The United Bermuda Party (UBP) claimed yesterday new broadcasting rules could be abused by Government to carry out political broadcasts funded by the taxpayer in the run-up to the election.

Shadow Legislative Affairs Minister John Barritt said broadcasting guidelines had broadened the definition of a government broadcast so much that the ruling party can now discuss any policy issue under the guise of a government address.

Previously, these would have been considered political broadcasts and the parties would have to pay for them, said Mr. Barritt.

But the fears were dismissed by Junior Legislative Affairs Minister Michael Scott, who said the new rules published by the Broadcast Commissioners last week make a clear distinction between political addresses funded by the parties, and government broadcasts. He did, however, concede, that governments "live, die and breath politics".

Mr. Barritt said the Progressive Labour Party (PLP) had a track record of breaking the broadcast rules by sneaking in political messages into Government addresses, and that there was a real danger they could do this again in the run up to the election.

The Broadcast Commission ruled last August that a government address by Premier Jennifer Smith on the eve of the Opposition Budget reply last year was political. The PLP has not paid the $6,000 cost of the broadcast.

And Mr. Barritt said Attorney General Dame Lois Browne Evans apologised because a broadcast in 1999 called "The First 100 Days" about the PLP's first days in office breached the broadcasting rules.

Former Broadcast Commission chairman Tim Marshall, who drafted the rules, said in yesterday's Royal Gazette that the politicians were losing sight of the fact that new rules now allow the television stations to broadcast freely about political matters.

Under the new guidelines a government broadcast can be considered "non-political" if it covers government policy, legislation that has been approved or is awaiting or approval, or items of an informative nature.

As in the past, these will be funded by the tax-payer through the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. Barritt said yesterday: " I am completely unrepentant about this. I don't think I am being side-tracked or this is just politicians squabbling.

"The new directions have opened up what qualifies for being non-political in a government broadcast so that they can talk about just about anything so long as they can get it under policy that has been approved, or can be approved, or even any policy.

"It is open to abuse and this government has a track record of abuse, particularly in this area. They don't give damn about tax-payers, and if they did, they would pay back the $6,000.

"We are concerned that it will be abused, particularly with the election looming. And the tax-payer should not have to fund broadcasts that are political broadcasts but which come under the guise of government broadcasts."

Government broadcasts will continue to be paid for through the Consolidated Fund, but now the Consolidated Fund will be used to pay for the Opposition reply although it will be half the time given to Government.

Mr. Barritt also questioned why the guidelines had been changed so that the Consolidated Fund will now cover items "incidental" to the broadcast, whereas before it just covered the cost.

"Will this now include make-up, clothes or props? " he said.

He said although the UBP made submissions when the Broadcast Commissioners were drawing up their guidelines before 2000, the party heard nothing since then and didn't have a chance to comment on the proposed changes before they were published last week.

Mr. Scott yesterday dismissed the criticisms, and said Mr. Marshall had rightly pointed out the reforms were designed to ensure politics can be discussed openly, which would enhance democracy.

"I don't see how any future non-political i.e. government broadcast published between now and kingdom come can go beyond the four square corners of the legislative policy of the government or of an informative nature," said Mr. Scott.

"Governments are essentially engaged in politics. They live and die and breath it.

"The issue is not the occurrence of political material in a broadcast under the aegis of Government, it is to ensure a Government broadcast does not promote a party political line, which would be wrong. That type of broadcast is a party political broadcast."