The Progressive Labour Party (PLP) should pay back thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money used to produce and broadcast Premier Jennifer Smith's February address to the nation, says the United Bermuda Party.

The call comes after the Broadcast Commission found that the Premier's address was not a Government broadcast.

The decision into whether the disputed address was a political broadcast and paid for by taxpayers and in breach of regulations was handed down Tuesday.

Shadow Minister for Legislative Affairs John Barritt said the “well reasoned argument” that the broadcast, which was paid for by the taxpayers, was not a Government broadcast meant that it was a political broadcast.

“As a political broadcast it ought not to have been paid for by the taxpayers,” he said.

“I am calling on the Progressive Labour Party (PLP) to pay back into the Consolidated Fund the monies that were expended on a political broadcast,” he said.

“And I look forward to the photograph in The Royal Gazette with the chairman of the party handing over that cheque to the Minister of Finance.”

PLP party chairman Neville Tyrell could not be reached for comment.

Mr. Barritt added that Government should be following the rules and not flouting them.

“That's why I am calling on them to do the right and honourable thing.”

The Commission's “primary finding,” however, was that the broadcasting stations failed to preview the broadcast to assess whether it breached the regulations.

“In this case they left the gate unlocked and a broadcast that should have been vetted was allowed to escape scrutiny,” the decision stated.

“The public has a right to know whether what they are watching is a broadcast by a political party or by the Government and the Opposition. They have a right to know that their tax dollars are being spent on a Government broadcast and not on a political party broadcast.”

Mr. Barritt said that Government had declined to say during the hearings how much money was spent on producing and airing the speech.

“But it had to be in the thousands because Government used a private firm to produce the broadcast. I thought it was rather telling that GIS (Government Information Services) wasn't involved until the very end when they had to scramble around to get the programme on the air.”

The Commissioners dismissed Government's argument that the Premier's criticism of Shadow Tourism Minister David Dodwell was fair comment allowed under the broadcasting regulations.

“Typically, addresses to the nation by the leader of a Country encourage the people to embrace ideals and challenges that transcend partisan politics,” the decision reads.

“Putting an Opposition member of the House at centre stage at the beginning of an address, criticising him and then concluding the speech by putting the Minister of Finance's Budget at centre stage and praising it and other Government initiatives, does not meet the (Broadcast regulations) standard”.

In February, the Premier called for national solidarity and urged Bermudians to make a personal pledge to support the Island in its efforts to resurrect tourism and survive post September 11 global realities.

In her 12 minute speech which was broadcast by both television stations, she also criticised Mr. Dodwell, saying he had said the September 11 attacks on the US had not impacted on tourism.

The UBP questioned whether it was a political broadcast, paid for by the taxpayers, and made a formal complaint to the Broadcast Commission which adjudicates such matters.

Government argued during the hearings which began in late March that the Premier's references to Mr. Dodwell's comments were an attempt to “set the record straight” so as to avoid confusion in the minds of the public.

It also argued that the broadcasting regulations allowed such comment in explaining events of national importance provided that the Opposition Leader is given an opportunity to address the nation on the subject of the broadcast.

And the Premier in a letter to the Commission said that the speech's purpose was to commend the Finance Minister for his post September 11 actions and a way of saying “you have truly done well my good faithful servant and in the wake of September 11 2001, I now call upon the Country to unite behind your handy work to help this Country recover from a cataclysmic event”.

According to the written decision the Opposition argued that Mr. Dodwell was misquoted and that the speech was in fact a broadcast by a political party not the Government.

The Commissioners did not address whether Mr. Dodwell's comments were misconstrued, but pointed out that the rules specifically prohibit references to MPs in order to keep a Government broadcast “above the slings and arrows of politics”.

“If a speech is elevated even higher and said to be of national importance, it can only be in the rarest of cases that it is right to criticise a Member of Parliament. In the opinion of the Commissioners this was not one of these cases.”

And the Commissioners agreed with the Opposition's argument that the timing of the speech, well after September 11 and the day before the Opposition's Reply to the Budget, meant that it could not be characterised as being of “prime” national importance.

“Once the Minister of Finance had made his presentation to the House and effectively to the people, it is hard to accept that the Honourable Premier's follow up speech was concerning events of prime national importance,” the decision states.

“In order to achieve that hallmark, and putting to one side the amount of time that had elapsed since September 11, one would have expected the speech to have preceded the presentation of the budget. It did not. Instead the speech was made the night before the Opposition Shadow Minister of Finance was formally due to reply to the budget. The Commissioners are of the view that the timing of the speech had more to do with what was happening on the House floor than with world events or a need to secure public support in relation to those events.”