Time for a Debate on ‘Lost at Sea’ report

Yesterday in the Seanad, I raised the issue of having a debate in the House about the Lost at Sea Scheme. A week ago, there were statements in the Seanad and the Dail on the report of the Ombudsman, Ms Emily O’Reilly, on the Lost at Sea scheme.  It appears that the former Minister who designed the scheme claims to have been vindicated by the report.

However, the report was vetoed by the Government and there was no meaningful debate on it. Having a debate on this issue is very important because it is a serious safeguard for democracy. We have the Oireachtas, a courts system, a free press and an Ombudsman. These are very important safeguards. The Government has sidestepped this issue and has shown total disrespect to the Ombudsman.

Former Senator Mr Maurice Hayes wrote recently in the national media that the office of the Ombudsman had been established by the Oireachtas and the least we could do was to respect the office and the integrity of the officeholder.

By not having a proper debate and by not giving proper consideration to the recommendations of the Ombudsman, we have not respected the office. Senator Dan Boyle has stated that the Ombudsman should be respected in her request to have the matter referred to an Oireachtas committee, and that has been supported by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley.

Surely this matter can be referred to an Oireachtas committee. There is a constitutional issue here and the Joint Committee on the Constitution might just be the committee to have this referred on to.

Failure to have a proper discussion about the Lost at Sea scheme report and its findings is a serious affront to democracy.

New Broadcasting Legislation Needed to Ensure Media Coverage of Referenda Campaigns is Fairer and More Practical

The Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, of which I am a member, published a report today recommending that broadcasting legislation should be amended to avoid the present unreal and impractical situation which compels media outlets to devote equal amounts of coverage to both “yes” and “no” sides during a referendum campaign.

The Committee carried out a review of articles 46 and 47 of the Constitution which prescribe referendum procedure and of the subsequent McKenna and Coughlan judgements which regulate the way in which information is communicated during a referendum campaign.

The report finds that the current arrangement whereby broadcasters tend to apply a “stopwatch” principle ensuring that both sides are given identical amounts of coverage and the situation where journalists must facilitate ad-hoc opponents of a referendum by giving them the same airtime as all established political parties, even if the level of opposition is tiny, is wholly artificial and false.

Committee Chairman, Seán Ardagh TD said;

“Fairness in a democracy naturally requires that both sides in a referendum campaign get an adequate opportunity to ensure that their side of the argument is properly put before the electorate. However, this does not mean that there has to be an absolute equality between both sides of an argument in respect of every broadcast throughout referenda.

During its deliberations, the committee heard from a number of media agencies who claimed that the current situation meant that broadcasters were “strait jacketed” into dividing time equally in a manner that challenged their professional requirement to deliver balanced content. The committee feels that this situation is not healthy or beneficial.”

The report finds that the ordinary rules, practices and principles which govern the electronic media during the course of a general election should equally apply to a referendum campaign.

Seán Ardagh added;

“There should be no reason why broadcasters should not be entitled to have regard to a range of diverse factors, including the relative strength of political parties by voting percentages and Oireachtas membership, the standing of various interest groups and expertise and reputation of prospective guests to inform their own judgement as to what constitutes fairness of treatment. This would be applied in the same way as they currently do with current affairs programmes.

The committee has no doubt that these changes would improve the quality of debate during the course of a referendum, while at the same time ensuring fairness to all. For this reason, the committee is of the view that new legislation is required.”

The report also found that that in its interpretation, it is not clear that the Coughlan interpretation which has prevailed is precisely what the Supreme Court actually decided, as the original judgment was principally concerned with the fairness and appropriateness of uncontested party political broadcasts during referenda.

The committee considers that this particular problem could be addressed by amending the current Broadcasting Acts so as to qualify the use of party political broadcasts during referenda campaigns.

During the course of its review the committee heard submissions from a wide range of interested parties with differing views including; the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland, RTE, TV3, Newstalk, Independent Broadcasters of Ireland, legal experts and academics.

This is the second report of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution.

You can view the report in full at the following link: http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/Committees30thDail/J-Constitution/Report_2008/document1.htm