Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 13 Mar 2012

Vol. 759 No. 1

Leaders’ Questions

Everyone in this House agrees that public service broadcasting is a central part of a democratic society and RTE has served Ireland well over the 50 years since its foundation. However, a conclusion of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland last week has raised serious questions on the performance of our public service broadcaster with regard to the conduct of the presidential election. Unfortunately, this conclusion comes very soon after the recent court ruling on the "Prime Time" programme on Fr. Reynolds, which also raised questions about standards. We await the outcome of the investigation into that issue. The concerns and doubts that have been raised need to be addressed so that people can be assured of the highest standards.

In that regard, will the Taoiseach comment on the role of the public service broadcaster in upholding the highest standards, notwithstanding a more competitive broadcasting environment? Others have sought to broaden this debate. The Minister for Transport, Deputy Varadkar, has said that RTE has a bias towards centre left parties and liberal views and has said there should be a review of the organisation. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, seemed a bit confused, perhaps understandably, about what might sound liberal and left wing to the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, but he claimed that those who object to what happened are trying to create an Irish Fox News, which is a somewhat bizarre assertion also.

May we have a question from the Deputy please.

He seemed to offer the view that there was no need for any review. Clearly, there are differences between the approach of the Government parties to the issue. Putting those competing views to one side, does the Taoiseach agree that objectivity on the part of the public service broadcaster is paramount? What is the Government going to do to ensure the public service broadcaster will operate to the highest standards in its coverage of current affairs and other issues? Will the Taoiseach outline to the House the outcome of the discussion at this morning's Cabinet meeting? Both the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Creighton, said the issue would be discussed at the Cabinet meeting this morning. Was there such a discussion and what was the outcome of it?

Yes, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources updated the Cabinet in respect of developments in this matter. I share the Deputy's view, as do all others, of the critical importance of objectivity in so far as the national broadcaster is concerned with regard to public life in Ireland, to life in general in Ireland and to our democratic institutions.

Deputy Martin is aware of what happened in this case. This, now infamous, tweet has been the subject of an investigation by the independent Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, BAI, which has statutory responsibility for the regulation of broadcasting in Ireland. The finding of that investigation was that the broadcasting of the unverified tweet was unfair to Mr. Gallagher at the time, but the authority found no evidence that either the broadcaster, the presenter or the production team deliberately concealed information or constructed the programme in a manner that lacked either objectivity or impartiality. Deputy Martin will be aware of comments made over the weekend about this.

RTE has announced an internal investigation led by an outside and independent person. I note comments from Deputy Martin's party in that regard.

This investigation will be into the nature of the editorial process on the evening of the debate. The compliance committee of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland which met this morning is likely to have sought further clarification from RTE in the matter. The chairman of the Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture, Deputy Andrew Doyle, has announced that RTE management will be called before the joint committee to respond to the outcome of the BAI compliance committee investigation. This is likely to take place in a matter of weeks.

The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources informed the Cabinet that he was in receipt of a letter from Mr. Gallagher, who is the subject of the matter. The Minister replied to Mr. Gallagher yesterday, noting the critical importance of the trustworthiness, impartiality and objectivity of the national broadcaster to our democratic institutions. The Minister also informed the Cabinet that he was aware of the specifics of the media report and comments thereon, both by people from RTE and others. In his reply to Mr. Gallagher, he pointed out that everyone is aware that the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland is the independent body with statutory responsibility for the regulation of broadcasting in the country. He informed Mr. Gallagher that if new evidence emerged impinging on findings made in relation to the complaint, referencing Mr. Gallagher's correspondence, the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, through its compliance committee, would ensure it is dealt with expeditiously and comprehensively. The Minister informed the Cabinet that he had sent on Mr. Gallagher's letter to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland.

Deputy Martin has many years experience of taking part in current affairs and topical programmes in RTE studios where the matter of questions being asked in a concise and realistic fashion was always an issue before programmes began. In the case of the comment made by a member of the audience at this particular debate, there appears to be an allegation that RTE in some way attempted to gun down Mr. Gallagher. This appears to be the source of an allegation which is disputed, obviously, by RTE.

Deputy Martin will be also aware of the pending report arising from the very serious case of Fr. Kevin Reynolds which has come forth. In that case, RTE itself has commissioned an internal inquiry with an outside person.

BAI investigated and analysed the tweet and regarded it as unfair to Mr. Gallagher. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has responded to a letter from Mr. Gallagher regarding the statutory and independent responsibility of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland and its compliance committee and has pointed out that if there is evidence, that committee is the proper place to deal with it expeditiously and comprehensively. In addition, Deputy Andrew Doyle will call the board of RTE before the Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture in a short time to have further discussions about this.

I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. My basic and abiding interest is the preservation of the principle of public sector broadcasting as a central tenet of our democracy. Notwithstanding the smiles of the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, that is from where I am coming.

I know how much Deputy Martin cherished it in the past.

With respect to the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, his political history has a long tradition of cherishing that principle.

Can the Taoiseach outline his views on this matter? I am not saying the Oireachtas is the ideal forum for this inquiry, because of the natural tensions between the Oireachtas and the fourth estate which should be always there. It is Ministers who have broadened the debate. I do not accept the premise put forward by the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, but he has broadened the debate.

RTE itself has decided to develop an internal investigation, albeit with external personnel, into its editorial practices and risks to the broadcaster. The BAI, while initially finding fault with the utilisation and provenance of the tweet, did not follow on with a further investigation or see the need for it. There is an element of unfinished business and matters have been left hanging.

Is the Taoiseach satisfied that the steps that have been taken to date are sufficient to restore public confidence in the broadcaster, which is the central issue? The central objective of everything that should happen now is to restore public confidence in our public service broadcaster. Is the Taoiseach satisfied that what is now being done will be sufficient to achieve that objective?

I hope it will. I hope it can be.

I hope he will tell us.

I share the views of Deputy Martin, as does everyone else here, that the national broadcaster should be absolutely impartial, fair and objective in carrying out its statutory functions under the Act that established it. Deputy Martin is aware that the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland has completely independent and statutory responsibility for the regulation of broadcasting in the country. Its compliance committee has its independent functions in that regard.

It is important to note that when it investigated the release of the tweet, the compliance committee said the broadcast of the tweet incorrectly attributed to the official Martin McGuinness twitter account was unfair, in the context of the requirements of the Act. The arguments made by RTE did not, in the view of the committee, validate the inclusion of what amounted to unverified information in the debate from a source that was wrongly accredited by the programme presenter. There were no apparent efforts to verify the source or accuracy of the content of the tweet. Furthermore, the committee felt the presenter did not take the opportunity to verify the content with Mr. McGuinness. Failure to provide clarification on the provenance of the tweet was unfair.

We know all this already.

The committee did not believe the subsequent truth or otherwise of the content removed the basic responsibility of the broadcaster to verify its content and its provenance. The committee found no evidence that the broadcaster, presenter or production team deliberately concealed information or constructed the programme in a manner that lacked objectivity or impartiality .

What about the question?

The complaints process is governed by section 48 of the Broadcasting Act 2009. It is entirely independent and independently regulated.

The Taoiseach has the clock well talked down by now.

Following the Minister's transmission to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland of his letter from Mr. Gallagher, I hope that if, in the view of the BAI, there is anything new that warrants further comprehensive detailed analysis by the compliance committee, it will happen expeditiously

This is a hot potato. The Taoiseach does not want to handle it.

I share Deputy Martin's view that it is of critical importance, for the good of the country and of civil life in the country that the national broadcaster adhere to the strict requirements of the Act that set it up, which is that our democratic institutions can be assured of fairness, objectivity and impartiality in respect of dealings with the national broadcaster.

Last night, eurozone Finance Ministers indicated that Spain will be given flexibility in its budget deficit targets in 2012. This follows from the Spanish Prime Minister's rejection of the austerity and deficit targets set by the EU. The Taoiseach has an entirely different approach. At every opportunity, he and his partners in the Labour Party have kowtowed to their masters in the EU and assured them that they will not seek any write-off of the totally unfair, unsustainable and unacceptable debt that has been foisted on our people by the Government, and by the previous Government of which Deputy Martin was a member.

The second of the annual €3.1 billion promissory notes is due in a little over two weeks. Depending on which Minister is talking, people have a sense that the Government is, or is not, in negotiation at this time. There is very little clarity from the Government about this. What is clear is that the Government is committed to paying the full amount. If he is negotiating, it would seem the Taoiseach is negotiating the interest rate and the timeframe so the people will still have to pay for the greed of Anglo. This is not acceptable. Will the Taoiseach follow the lead of the Spanish Government, stand up for the interests of Irish citizens and refuse to pay this promissory note?

I cannot do that.

Cannot? Ní feidir linn.

The Deputy forgets, and perhaps deliberately, that this country is in a bailout programme while Spain is not. The money to pay the salaries of the gardaí, the teachers, the nurses and everyone else, comes from Europe. Spain is not in a bailout situation. It has excessive deficit and future challenges with which it must deal. However, it must reduce its deficit level to 3% by the end of 2013 while Ireland in a programme must reduce its debt levels to 3% by 2015. There is a big difference between the two situations. Spain is a big country with a huge economy and is in a very different position from Ireland. The incoming Spanish Government under Prime Minister Rajoy examined the situation and found it to be worse than what was originally envisaged. The Spanish Government sought to re-negotiate its own deficit target when it came into office which sets out that its target will be maintained, although there will be more severe cuts next year.

As the Deputy is well aware, Ireland is funded until 2013 in a programme. The difference is that while we would like to be out of this programme as quickly as possible, the fact is we are still in a programme. The salaries of the public servants, the ATM machines and everything else are funded from Europe by means of that programme. Spain is not in a programme. It has excessive debt and it faces severe challenges, but it has set a target to be down to 3% by the end of 2013. The Prime Minister and his government expect to meet that target. The two situations are very different.

The Taoiseach says he cannot. It is rather odd he has no problem. He is able to introduce stealth taxes, cuts and austerity measures, but when it comes to paying €3.1 billion of citizens' money into a zombie bank, his answer is, "I cannot". What sort of leadership is that?

He did not say that.

That is not the question the Deputy asked.

Enda Kenny, Eamon Gilmore-----

Deputy Gerry Adams did not ask that question.

-----and Micheál Martin, are famously becoming the three "Yes" men of Europe.

A question, please.

The Taoiseach might get some relief but really he is kicking a ball down the road. Our great-great grandchildren will have to pay this debt as opposed to our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. Does the Spanish Government's unilateral decision and the Finance Minister's compromise not make a nonsense of this austerity treaty? Is it not clear from this one example that the deficit demands being made in the treaty are impractical? If, as he says, a big country with lots of collateral, cannot pay, then how can a small State like this pay, considering the difficulties we face? How can the Taoiseach expect to make this a constitutional imperative on the citizens of this State?

Deputy Adams deliberately twists the words. There is a very big difference between Spain as a country with a huge economy not being in a programme and Ireland which has a much smaller economy being in a programme until the end of 2013. The Deputy is also aware of the individual country-specific requirement in each case; Greece is in a very different situation from Ireland, Portugal is a different situation-----

-----and Ireland's situation is very different from that of Spain.

That is stating the obvious.

When the Deputy refers to the €3.1 billion in respect of the promissory notes, I have already made it perfectly clear that we are not going to raise any undue expectations. A series of difficult, technical and complex negotiations are being held at the initiative of the troika in order to produce a flexibility paper so that this country's particular economic circumstances could be eased by having the flexibility now available to ESM and EFSF that were not applicable when more than €60 billion was borrowed in respect of the promissory note in the first instance.

Do not pay it.

Those negotiations and discussions are ongoing. I would guess that Deputy Adams was probably the most disappointed person in the country when the Tánaiste and I came in here to inform the House and the country that on the advice of the Attorney General, we would be having a referendum. I could see that the Deputy's jaw dropped-----

The despair on the faces of the Cabinet members was unreal .

I know he had his legal squires ready down at the steps of the court. I am not going to raise any expectations-----

It was the members of the Cabinet who were overjoyed.

Keep the expectations low.

The Deputy and I know the benefit of these discussions and I hope they will be concluded. As the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, pointed out, these are matters in the medium term in any event. They are technical and very complex issues. However, from Ireland's perspective, the troika recognises that Ireland's economic position could be eased somewhat by having lower interest rates over a longer period which would make it easier to deal with our deficit and the repayments of our debt.

We will still pay money to the bad bank.

I hate to disappoint the Deputy again.

(Interruptions).

I refer to the Sunday Independent of last Sunday. In case the Taoiseach does not know, his Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, will tell him it is not a left-leaning or socialist news-sheet. In a thorough survey the Sunday Independent found that the 300 super-richest people in this country increased their wealth between March last year and March this year, from an incredible €57 billion to €62 billion, in round figures-----

The Deputy must be in there with his €40,000.

-----which is an increase of €5 billion. That year coincides exactly with the lifetime of this Government. In this impressive survey, I have to say, Nick Webb, the business editor, points out that the rich list total nearly matches-----

Well done, Deputy Shane Ross.

-----our bailout. He further mentions new yachts, magnificent palaces in the sun, stupendous art works, football clubs and concludes that it was a good year for the super-rich. However, it was not a good year for people with a disability because the Taoiseach maintained the cuts in the pensions for the blind, he cut the fuel allowance for elderly people and he attacked the precarious economic situation of one-parent families. These people are clinging for economic survival to the edge, along with the millions of ordinary people, low and middle income workers, who are suffering from his austerity.

A question, please.

How does the Taoiseach justify refusing to impose a progressive taxation on this super-wealth when the increase of €5 billion in one year dwarfs the €3.7 billion he is imposing in cuts this year to pay off bankers and bondholders, with devastating consequences for our society, tearing strips from the health service and compromising education? These cuts are causing significant suffering. What is the moral and economic argument? The United Left Alliance has estimated that €5 billion to €10 billion could be raised in taxes on the super wealthy and this survey confirms it. Is it any wonder that decent, ordinary taxpayers are in revolt all over this country, with well over one million householders refusing to pay the household tax?

The Deputy is over time.

Since he can inflict cuts with no compunction at a week's notice, will he now bring in an emergency budget to provide for an emergency tax on wealth to alleviate the cuts and the tax burdens on ordinary people and, for a change, to make the super wealthy pay?

I did not see all the details of Deputy Ross's survey in the newspaper. I do not know whether he gave Deputy Higgins the details as to whom he is referring. This is a difficult and challenging year for a great number of people.

Not for the super-rich.

I recall being a member of a local authority back in the 1970s when everybody paid rates in respect of services provided. We moved away from all of that in the intervening 30 years and it is very difficult to get people to understand the necessity of spreading the burden as equitably and as fairly as possible.

Changes were made to the taxation system in the budget. As the Deputy will be aware, there were no reductions in the basic social protection rates and the impact of Government decisions in respect of the universal social charge and the minimum wage will protect those on the lower end of the scale and will take significant numbers out of the net in terms of the requirement to pay those levies. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government has already made it clear there are extensive waivers in respect of the household charge.

One person in this country, who is reputedly quite wealthy, said to me that wealth was being returned from his account to Irish banks. In a gesture of practical patriotism, there is an issue there in respect of confidence in our country. Changes have been brought about by the Minister for Finance in respect of the taxation of the higher paid in the country and there has been no reduction in the basic rates of social protection. Although this year is very challenging, people understand that the problem we have will not go away unless we deal with it and the way we must deal with it is for everybody to make a contribution. We hope that contribution is fair, equitable and affordable. Where that does not apply, exemptions and waivers will help to get people through this particularly challenging period ahead.

I asked the Taoiseach what is the argument, moral or economic, against the imposition of a levy on the super wealthy in our society in view of a very comprehensive survey which, incidentally, was not done by Deputy Ross but by a series of editors, sub-editors and researchers. To show how comprehensive it was, the business editor said some of the super-rich even got in touch to make sure nothing was left out in what was being reported on them.

Could I have your supplementary question?

Warren Buffett-----

A copy of the Sunday Independent is available in the Library.

We are still trying to get an answer to the question.

As the Taoiseach knows, Warren Buffett has been one of the leading capitalists for decades. Put it in the Irish context, but some time ago he said: "While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet,-----

Deputy, would you please ask a supplementary question?

-----we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks." He went on to say:

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

When will the Taoiseach get serious about requiring not sacrifice, in view of the massive wealth they have, but a lot more from these wealthiest sections of our society which have been untouched by this crisis and whose system has caused it in the racketeering and profiteering that went on? Why will the Government not bring in an emergency levy that would bring in billions which would alleviate the suffering-----

Would you adhere to the Chair please?

-----and which would provide the basis for public investment-----

Would please resume your seat? I do not know what your question is.

-----which would create jobs? Why will the Taoiseach not bring in a wealth tax?

The Minister for Finance introduced changes here in respect of the higher paid and wealthy people. Changes were also introduced in respect of those who deem themselves to be tax exiles, which is a relatively small number. I made the point about repatriation. The point was made to me by one such person in that category who has put substantial funding back into the country.

I will not comment on the detail of the survey carried out in the newspaper the Deputy mentioned. That is obviously a matter for the business editor and the editors who carried out that survey but I would make the following point to the Deputy.

It is a matter for the Taoiseach.

When one hears the Minister for Education and Skills announce a €1.5 billion programme for the construction of more than 250 new schools, which will provide employment and opportunities for substantial numbers of people and places for children-----

Some of them are built.

Would you stay quiet?

He would not even recognise that. I would say something else to the Deputy.

(Interruptions).

He should look beyond the shores of the country sometimes.

(Interruptions).

Would Deputy Mattie McGrath stay quiet? He is not a leader yet.

Deputy Higgins should look beyond the shores of the country sometimes because the Warren Buffetts - I could never claim to be at his level - of the world and economists, business and politics internationally now look at this country as being in a very different position than it was 12 months. There is confidence with deposits coming back into the banks and investment in our country. In some cases, our exports are running at double digit figures and the impact of Government-----

Just answer the question.

-----decision is in the area of the indigenous economy in small and medium enterprises. We have deliberately and consciously set out to protect the lower paid in this area with exemptions, the removal from the universal social charge, the restoration of the minimum wage and by giving facilities and incentives to employers to take on new employees and to make it easier for them to do their business by keeping on their current employees.

Barr
Roinn