protecting the public from profane language, defamation and the advertising of harmful products.

But the Opposition countered that the regulations amounted to overkill and a Government ploy to suppress freedom of speech in an election year.

Finance Minister the Hon. David Saul introduced the Sound Broadcasting Service Regulations saying the "airwaves are public property and the general public expects the Government to supervise them and maintain standards so that no profanity comes across''.

The new regulations require: Radio talk show callers to supply the station with their name, adrress and telephone numbers before getting on the air; Stations to delay their broadcasts by seven seconds; A total ban on tobacco advertising and an extension of time bans on hard liquor advertising; Health warnings attached to any liquor advertising; Regular publication of time schedules for all programmes; Recording of all broadcasts, storing them for at least 30 days and handing them over to the Broadcast Commissioners on demand; and Charity status for any programme directly soliciting money from the public.

Dr. Saul said the regulations were the first ever drafted for Bermuda radio.

The move to establish regulatory control came from the Broadcast Commission which was set up in 1953 to supervise broadcasting and to maintain high broadcasting standards. Until now, he said, regulations applied only to television.

"The Broadcasting Commissioners feel both entities -- radio and television -- should be put on the same footing,'' the Minister said.

"These regulations have been under review for more than a year. The Commissioners consulted outside bodies and the broadcasters in putting them together.'' He described the regulations as "just plain common sense'' which afforded protection to listeners.

He said Government appreciated concerns about a name requirement for talk shows.

"People feel this is an invasion of free speech,'' he said. "We appreciate this, but in the interests of all, Government feels this is not a clampdown on free speech. These regulations protect the stations and the public as well.'' The Minister said people could say anything they wanted on the air after giving their names, addresses and telephone numbers.

"These regulations are designed to protect the listening public from profanity and abusive language. The requirement of a name is not an invasion of civil rights.'' He said the measures were standard practices in other developed countries. And local stations themselves had no objections.

He noted that the local newspapers also require proof of identification before printing letters to the Editor.

"There are those who will put up the specious argument that this is an election ploy. Not true. The Broadcast Commissioners have been preparing them for more than a year.

"The Government agreed to bring forward the regulations now. To wait to February, 1994 is illogical. They're ready.'' Government wanted to end the "preposterous'' situation in which radio broadcasters operated without any regulations.

The new regulations would also convert the 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. ban on cigarette advertising to a total ban. In addition, no commercial advertising of alcoholic drinks except wine and beer will be allowed between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m.

Dr. Saul also said a health warning that "excessive alcohol consumption may be harmful to your health'' or a like message must be attached to any alcohol commercial.

The Minister said the names and addresses of callers to radio shows will be confidentially maintained "but will be available to the commissioners''.

"The callers will be asked to simply give their name, address and telephone number and then they can go on the air and say precisely what's on their mind,'' he said.

"There is no question whatsoever about anyone being deprived of their freedom of speech. There is nothing to stop them from saying whatever is on their mind.

"These measures are to protect the innocent. There is a possibility someone may defame another member of the public... The innocent party may not hear it but half the population may.

"This is here not to protect one Dr. Saul or one member of the Government or a member of the Opposition. It is here to protect everyone.'' "It's here to protect the UBP,'' Mr. Julian Hall (PLP) shouted.

Mr. Walter Roberts , the Opposition telecommunications critic, said the Minister failed to justify the new regulations.

He said the caller identity requirements could be defeated by readily available sophisticated technology such as scramblers.

"This Bill is not geared to the more sophisticated person who might want to broadcast a defamatory statement,'' he said. "This Bill is against the ordinary person. And the average person is a supporters of the PLP.

"This legislation is geared specifically to prevent the ordinary person from voicing his views over the air. We feel very strongly that this is strictly a political move to stifle the airwaves for the ordinary person.'' Mr. Roberts said the seven-second delay requirement would be enough to take care of any profanity.

The legislation, he said, was intended to stifle influential people who may want to use their influence to make political points.

Mr. Roberts questioned how the Broadcast Commissioners were going to regulate a section of the Bill granting them the power to order the pre-broadcast submission of any programme script they have "reason to believe'' contains offensive or undesireable content.

He questioned their motives, calling them political hacks.

He also questioned why the provision existed for the submission of questionable scripts given that "we've had no history of problems...'' The Deputy Opposition Leader then switched tacks saying the legislation did not go far enough on liquor advertising restrictions. Beer and wines should not have been exempted from the advertising ban.

"They're dangerous to our health,'' he said. "Any alcohol (is dangerous).'' Mr. Roberts also would have removed the word "excessive'' from the health warning on alcohol advertising so it would read only "alcohol consumption may be harmful to your health''.

Mr. David Allen (PLP) said he agreed with the seven-second delay but said the rest of the Bill amounted to a sledgehammer to deal with a relatively small problem.

He suggested the Bill was the product of a UBP political agenda and a manifestation of the Government's determination to more heavily regulate society.

"1984 may be past but George Orwell's Big Brother is very much with us in these oppressive regulations,'' he said. "This is a cold-blooded, calculated move to clamp down on free expression on the eve of an election.'' Mr. Allen said the regulations would stifle Bermudians because they are "easily intimidated'', given the history of oppression in the Country.

The regulations, he said, would cool people's enthusiasm about speaking their minds. He added the Government should have had more faith in Bermuda's talk show hosts to control their programmes.

Mr. Allen said the bill was a deliberate attempt to "shut people up'' and intimidate them.

He said people call into talk shows because they view them as one of the few outlets to "let the steam out'' without having their identities "tapped''.

He said some people do not write letters to The Royal Gazette editor because they do not trust the confidentiality of the paper which he described as a propaganda broadsheet for the UBP.

"We need these vents to let the steam out,'' he said. "(Without them) That's why we have periodic explosions. These talk shows are one big counselling session. They're like a big catharsis for the average Bermudian.'' Requiring callers to give their name, address, and phone number, will deter some people from ever speaking on such shows, he added.

Mr. Allen also questioned who will have access to stations' logbook of callers' names, addresses, and phone numbers.

"The people who serve on the Broadcasting Commission are hardly an objective group,'' he said.

"The Chairman, who happens to be a friend of mine, has been very active with the United Bermuda Party. They (broadcasting commissioners) are nice people but they are United Bermuda Party supporters. Where is the real confidentiality?'' But he said the requirement for callers' names, addresses and phone numbers was "draconian''.

The broadcasting commissioners should feel ashamed for not opposing such regulations and resign, he added.

"When the Progressive Labour Party becomes the governing party these regulations will be repealed and assigned to the pile of rubbish where they belong.'' But NLP Leader Mr. Gilbert Darrell said he saw nothing wrong with the proposed legislation.

"In most of those morning shows moderators know who the callers are because they are just about the same people calling in,'' he said.

"I take the road that because of the language that can come over the air, it is in the interest of moderators to have such a (seven-second) delay.'' Mr. Hall questioned the need for such legislation now.

"Is this legislation urgent?'' he asked. "Has there been any proliferation of instances of defamation, libel or slander on the airwaves? Have there been a number of complaints by listeners that they have been defamed.

"There's no demonstrative need for the change,'' he said, referring to the requirement that callers' should give their name, addresses, and phone numbers.

The objective of the bill "is to dissuade by intimidation members of the public from calling into talk shows and from making disparaging or critical remarks about the United Bermuda Party'', Mr. Hall stressed.

"Rightly or wrongly the UBP perceives that talk shows -- one in particular VSB's What, When Where radio talk show, display an enormous bias against the UBP. That does not mean the bias is by host Shirley Dill.'' But Mr. Hall said the UBP could have simply counteracted critical remarks by encouraging some of its supporters to call into such shows.

The remainder of this debate and the rest of yesterday's proceedings in the House will be carried in Monday's newspaper.