Aideen Hayden (Labour) | Oireachtas source

In recent days we have seen at the Joint Committee of Inquiry into the Banking Crisis a discussion about the role of the media in the property boom. The discussion on the issue raises some disturbing questions about how journalists' objectivity can be affected by the reliance of newspapers on their property supplements. Aside from the critical issue of the impact that the media coverage had on the markets themselves and on the demand for housing, there is also an issue that needs to be addressed on the influence that such coverage had on Government policy. For example, from the earlier days of the Celtic tiger when the affordability of property became an acute issue, even before the bubble developed there was remarkably little in-depth discussion of the issues of a small number of landowners profiting excessively at the expense of a generation of new house buyers. A leading construction economist said in 2003 that the site cost of a house had risen from 15% in the early 1990s to between 40% and 50% in 2003 and that, more important, eight major developers had cornered the entire market for development land in north County Dublin. That report received little or no attention in either of the property supplements of the main leading newspapers. Editors can say they were not influenced by the income their newspapers derived from property supplements, but I believe there remains substantial evidence that bias was at work and such assurances are insufficient. There is an issue that needs to be considered further about the way the media is regulated and that private interests can be in a position to bias the reportage.

I ask the Leader for a discussion on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, TTIP. Today we saw Government-commissioned research outline projected economic benefits from the proposed TTIP for Ireland. Economists will always project economic gains from the lessening of trade barriers. I do not think there is anything new about that, but there is another issue. If we go down this road, what impact will it have on the future and coherence of the EU project? If all trade issues are to be determined within a US-led framework in the future, there is an issue for the EU in terms of the different philosophies that underpin the EU on the one hand and the North American free trade area on the other. In the EU case our position is based on the need to strengthen standards and protection for consumers, employees and the environment in parallel with opening up markets. I would not like to see a race to the bottom in terms of those particular standards. In the NAFTA case there has been virtually zero concern with strengthening or even maintaining such standards and regulation in the markets. The question is where TTIP will take us? Does it represent the victory of US views and US regulation over EU regulation and market fundamentalism at the expense of a social Europe? I do not think it is an issue we should take lightly. I strongly suggest the House give it more detailed analysis and consideration.