merrion street

First, I want to thank Deputies for raising this issue and I welcome the opportunity to discuss it in the House.

I said recently that 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.

Some people I know and whose views I respect may have misinterpreted those comments. They say 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 will undoubtedly be divided. The best we can hope is that people debate the matter calmly, in good faith and with respect for opposing viewpoints. But 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 said last week I hoped that 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. Why do they apply a different norm to themselves, although they are not averse to name-calling politicians on occasion?

It would be a matter of serious concern if recourse to our defamation laws was 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 will shortly be proposing miscellaneous amendments to the Act. Among them I am now 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 we all know, RTÉ 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 therefore have no intention of interfering in RTÉ’s management of this specific case.

I have read yesterday’s statement from the managing director of RTÉ Television. RTÉ has a crucial role in the conduct of public debate and I believe it remains fully committed to ensuring the full and free exchange of information and opinion on all matters of legitimate public interest.

Finally, while RTÉ is of course 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 RTÉ from the 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 RTÉ 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 RTÉ will continue to discharge its public service obligations without fear or favour. However, it would not be desirable in my view for the Committee to become embroiled in the management of particular claims.

Ultimately, A Ceann Comhairle, 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.