Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Feb 2014

Vol. 829 No. 3

Topical Issue Debate

Health Services Provision

I thank the office of the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this important issue for my constituents in Carlow and everybody else. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Alex White, for attending.

In recent years there has been a very efficient and comprehensive radiography service based at the old mental hospital, St. Dympna’s, in Carlow. The service was reduced some years ago to three days each week to facilitate the acute hospital in Kilkenny with a promise that it would be restored to a five day service in due course. The main advantage of the service was that people could walk in from the street, having been referred by their doctor, to have an X-ray without having to go to an accident and emergency department, thereby clogging up the system in Kilkenny. This is important. The service was important to older and younger people, as they did not have to be transported to the busier hospital in Kilkenny.

Unfortunately, the radiographer has now retired and there is no service at present. I have been assured by the HSE that the position will be advertised and that a process is being put in place to try to fill the role. Unfortunately, in the meantime there is nobody covering the important service, thereby putting more pressure on the service in Kilkenny. We do not want to clog up that service and need to have more people looked after at local level. Will the Minister of State fast-track the recruitment process? The position is not new; the original position still remains and I ask the Minister of State to fill it in the near future.

There is a lack of early intervention services for children with disabilities in the Carlow area. Currently, there is no physiotherapist or paediatric physiotherapist in the area. This is very disappointing for those with disabilities. The number of occupational and speech therapists being provided for the Holy Angels Daycare Centre for children with disabilities is less than adequate. Children are being seen once every two years for a formal occupational therapy review and every 18 months for a speech and language therapy review. All children have assessment of needs statements clearly stipulating the services they require. However, where early intervention is concerned, this is totally inadequate and leaves children at a severe disadvantage. I have been contacted by a vast number of doctors in the area and parents of children who are very concerned that children are not getting the services they require. Will the Minister of State assure me that the positions of paediatric physiotherapist and occupational therapist will be filled in the area in order that the children suffering from disadvantage and with disabilities will have the same opportunity as others?

I thank the Deputy for raising the issue of health services in the Carlow area. The HSE provides a wide range of primary, community and continuing care services in Carlow. They include long-term residential and rehabilitation services for older people, a step-down transitional care unit providing palliative and respite care, mental health services and primary care services, including an out-of-hours general practitioner service. Sacred Heart Hospital in Carlow provides long-term continuing care and residential and rehabilitation services for older people, while Carlow District Hospital provides a range of services, including step-down transitional care. Mental health services are provided, including acute day services and community mental health services, at St. Dympna’s. St. Luke's General Hospital, Kilkenny, is the acute general hospital for the Carlow area. It is a 270-bed hospital that provides a range of inpatient day-care and outpatient medical and surgical services for the population. Consultant geriatricians from the hospital provide day hospital outreach clinic services and rehabilitation support in Sacred Heart Hospital.

With regard to radiography, an issue the Deputy raised specifically, the GP radiography referral process for Carlow and Kilkenny is centralised in the X-ray department at St. Luke's General Hospital. As part of service reorganisation and in order to facilitate safer services for patients, all urgent X-ray referrals are undertaken in St. Luke's General Hospital. Non-urgent elective GP referrals are undertaken St. Dympna's in Carlow. This facilitates improved access to diagnostic services for the Carlow population. All X-rays undertaken at St. Dympna’s are transmitted electronically through the nationally integrated medical imaging system to St. Luke's General Hospital where they are reported on by the consultant radiologist. In 2013, 2,971 patients attended the X-ray service at St. Dympna’s. Following the recent retirement of the permanent radiographer at St. Dympna's, X-rays are provided through the radiotherapy service at St. Luke's General Hospital. A recruitment process is under way to fill the post.

The Deputy raised the issue of paediatric physiotherapy services. The HSE provides services for children up to the age of 18 years who present with complex needs. I can confirm that a paediatric physiotherapist works as a core member of the early intervention team for the area. This is a multidisciplinary team that includes other professionals such as a speech and language therapist, an occupational therapist, a psychologist and a paediatrician. The team works together with children aged up to six years who have a physical or an intellectual disability. The team also works with the families of these children.

The HSE has indicated that there has been a temporary deficit in staff numbers in the paediatric physiotherapy service overall in Carlow since November last year. This was due to a combination of factors. Approval has been given to fill one vacant post and the recruitment process is under way.

In addition, the physiotherapy manager and physiotherapist for Carlow-Kilkenny are undertaking a comprehensive review of outstanding cases with a view to ensuring that these are prioritised on the basis of clinical need. I am assured that the HSE will explore all options, where possible, to support paediatric physiotherapy service provision in Carlow.

In conclusion, this Government is committed to ensuring that health services are provided as close to home as possible. Where service issues arise, such as the two issues raised by Deputy Deering, the HSE will continue to work to address these and support service provision.

I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive reply. I do not want to be negative because I am well aware of the excellent facilities that we have in Carlow. Even though we do not have a major hospital in Carlow, we do have great facilities which myself and my late father have used in recent times. The district hospital is a great step-down facility which takes a lot of pressure off the hospital in Kilkenny and the same is true of the Sacred Heart Hospital.

The Minister of State pointed out that 2,000 X-rays were provided in Carlow last year, which is a very large number. If those 2,000 X-rays had to be carried out in Kilkenny, that would put an awful lot of pressure on the facilities there and would clog up the system, which we do not want to see. I am glad the Minister of State has given a commitment that the filling of the post will be fast tracked and that a radiographer will be in position in the very near future to handle potentially another 2,000 cases this year. Otherwise, we will see a situation where queues will develop in Kilkenny, putting extra pressure on those facilities.

Occupational therapy and paediatric physiotherapy are very important for children with disabilities, as I said earlier. It is essential that such children can access these services when they require them so that they will not be at a disadvantage for the future. I have personal experience in this regard and know that if children do not have these services early in their lives, they will find it very difficult to catch up later on. Again, I ask the Minister of State to ensure that these positions are put in place in the very near future to ensure these children will have the same opportunities as everybody else.

I fully acknowledge that there are deficits within the paediatric physiotherapy service which have arisen as a consequence of sick leave, maternity leave and a number of vacant posts. I have addressed the issue of one vacant post already but I take what the Deputy has said about the importance of early intervention very seriously. I understand the Deputy's point in that regard and acknowledge what he has said. Everything that can be done, within our power, to expedite the provision of these services and the filling of posts, within the constraints that exist, will be done by the HSE and I can give the Deputy an assurance in that regard.

In respect of the provision of a radiography service, the Deputy is correct in what he has said about the excellence of the services that are provided. The particular post referred to by the Deputy has been identified locally as a critical post for filling. The process to progress the backfilling of that post is underway and is a priority.

Renewable Energy Exports

I thank the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister for taking this Topical Issue. I ask the Minister to report to the House on the progress made on an inter-governmental agreement that will be necessary to allow for the development of trade in green energy with Great Britain and-or the European mainland. Such an agreement must be put in place to ensure that this project can proceed.

Given media reports and various comments made in the House of Commons, it seems that there are widely differing views on the issue of energy generation in the United Kingdom including support for fracking, nuclear energy as well as possible agreements with other EU countries, such as France. In that context, how realistic is it to believe that we will reach an agreement with the United Kingdom on this matter? Are negotiations still progressing and if so, at what pace? Are there deadlines to be met in this regard and if so, what are they? Are the negotiations dependent on what is happening here? There are meetings taking place all over the country regarding both EirGrid and the development of wind farms. People are calling for a review of the planning guidelines, variations to county development plans and so forth. They are asking when planning applications will be submitted.

Other than the normal planning procedures, as outlined by the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, will public consultations take place regarding new wind farms? Will they be subject to environmental impact assessments? Can the Minister confirm that such developments will be in full compliance with the Aarhus Convention? Plans are afoot to develop ten wind farms here, 20 there, another five down the road and communities are absolutely terrified of what is going on. I ask the Minister to confirm that wind farm projects which will develop energy for export will be confined to State-owned lands, either those belonging to Coillte or Bord na Móna. If we could have that assurance, it would alleviate some of the concerns of so many local communities. Bord na Móna announced its proposals recently and referred to having a partner to develop those proposals. Immediately, concerns were raised regarding who the potential partners might be and how they might be selected. If agencies such as Coillte and Bord na Móna are involved in such projects, will cost-benefit analyses and environmental impact assessments be carried out?

Are there any EU directives governing such projects? Is there any EU funding available to advance them and if so, is it the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources which would apply for such funding? Would such funding be dependent on adhering to planning regulations determined by the EU or would An Bord Pleanála be the relevant authority in that regard?

Media reports about companies interested in developing such projects have referred to the cabling being placed underground. Is this the case? Would such cabling be provided by the suppliers, that is, the wind farms, direct to the United Kingdom or would substations such as Dunnestown in Kilcullen be used? What part does the EirGrid Grid 25 project have to play in all of this? We are continuously being told that it has no part to play but reports consistently state that EirGrid was established because of these wind farm proposals. What is the truth in this case? I hope the Minister will report to the House on the role of EirGrid in this regard. I also ask him to update us on the review body to be chaired by Ms Justice Catherine McGuinness. Will the Minister also explain the difference between the wind farm export project and interconnectivity? Does interconnectivity only refer to connection to mainland Europe and if so, are there any proposals in this regard?

The Minister is aware of the concerns raised by many Deputies and the many groups he has met right across the country. A total of 35,000 submissions were made to EirGrid and as many again will be made if submissions are sought on wind farms. The concerns being raised relate to the protection of communities, the environment, family homes and local industry. There is a huge problem in my area and the bloodstock industry is tormented and annoyed by the proposals. Its representatives came to the House last week to meet with my colleague, Deputy Stagg, and we have been to many meetings in the constituency. The points I raise have been made at the countless meetings that take place. I urge the Minister to respond to the questions asked and to shed some light on the issues raised.

I apologise for being late into the House.

I am grateful to Deputy Wall for giving me the opportunity to comment in the House on the possibility of a wind export project between this country and Britain. Because of the controversy surrounding the necessary build-out of the grid to meet our own domestic energy goals, the entirely separate wind export project is frequently misrepresented. The wind export project has also become confused, as Deputy Wall has said, with interconnectivity and with the inevitable thrust of EU policy towards greater integration of the energy market. The days of the island energy market are over, and interconnectivity works both ways. Interconnectivity has happened, is happening and will happen whether the contemplated export project gets off the ground or not. The need to have a modern transmission system that is fit for purpose will not go away if the wind project does not get off the ground.

With regard to export markets, the House will know that in January 2013 the UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Ed Davey, and I signed a memorandum of understanding on energy co-operation. This entails a consideration of how Irish renewable energy resources, onshore and offshore, might be developed to the mutual benefit of Ireland and the UK, and a decision as to whether it is beneficial for both countries to enter into an intergovernmental agreement, IGA, on renewable energy trading.

The work programme on an IGA, which is under way since last year, includes economic analysis, policy and regulatory questions and grid issues. A wide ranging and thorough cost-benefit analysis is nearing completion. As I have said many times, for Ireland to enter into any intergovernmental agreement there would have to be clear, realisable and significant benefits accruing to the country. Any potential rewards would have to outweigh all potential risks. The foreseen benefits would need to include investment, jobs and growth. Local authorities would have to benefit from rates inflows. Local communities would have to benefit from appropriate community gain proposals. Ireland Inc. would have to benefit from appropriate returns to the Exchequer and infrastructure to underpin economic and social development. Subject to the ongoing cost-benefit analysis and agreement regarding the potential benefits to Ireland, the ambition is to settle on an intergovernmental agreement in 2014. A tentative deadline was in mind which was this spring. Put simply, as Ed Davey said at the signing of the MOU, if the numbers stack up, we can do a deal. If not, there will not be an intergovernmental agreement.

Any new wind farms, whether for the domestic or export market, will be subject to the planning Acts, including the requirements for public consultation, irrespective of the source of funding for their construction. Currently, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government - in conjunction with my Department and other stakeholders - is consulting on a targeted review of its wind energy development guidelines in relation to noise, proximity and shadow flicker.

Separately, I am putting in place a clear national planning policy context for renewable energy export which will guide An Bord Pleanála when considering proposals of a significant scale for wind energy export. The renewable energy export policy and development framework will be developed over the next 12 to 15 months and will provide the opportunity to integrate relevant EU directive requirements, trans-boundary dimensions and stakeholder participation within the context of a national framework. The stage 1 public consultation concluded in November 2013. That was the first of three consultations that will be held at key points in the development of the framework, all offering interested parties opportunities to present their views on how we should develop national policy to realise the potential benefits of the export of renewable energy.

My job is to endeavour to open up a new traded sector with Britain and, in the process, to facilitate job creation and wealth generation for Ireland. It is not my job to favour one developer or another, but I agree with Deputy Wall that it is difficult to envisage the maturing of such a project without the utilisation of State lands. That would also have the merit of minimising intrusion on local communities.

I do not know how appropriate it is, a Cheann Comhairle, for me to comment on the very robust debate that is under way in the United Kingdom or its recent decisions concerning fracking, except to say that, like Deputy Wall, I am aware that it is indeed a very robust debate.

The proposed agreement is premature if the Minister is to put in place a national planning policy for renewable energy export. Surely we must do what we want. We all wish to see jobs created in the midlands, where there has been a deficit of employment over a long period. We want jobs and we must use every possible avenue in that regard. The Minister accepted that we do not have a clear national planning policy. In that case, how can we offer to trade energy with the UK? It seems that the UK is now divided. I accept that the Minister does not wish to comment on the situation, but in order to go forward we must see a clear indication that there will be an agreement. Otherwise it is a waste of energy. Should we not consider the alternative in terms of what we can do to connect to the grids of mainland Europe, where more agreement could be sought? Every community in my constituency has expressed concern. On one side I have EirGrid and on the other side I have wind farms. There are those of us in the middle, thankfully, who still talk about football. There is huge concern and we must allay people’s fears. We cannot continue to torment communities for another year if we are not in a position to continue with energy trading with the UK. From what the Minister said, it appears that the agreement is premature. Given the position of the United Kingdom, we should review whether we should sign up to such an agreement.

I hope I can clarify the position. I do not agree that it would be premature if an agreement is concluded. Its purpose is to facilitate the initiation of a traded sector in green energy. Causing it to happen is a different matter. The law would then exist to permit it happening if X and Y fell into place. I agree with Deputy Wall that it would be premature to conclude an agreement before the national policy planning framework is in place. I have made it plain during Question Time in this House that if any developer is contemplating putting in a planning application before the national policy planning framework is in place, it will not be dealt with. Deputy Wall can be reassured on that point - the national policy planning framework will be in place before any planning application is entertained from any developer, public or private. The Deputy referred to Bord na Móna’s recent announcement about the creation of a digital hub. For a number of years now Bord na Móna has been considering what it will do with a couple of hundred thousand acres of cutaway bog. It has been considering how to develop a new mission for the company. It could be a central player, but the same rules would apply to it and it would have to go through the national policy planning framework as well.

RTE Compensation Payment

The next item is under the names of Deputies John Lyons, Jerry Buttimer, Michael Colreavy, Clare Daly, Luke 'Ming' Flanagan, Catherine Murphy and Mick Wallace, regarding RTE's reported compensation to the Iona Institute and others. Deputies will have two minutes each and one for a supplementary. I ask Deputies to be careful of what they say and to remember what is allowable under Standing Orders.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important issue of national interest, given the number of people who have not only contacted RTE but many Members about it. There is a massive public discourse going on about this particular issue and a momentum has built up. It is important that in this Chamber we get a chance to have some sort of a discussion around this issue.

Citizens must have confidence in RTE to moderate and facilitate robust debate on issues of social concern, particularly at this time on issues around LGBT rights and equality. After “The Saturday Night Show” several weeks ago, RTE’s decision to pay out a reported €85,000 in compensation has severely damaged public confidence in our national broadcaster. We need to get to the bottom of this. We are at a very important time with LGBT issues in Ireland. We have come so far and over the next two years we will debate some important issues that will, please God, bring the same rights to every citizen on this island, rights some do not have at this stage. To do this, we need to have a national broadcaster which allows robust debate and for people to be challenged around their views.

Was there one person in charge or one point of contact from the moment RTE decided to deal with this issue until it paid out this compensation? On what basis did it decide to pay out this compensation? The RTE managing director’s press release stated the legal position was far from clear. If the position was far from clear and RTE had various legal advices over a number of weeks, stating it should not pay to that it should pay, on what basis did it decide to pay this money out? I know the legal advice RTE used to pay out this money is privileged and, accordingly, we are not entitled to it. However, there has to be some political will to find out on what basis this compensation was paid out in the national interest. I believe RTE was wrong to pay out this money on what was essentially an anti-gay prejudice issue on which people were challenged.

The sequence of events arising from “The Saturday Night Show” give rise to serious concerns on how public discourse is conducted, the language we use, the labels we apply to others and, more important, the role of our public service broadcaster. I believe RTE was erroneous and wrong in what it did in this case. It folded too quickly. Who advised the broadcaster on this? What was the nature of the advice? Were those who gave this advice involved in other organisations? Our public service broadcaster has an obligation to provide balanced, responsible and fair transmission of social matters and issues. As a public service broadcaster, it must facilitate fair and balanced debate on matters of public importance. Central to this obligation, I believe, must be an entitlement of these participating on programmes in RTE to voice honestly held opinions and make fair comment. RTE must act as a fair arbitrator and stand by the right of people to voice honestly held opinions on its platforms. Otherwise, it acts to undermine its public service remit.

There is a contrast with what RTE did in this case and what happened in the Abbey Theatre several days ago when the whole issue of homophobia and LGBT rights was fully explored. RTE, on the other hand, parked a debate on this at the first opportunity. What would happen if we were discussing racism? If somebody was accused of racism, would that have to be defended too? As Deputy Lyons rightly said, we have made many advances in the area of rights for gay people in this country. Where there is homophobia, however, it must be challenged and stood up to. I hope this debate today will lead to a national discourse on this matter leading up to the referendum on marriage equality.

The appearance of Rory O'Neill, aka Panti Bliss, on RTE's “The Saturday Night Show” has sparked a debate on homophobia. Rory O'Neill identified several individuals as having homophobic beliefs. I could go into a debate on what these people have said and written and how it could be identified as homophobic. However, I am willing to rely on Rory O'Neill, and his alter ego Panti Bliss, as a leading figure in Ireland's LGBT movement, to know what homophobia is. I am a straight, middle-aged man, so will not pretend that I know how members of the LGBT community are made to feel every day when faced with articles in newspapers, comments on the radio, abuse on the street and even accusations within the Chambers of this institution.

What I will discuss is RTE's censorship of Rory O'Neill and the debate surrounding homophobia. The Government has promised a referendum on marriage equality in 2015, following a recommendation by a majority of the Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution to allow same-sex marriage. Those who publicly advocate inequality cannot hide behind defamation legislation when they are called out on the views for which they seek to gain popular support. The demand of significant sums of public moneys by such individuals or groups in place of a right to reply sets a deeply worrying precedent.

This country has had a poor history of censorship. For many years some of our great authors suffered at the hands of the censorship board. Section 31 kept Republicans such as myself off the airwaves for many years. RTE has a tradition of facilitating this censorship. As the public service broadcaster, it is deeply worrying to see this rear its head again. It should not be the case that those who call homophobia out for what it is should suffer censorship. The pay-out from RTE has potentially huge implications for the way in which the debate on marriage equality is carried out. As RTE receives funding from the taxpayer, the public have a right to know what legal advice it received before making this pay-out.

As taxpayers, citizens and public representatives, it is important we put on record how appalled we are by what RTE has done in this case. I believe this will be a defining moment and the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources will be judged on how he deals with this and what happens next.

At the core of this are issues of freedom of expression and basic human rights. As somebody who has had some horrible and inaccurate things said about her in the media, I know how difficult it is to get them corrected. That makes it doubly unbelievable how quickly RTE handed over money in this case. Nothing inaccurate was said. That is the critical point. The people and the organisations that benefited from this pay-out have clearly argued that LGBT people should be treated differently. That is nothing else other than homophobia. To call it anything else is, in my opinion, an abuse of language.

Brendan O’Connor in the apology offered said it is an important part of democratic debate that people should be entitled to hold dissenting views on controversial subjects. That means, however, one also has to have the right to express a different opinion on that dissenting view and call it by its proper name. As Deputy Buttimer said, if someone is known to be a racist, has expressed racist views, and we call them a racist, are we to then to apologise to them for calling them by the right name?

This issue has enormous consequences for society. Parliament must send a strong signal that we will not tolerate homophobia. Unless this issue is addressed, the only conclusion that people will draw is that if one has big pockets, then one can use them to stifle debate and control opinion. Irish people do not want to live in such a society.

Unlike some Members here, I am not in any way surprised about RTE being biased nor have I learned anything new about it through this case.

This is one of many cases in which it has shown its bias. Sadly, while it is meant to be a public service broadcaster, it appears to have its own agenda on many different issues. Hopefully, something good will come out of this and one good thing to emerge is that people like Deputy Colreavy or like me, from counties Leitrim or Roscommon, can proudly state in this Chamber that they wish to defend gay rights. Forty years ago, had one done what Deputy Colreavy did here today, one would have been worried going home and that constitutes massive progress. It would be nice if there were no homophobia but pretending there is not does not make it all go away. The speech made in the Abbey Theatre explained it so beautifully and that while we are all homophobic - we are - it is a case of working on it and trying to learn about the whole situation and fighting against it and in the end, everyone gets his or her rights. Sadly, however, some people are more homophobic than others and some people do not appear to make any effort to deal with that homophobia. It is sad that one now is being denied even the right to use the word. Moreover, I discovered this morning that another word has been banned by RTE. One is not allowed to use the word "Ballyhea" either. This is a gay rights issue too because, guess what, the €70 billion they robbed from us in Europe affects people who are gay, as well as straight.

For the past couple of weeks, some Members have felt they were living in a parallel universe. A huge debate has been taking place online through sites such as TheJournal.ie, Broadsheet.ie, as well as on Twitter and Facebook, with the mainstream print media largely being absent from that debate. Yesterday, the head of television in RTE explained to staff the reason the broadcaster apologised and paid €85,000. This screams to me of discontent within RTE. It is obvious that many of the station's personnel know there are times when defending the principles behind public service broadcasting ranks higher than the fear of litigation. John Waters, Breda O'Brien and the Iona Institute all can be described as opinion formers. They have made themselves part of the public discourse - I stress public discourse - on such issues as same-sex marriage and frequently present gay people's relationships, as a starting point, as being lesser. For this to go unchallenged is about setting the parameters of the debate to their advantage and as a referendum will be held next year, that is of critical importance timewise. Why the rush by RTE to apologise and pay? Was it because it was aware those complaining had deep pockets and the ability to amount a credible legal challenge? If so, one must ask how those pockets came to be so filled. The second issue is that one of the complaints came from John Waters, who then was a board member of RTE's regulatory body, the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, BAI. Is it not a massive conflict of interest and was RTE under additional duress? Why did the BAI suddenly change its code of conduct on 22 January, the same day on which RTE agreed the payout? Is this the reason John Waters resigned from the BAI on 24 January or did the Minister ask him to resign? Given the massive payout and the obvious conflict of interest, does the Minister believe, as do I, that he should return that money to RTE?

I also watched Panti's speech at the Abbey Theatre and it is very powerful. One would think RTE had an obligation to facilitate free and open debate but in this instance, it failed miserably. Some people now are more offended by the word "homophobia" than they are by homophobia itself. This is censorship. In a press release last week, the Minister stated that homophobia "is too loaded a term to be used to categorise those who hold contrary views on what is a matter for legitimate public debate". I will point out that it is not for heterosexuals to define what is homophobia. We do not have the right to tell gay people what does or does not constitute homophobia. This was summed up eloquently by Panti Bliss in her Abbey Theatre speech last weekend, when she stated:

So now Irish gay people find ourselves in a ludicrous situation where not only are we not allowed to say publicly what we feel oppressed by, we are not even allowed to think it because our definition has been disallowed by our betters. ... [T]he word "homophobia" is no longer available to gay people. Which is a spectacular and neat Orwellian trick because now it turns out that gay people are not the victims of homophobia - homophobes are.

Does the Minister think these contrary views, as he calls them, have no impact? Does he believe there is no link between discriminatory comments about gay people and physical attacks on gay people? From where does the Minister think those who commit physical acts of violence against gay people get their ideas? To quote Breda O'Brien, "equality must take second place to the common good". Does the Minister honestly think these words have no impact on gay people?

First, I thank the Deputies for raising this issue and I welcome the opportunity to discuss it in the House. Moreover, I acknowledge the range of Deputies across the parties, as well as Independent Members, who have expressed in the Chamber this evening a broadly similar view. I stated recently that personally, I would not use the term "homophobe" to describe those who disagree with me on issues of gay equality in general or gay marriage in particular. I thought it was too loaded a term to be used to categorise all those who hold contrary views on a matter for legitimate public debate. As Deputy Wallace has just noted, some people I know and whose views I respect may have misinterpreted those comments. They state I do not appreciate the subtle and insidious nature of homophobia. I thought I was making a somewhat different and subtle point of my own.

Issues like this are informed by deep-felt religious, moral and social considerations. Opinion undoubtedly will be divided and the best one can hope is that people debate the matter calmly, in good faith and with respect for opposing viewpoints. However, it is of no assistance at all if we lump together our opponents, all those who will vote "No", by borrowing from the lexicon of liberal intolerance.

I also stated last week in the same statement that I hoped people who hold themselves out as commentators on, or contributors to, public debate fully appreciate that debate can be robust, heated, personal and sometimes even hostile. Politicians are expected, including I suspect by some of the litigants here concerned, to function in such an environment as normal. Consequently, why do they apply a different norm to themselves, although at least some of them are not averse to name-calling politicians on occasion? It would be a matter of serious concern were recourse to the defamation laws to have a chilling effect on public debate on this issue in the lead-in to the referendum. While the defamation laws are outside my remit, the Broadcasting Act is not. At present, section 39 requires every broadcaster to ensure that nothing is broadcast that may reasonably be regarded as causing offence. That seems to me to be an unfeasibly rigorous approach. We all know how easy it is for some people to be offended, even where offence was not intended and is not objectively ascertainable. I intend to propose miscellaneous amendments to the Act shortly. Among them, I now am considering an amendment that would require broadcasters to avoid causing undue offence. That seems to me to be more objective and more in tune with the realities of public debate.

As everyone knows, RTE is an independent public service broadcaster. It is obliged to be responsive to the interests and concerns of the whole community, to reflect the varied elements that make up the culture of the Irish people and to uphold the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution, especially those relating to rightful liberty of expression. The Broadcasting Act 2009 provides that the company is independent in pursuance of these objects.

I, as Minister, have no role in managing editorial matters, making decisions around programming or dealing with litigation claims. I have no intention therefore of interfering in RTE's management of this specific case. I have read yesterday's statement from the managing director of RTE Television. RTE has a crucial role in the conduct of public debate and it remains fully committed to ensuring the full and free exchange of information and opinion on all matters of legitimate public interest.

While RTE is answerable as a public body, it does not, and should not, operate under political supervision, either at ministerial or parliamentary level. I have seen the invitation to RTE from the Oireachtas communications committee. Provided the engagement takes place at the general level of principle, without reference to the specifics of individual cases, I fully agree that the committee is entitled to hear from RTE an outline of its approach to libel complaints in the context of its obligations as a public service broadcaster. The committee is also entitled to satisfy itself that RTE will continue to discharge its public service obligations without fear or favour. However, it would not be desirable for the committee to become embroiled in the management of particular claims. Ultimately we rely on our broadcasters to provide a forum for matters of public debate and, indeed, controversy and to ensure that, when these take place, the necessary level playing field is provided for all concerned.

I thank the Minister for his response. Two people in here know what homophobia feels like, what it is like to be called a queer, a fag, a gay. Just before Christmas I walked from my house around to the Centra where a bunch of teenagers called me gay or some other name they call us. I thought I was living in a society where this stuff is no longer acceptable. On "The Saturday Night Show" Rory O'Neill challenged people on these issues and called it what it is. When it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it must be a duck. RTE was completely wrong and bang out of order when it got numerous types of legal advice saying perhaps it should not give out any sort of compensation. RTE got it wrong. Everybody in the public knows it got it wrong. RTE needs to come out and let us know that it got it wrong. Otherwise there will not be confidence in our national broadcaster to mediate any debate with confidence, particularly around issues that affect my life, the people who love me and love all the other people who are not treated properly in this society.

I fully accept the Minister's position regarding involvement in the day-to-day management of RTE. However, we as a society and this Parliament have a role to play in the national broadcaster. RTE got it completely wrong. It folded its tent. This week in the Oireachtas we were told as gay people that it is a matter of "social re-engineering" by the "gay ideological movement". I am quoting from a Member of the Seanad. I speak not just as a gay person but as a member of society who wants to be treated equally. I have been beaten, spat on, chased, harassed and mocked, like Deputy Lyons, because of who I am. I was born with a gift given to me. I have spent most of my life struggling and am finally at a place in my own country, which I love, to be accepted. The support from my colleagues in this House and from the Ceann Comhairle is a demonstration of how our society has come forward, but in a tolerant, respectful debate I will not allow people who spout hatred and intolerance to go unchecked.

The Minister said it is not up to him or the Parliament to oversee the day-to-day operations of RTE. Yes, but if this Parliament and the Minister do not say that was wrong, if we do not identify it as being wrong, we support it and it will happen again and again. There will be people out there waiting to be offended, doing automated word searches to find offence. I know people, many of whom would have been far more seriously aggrieved at what was said to them on RTE, but who did not rush to claim money. This Parliament needs to point out that this was wrong and we do not want to see it happen again.

I am a little disappointed with the Minister's response because he seems to have tried to justify some of the comments last week and maybe he has missed some of the points. Nobody has said these people do not have the right to express their opinions. The issue is that other people have the right to call it by its proper name and challenge that without being censored. In his statement the Minister said it would be a matter of serious concern if recourse to our defamation laws was to have a chilling effect on public debate. We are saying it is a matter of serious concern that this issue has happened and that there will be consequences unless we take action.

I do not know if the Minister saw the Channel 4 programme broadcast last night which linked an increase in violent attacks on gay people in Russia with the Russian government's treatment of gay people and its explicit homophobia. These actions have consequences and for the likes of Brendan O'Connor to turn around to somebody in his audience last week who told him about being beaten up for being gay and say that is real homophobia is ridiculous. RTE needs to be independent and balanced and the best thing the Minister could do to take society forward on this would be to ask the Department of Education and Skills to make it mandatory that all schools would be allowed to listen to Miss Panti Bliss's speech at "The Risen People". Society would be far better if people were to hear that.

We are at a point where we could potentially go backwards and forget about all the gains that have been made on this issue over the years, or we could drive it further forward by fighting what RTE has done and getting it to row back on it. That would end up as a good news story overall. While we have won many battles on this, it is still an acceptable term of abuse in a national school in this country to call someone gay. It means there is something wrong with a person, not necessarily his or her sexuality. It is used as a negative term. It is in the secondary schools. An 11-year-old girl took part in a debate in a national school in my town where she spoke in favour of gay marriage and the whole classroom started laughing at her. They are hearing that somewhere at home. We need to drive this forward rather than going back into the dark ages. Unfortunately, the Minister has pointed the compass in the wrong direction.

The fact that this is our public service broadcaster is critical because we expect a higher standard. We expect balance because we pay a licence fee. We expect it to defend the principles of public service broadcasting. If that means taking the challenge of litigation, that must be taken up. It starts with one thing and all of a sudden we find the erosion of a whole lot of principles and rights in terms of debate. In a democracy we cannot accept that. I asked the Minister a number of questions about the code of conduct. It was changed the day the payout happened. There was a resignation the day after. Did the Minister have any knowledge of that? Did he have any involvement in requesting that resignation? Does he see this as a serious conflict of interest by somebody who is a litigant? The money should be paid back because there is a serious conflict of interest here.

The Minister said RTE is an independent broadcaster. RTE depends on the good favour of the Government of the day and on big business for advertising. I do not find it so independent. Today I received an e-mail from Ross Golden Bannon. He said:

Our community and our supporters now face into a campaign for the referendum on marriage equality in 2015 with one hand tied behind our backs. The most distressing part for those of us now silenced from using the word homophobia is that the mainstream media does not see how it has been played with the legal hand. I heard Colm O'Gorman say today as a result of RTE's capitulation it is going to be more difficult to challenge positions adopted by those who oppose equality, more difficult to question if prejudice and discrimination underpin their opposition to a fundamental human right. We would do well to remember that without a properly informed citizenry, there is no democracy.

First, let us get the conspiracy theories out of the way. The coincidence regarding the code of conduct has nothing to do with this. I did not see the programme at the time, but I have made it my business to see it since. The first I heard about the issue was when I was advised of the resignation of a member of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland. I presume he resigned because he envisaged litigation against RTE. I assure the Deputy that anything else is purely coincidental and has nothing to do with that.

It is one thing to express the view that homophobia poisons the water that can nurture violence, as Deputy Daly mentioned in regard to what we saw in respect of Russia. It is another thing to seek to intrude into or ascribe motivation to the RTE decision in respect of the contemplated litigation. The RTE explanation is that it had expert advice - from inside and outside as I understand - available to it that advised it did not have a case to defend. As a result, it made the decision it made. It is true that RTE is the public service broadcaster, but it is also true to say it is a commercial company and it made a commercial decision, as it does frequently, in respect of contemplated defamation actions and so on. It is not an exception and it made the decision.

Colleagues in this House are entitled to bring to bear their own judgments on the merits of that decision and whether they would have made the same decision and whether the principles that have been adduced here override reliance on purely commercial decision-making. However, I repeat that the RTE explanation is that this was another file, it got expert legal advice and made the decision it made. I wonder whether in the medium and longer term, in terms of public discourse on such a fundamentally important issue as this, we will have been damaged by this controversy. It seems to me that this far out from the referendum, it may be no harm at all that these issues have been ventilated now. It is plain that this House is of a singular view. That message cannot fail to go out from here. However, I still stand by my position that I draw a distinction between my intruding in the management of any particular litigation file and my requiring of RTE to in no way resile from its obligation to discharge its public service imposition under the Broadcasting Act. That is the critical factor as we prepare to put the building blocks in place for the ultimate referendum.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.45 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Friday, 7 February 2014.
Top
Share