Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the House for the invitation to speak on the important subject of media standards. It is a subject that, I am sure, is close to the heart of not just those in the public eye but of all citizens interested in the quality of public debate and the health of our democracy. Any modern democratic society needs an active, diverse and robust media sector - it is a fundamental component of civil society. It holds a critical role in ensuring that all of those in authority are held to account, that actions are reported and interrogated, that inaction is queried, that the established order of things is questioned and that all in society can expect to have their situation reported, regardless of their position. This is what media does, or at least is supposed to do. It informs, investigates and analyses all that goes on around us. Without it, democracy or the modern state cannot function properly. It is as simple as that.

In Ireland, we have been lucky to have just such a broad and diverse media presence, characterised by some outstanding journalists and editorial staff, across a range of publications and broadcasters. In general, they have done a good job, some recent oversights, economic and otherwise, notwithstanding. The Constitution reflects the importance of the media in the lives of the citizen and the State. They are referred to in the Constitution as "organs of public opinion" and "rightful liberty of expression" is constitutionally guaranteed. That guarantee quite properly appears in the Constitution in the context of the personal rights of the citizen rather than the corporate rights of the media, because any diminution of these freedoms impacts on the right of citizens to receive and impart information and opinions.

In the State, we have an additional set of concerns about media that are worthy of note also. As a small nation, which has operated within several interlocking spheres of media influence for many years, we are subject to global market forces in a way that other countries are not, a matter complicated by the fact that we share a language with two of the world's largest media players. Irish media compete across print, broadcast and on-line spaces, with some of the world's largest and best funded media operators - and compete not just for audience share, but for advertising revenue also.

We have successfully maintained a distinctive national voice in media, but technological and economic changes are making it increasingly necessary to consider how to ensure that we have players of sufficient scale to be able to compete on an increasingly globalised playing field.

Media then is an integral part of our democracy. Any diminution in the ability and status of media to report with absolute freedom, and from a number of perspectives, is a loss to everyone in society. However, let us not delude ourselves, media freedom, objectivity or impartiality is not a given. It cannot simply be assumed to exist at all times. Critically, the maintenance of high standards in journalism, including editorial policy, is an oft maligned but still critical element of how media delivers on its functions. It is entirely in society's interest that journalists are fair, honest, scrupulous and thorough, and devoid of commercial or personal motivations. These standards can be, and sometimes are, challenged by a range of factors. These range from outright editorial decision making to an over-concentration of ownership or control, and even by attempts to curry favour with the public, right through to old fashioned resource constraints.

Stepping back for a moment, it is important to recognise that it has never been easy to balance the commercial needs of companies with the higher minded goals of serving the needs of a society or democracy. History is littered with examples of media owners who have used their companies for commercial, personal or political gain and, on a more mundane level, exercising editorial balance in a complex and rapidly changing world is not a simple matter. Regardless of how much we might like to criticise media outlets, and I am sure we all do from time to time, meeting the standards we require of journalists today while also delivering interesting and insightful content is no easy matter and balance, as ever, remains a partially subjective thing. One person's "shameless exhibition of low standards in reporting" is another person's idea of a good story.

That is not to say that journalists always abide by the rules or even the law. The type of activity that the Leveson inquiry in the UK has uncovered is shocking. We simply do not know whether or to what extent such behaviour may have been imitated in this jurisdiction. Plainly, hacking phone messages is a massive intrusion of privacy of the sort that requires some form of legislative redress.

However, despite the sometimes outraged calls from some quarters, press governance or regulation in democracies has to be approached with extreme care. In democracies, freedom of the press is often taken for granted but it has to lie at the very heart of everything we do. The political system and the media must remain as separate as possible for the good of both. That is not to say that the political system cannot legislate for defamation or fill a gap in the market for the public good, when a pressing need arises. The general rule applies, however. We remember that detailed plans for a privacy Bill were put on hold to see how self-regulation under a voluntary Press Council might succeed in policing standards of media behaviour. I believe, so far, this experiment has been successful.

The example of the print media in Ireland is an interesting one. The Press Council, an independent body drawn from and run by the print media industry, is facilitated by legislation in that members are granted some additional protections under defamation law. As a model, this seems to have worked quite well. That is not to say that it is perfect but so far it seems to have achieved a remarkable balance between allowing the press the freedom to operate while simultaneously implementing a code of practice and facilitating the extension of some additional protections under the Defamation Act. The Press Council is evaluating its own effectiveness and keeping a close eye on developments elsewhere with a view to how it might be optimised to future challenges. I had the opportunity recently of attending a seminar by the Press Council and I am sure the Government will look at its suggestions with interest.

The media is not, of course, beyond criticism. Our society has not toppled so many who exalted themselves above others in church and State to create a new and unaccountable elite. There is no doubt but that the media are voracious for information but sometimes little enough concerned with quality control. There are two trends in this.

One can probably be traced back to the glamour days that surrounded the Kennedys in the White House, the American Camelot. Camelot included not just President Kennedy, but also his wife and children. It was about glamour, fashion and even interior design. The people were presented with, voted for and greedily consumed a heady mix of youth, style and substance. Politicians everywhere and ever since have sought to replicate the mix.

From a politician's point of view, to be seen to be out and about is an inevitable part of the job. Unless we are seen in a hard hat at a construction site, using a shovel or a trowel at a foundation-laying or topping-off ceremony, in a white coat in a hi-tech laboratory or wielding a scissors at an opening, then it seems to the media-consuming public that we have not bothered to turn up for work at all.

While most countries, and most politicians, can never hope to re-create the glamour of the Kennedys, the more insidious trend is the promotion in sections of our media of a politics of anti-politics. By this I mean a contemptuous denigration and rejection of all politics. This approach feeds on understandable frustration, discontent and, nowadays, genuine fear on the part of the electorate. It operated, however, just as strongly in the boom-time years.

The practitioners, as often commentators as genuine news reporters, have as their chief weapon an unyielding cynicism. Some elements of the bar stool commentariat do not have to analyse the issues because they look down on their readers and presume they would not understand them. Luckily enough, they do not have to bother understanding the issues themselves. Perhaps it is true such commentary helps sell newspapers. However, the result is destructive both of politics and of journalism.

Combine these two trends and one has what the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Attorney General, Michael McDowell, has described as "the over-weaning power of the media as principals in our politics". Ironically, perhaps, he raised the issue in his weekly column in the Sunday Independent.

Mr. McDowell continued:

Our media are stridently demanding to determine the political agenda. They are increasingly trivialising, distorting and denigrating our political process and discourse. While posing as impartial ringmasters, the media are cracking the whip at hapless aspirants for, and holders of, public office who increasingly oblige as performing seals, tamed lions and pirouetting elephants [God, how I miss him] - all in the utterly vain hope of assuaging the hand that holds the media whip.

I am not sure whether the former Minister's remarks are more critical of the politicians than of the media but there are members in every party who would not disagree with this warning.

Broadcasting, an area falling into my ministerial responsibilities, has its own challenges. In common with other European Union member states, we have an independent broadcasting regulator, the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, BAI, which fulfils several functions in respect of the entire broadcast sector in Ireland, or at least that element of it that is based here. Not alone does this body draw up codes aimed at ensuring broadcasters keep to the standards established in legislation, it also ensures the public service broadcasters meet the targets set for them by dint of the fact that they are in receipt of public funding. Moreover, it also operates a complaints procedure with more than one high profile complaint currently in train.

Once upon a time, print and broadcast media was all there was. The world is changing, however. I said recently in a speech that anyone with a smart phone and an Internet connection could now be a journalist. Someone responded by suggesting it took more than that, saying that it took talent, training, practice and years of dedication. While I probably should have mentioned that good journalists take years to develop and train, I believe the point still stands. In fact, I probably did not go far enough. It might take talent and years of professional training to become a good journalist but today anyone with access to some readily available technology can create or capture content, edit it and publish to a global audience. In effect, anybody can become both journalist and publisher in a matter of seconds.

The transformative nature of this cannot be overstated. The barriers – not the standards - to entry for journalists, for the media industry as a whole, have been lowered spectacularly over the past decade or so. The ability to convey information or to express one's opinion on anything has been massively democratised by a complex of technologies made affordable and pervasive by mass production. Journalism, indeed the media as a whole, is being remade before our eyes.

The fact this has occurred somewhat gradually over the past decade has meant that we do not always appreciate the full import of what is happening before us. One of the central tenets of societies in developed western market economies is changing right in front of us. The model whereby a relatively small number of media organisations selling content, both retail and wholesale, to a mass market is being challenged by a monumental paradigm shift. Advertising revenue and circulation figures for newspapers have tumbled across the developed world. Radio and television are holding up for the moment. One cannot but feel their time will come too and the television market is just too attractive a target to fully escape the Internet revolution.

Moreover, consumers and citizens are faced with a broader choice of media than has ever been the case before. The Internet allows everyone to talk to everyone else all the time. In that clamour, new, original and vital voices mix with a universe of arbitrary comment, cant and bile. All of human life is there. While some existing media franchises and some dedicated online platforms continue to draw the majority of page views, clearly the ease of publication poses challenges for the maintenance of standards across the board.

In turn, and leaving aside for the moment the possible consequences of these developments for media plurality, it is important to note that to a degree standards in existing businesses have suffered too - newspapers that could previously have justified having journalists specialise in a particular area or sector can no longer afford to do so. The model of a journalist knowing their sector intimately, knowing the market and the key players, knowing the legislation and the technology, is fading rapidly. Instead, the analysis that one might have expected 20 or even ten years ago, has been replaced, all too often, with broad general pieces or even with mildly reworked press releases. Copy and paste has a great deal to answer for.

The implications for policy and Government are severe and complex, not least because of the fact that the situation is evolving quickly, and there are no easy solutions to any of these issues. Every country is struggling to deal with these challenges, and we are no different. We do, however have a good start, in that we have a number of strong institutions, such as the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland and the Press Council, which are in place and are generally accepted. Moreover, we have a number of models that offer some interesting possibilities for the future. For example, while the Press Council already has members who publish exclusively online, there remains the possibility of placing this on a more formal basis using a similar dedicated self-regulation model for online news media, allowing those outlets that would welcome adherence to a code of practice to join, and leaving more ephemeral outlets to a different process.

In addition, the BAI codes are subject to ongoing review, including a draft code of fairness, objectivity and impartiality in news and current affairs, which is at present open for public consultation, and which I am sure will receive plenty of interesting and informed comment. Forthcoming developments in media mergers policy will too, I hope, be able to play a part.

Maintaining, strengthening and developing standards in media would, in the best of times, be an ongoing issue, but we are not in the best of times - far from it. Instead, as in so much else, we are considering these issues in light of almost overwhelming economic and technical changes. In light of the nature, extent and speed of these challenges, both Government and industry are faced with a profound responsibility to ensure that standards in media are preserved. The means by which that is to be achieved are far from clear, nationally or internationally, but it falls to all concerned to engage on this subject in a constructive and open manner. As I have suggested, there are options available to us, complex and difficult though they may be, and I would be happy to hear the views of Members and their suggestions on these important issues.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With the agreement of the House I will share time with Senator Daly.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. I welcome the Minister. I found his contribution though provoking. He made a great effort to bring balance into it. That is the experience we all have when talking about the media. On the one hand we see the great good which they do, because most organisations in this country, whether they are political or otherwise, need the oxygen of the media to get their message across and to look for support. On the other hand there are times when we are disappointed, in particular if we see individuals being in some way defamed without any substance underlying it.

I recall many years ago when the late President Childers asked for more good news in the media he was told that good news does not sell newspapers. There is an element of truth in that but, in fairness, we do not agree with that either because if we look at the way the media covered the visits of the many dignitaries to this country, they did it exceptionally well. That was the case recently with the visits of the Vice President of China, the Queen and President Obama. We all felt particularly proud with the way the media dealt with those visits. There is no doubt either that it has a certain currency for Ireland because those from whence the visitor comes take note of what is being said in the media. That is the good side of the news and it does help to sell newspapers as well.

There are some issues which need to be examined, namely, competition and monopolies. I was always disappointed when I found local newspapers falling into the hands of one single consortium, whether it is the Scottish media group or another group. People say it does not change the editorial content but I still feel that it is particularly important that we must avoid monopolies. In the area of competition, because the media has so many diverse elements, we must bear in mind that it also tempts people to become somewhat sensationalist in order to make sure that they have a good balance sheet. The Minister has referred to that in regard to the commercial side of the media and also to the democratic responsibility. Any of us who have spoken in this House over the years on the lack of human rights in other countries were always aware that there was not press or media freedom in those countries and we realised how important it was. When one has it, one must guard it jealously. We need a continuing partnership and dialogue between the media, people in public life and businesses generally.

I often felt perhaps a greater effort could have been made when the recession came upon us for the media to try to lift the morale of the people. I do not say they have not done it on occasion. They have, and they have done it exceptionally well. It is very interesting when one sees something of that nature in the media how it becomes a discussion point among people. Very often it is an antidote to all the pessimism and negative approach. Therefore, the power of the media is unique. Some would say for instance that it is akin to wanting to be king-maker. One issue in particular strikes me, namely, what happened in the famous presidential debate and the news that came on board that particular night and the difference it made in the presidential election. That should remind us, in particular with the broadcast media, because it is instant and urgent, how quickly a change can take place. There are many other things I would like to say. There is a positive and a negative. We should have an ongoing debate on the subject as that is good for the media and good for society.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Thomas Jefferson said that if one expects people to be ignorant and free one expects what never was and never shall be. At the time he was talking about education. In today's world he would be talking about the media and the importance of its role in ensuring freedom. We have seen in the Arab spring how media, in particular social media, played its role. We need a free media in order to ensure that democracy in all its flaws is maintained so that people can be informed of the facts about what is happening not only in their country but throughout the world. Nowadays, it is difficult to see the balance between the facts and the opinions portrayed by some members of the media. Facts are portrayed as opinions and vice versa. Not only are they reporting the agenda but they are driving it.

An interesting comment was made by a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Richard Feynman, who wrote a book, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out. He was talking about experts on television and he said he knew what it was to find something out; therefore he saw how they got their information. He did not believe that they knew it, as they had not done the necessary work or checks and they had not taken the necessary care. He was suspicious that they did not know, and that they were intimidating people. As a Nobel prize winning physicist he said that before he even puts pen to paper, he knows how much he needs to know, before he would be able to tell people with certainty that those are the facts but that today economic experts and commentators on all areas of political and social life go on television and portray what they are saying as facts. Mr. Feynman questioned how much research they have done to be able to communicate what they say as facts to the public because once people hear it they believe it to be true.

Tony Mulcahy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

"Standards" is a word we use daily, whether it relates to the standard of debate in this House, the standard of service we as elected representatives get from Departments or the standards that the public rightly expect of us.

Oireachtas committees monitor how we behave, for example, the Committee on Members' Interests of Seanad Éireann, which was established under the Ethics in Public Office Act. It is right and fitting that we have standards, but they must be of the highest level. If we allow them to slip, we open ourselves up to debate and scrutiny in terms of why this House should exist. I do not need to remind Members of either House of several examples of what the late Garret FitzGerald called low standards in high places. It must be exposed every time it occurs.

The chief investigators into such happenings are the media. The fourth estate is recognised as the press or media in its various elements. It can constitute photographs, journalism, television or radio. It wields immense power in our everyday lives. It influences what we think, what we consume, where we live and how we interact with everyone else.

With this power comes responsibility and the media must follow standards. They must be kept high. In fairness, this is the case in Ireland. This is achieved through regulation by the Office of the Press Ombudsman, the Press Council and the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland. We have codes of practice for newspapers and magazines, but we also have a sense of what is right and what is wrong.

Who decides the standards that the media follows? Is it the media barons, for example, Rupert Murdoch and his stable of media outlets, be it Fox News, Sky or TheSun? Do they influence what commentary appears in the Sunday Independent, the Irish Daily Mail or The Irish Times, what story will be covered on radio or how discussions will be handled on television? We have seen how Mr. Murdoch's media empire operated in the UK, in that it may have made inappropriate payments. The independent Press Complaints Commission is investigating the matter now. We would not want the same situation to develop in Ireland, but who knows what is occurring at this minute?

There are those in the media who will look on any review or oversight as interference and as a way for politicians to muzzle or bash the media. I am not here to bash anyone but I will speak out if anything has been wrongly treated in the media. No one is above the law or criticism. We must be honest with ourselves when problems need to be examined and solutions found.

What has happened to require us to discuss standards in the media? The advent of the Internet has changed the ways in which and how quickly events and stories are covered. A tsunami hits the coast of Japan and, in minutes, a live feed from the disaster zone has been uploaded from a mobile telephone and is being relayed via Twitter, Youtube or Skype. This is great, but it can also pose risks. A story can appear on the wires and, before it can be verified, it can be on blogs, online newspapers and online television.

The media is under pressure, as we the public have been insatiable in our hunger for the latest news. We want it now and we want it delivered to us almost before it happens. We want it to be racy and fast. Due to the migration to online content and the loss of advertising, financial pressures are dumped on the media, which can result in cutbacks in pay, the quality of programming and the time spent doing proper checks of the veracity of a story's content. This leads to slipshod journalism and we run the risk of our current affairs programmes getting issues wrong and ending up in court. There have been classic examples of this lately, with unprofessionalism leading to large pay-outs to victims. The media needs standards to be maintained at the highest level. We do not want to see anyone crucified on page 1 and apologised to the following week on page 15.

During the era of the Celtic tiger a week did not pass without a large glossy feature in every newspaper promoting this or that development. We seemed to gloat in the way that property prices kept increasing. There were stories of people camping outside estate agents overnight so that they could be in with a chance of getting houses in phase 1 of developments, knowing that the same houses and flats in phase 2 would be €20,000 more expensive. Revenues from advertising went though the roof and the party was in full swing. Taxes were flowing in and a number of individuals in the media who stated that it was all madness and would not last were dismissed as party poopers or merchants of doom. When the penny finally dropped with the former Government and it realised that the situation could not last forever, we were told through the media that we would have a soft landing. If this has been a soft landing, I would hate to see a hard one.

We have gone to the other extreme, in that everything is doom and gloom morning, noon and night. I am constantly being told by constituents that they no longer want to listen to talk radio or the news or read a newspaper. Is it any wonder that so many people know how the latest act is doing on "X Factor" or "America's Got Talent" but no one who is asked can recall a good news story? The media is a force for good and needs to bear good news. There are good stories and people want to hear about them. I am not saying that the media should not question, probe and investigate, but I hope that the pendulum will swing back towards the middle and that a bit of common sense and high standards will prevail again.

John Whelan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They would sell tickets for that.

John Whelan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

People with vested interests and conflicts of interest are appearing on television programmes. In some instances individuals with stakes in other financial products and currencies are talking about the collapse of the euro. This needs to be addressed and no good journalist has anything to fear from putting everything into the public domain. It is vital that we have a strong journalism and broadcasting sector which demonstrates impartiality, integrity and credibility. One cannot serve two masters.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister but was disappointed in his speech, which was pretty limp and failed to address the serious problem of standards and ethics in journalism. There are very few of them around. I have been a paid up member of the National Union of Journalists for many years. For three and a half years I worked honourably for what could be described as a tabloid newspaper. Since 1982 I have warned, in this House and elsewhere, of the malign influence exerted by people like Rupert Murdoch. I knew I was taking my life in my hands politically for doing so and I will probably be punished for what I am going to say today because we are brazenly told this is what happens.

I ask the Minister to address not only the bullying of public figures and private individuals and the invasion of their space by the media but also the bullying that takes place in every newspaper office. I have proof of this practice. The worst aspect of this bullying is that the people who presented me with the proof are terrified of their editorial staff. They have begged me not to identify them. I am also in some difficulty because some of the matters I would like to raise are, or will shortly be, sub judice.

The Minister spoke about the relationship between the media and politics. I am all in favour of a free investigative press but, with some honourable exceptions, it has not lived up to this standard. The Minister stated that the political system and the media must remain as separate as possible for the good of both. Why then did the editor of one of the tabloids tell me that what was happening to me in the media was payback for standing up for the victims of the invasion of privacy and, more particularly, for what I had done in respect of the Defamation Bill 2006, the first version of which Senator Walsh and I forced to be withdrawn? It is a lovely relationship between the media and politics if they can bully us as our masters. Ten years ago, I was in the Cathaoirleach's office when Donie Cassidy was in the Chair and I was the only person who stood out against the editors.

The Minister must be joking about the Press Council when he suggests it is of any use. It is not even as useful as the Press Complaints Commission in Britain, and the chairperson of that body has acknowledged it is a farce. I advise those who want to know about bullying not to look to me because I may be biased but instead read The Journalist, the magazine of the National Union of Journalists, which arrived in my post-box today. The owners and editors of the newspapers did everything they could to prevent journalists from having privacy because they were terrified to give evidence. These were the very groups that were understandably seeking anonymity for themselves. The general secretary of the NUJ, Michelle Stanistreet, stated that a journalist would have to be a brave person to spell out what life is like working for his or her current employer. There are fears that journalists who blow the whistle could render themselves unemployable in the future because they would be marked out as disloyal or untrustworthy. I have that in writing from people who are afraid to talk about the issue openly.

Our newspapers published editorials calling for independent regulation of every professions but their own. They are the exception. The Minister put it well when he stated: "[t]he Press Council, an independent body drawn from and run by the print media industry, is facilitated by legislation in that members are granted some additional protections under defamation law". How wonderful. It is self-regulating and there is no problem with conflict of interests. We protect them because the Minister brought back the defamation law.

In his statement to the Leveson inquiry, the lawyer, David Sherborne, accused newspapers of illegally accessing private voicemail messages, bribing employees into divulging personal information, blagging sensitive details through deception and trickery, blackmailing vulnerable or opportunistic individuals into breaking confidences about well-known people, blatant intrusion into the grief of victims of crime, vilification of ordinary members of the public unwittingly caught up in such events, hounding various well-known people and their families and friends purely to sell newspapers and bullying those who in seeking to question these practices were merely exercising the same freedom of speech behind which much of this behaviour was shielded or excused by the press. I firmly believe that all those practices can be found in this country. Some of those who gave evidence boasted about what they had done. Has the Minister sent anybody to represent the Irish victims of these newspapers at the Leveson inquiry. Will we conduct an inquiry of our own?

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator's time has concluded.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have had to change my telephone number on three or four occasions. How did grub street get my changed telephone number within 12 hours?

I wish there was more time. I hope we will have a proper debate in which we do not shilly-shally and that we will have the guts to address the issue because there is not a newspaper, radio station or television station that has not vilified, blackguarded, defamed or libelled me. I know many Senators are terrified, as are the unfortunate journalists who are bullied in their offices but until the day I die I will tell the truth and take the consequences. Several times during the debate on the Defamation Bill I argued that, as truth is immutable, we should not lower the standard of truth for people who give public service. That is an outrage in my opinion. Tell the truth or pay the price should be the standard for Irish journalism.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

San am ghearr atá agam ba mhaith liom tagairt faoi leith a dhéanamh dos na meáin Gaeilge, rud a dhéanaimid dearmad air scaití, agus ard-mholadh ach go háirid a thabhairt do TG4 agus Raidio na Gaeltachta, mar samplaí den seirbhís poiblí craoltóireachta den chéad scoth atá ar fáil againn sa tír seo.

Ag tagairt don phointe a rinne an Seanadóir Whelan ar ball maidir leis an pá a bhíonn á fhail ag cuid de réalta RTÉ, tháinig cuid mhaith de réalta RTÉ ó TG4 agus bhíodar ar phá i bhfad níos ísle ansin. Cás é sin le gur féidir linn, agus go bhfuil an tallann sa tír le cuid des na cláracha atá ag teastáil uainn a dhéanamh ar ard chaighdeán agus ar phraghas i bhfad níos ísle. Is fiú sin a thógáil san áireamh nuair atáimid ag plé ceisteanna na méan.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" was the maxim of C. P. Scott, who 100 years ago was the editor of the Manchester Guardian, now the Guardian, newspaper. His aphorism stands as a remarkably succinct summation of the role of journalists and how they should conduct themselves. They are free to air their views and challenge received wisdom but they have a duty to highlight issues which would not ordinarily be in the public domain and must always maintain high standards without bending the truth in any way. Regrettably it appears C. P. Scott's wise words are not always remembered or considered in this and other jurisdictions.

Politicians have not entirely avoided this mistake either. Certain Ministers, Senators and Deputies have made statements based on journalism that was inaccurate and, as a result, have had to retract them. As politicians, we too must be careful when we make statements based on journalism.

The Leveson inquiry and the disturbing tale of the hacked voicemail of the murdered schoolgirl, Milly Dowler, has had terrible consequences in other jurisdictions. The media will certainly make mistakes as we all do, but incidents such as those I have just mentioned have a rather different character from mistakes. They are the symptom of a hunger for the sensational story with scant concern for ethical journalism and in other instances dishonestly propagating an agenda which suits particular interests. As to the latter, the regular and often inaccurate pillorying of the public sector within certain Sunday publications springs to mind.

We have very limited interest in the media in a country where the interests of the wealthy and the views of the media concur in a way that limit the breadth of public discourse. The extension of public service broadcasting, the print media, etc., are crucial. We need to ensure that through the commercial media, space is made available for proper journalism and proper comment. That needs to be part of the licensing regime for those media outlets.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are now into questions for which each Senator has one minute. It is possible to tabulate a very good question in one minute and I do not want any speeches. Otherwise, we will be in trouble.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am delighted the Minister has addressed the Seanad on the subject and I found what he had to say interesting. The Minister said that the legislation "ensures that the public service broadcasters meet the targets set for them by dint of the fact that they are in receipt of public funding". Do I understand that only the State broadcaster receives the funding or does some portion go to others? I know the Minister is a very fair-minded man. We know how advertising has slumped and how the small local broadcasters have suffered. Does the Minister have a proposal to ensure a level playing pitch? I have a very small interest to declare in this, about which we have all heard. I am a small shareholder in one such radio station, Radio Kerry.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for coming to the House. My pirouetting elephant is ill at the moment so I will not be trying to perform for anybody. The Minister is obviously aware that the submission process on the code of fairness, impartiality and objectivity is in train. That code arises from the Broadcasting Act 2009. Is the Minister satisfied that the code will address what is needed? Will that be the end of it or will we see further codes or additions to that code? As with Senator Paul Coghlan, I would like to know if there are any future plans to give any of the licence fee revenue to local radio stations, many of which carry out a public service remit. Every weekday, Ocean FM in Sligo carries current affairs. It is good local current affairs coverage with a national perspective where possible. I know other radio stations do the same thing. It is a matter we need to discuss in light of how the media are changing.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Addressing the Leader briefly, it might be good if we could roll this debate on to a future date because I had some points and comments I would have liked to make. However, I cannot make them now given that we are down to questions. Perhaps we could be facilitated in that regard. If the Minister were amenable to returning on some convenient occasion, it might be possible for more of us to contribute to the debate.

The Minister spoke about the relationship between the workings of the press council and the proposed privacy legislation. He believed that the press council has been reasonably successful, which it is in many ways. What does that mean for his intentions regarding privacy legislation? Is his view that the press council has been a reasonable success so far based on any process of assessment within the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources? Is it based on any consultation or analysis, or is it based on a general sense the Minister has, which, while legitimate in itself, might not be sufficient to enable him to form a view as to what ought to happen on the privacy legislation? While I am not challenging him, I ask him to expand somewhat on what he had to say in that regard?

Michael Mullins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister. I refer to the RTE documentary "A Mission to Prey" broadcast on 23 May 2011. There were two segments in that programme, one of which has been very much in the news - the segment on Fr. Kevin Reynolds, which has been dealt with by the courts and is now the subject of a number of inquiries. However, a second segment of that programme referred to Br. Dillon, who ministered for 60 years as a Christian Brother in South Africa. His family feel that a profound injustice was committed in the transmission of this programme.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Senator quoting from anything in particular?

Michael Mullins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I believe there was a failure by RTE in fairness, objectivity and impartiality in the broadcasting of that programme. Given the enormous and outrageous error that was observed in the Fr. Reynolds case, it is bizarre that it is not possible to have the only other segment of the programme that deals with previously unmade allegations reviewed. I am very disappointed that the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland returned the submission made by the family of the late Br. Dillon on the basis that it was not made within the statutory 30-day time limit. I appeal to the Minister to have this segment of the programme reviewed in the interest of fairness to the family. The person is deceased, but in the interest of natural justice, it is only fair that his family be shown due courtesy in having all aspects of this segment of the programme investigated. I ask the Minister to use his good offices to ensure the family can have justice in this regard.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister. It is generally agreed that the subject matter of this debate is exceptionally important. I agree with those who expressed the view that we should revisit the matter in a broader sense in the future.

Will the Minister consider launching an investigation into the future of investigative journalism? I say this primarily because the British House of Lords has already published such a report. One of the subsequent UK-based blogs put it into context by stating:

...in the print press at least there is less spent on original from the ground up journalism. This is particularly true at local level where circulations have plummeted and advertising revenue has fallen off a cliff in the last decade. There is evidence that in certain local areas there is now sparse reporting of council meetings and court cases, and little scrutiny of other public authorities... It [the report] also raises entirely valid concerns about the growth of public relations, and the opaque use of public relations material by journalists.

I am sure Senator Whelan, from his time as editor, will remember getting all the press releases - a creeping disease - and trying to figure out whether they were objective. The blog continued by quoting the excellent recommendation from the House of Lords report that: "journalists themselves be transparent in their use of press releases particularly online where barriers to publishing links to press releases are low." In other words, press releases are now ruling the roost because of lazy journalism. Investigative journalism, which has been at the heart of much of what has been good in this country as the Minister mentioned in his speech, is under severe threat. As a result of mistakes that have been made, others are now dumping on the concept of investigative journalism and suggesting that it is inherently flawed, when it should be at the core of what a free, open and transparent democracy should be about. Does the Minister believe it is necessary to consider the future of investigative journalism here?

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister to the House. In his speech, the Minister referred to the different tone of press behaviour in Ireland. Naturally, we are all grateful that the press in Ireland does not cover Ministers snogging their secretaries in cupboards like it does in other jurisdictions.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That does not happen. It is highly hypothetical.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Down with that sort of thing.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister prepared to keep the introduction of privacy legislation under review?

My second question relates to openness and transparency, a matter raised by my colleague, Senator Whelan. As we know those in political circles must make declarations relating to their holdings and so forth. Has the Minister any thoughts about bringing such openness and transparency to the media? I have in mind in particular the carry-on during the Celtic tiger years when property sections of newspapers fed what was at the time an insatiable demand for housing while at the same time pulling in extensive revenues.

My third question relates to the best form of protection for Irish media. We are aware of the pressures Irish media are under from abroad. The Minister has referred to the issues of convergence of media. Given the openness of the Irish media market, has the Minister considered giving extra resources to local media? This possibility was mentioned by other Senators as well. It appears that local media are especially capable of defending themselves against this type of convergence.

The Irish print and broadcast media are part of what could be termed the "squeezed middle". I refer in particular to the vulnerability of some of our proud titles to competition from overseas. Does the Minister believe it would be appropriate to have a "Buy Irish" campaign to protect Irish titles?

John Crown (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Go raibh maith agat. At this stage the Minister must think I have some type of unrequieted hero worship for him because I stated previously that he has the most important job in the public service when he was wearing his energy hat. His role in this area is critical as well. I am asked frequently about the major side effects of the treatment we provide for the disease I deal with as part of my day job. My answer is that historically the greatest side effect in Ireland is not getting enough of the treatment because there has not been enough nurses or doctors to ensure one got treatment. I have a similar attitude to the question of hypothetical intrusiveness on the part of the media.

Let us consider modern history in Ireland. What has been the major impact of the media's level of intrusion in public life? One must conclude that it is negative because the media did not intrude enough. I recall when I was a dirty-nosed student and a young doctor in the 1970s and 1980s. At the time it was widely considered that several prominent figures in Irish politics might have had serious ethical questions to answer. These should have been put to them and they should have been given the opportunity to answer those questions in the press.

The watchdogs should have been the first line from which to launch the public interrogation. For whatever reason there is a sense that this interrogation never took place, that we had a somewhat timid school of investigative journalism and that the watchdogs or the people involved had turned into poodles or even bichons. Although some people make it in good faith there is no doubt that any attempt to enforce some level of policing of the investigative activities of the media is fraught and those involved can go far over the boundaries. We have all seen it. They can intrude into areas that are purely salacious and of no interest to the public while at the same time ignoring areas of critical public importance and interest. The view is that we should simply suck it up, that this is one of the perils of being involved in various aspects of public discourse in Ireland and that we will have our dirty laundry or mildly unfresh laundry subjected to a level of scrutiny citizens without the same level of prominence are not subjected to.

The downside of trying to increase the policing function of any part of the State over the way journalists go about their business poses a greater threat. By way of recourse, there is no doubt that there are sharp journalistic practices here which, I believe, in some cases are unethical. Once I mischievously asked a print journalist who was sharing a platform with me on a broadcast medium if there was any story that he would not publish if he knew it would sell newspapers and he knew it would not get him sued. He paused for a moment and said "No". That was the answer. The reality is that we must depend to a certain extent on the decency of the people in these positions to use the great power they have wisely.

At the same time there may be gentle ways to increase the level of muscle that enforces or polices the more extreme types of behaviour. I have no doubt there are people in the business who, from time to time, have published things they knew to be untrue because they thought they could get away with it. For these more extreme examples we should consider whether there is some case to be made for introducing some element of criminal as well as civil liability. I suppose hypothetically that if evidence came out in a civil case to the effect that someone had deliberately misinformed then such a person should also have some automatic responsibility before criminal law. The free press is one of the most important things we have. It is more dangerous for us to police it than to occasionally feel the sharper end of its barb.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order, I wish to note that in my general criticisms of the press I should have exempted in recent times the Sunday Independent.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not a point of order.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is no accident that Mr. McDowell got his article printed.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not a point of order.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a correction.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remind the House that we will suspend at 3.38 p.m. and I am trying to get everyone in by then.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Are we not coming back?

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am looking for questions not statements. Some people are exceeding their time.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I realise the Minister has to leave. This media standards debate is important but it should include social media as well. Free speech is essential for a liberal democracy but the new media has increased its effectiveness greatly as well. Let us consider the Twitter revolution in Moldova in recent times and the Arab spring. These offer examples of how much free speech is enabled by social media. Even Facebook cannot be blocked by the great firewall of the People's Republic of China.

Where are the boundaries in social media between the freedom of speech and privacy and freedom of speech and personal safety? This question could be a great deal more significant than we realise. What steps will the Government take to regulate social media to ensure appropriate protections to safeguard the rights of the person wrongly accused of something, wrongly attacked or bullied? Cyber bullying is alive and well. How can the perpetrator be punished if the person posting on social media is anonymous or if the Internet Protocol, IP, address of the person is registered in the United States of America and not traceable while he or she continues to wreak havoc? I am keen to hear the Minister's answers to these questions. This area is new for all of us. However, it is alive and well. I heard recently that the Office of the Press Ombudsman has no remit over local media. Is that true?

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Harte is next but I understand you must leave, Minister.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am due in the other House but I will be back within 15 minutes.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The House has been ordered to suspend from now until 4 p.m.

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will be brief as I have only a minute. It is said that war is an extension of politics by another means and so it seems is the Sunday Independent. Every time we open the Sunday Independent, we see articles by Deputies Shane Ross and Willie O'Dea, by Senators John Crown and John Whelan, by former politicians Eoghan Harris and Michael McDowell and, I am sure, several others. I am vaguely uncomfortable about this. The Sunday Independent seems to be more of a Leinster House appreciation society than a newspaper, yet it is a newspaper that forms the political agenda for a week. It has 1 million readers and I find it uncomfortable to see the opinion formers in this House also forming opinion in an opinion forming newspaper. Could we have the Minister's comments on that?

My other question concerns the Milly Dowler case, which involved the hacking of a dead girl's phone. This case has exposed a particularly awful practice among some media in the United Kingdom and some newspapers from the same stable operate in Ireland. Is the Minister confident we have robust enough sanctions available to our authorities to deal with the fall-out from this?

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are no sanctions at all.

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Are the sanctions strong enough to act as a deterrent?

Jimmy Harte (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is appropriate we are in the Seanad. I read recently that one of the first gazettes ever issued was the Acta Senatus from the old Roman Senate, which made proclamations of the work that could be done in the Senate. Then through the Middle Ages, one of the first widespread publications throughout Europe promoting political views and commercial news was owned by a family called the Fuggers. I can spell that in case it is lost in translation. The Fuggers were a German family in the Middle Ages. They are recognised as the first people to promote newsletters. At this stage, that industry has become totally commercialised.

I would like to ask a question that relates to an issue that was raised by Senator Gilroy. I was recently subject to a misinformation story that travelled around the country. The Office of the Press Ombudsman has no powers. Until it is given some teeth, the power of the press will be used for the wrong reasons and will damage people. We would be a poorer country if we did not have press freedom. However, sanctions are needed in cases like the Milly Dowler case in the UK. That was the ultimate example of journalistic decadence. I ask the Minister for his views on the powers of the Office of the Press Ombudsman.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank all the Senators who contributed to this debate. I am left with the impression that we have revealed the tip of the iceberg. I expect Senators will want an opportunity to return to this subject in more depth. It may be the case that all we have done is touch the surface of the matter.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not dispute what Senator Ó Murchú said. It is a truism that good news is not news, as Erskine Childers said. One has to accept that in this business. I accept what the Senator said about the excellence of public service broadcaster's coverage of last year's visits of the Queen of England and the President of the United States and last weekend's visit of the Chinese Vice Premier. I agree that "they did it exceptionally well".

We are living in rapidly changing times like we have never seen before. The traditional media is under considerable pressure. Considerable economic obstacles are preventing the traditional media from functioning as it did in the past. The development of new media is inevitable. I do not think there is a great deal of point in us juxtaposing one type of media with the other. It is and is going to be one media. The question of how we regulate that was raised by a number of Senators, most passionately by Senator Norris. We need to deal with what the Senator referred to as an entirely unjustified "invasion of privacy", for example.

When the Press Council was being established, consideration was given to whether it should be accompanied by a privacy Act. The Government of the day engaged in negotiations on whether this country's press council should be formed on a statutory basis and accompanied by privacy legislation. A number of Ministers in that Government went on the record to advocate the necessity for privacy legislation. It was decided to "suck it and see", so to speak. In other words, the decision was to see how a non-statutory press council would function. Senator Norris has dismissed the Press Council of Ireland with a wave of his majesterial hand. My opinion is that it is too early to say, as Zhou Enlai said about the French Revolution. It has been in existence for just four years. I suggest that given the tasks that have been put to it, the council has performed much better than-----

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is no comfort to the families that have been violated. I was punished by the media for raising their cases. Perhaps the Minister will comment on the bullying of politicians by editors.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The most serious thing I heard during the debate was Senator Norris's claim that those who take a stand on behalf of high standards in the media are being victimised. He suggested that the bullying of these people takes place at the hands of their own editors.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. I have evidence.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If that is happening, it is immensely regrettable. I should say, in defence of the remarks I delivered at the outset of this debate, that I was addressing the Irish situation.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

So am I.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Apart from a glancing reference to them, I was not addressing the matters that are the subject of the Leveson inquiry. The matters in question ought to concern any public representative and any fair-minded citizen.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Every single one of them is happening here.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I refer to the conduct of the Murdoch empire. Senator Norris alleges that the same thing is happening here.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have to say I consider myself reasonably alert to these issues. I rarely agree with much of what is written. None of us, especially those of us in government, agrees with it all. As Senator Crown said, in most cases I would defend the right of the serious content and criticism to be written. I do not accept what Senator Norris has said. I am open to being persuaded. I am open to coming back to the House to clarify the matter. I have to say in all truthfulness that I do not accept at this stage that we have sunk in this country to the standards we have seen in the neighbouring island.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Some sections of the press have. There is no doubt about it.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Some sections are certainly-----

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister should listen to the evidence that was given by witnesses as the Leveson inquiry about what is going on in Ireland. They said it.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Some sections of the media are certainly guilty of misbehaviour. I do not doubt that.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Did Mr. McMullan not say he knows that the same practices exist in Ireland?

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What I am saying about what transpired at the Leveson inquiry is that I do not have any personal knowledge of similar circumstances here. Nobody has brought such circumstances to my attention. I am not making any naive vow of incredulity. I do not suggest that matters that have not yet come to light here are not happening. However, I really do not think it has sunk to the level it has sunk to in the neighbouring island. The points Senator Norris made about bullying are very serious. When Senator Whelan spoke about the failure to cover the more substantial proceedings of this House, he could well have added that there is also a failure to cover the more substantial proceedings of the other House. I do not know whether such matters - the substantial matters that happen here, as opposed to the trivial matters - are not reported because journalists are not filing stories. Perhaps journalists know there is no point in filing stories about such matters because their editors will not publish them.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It would be a matter of concern if we had reached that stage. I recall meeting the senior management of the Independent News and Media group in the mid-1990s, when I served as Minister of State with responsibility for commerce. I also met some members of the board of the group, including its then deputy chairman, the late John Meagher. He said to me that as far as the Independent group of newspapers was concerned, it was operating in a regional market. The implication of his remarks was that the group's newspapers were competing with the tabloids that were coming through at the time, which would inevitably lead to the dumbing down of standards. Members of the House will have their own views on what has transpired in the subsequent 15 years. As regards the questions raised by several Senators about public service broadcasting and the television licence and all that kind of thing, the notion of replacing the TV licence, the notion of scrapping it and moving to a public service broadcasting charge, is motivated principally by the convergence of technologies which is happening before our eyes. I presume that like myself, many Members of this House have observed the extent to which the next generation are not buying newspapers or taking their information from the print media but rather from their tablet or their iPhone or anywhere there is a connection to the Internet. This is happening, whether or not we want to admit it. Unlike the little boy we cannot put our fingers into the dyke because this is what is happening before our eyes.

The second reason is the extent of evasion which is significant at approximately €30 million from the collection of the licence fee and this is a consideration. Every time I say this it is misreported in some areas but this is not a new charge; it replaces the existing charge. Despite all the complaints I receive about the TV licence I never receive a complaint about the subscription to Sky or UPC or whatever, to see, for example, whether Harry Redknapp won his last match against Sunderland. I get a variety of very colourful complaints about RTE. Senator Paul Coghlan raised the plight of the independent broadcasters. I agree entirely with him that they play a very important role in provincial Ireland and in particular, his own station, Radio Kerry, the Kingdom radio, being an especially good example, including as it does the broadcasting of public service content. However, the idea behind the TV licence was to foster and support public service broadcasting. It is already top-sliced in a number of ways. For instance, €10 million is allocated by law to TG4 and a further 7% of the proceeds go to the Sound and Vision fund, the purpose of which is to enable independent producers to apply to that fund for programme resources.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am bound by the order of the House of this day that this business is to conclude at 4.30 p.m.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are still taxiing on the runway to allow the Minister to take off.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is there any hope the Minister might be allowed to conclude his replies?

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I cannot allow the Minister to reply without------

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appeal to the other side of the House to allow the Minister to at least complete his replies as there are very few remaining. In fairness to both the Minister and to those who made a contribution, if it is agreeable, I ask that he be allowed to conclude. It will only be a matter of a few minutes.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

How long will the Minister require to conclude?

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It will not take long.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Deputy Leader to move an amendment to the Order of Business.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose an amendment to the Order of Business to allow for five minutes extra time for the Minister to conclude his replies.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is appreciated.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the House. In respect of the €10 million and the 7% to the Sound and Vision fund, it is already top-sliced to some extent. In reply to the matter raised by Senator Whelan, of course I am concerned about the finances of the national broadcaster. I share his views about the necessity for value for money. As it happens, I have a meeting with the board of the RTE Authority tomorrow. I intend to tell the board that we cannot continue running deficits, that this must be controlled, that we must have value for the taxpayers' money being expended. However, in all fairness, it has to be acknowledged that we are working in a tiny market and the amount of resources available to RTE from the TV licence fund and from commercial revenue, is a tiny fraction of what is available, for example, to the BBC in the neighbouring island. This has to be taken into account. There is an irreducible minimum and going below that will not allow for quality public broadcasting of any kind.

Senator Paschal Mooney asked about the future of investigative programming and I could not agree more with him. I sincerely hope that the rocky times which the national broadcaster has encountered in recent months as a result of the programme to which Senator Michael Mullins referred, "Mission to Prey", will not damage investigative journalism. I agree with Senator Mooney. The decision I took in that matter to require the intervention of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland was taken for two reasons. First, the priest concerned has the same constitutional rights as the rest of us-----

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He has an entitlement for them to be vindicated and to be seen to be vindicated. Second, the normally high standard of that programme should not be damaged and in my view this is best achieved by it being properly and independently investigated and let the pieces fall where they will. In reply to Senator Michael Mullins the investigation is likely to be concluded very soon and in that context I am happy to look at the additional issues he has raised concerning a second segment of the programme. We have referred certain correspondence in respect of that matter to both the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland and to RTE.

A difficult question was raised by several Senators regarding the independent broadcasters. From my travels around the country I am familiar with their work. It needs to be borne in mind that they were commercial enterprises undertaken at the time. They are going through a rough time at present, like many of the media, as a result of the decrease in advertising. Any change to be made will be for the introduction of a public service broadcasting support. Whether this means they undertake the kind of investigative legwork to which Senator Mooney has referred or whether they fund the RTE light orchestra or they invest money in the arts and culture or whatever, we need to hold on to this important resource.

Senator Crown raised the question as to whether the media was as intrusive in the past as it ought to have been. The age of deference is certainly over now. In the past, the TD, the parish priest and the Garda sergeant were shown tremendous deference throughout the country-----

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

And now we show it to the press; the new tyranny.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

All three of them ran into a spot of bother since. As a result, we have gone from excessive deference to corrosive cynicism.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a real pity because the media is different. Various Members have raised the question of competition and concentration of ownership, dominant position, abuse of dominant position, cross-media ownership and so on. As I have said, it is different from making concrete blocks or producing widgets in the garage because the media conditions the kind of democracy in which we live and therefore, diversity of content and of ownership are very important. That is why different rules must apply. Several Senators had too little time to develop the points they wanted to make. Senator Healy Eames and others asked about social media and new media and the balance between the public interest and freedom of the press. No one in the western world knows the answer to some of these questions. We are struggling with them. Whether Senator Norris accepts it, there is a structure for the print media.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister send a representative to the Leveson inquiry?

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

People are observing what is happening in the Leveson inquiry but the answer is that I do not have anyone over there. The Leveson inquiry will produce a report that will be available to us all and I am happy to return to the House when it is available. In the interim, we have the Press Council of Ireland and the Office of the Press Ombudsman. I am quite happy to engage in a private discussion with Senator Norris on this issue. These bodies are doing a better job than was anticipated when they were established. There is no similar organisations for online media, which has not subscribed to any similar controls. That is the major challenge of our times.