Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I think it is recognised that there has been an increase and improvement in content which is welcome. I will focus on the nature of programming, how that programming is scheduled and edited and the emphasis on solutions There is a difference between "Liveline" and "Eco Eye" and the political debates of "Prime Time" or "Drivetime". It seems to me that there is not an adequate focus on solutions at times. There is an emphasis put on the difference either between parties or within parties. It is almost like political tittle-tattle. For example, in the discussion on liquified natural gas, LNG, I can almost script the debate if I see which politicians are on the platform. The same applies to the sectoral emission ceilings debate which is entirely framed around picking an emissions reduction target and choosing a number between 22% and 30%. There is no real debate about the solutions and what it would take to get to a 22%, 25% or 30% reduction. There is zero focus on any other system, whether it be transport, energy, residential or industry. There is zero focus on these areas. Would the witnesses consider the point I make on having a focus on solutions rather than a chase for a Punch and Judy-type debate?

On contributors and the so-called experts who are used, it is appropriate and it often happens that contributors are scrutinised. However, at times I feel there is not adequate scrutiny. Whether one looks at the area of LNG or the energy transition, there are repeat contributors on RTÉ shows who are out of kilter with the broad political consensus on the energy transition. They are afforded the opportunity to push a fossil fuel future that is not supported in the political system here. Is that something the witnesses recognise? How does RTÉ ensure its broadcasters are sufficiently equipped to challenge concepts such as "lock in" and "fossil fuel future" when they hear these so-called "experts" in a one-to-one situation and with no political challenge?