John Whelan (Labour)

I thank the Minister for attending the House for this debate, which we called for some time ago. A broad range of issues under his portfolio must be addressed, including the questions of media ownership and control, the challenges posed by new media and the survival and sustainability of the regional press, which performs an important function in our communities.

I will concentrate on two main points. I am interested in the Minister's opinion on these matters. First, we are entitled to expect certain standards of fairness and impartiality in public service broadcasting. I am not referring to the usual suspects when people discuss poor standards, red tops or tabloid media. We depend on the State broadcaster to set the highest standards. The issue of the licence fee is under review and the Minister discussed broadening it. At €160 per annum, the fee is not to be scoffed at. Indeed, it is more than the household charge and septic tank registration fee, which vexes many people, combined. We are entitled to ask about what bang we are getting for our buck and to what end the money is being channelled into public service broadcasting. For example, is it being used to sustain an unsustainable wage model for celebrity presenters at a time when the station is losing up to €30 million per annum? That figure was mentioned by Senator Walsh, who posed the question of whether it was feasible for anyone in the State broadcaster to earn more than the Taoiseach. This is a fair question, although I do not wish to pick on anyone.

Last June, the Leader wrote to the director general of RTE regarding its coverage of the Seanad. We received a letter on 4 July. Whatever use the licence fee is being put to, it is not being used to cover the Houses. The director general's letter amounted to giving us the two fingers. He stated that there was nothing of note or merit worthy of coverage in the Seanad at all that day. I was taken aback. Yesterday, the Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture met from noon until 8 p.m. and received a number of outstanding, informative and influential submissions from all stakeholders, including State agencies and the public at large, on the issue of the undergrounding the interconnector based on the independent commission report authorised by the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte. Many people across the country would have found the deliberations and conduct of the committee interesting and reflective of real concerns in people's lives. I call on the Minister to support the efforts being made by the Ceann Comhairle and the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission to urge the State broadcaster to take up this opportunity to run a parliamentary channel similar to BBC Parliament so that the public can see matters of interest being deliberated upon by committees and Houses. If RTE is not interested, fair enough, but a section of the television licence could be diverted to TG4, which might take up the same opportunity.

Second, I wish to address the question of the code of practice to which the Minister referred and that the BAI is proposing to introduce under section 42 of the Broadcasting Act 2009 in line with its obligations. Broadcasting contains a great deal of cronyism, vested interests and conflicts of interest. One suggestion in the draft proposal is that presenters should not give their own opinions. This is unwieldy and unrealistic and is tantamount to a thought police. The world would be a poorer place if presenters did not put their opinions into the public domain as part of a discourse. However, vested interests pose a clear problem, in that some people are engaged as media coaches and spin doctors to handle the media message behind the scenes on the one hand and, on the other, appear on programmes masquerading as independent analysts and pundits. Where there is a direct conflict of interest, no good journalist has anything to fear from this register of interests. It rightly applies to politicians and it should also apply in the broadcasting area. Since I raised this issue on "Tonight with Vincent Browne" on Monday, an economist has challenged me to a duel because he claims I impugned his integrity. Fortunately, it was an intellectual duel. I know I have no chance in that regard. It was not pistols at dawn.