realises that most people, in multi-channel land at least, can turn on CNN or Sky News and see events worldwide. One never knows to whom journalists may be talking. There is, for example, almost spontaneous reporting of people committing violent acts, or being interviewed in areas of conflict throughout Europe and Africa, indeed worldwide. In that sense section 31 was fast becoming something of an anomaly, if not absurd. In many ways this is fundamentally an issue of freedom of information and expression versus censorship, of the capacity to get behind the story.

During the time section 31 was in operation it was ludicrous that the broadcasting media could not interview or discuss with Sinn Féin personnel their response and reaction to the peace process and in that context alone the lifting of the section 31 ban will make a positive contribution. It will not be the only factor, but will make a positive contribution.

Éamon Ó Cuív

Tá an-áthas orm an deis seo a fháil labhairt ar an ábhar seo. Fáiltím roimh an cinneadh a thóg an tAire — cinneadh a bhí misniúil agus go raibh sé éasca mí-bhrí a bhaint as, nuair a shocraigh sé gan athnuachan a dhéanamh ar an Ordú faoi mhír 31 den Acht Craolacháin. Bhí sé an-éasca le scór bliain anuas an milleán faoi chuile rud a tharla ó Thuaidh a chur ar phobal amháin. Má fhéachtar ar fhoréigean i measc aon phobail, bíodh sé i measc an chine ghorim san Aifric Theas nó i ndeisceart Stáit Aontaithe Mheiriceá, nó i measc an phobail i dTuaisceart Éireann caithfear ceist a chur, cén t-údar atá leis an bhforéigean, mar i ngnáthphobal ní bhíonn tacaíocht forleathan ar fáil do fhoréigean.

Is duine mé atá go hiomlán in aghaidh an fhoréigin. Ní chreidim gur bealach é chun fadhb ar bith a réiteach. Ach tuigim dá mbeinn im' chomhnaí in áit ar bith eile go mb'fhéidir nach mbeadh dearcadh chomh simplí sin agam. Ní ceart dúinn dearmad a dhéanamh riamh gur bunaíodh an Stáit ó Thuaidh ar bhagairt foréigin, ar bhagairt dá ndéanfadh Rialtas na Breataine Móire rudaí áirithe go raibh cuid de saoránaigh an Tuaiscirt sásta airm a ghlacadh le cur i gcoinne toil daonlathach, mar a d'fheicidfidís siúd e, an Rialtais sin.

Ba bhreá liomsa, agus guím, go dtiocfaidh an IRA agus Sinn Féin ar an tuairim go mba cheart droim láimhe a thabhairt don bhforéigean. Bheadh mé ag súil freisin go dtiocfadh na hAondachtóirí amach in aghaidh an fhoréigin, go ndéarfaidís lena gcuid ball féin, idir an dá chineál Aondachtóir, go rabhadar glan in aghaidh foréigin a usáid chun críche polaitíochta agus cibé socrú a thiocfadh an Rialtas siadsan air i dtaca lena dtodhchaí nach mbeadh siad sásta cur in éadan an tsocraithe sin le fórsa airm.

Creidim nuair a thiocfaidh an lá go mbeidh cinnirí polaitíochta ar an dá thaobh sásta a rá nach bhfuil siad sásta glacadh le foréigean, go mbeidh sé i bhfad níos fusa ansin teacht ar shíocháin.

Chuir sé alltacht orm ach thug sé oscailt súl dom ag an am céanna éisteacht leis an Urramach Paisley an tseachtain seo caite agus an dearcadh a léirigh sé faoi thaobh amáin den phobal. Rinne sé tagairt do phobal na bportach a bhí ina gcomhnaí i bportaigh sul a dtáinig siadsan go Cúige Uladh. Thug sé tuiscint dúinn, ainneoin go bhfuil sé gránna a leithéid a chloisteáil, ar an meon go raibh ar chuid den phobal ó Thuaidh cur suas leis le píosa fada. Tugann sé tuiscint dúinn, ainneoin nach maith linn na rudaí sin a chloisteáil, ar chuid den fhadhb.

Molaim an tAire mar creidim go raibh sé in am againn breathnú as an nua ar an bhfadhb seo, agus seachas a bheith i gcomhnaí ag caint in éadan an fhoréigin rud éigin a dhéanamh faoi. Creidim go bhfuil na céimeanna tosaigh tógtha againn le teacht ar fhuascailt na faidhbe seo leis an dearcadh urnua atá á thaispeáint i láthair na huaire.

Ar deireadh chuala mé an argóint go minic curtha, sé sin, "má tá foréigean le feiceáil agus daoine ag caint i bhfábhar an fhoréigin ar an teilifís go mbíonn tionchar nach beag é aige ar ghasúir". Is údar imní é sin agus caithfidh mé a rá mar thusimitheoir gur údar imní dom an méid foréigin atá le feiceáil ar video de chuile chineáil ag mo chuidse gasúr féin. Ach caithfear é sin a mheá leis na cearta atá ag duine a bheith i sochaí gan chinsireacht. Caithfimid glacadh leis — idir thuismitheoirí agus phobal — go dtiocfaidh ár ngasúir slán ó thionchar a leithéid sin agus go dtuigfidh siad, ainneoin go bhfuil sé feicthe go minic acu, nach iompar sásúil é.

Creidim gur chéim chun síochána atá sa chéim a thóg an tAire agus ba mhaith liom é a mholadh as an rud a rinne sé.

Mr. Bree

When the Labour Party entered into a partnership Government it stated that one of its main priorities would be to restore confidence in the democratic process by encouraging greater openness and participation at all levels by improving public accountability, transparency and trust. In counties and states where undemocratic and dictatorial regimes wish to maintain power one of the most important methods they use to copperfasten their position is to impose political censorship. Needless to say, they would never describe it as censorship; however, the reality is that the basic right to receive and impart information is denied.

The censorship imposed by the white apartheid regime in South Africa was a clear example of this, and indeed the growing concern about the imposition of political censorship in Yeltsin's Russia is another indication of how weak politicians who fear the electorate can clamp down on Opposition political parties and organisations.

In my opinion orders made under section 31 of the Broadcasting Act were imposed by successive Irish Governments which did not have either the political will, capacity, or courage to take real political action to begin the process of resolving the Northern Ireland question. Rather than address the political issues, successive Governments chose to suppress political opinions which differed from theirs. They used the excuse that section 31 had to be imposed so as to curtail violence in Northern Ireland. However, the brief history of the Six Counties in the 21 years since section 31 was first imposed clearly indicates that political censorship has done nothing to reduce the level of violence there. In fact, there is a growing body of opinion that would say that political censorship has prolonged the violence.

Indeed, the Opsahl report on Northern Ireland, published only a few short months ago, makes the point that the marginalisation of Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland by means of the broadcasting ban "only plays into the hands of those who prefer the use of violence".

If ever evidence was required to expose the dangers of section 31 we need only look at RTE's failure to follow up the wrongful conviction of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven, British collusion with Loyalist death squads and indeed the bombings of Dublin and Monaghan in 1974.

In essence, section 31 of the Broadcasting Act seriously inhibited RTE's ability to provide fair, impartial and objective coverage of events arising from the troubles in Northern Ireland. Throughout Europe today there is a growth in right wing parties and groups, parties which would deny citizens' civil and human rights, free speech and, if given an opportunity, impose repressive legislation and political censorship.

Those who support this philosophy have a long tradition going back to the Brown Shirts and the Blackshirts. Indeed, we in Ireland also had our share of those right wing elements, who attempted to undermine our democratic institutions, to impose political censorship and deny the Irish people the right to freedom and democracy.

Miss Harney

What about the right to life?

Mr. Bree

We knew them then as Blueshirts; fortunately, they were defeated.

Miss Harney

What the Deputy is saying is disgraceful.

Mr. Bree

That philosophy is still very much alive today, both in mainland Europe and here in Ireland. It is very obvious from the debate on section 31 that there are people in this House who would——

Miss Harney

What about the right to life?

Mr. Bree

——if provided with the opportunity deny freedom of speech and impose political censorship.

Ms F. Fitzgerald

Terrorism is what he is talking about.

Mr. Bree

Even today they put forward the same backward, reactionary and negative proposals as their predecessors. They say the ordinary people of this country are incapable of telling right from wrong, that they cannot be trusted to think for themselves.

Miss Harney

They are being shot by the IRA and the Deputy knows it.

Mr. Bree

They say the ordinary people of this country should not have the right to hear political views which are at odds with the establishment and they demand the imposition of political censorship. It is time that these people learned that things have changed in Ireland. It is time they learned that Labour is participating in Government.

Miss Harney

We certainly know that.

Mr. Bree

The Labour Party is a party with deep democratic traditions, a party dedicated to justice, equality and, most of all, to democracy. Labour in Government is committed to openness and accountability and is committed to reforming and modernising the law of this country. Party members nationwide have always made it clear that they were opposed to political censorship being imposed through section 31 of the Broadcasting Act. We accept the need for a proper balance between the right to freedom of speech and information on the one hand and the need to prevent the airwaves from being manipulated or abused for subversive purposes.

Mr. Flanagan

That is what is happening.

Mr. Bree

However, we also recognise that such abuse can be dealt with effectively by other measures, including the use of section 18 of the Broadcasting Act, 1960, the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989, and through proper editorial procedures and judgments.

An Ceann Comhairle

I would be grateful if the Deputy would bring his speech to a close.

Mr. Bree

I congratulate the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, for the courageous manner in which he has dealt with section 31 of the Broadcasting Act and I fully support the amendment.

Mr. Currie

Who talked about maturity?

Proinsias De Rossa

Before I proceed with my main contribution to the debate tonight I wish to take up two points made by Deputy Bree. First, that views at odds with the establishment were banned by section 31 of the Broadcasting Act is not true. Not a day passed during the past 25 years that the views of Sinn Féin and the IRA were not carried on the airwaves of RTE radio and television. What was specifically banned was the interview, live or recorded, of spokespersons for organisations that supported the pursuit of their aims through violent means, irrespective of the democratic wish of the people of this State. That is what was banned, not views against the establishment.

The second point I wish to make is this. Deputy Bree stated that things have changed. Unfortunately, things have not changed enough. The IRA continues to murder and destroy in Northern Ireland despite the fact that more than 95 per cent of the people on this island are demanding that they stop and support the Joint Declaration which has been agreed by the democratic Government of this country and by that of Britain. The challenge which faces Sinn Féin and the IRA is to wake up and accept the democratic wishes of the people on this island and of Britain.

Having said that, I have to say that my party will not be supporting the Progressive Democrats' motion I propose to explain the reason. We have for some time called for a lifting of the order made by the Minister under section 31 of the Broadcasting Act. We welcomed the decision of the Government not to renew the order in January of this year and believe that some time is needed to assess the impact of the new situation and particularly to consider how the guildelines introduced by RTE and the Independent Radio and Television Commission are operating.

I appreciate the concerns expressed by the Progressive Democrats and Fine Gael about the dangers of allowing those who espouse violence access to the airwaves, but I think they are wrong to seek the reimposition of the order without first seeing how the new situation works. I also welcome the fact that the Progressive Democrats have given their Private Members' time to have this matter debated in the House. We have not had a debate on this issue for 17 years, since the imposition of section 31 by a previous coalition Government. I draw attention to the fact that Democratic Left has tabled a Bill to amend the Broadcasting Authority Acts which would make it obligatory on the Minister to bring any order under section 31 before this House for debate before being implemented. It is not acceptable that for 17 years a Minister has, with the stroke of a pen, reimposed section 31 without a debate in this House and the various issues arising being addressed.

It was also inevitable that immediately following the removal of the section 31 order there would be a series of high profile interviews which would have a high interest and novelty value. The fact that the lifting of the order came shortly after the Downing Street Joint Declaration and has been followed shortly afterwards by the high profile visit of Mr. Adams to the United States has resulted in a splurge of interviews with representatives of Sinn Féin and produced a period that could not be classified as typical. We will need a longer period of assessment before final judgment can be passed; however, some preliminary judgment can be made at this stage.

I know that many journalists who strongly opposed the Provisional IRA and who also opposed section 31 were of the view that, if the order was lifted and Sinn Féin representatives were allowed to be interviewed, they would be taken apart and the hypocrisy of their position exposed. This certainly has not happened to any extent in regard to the interviews we have seen so far. This is not offered as a criticism of the journalists involved but a reflection perhaps on the new guidelines. It seems to me that the Provisional IRA have no difficulty in dealing with the formal, structured, one to one interviews, that by limiting them to this format the guidelines are actually doing them a favour. A far greater test of the Provisional IRA would be participation in a panel format, as in "Questions and Answers" or "Prime Time". I hope the Minister, in consultation with RTE and the Independent Radio and Television Commission, will keep this situation under review and, if necessary, seek to have the guidelines amended so that the Provisional IRA do not, in effect, receive privileged treatment but are exposed to the cut and thrust of panel debate as are other democratic politicians.

There have been two main strands to the anti-section 31 lobby. One consisted of Sinn Féin and the IRA and their sympathisers, who made cynical use of the free speech argument in order to secure access to the airwaves for IRA propagandists. The second consisted of people with a genuine commitment to free speech, who were concerned that section 31 had led to a serious distortion in the presentation of views and current affairs on radio and television. I have respect for the latter but only contempt for the former.

In any consideration of the issues raised by section 31 of the Broadcasting Act we must never lose sight of the fact that those responsible for the worst abuses of human rights and democratic rights have been the paramilitary groups who have brought so much misery to the people of this island and, indeed, to our neighbouring island, Britain, for almost a quarter of a century. As George Bernard Shaw correctly remarked, "Assassination is the extreme form of censorship". Any restriction on democratic rights that may have been involved in the use of section 31 pales into insignificance compared with the daily denials of the most basic human and civil rights for which the murder gangs — orange and green — have been responsible.

The paramilitaries and their political proxies who complained most loudly about the injustice of section 31 have shown little inclination to recognise the basic rights of any of those who do not accept their dictates or who cross them in any way. Journalists working in Northern Ireland have at different times been threatened by sectarian gangs on both sides. Jim Campbell, a respected Belfast journalist working in Belfast, was shot and seriously wounded by Loyalists.

Countless people in Northern Ireland have been denied not only the right to free speech but even the right to live in their homes and their own areas. They have been driven out under the threat of death, largely by the Provisional IRA. Both sets of paramilitaries have murdered others, simply because of their political views or perceived religious affiliations. Unionist politicians like the Reverend Robert Bradford have been murdered by Nationalist terrorists, while the Loyalist gangs have murdered many Sinn Féin activists, including Donegal county councillor, Eddie Fullerton.

We do not live in ordinary times. Our politics have been dominated for 25 years by a background of a campaign of murder and violence, by those who show no respect for the decision of the ballot box and who attempt to force their will on others by force of arms. It would be unreasonable to expect that we would have a national broadcasting policy that did not take this into account in some way, that we naively operated as if everyone was prepared to abide by the democratic rules.

Having said that, I do not believe that the operation of section 31 of the Broadcasting Act was satisfactory. I believe it had to be dropped and alternative ways found of ensuring that anti-democratic groups are challenged and exposed.

Section 31 deals with an enormously complex area where there are few simple answers. It is not easy to balance the general right of free speech and freedom of information, and particularly the right to freedom of opinion and expression under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with the need to ensure that the airwaves are not used to promote or incite sectarian violence or hatred. We have seen some of the most ugly manifestations of terrorism in the past few months, and I do not believe that reasonable people would want those responsible for the Shankill or Greysteel massacres to have unrestrained access to the airwaves to promote their doctrine of hatred.

I was particularly concerned that since the order was imposed in 1976 it had been renewed each year by ministerial order and that the Dáil had never been given an opportunity to discuss it or vote on it. Whatever one's views on the need, or otherwise, for section 31, it is surely not acceptable that an order which has such significant implications for broadcasting policy in this country could be renewed each year at the stroke of a pen. Section 31 provides extraordinary powers for the Minister and there was a real danger that, by default, it was becoming almost a permanent part of broadcasting policy.

Last November I suggested lifting the order, for a trial period, to see how then broadcasters would deal with the situation. Public attitudes in the Republic to Northern Ireland have changed dramatically since the order was first activated in 1972. More than 20 years of the most extreme viciousness has removed in all but the most fanatical minority any notions of some romantic liberation struggle in Northern Ireland and the majority of people, including broadcasters, see the paramilitaries for the sordid sectarian gangs they are.

I expressed the view that this change in public attitude would be reflected in the way in which broadcasters would report events in Northern Ireland, if the order under section 31 were to be lifted.

In addition, it should also be remembered that since the order was introduced the Dáil has passed legislation to outlaw incitement to hatred on account of race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation, which would provide some degree of protection against abuse of the airwaves which was not there previously.

It seems that perhaps journalists are being over cautious in their interviewing of Sinn Féin spokespersons. There seems to be a reluctance to put questions that might be subsequently interpreted as journalists urging Sinn Féin spokespersons to make statements which might be seen as incitement to murder or hatred. I have not yet heard a question put to Mr. Adams, or to any of the other Sinn Féin spokespersons, on whether or not Sinn Féin still support the use of violence by the IRA. Mr. Adams has repeatedly said that he has a personal political commitment to peace, but Mr. Adams, when he speaks on RTE, is not speaking in his personal capacity. He is the representative of a political organisation publicly committed to support the IRA. So long as that is the case, he cannot be treated as normal democratic politicians are treated when he is being interviewed. The Minister should look closely at the way in which current guidelines are being implemented. Perhaps fear of the use in an adverse or perverse way of the Act which precludes incitement to hatred or murder is restraining journalists from asking the hard questions we all thought should be put to Mr. Adams and others of that ilk.

The jury is still out on the matter, and it will take some time to see whether or not my forecast turns out to be accurate. I have always believed that section 31 should be regarded basically as a broadcasting issue and should not be regarded as a concession to the Provisionals. However, there is no doubt that it is one of a series of developments since the Downing Street Joint Declaration which has been viewed by the public as conciliatory gestures to the Provisionals.

The other current example of this is the decision by the US to give Mr. Adams a visa to visit the United States. A point I made a number of times before the visa was granted was that I hoped that the US would make it a condition for granting a visa to Mr. Adams that he would demand that the IRA lift the expulsion orders on many hundreds of people in Northern Ireland who have been driven out of their homes by the IRA, and the virtual execution orders on young people in Northern Ireland whom the IRA regard as being anti-social elements. It is a joke that the IRA should be in the business of knee-capping and destroying the lives of young people because they regard them as being anti-social. This issue has not been given sufficient publicity.

Despite the fact that Mr. Adams is presenting himself as a man of peace, that he claims that Sinn Féin is looking for peace, and despite the fact that the IRA claim they want peace, they continue to murder unarmed policemen, women soldiers and to bomb jobs out of existence in Northern Ireland. They also virtually on a daily basis, maim and destroy the lives of young people there who will not toe the line in the areas the IRA believes it has a right to control. It is unacceptable that these questions are not being put to Sinn Féin spokespersons when they appear on radio and television. I am not talking about historical incidents but about incidents which are happening on a daily basis. It is not good enough that Mr. Adams is not being confronted with the hypocrisy of his position.

Against this background it is disgraceful that there has not been a similar conciliatory gesture from the Provisionals either in terms of a positive response to the Downing Street Joint Declaration, a ceasefire or even a de-escalation of violence. Mr. Adams should be made aware that the patience of the public and, I hope, of the two Governments is not unlimited. The time is now approaching when the fudging and foot-dragging has to stop. Mr. Adams has had his run on the media. He has had his 48 hours of glory in New York and he and his colleagues now have to make up their minds whether or not they wish to come on board the democratic process or remain in the wilderness of sectarian terrorism. For our part, as democratic politicians in this House, we must get on with the job of negotiating a settlement of the problems of Northern Ireland based on the democratic principles of the Joint Declaration, which will enable mature pluralist and democratic politics to evolve and develop North and South.

Mr. Flanagan

I propose to share my time with Deputy Shatter.

I welcome the fact that we are debating this important motion tonight. We must acknowledge with gratitude the work of the Progressive Democrats in tabling this motion. Speaker after speaker on the Government side tonight and last night spoke about openness, open Government and freedom of information. We must remember that this debate was prompted by the Opposition and not by the Government. It is to the eternal shame of the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, a man who for many years in Opposition spoke about freedom of information, who was committed to the openness of Government, that he lifted the ban on interviews with terrorists without any reference to this House so as to hear the views of the lawfully elected representatives of the people. It is as a result of that that we are debating this in a vacuum tonight. In welcoming this debate Deputy Martin suggested that we were debating it retrospectively. That puts the debate of the past few days into perspective.

The decision of the Government not to renew the ban was ill-timed and badly judged. Whether or not the Government will admit it, it has presented an unprecedented bouquet to the Provisional IRA and its fellow travellers in Sinn Féin. Successive Governments of many hues since the days of de Valera have maintained the practice of absolute opposition to terrorists whose principal modus operandi was the overthrow of the State. Ordinary decent law-abiding citizens supported the ban over the past 20 years. It was supported by a huge majority in this House who believe that terrorists who wished to overthrow the State should not enjoy access to radio and television.

In our free society law-abiding citizens, representing the overwhelming majority of people, have no truck with Sinn Féin and the IRA and its ideals or objectives. The ban imposed for many years was a legitimate weapon of a democratic State and should have remained until Sinn Féin showed good cause for its removal. This Government has reacted under pressure from within Republican sources. In essence, this Government has been duped by Provisional Sinn Féin and the IRA. Although officially denied by the Government on numerous occasions, the lifting of the ban is being seen, and will always be seen, as an integral part of the peace process. It is outrageous that this generous concession was granted in advance of any indication by the Provisional IRA that they were prepared to comply with any aspect of the Downing Street Joint Declaration. A cessation of violence should have been a condition to the lifting of the ban.

The celebrity status of Gerry Adams in recent times in this State is obscene. He is paraded as a special guest through the media rooms of the broadcasting stations in this country; he is fêted in New York like a Hollywood film star and, worst of all, was displayed in the national print media last weekend as an advertising vehicle of an independent radio station in this city. All this is widely removed from the bomb and the bullet, the murder and the mayhem which have literally taken the lives of thousands and ruined thousands of families in Northern Ireland.

This Government is naive if it believes that terrorists can be exposed on the airwaves or, alternatively, that the peace process would be helped by lifting the ban. This shallow argument simply does not wash. The reality is that the medium is the message and all that matters is that Sinn Féin members appear; their appearance legitimises their activity.

Previous speakers referred to the position in South Africa and on the international stage but it is worth reflecting on the two milestones towards peace on the international stage in the recent past. In South Africa Nelson Mandela renounced violence before he was brought on side while in the Middle East Yasser Arafat put his gun on the table before he was granted concessions. Yet, the Irish experience shows that Gerry Adams is being rewarded and invited on air at precisely the same time as the mindless campaign of terror and murder continues. This Government has already gone too far in the placation of Provisional Sinn Féin.

The silencing of the IRA on the airwaves was a recognition by the authorities, on behalf of the people, that Sinn Féin-IRA had no place on the political landscape. Sadly, this has not been the case since 19 January and it is a decision the Government will live to regret. I am proud to support the motion tonight.

Mr. Shatter

I also support the motion and welcome the fact that it is being taken in the House. However, I reiterate the regret expressed that we did not have an opportunity to debate the matter before the Government made its decision. That is the exact antithesis of democracy in action. There is something sick within a democracy when greater freedom of speech is extended to those who support violence and who will not renounce it than to democratically elected Members.

The events of the past two weeks confirmed that the Government made a fundamental mistake in repealing the section 31 ban in the Broadcasting Act prior to a renunication of violence by Sinn Féin and the IRA. The nightly celebrity television appearances on the 9 o'clock news of Gerry Adams present him as if he is the Kevin Costner of Irish politics. The Minister, Deputy Higgins, talks of the need for freedom of speech and of the maturity of the electorate. I have no doubt about the maturity of people watching these events and their ability to assess the validity of what is said but freedom of speech does not justify the nightly presentation of the comments of a person who is the public face of an armed conspiracy comprised of people who are prepared to continue to kill, bomb and maim to achieve their political objectives. What is needed on this island is a total end to the politics of the bomb and the bullet.

If Gerry Adams is involved in a serious attempt to bring about peace there is no reason those engaged in IRA violence should not terminate their activities while they complete whatever internal discussions in which they need to engage. It is not good enough that they are allowed access to our national television station and talk of peace while they remain committed to and continue to use violence.

If the Minister's thesis is seriously intended we should grant freedom of the airwaves to all those engaged in criminality in this country to use the 9 o'clock news, "Prime Time" and other television and radio current affairs programmes to justify their actions. Perhaps we should be presented on our television screens on a regular basis with those who rob banks and post offices pleading for understanding and expressing the hope that such activities will eventually come to an end.

The Government's actions are giving Gerry Adams and other members of Sinn Féin a public stature and credibility they do not deserve. Gerry Adams is not an elected representative or member of any parliament. When he appears on our television screens he is standing there waving the Downing Street Declaration in one hand while the detonator is carefully concealed in the other. He is standing on the shoulders of the dead and maimed of Northern Ireland to secure and retain a political stature of relevance for himself. We all want to see peace.

My concern is that the events of the past two weeks and the conferring of media celebrity status on Gerry Adams send the wrong signal to the men of violence. Rather than telling them they can join the political process when violence is renounced there is a danger they will be led to believe that if they continue their campaign, further, greater concessions will be made to them. There is a danger that, rather than bringing about peace, the Government's action and the repeal of the ban contained in section 31 of the Broadcasting Act will act as a catalyst to greater violence from extremists on both sides of the Northern divide and heighten the conflict.

As someone who has always supported the ban imposed in section 31, who has listened to the broadcasters tell us how this interfered with freedom of speech and expression and that if only they were given the chance to tackle the purveyors of violence on the airwaves they would soon give them their come-uppance. I can only say that my cynicism of their capacity to achieve that has been truly confirmed by the events of the past two weeks.

The only thing I can say about the obscene helter-skelter scramble by both radio and television broadcasters and news media interviewers to secure the first interview with Gerry Adams and, indeed, the second and to see which one of them asked the trickier question is that Gerry Adams, like some of his fellow Sinn Féin members, is as smooth a performer on television and radio as any Member of this House or the Government, who has been through the Bunny Carr school of communications. Gerry Adams is not being caught by the hard question, he is simply there on our screens nightly presenting an image which makes it look as if it is acceptable to support violence while talking peace. That is not something of which any Government in this State should be proud.

If within a week of the lifting of the section 31 ban the violence had ended, the IRA had announced a ceasefire and the Loyalist extremist groups had followed suit I would be standing in this House congratulating the Government. When I heard that it was going to lift the section 31 ban it was my hope that there had been some secret discussions that we were heading down the road of real peace, not just talking about it, and that this was part of a process to achieve it. It is now clear it is not and Sinn Féin is being allowed to exploit the national media with a view to presenting an acceptable face while the unacceptable face continues to be presented with the bombs and the bullets in Northern Ireland.

It should not go unnoticed that during the past few days the murderous intent of the IRA has been well exhibited and that they have not achieved their objectives because bombs have been dealt with, thus preventing the damage they were intended to cause. The Government made a grave error. It has done a grave injury to democracy and no favour to the concept of freedom of expression because the greatest freedom in any democratic society is to protect that democracy from subversion from within. Section 31 performed that function. Let the Minister be under no illusion that he has struck a blow for freedom; he has not done so. What he has done is lend a degree of credibility to those who are prepared to bomb, kill and maim to achieve their political objectives.

Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht (Mr. Gallagher,

Donegal South-West): Tá mé tar éis éisteacht go cúramach lena raibh le rá ag Teachtaí sa díospóireacht seo. Is é an rud is suntasaí faoin seasamh atá glactha ag mórán Teachtaí a labhair ar son an Rúin ná go bhfuil diúltaithe acu cinneadh an Rialtais maidir leis an Ordú faoi alt 31 a thuiscint sa chiall ina ndearnadh é. The decision of the Government not to renew the section 31 order is an expression of confidence in the Irish people and in our broadcasters. It is a decision to put the broadcast media at the service of the people. It is a recognition of the right of the Irish people to have access to the fullest range of information within the limits of Article 40 of the Constitution without the Government deciding what they may or may not see or hear.

Many Deputies spoke with revulsion about the atrocities perpetrated by the IRA and others in the name of the people of Ireland. I do not believe that any Member of this House would take issue with any of those comments. I must, however, take issue with the implication that in deciding not to renew the order, the Government or the Minister is somehow less opposed to the men of violence. The record speaks for itself. Is léir go bhfuil sé mar chéad-thosaíocht ag an Rialtas seo siochán a bhaint amach i dTuaisceart Éireann. Ní miste, ar ndóigh, suntas a thabhairt don tacaíocht fial atá tugtha ag an Teach seo do na tionscnaimh atá glactha ag an Rialtas chun an aidhm sin a bhaint amach.

If we examine the contributions of Deputies who spoke in favour of the motion, they can be boiled downed to a number of essential elements. These are briefly: that Sinn Féin and the IRA are one and the same; their violent methods are totally unacceptable; they represent a threat to the State; by not renewing the section 31 order, the Government is allowing them a platform to justify and gain support for their methods, that by allowing them such access to the airwaves, the Government is encouraging them to continue to use violence and allowing the authority of the State to be undermined.

Féachamís ar an Rún atá os comhair an Tí. We are asked to restore the order under section 31 on a two-monthly basis until Sinn Féin or the IRA undertake to behave in way that is acceptable to us. To my mind the effect of this would be far graver than any of the consequences which, according to the supporters of this motion, will follow from the decision not to renew the order. To accept the proposal in the motion, in effect, is to allow Sinn Féin and other men of violence dictate to the Government on the formulation of Government policy on the fundamental issue of principle of censorship and freedom of information. As the Minister indicated in his speech, it is totally unacceptable to allow the men of violence set the Government's agenda in this way.

The contributions of the supporters of the motion have tended either to ignore or reject as unsatisfactory the legislative constraints which are in place regarding broadcasting of material which might incite to crime, undermine the authority of the State, to stir up hatred. Some Deputies seem to be of the view that because a number of interviews that would have been prohibited under the section 31 order have been transmitted since the order lapsed, the fabric of our democracy is already unravelling. Ní dóigh liom gur féidir glacadh leis sin in aon chor. This says little for their trust in the maturity, intelligence and humanity of the Irish people. It speaks volumes for their faith in their ability to provide political leadership to the people they represent and whose votes they sought.

Deputy McDowell laid great stress in his contribution that the obligation imposed on our broadcasters to be fair and impartial somehow ties their hands when it comes to asking difficult questions. Cuireann an seasamh sin ionadh an domhain orm. I would be surprised if broadcasters could interpret impartiality as implying an Olympian neutrality or detachment from basic moral and constitutional beliefs. One cannot remain neutral as between truth and untruth, justice and injustice, tolerance and intolerance or compassion and cruelty. The obligation of impartiality in no way inhibits a broadcaster's ability to search and probe until he or she is satisfied on behalf of the viewers and listeners with the way that any particular issue has been explored.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I must ask the Minister to conclude.

Mr. Gallagher

(Donegal South-West): It is outrageous to suggest that those in favour of lifting the ban are soft on terrorism are supporters of Sinn Féin or the IRA or, indeed, any other paramilitary organisation. I suggest that those who support this motion should familiarise themselves with the Broadcasting Act, 1960 and, in particular, sections 17 and 18 of that Act. The Minister's amendment indicates the decision not to renew the order under section 31 is a matter for the Government to decide, not for the men of violence. It is not a poker chip to be used in a bargaining process. There is a fundamental issue of censorship and freedom of information. The decision is an expression of confidence in our maturity, in our system of democracy, in our common sense and in our ability to produce broadcast journalists of talent and responsibility.

The Minister addressed the allegation that he or the Government acted in an undemocratic fashion. The Oireachtas has statutory power to extend the life-time of section 31. Despite being made fully aware of views on the section 31 order the Oireachtas chose not to exercise this.

I would like to thank those who spoke in favour of the Minister's amendment — Deputies Gallagher, McDaid, Kitt, Costello, Martin, O Cuív, Bree and De Rossa.

Mr. Shatter

I am disappointed the Minister did not mention any of us.

Mr. Molloy

Feicim go bhfuil an tAire taréis dul thar am. Is dóigh go gcuirfeadh sé ionadh ar dhaoine gurb é seo an chéad uair go raibh díospóireacht sa Teach seo le 17 mbliana ar na hOrduithe faoi Mhír 31. Fáiltím roimh an díospóireacht agus gabhaim buíochas le Fine Gael as ucht an tacaíocht atá siad ag tabhairt don Rún atá os comhair an Tí ón bPáirtí Daonlathach.

The Progressive Democrats believe that the Downing Street Joint Declaration represents a reasonable balance between the rights and aspirations of both the nationalist and unionist communities which occupy this island. Moreover, we recognise and welcome the fact that the British Government in effect is leaving it up to the people of this island to resolve their differences by peaceful means, that the British Government will accept whatever the outcome of any such political dialogue would be, including some form of united Ireland.

The sole but fundamental precondition which the British side have laid down in the context of the present quest for a peace process in Ireland is that there can be no change in the current status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority of the people there. It is becoming crystal clear that this very cornerstone of the Downing Street Joint Declaration is one which the so-called Republican movement of Sinn Féin and the IRA do not and will not accept. It is the very opposite of their undemocratic campaign over the past 20 years as they seek to bomb one million Unionists into some form of united Ireland against their will.

That is the fundamental litmus test of the Downing Street Joint Declaration and the necessary response of all political parties and organisations to it. Instead of Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and others pressing day in, day out for clarification from the British Government the vital clarification required by all the people of this island and of Britain too is awaited from Sinn Féin and the IRA, namely, do they accept that the present status of Northern Ireland cannot be altered without the freely given and coerced consent of a majority of the people there. It is the absence of that commitment and clarification by Sinn Féin and the IRA, and their failure to renounce violence as a means of pursuing political goals, that impels the Progressive Democrats to demand the restoration of the section 31 ban and condemn as foolish and misguided the decision of this Fianna Fáil-Labour Government to repeal the ban without such commitments having been given by Sinn Féin.

The amendment tabled by the Government to the Progressive Democrats motion is a blatant attempt to mislead the public on the real issues which this House is debating. No one doubts the maturity or judgement of the electorate, nor has anyone queried the professionalism of the Irish broadcast media. Section 31 is not about protecting the people from themselves. The people understand fully the nature of the IRA and the falsity of its propaganda. Section 31 is not an issue of censorship, is not an issue concerning freedom of speech. Section 31 was supported by successive Governments as a clear statement to those who have sought to combine murder with politics and subversion with patriotism that they may not flout the authority of this State or the legitimacy of democratic politics.

Article 40.6.1º of the Constitution upholds the right of citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions. That right cannot be taken away by any Act of the Oireachtas.

The State, however, is expressly obliged by the same provision of the Constitution to ensure that the media is not used to undermine public order or the authority of the State. Those are not our words; those are the words of our fundamental law. The State's duty to uphold its authority and to uphold democracy against subversion is not a matter of political choice; it is a matter of solemn constitutional duty.

The Minister in his contribution yesterday chose to deal with section 31 as though it were an issue in which the rights of people to information and the rights of people to speak were in some sense at odds with the security interests of the State. The Minister, posing as a liberal, has asked this House to welcome to the airwaves members of a subversive revolutionary movement who, day in day out, use murder as part of its stock in trade.

Mr. M. Higgins

That is not true.

Mr. Molloy

It certainly is.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Molloy, without interruption, please.

Mr. Molloy

Genuine liberalism acknowledges that the law of the jungle does not apply under the guise of unfettered freedom. No liberal democracy can afford to imperil its core values in the pursuit of political appeasement of people dedicated to its overthrow.

The very point the Minister tried to make in this House last evening was canvassed before the European Court of Human Rights by the Irish branch of the National Union of Journalists. That court rejected as unstatable and as not requiring a full court hearing the claim that the prohibition set out in the orders made under section 31 contravened the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Progressive Democrats believe that recent events demonstrated that the IRA is the controlling element of what is termed the Provisional movement, including Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin is the IRA in a suit and tie, the IRA is Sinn Féin in a combat jacket. Their propaganda suggests that there is some distance between Sinn Féin and the IRA but the truth is very different. Adams and McGuinness are central figures in implementation of the armalite and ballot-box strategy. Despite their claims to the contrary they bear full factual and moral responsibility for all the actions of the IRA.

As stated here last night, there is an irony in that we are prepared to allow on the airwaves in the South people who, if they perpetrated such acts south of the Border, would be ruthlessly suppressed. Does anyone in this House believe that if Members were under daily threat of assassination, if members of our security forces were regularly blown to pieces or if factories, shops and offices were burned down or blown up every day of the week we would permit the organisers of such atrocities on our broadcast media?

Does this State's respect for human life and the rule of law end at the Border? Do we apply a different standard to actions and organisations in different parts of this island? Does anyone here believe that the Government decision to allow the orders under section 31 to lapse would have been made if the IRA's campaign was being waged on this side of the Border?

All the arguments marshalled by Minister Higgins in his theoretical and abstract justification of his actions last night would apply equally to a situation in which all the IRA violence was taking place South of the Border. All this demonstrates that his argument is illogical, unprincipled and partitionist. Those who believe in a united Ireland, as we do, cannot apply one standard to the vindication of human rights North of the Border and a different standard South of it. If any Member of this House can say with his or her hand on heart that they would allow Gerry Adams the same access to this State's broadcasting media as he now enjoys if his Provisional organisation was bombing our security forces, killing our civilians and burning our towns with the ferocity which we have seen over the last 20 years, then let them vote for the Government amendment tonight. However, Members who know in their hearts that they would never have permitted section 31 to lapse in such circumstances must now explain how it can be right to relax it when the murder and mayhem is taking place within 100 miles of here among our fellow countrymen.

I call upon this House to restate our support for the authority of this State and the legitimacy of democratic principles. I call on this House to honestly admit that the effect of the relaxation of section 31 has been to give access to State licensed broadcast media to people who are using such access to further their subversive aims.

The broadcast media here unlike the newspapers are licensed by the State and subject to a statutory regime requiring them to be impartial, apolitical and balanced. No such requirements are imposed on the print media, nor should they be. It is an irony that those loudest in their support for State control of the broadcast media are least prepared to accept the State's constitutional obligation to ensure that the broadcast media are not used to undermine the authority of the State. Any true liberal knows that freedom of speech has never included the freedom to advocate or to justify the destruction of others under the protection of the law. Any true liberal knows that the State's fundamental duty must be to uphold its own authority. Any true liberal acknowledges that the vindication of every right, including the right to life and the right to freedom of speech, depends in the last analysis on the will of society to uphold its authority and to face down murder and subversion.

Try as he would to distort this debate into a theoretical discourse on the maturity of the people, the professionalism of journalists or a specious balance between non-existent censorship and freedom of information and expression, the Minister has ignored the heart of the issue which is the vindication of real tangible human rights upon this land. Nobody has the right to exclude any person from access to the broadcast media as long as that person is not using such access to propagate murder and to subvert the State. Every member of every organisation in the country, North and South, has an equal right of access to the media and an equal right of freedom of expression subject only to their capacity to deny themselves those rights by misusing them for the purposes of murder and subversion. I commend the motion to the House.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 79; Níl, 43.

Tá

• Ahern, Michael.
• Ahern, Noel.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Bell, Michael.
• Bhreathnach, Niamh.
• Bree, Declan.
• Brennan, Matt.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Broughan, Tommy.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Costello, Joe.
• Coughlan, Mary.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• de valera, Síle.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Ellis, John.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Brian.
• Fitzgerald, Eithne.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Flood, Chris.
• Foley, Denis.
• Foxe, Tom.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Gallagher, Pat.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Hilliard, Colm M.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kenny, Seán.
• Killeen, Tony.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, James.
• McDowell, Derek.
• Moffatt, Tom.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
• Mulvihill, John.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Power, Seán.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Ryan, John.
• Sargent, Trevor.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Smith, Michael.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Upton, Pat.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Eamon.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Woods, Michael.

Níl

• Allen, Bernard.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Bruton, Richard.
• Carey, Donal.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Connor, John.
• Crawford, Seymour.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Keogh, Helen.
• Lowry, Micheal.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McDowell, Michael.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Creed, Michael.
• Crowley, Michael.
• Cullen, Martin.
• Currie, Austin.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Frances.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Harney, Mary.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Nealon, Ted.
• O'Donnell, Liz.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• Owen, Nora.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, P.J.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Ferris; Níl, Deputies O'Donnell and Keogh.

Amendment declared carried.

Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.