Opposition spokesman on the media Evarist Bartolo told Parliament yesterday of Labour's disappointment that the Bill amending the Broadcasting Act fell short of divesting the government of its hold on Public Broadcasting Services, which was being used more and more as the PN mouthpiece. He said that there was an ever-increasing role for public broadcasting by developing its web portal by using more interactive technologies and ensuring that its service obligations were better satisfied.

He called for a national discussion on broadcasting, which was "still crucified between the two main parties".

Introducing the Bill, Parliamentary Secretary Jason Azzopardi said it enabled the Broadcasting Authority to license satellite radio and television services, which at present were licensed by the government.

The Bill, which was technical, sought to provide a one-stop shop for those wanting to start radio or television transmissions by satellite.

Since 1991, when the Broadcasting Act was introduced, it had been the practice that those who were interested in transmitting by satellite wrote to the minister, who in turn informed the Malta Communications Authority and the Broadcasting Authority of this interest.

Dr Azzopardi said the BA must ensure that whoever transmitted would abide with the EU directive on television without frontiers, which could be used for Malta's economic gain. The BA had the necessary infrastructure to process these applications.

But there might be cases where the person interested in obtaining a licence would not be transmitting from Malta, and therefore would not fall under the aegis of the MCA. In fact, the only licence issued by the BA was for only one station, known as Buzz TV, which had its uplink in Slovenia.

One could broadcast from another EU country with the Broadcasting Authority monitoring the programmes. In case of breach of regulations, the authority would take the necessary steps and could impose administrative fines.

Dr Azzopardi said television broadcasting was passing through rapid change. The Prime Minister, who is politically responsible for the BA, has been authorised to make necessary regulations to set up a new unit which would regulate satellite broadcasting.

The BA will issue licences for satellite radio and TV broadcasting for an administrative fee of €1,000, which has been kept low to attract foreign investment to Malta.

The BA could enter into contracts according to public contract arrangements. This brought the 1991 broadcasting legislation into conformity with the legislation regulating contracts.

Under this legislative framework the MCA, the BA and Malta Enterprise would do their utmost to exploit this new sector of broadcasting to attract local and foreign investment.

Mr Bartolo said that, if seen from a broader perspective, this Bill had wider repercussions than the simple transfer of power of granting satellite broadcasting licences.

The opposition was in favour of strengthening democracy and making room for debate. It was therefore in favour of strengthening the regulating authority and weakening the power of the government which, being a political party, risked a biased approach.

This made sense so long as there was a law which truly regulated this, and was not simply a minister's tool.

The Broadcasting Authority, said Mr Bartolo, was stronger than others, thanks to the last two exemplary chairmen who had worked to distance the authority from the executive. After all, the reputation of an authority often depended on the people managing it, and whether they kept up a system of checks and balances. Not all past Broadcasting Authority chairmen had been worthy of such praise, he said.

The opposition would be voting for this Bill because it believed in what it stood for.

However, he said, the opposition was disappointed that such an important amendment was standing alone, and was not being followed up by other important changes. While the government seemed prepared to divest itself of this power, there were no amendments to strengthen PBS as a national broadcaster, independent of the government.

Mr Bartolo said the government had come up with the Policy for National Broadcasting five years ago, wherein it had mentioned what was being debated today and the expected commitment to keep this rapidly-changing sector up to date.

The opposition would have preferred a serious national debate on broadcasting issues, and proposals of the necessary changes and updates to the 2004 policy.

The same policy said that PBS was there to serve the general public and the different sectors of society, but it also aimed to be the most creative, inclusive, professional and trusted broadcaster. One had to ask whether these targets were being reached.

It also reaffirmed that it would safeguard the obligations of the country under various European directives. It had also claimed that there would be no political bias in PBS. This all sounded nice, but was it happening?

Mr Bartolo said the government was not ready to hand over its power of influencing what happened in PBS, and what went on in its editorial board. The government must pass the power to nominate editorial board members to the BA. The real test was how the PBS board of directors would introduce the policy in its daily decisions.

Five years ago the PN government had declared that a strong Broadcasting Authority was crucial for democracy, more so because of the existence of party stations. It claimed that PBS was the only unbiased source of information. Such a declaration was dangerous, as it suggested that serious reporting was restricted to PBS, and party channels could not proved unbiased information. If party channels wanted credibility, they had to remain serious and professional.

Mr Bartolo said that it was especially dangerous to say this if PBS was failing in its aims of professionalism and in providing an impartial service. In the past, broadcasting in Malta had always been used not as a means of debate but as a voice for the party in government.

In its policy the government had said that to be considered an unbiased source, PBS had to make a more concerted effort to represent the various values. But broadcasting was still closer to the government than it was to society, and it was time for change.

The five-year-old model was one of the first things that had to be changed. Under this policy, public funds were given to PBS when other funds, such as those from advertising, were insufficient. At the time they had started receiving Lm500,000 (€1.165 million).

One had to assess if this still worked today. The BA had to ensure that PBS fulfilled its obligations of impartiality and equal division of time and facilities between the parties.

The Council of Europe directive stipulated that the government could not help broadcasting. One also had to consider what the World Council on Radio and TV said on how broadcasts had to apply to society, in all its diversity.

Mr Bartolo said the principle of political and economic independence was weak in Malta's case, thanks to the model chosen by the government. Funding was given, giving the government leverage.

In economic terms, PBS was dependent on sources of income to air certain programmes. This effectively went against the EU directive which said that current affairs programmes could not be sponsored.

National broadcasting had an important role to develop an informed society. If parties saw broadcasting as a way of mobilising their "troops", their role was being diminished as the Maltese society was evolving and needed more than anything to provide a forum where people could debate.

PBS had seemed to remain stagnant when it came to technological changes, such as internet presence. Its website had hardly been changed in five years, with many links still not functioning. PBS was meant to enter the sector of news portals, which in today's day and age were crucial.

Mr Bartolo referred to the outsourcing of programmes by PBS and said that there were areas where there was a clear conflict of interest. Certain programmes produced by Where's Everybody? were of a high standard. But there was a clear conflict of interest when the company was awarded a tender to promote something while producing a current affairs programme on the same subject, thus pretending to be fair. The same person promoting education reform for Where's Everybody? interviewed children about the said reform on NET TV. This breached EU and national directives.

Mr Bartolo said the challenge was not only one of satisfying legal and constitutional obligations but also of achieving professional integrity, as was needed in heading the PBS newsroom. The Head of News at PBS, Natalino Fenech, was failing his duty. It was wrong that this head was not appointed after a public call, was preferred in recruitment and was given a €46,000 annual package. The person therefore could not bite the hand that fed it because he had an obligation to the government.

Mr Bartolo said Joe Pirotta, Chairman of the Editorial Board, and Dr Fenech were tools in the government's hands. He referred to news bulletins broadcast by PBS where a news item on the Labour national conference on education was immediately followed by statements made by the ministry of education and the Nationalist Party. Statements by both the PL and the PN followed a news item on the Prime Minister's conference but a PL statement replying to the Prime Minister's speech last Sunday had been totally ignored.

He also said that a news item about a Labour Party activity two Sundays ago had been broadcast at the end of the news bulletin because the Nationalist Party did not organise any activity on that day.

Mr Bartolo said that customers demanded that diversity was reflected in news items with remarks by different spokesmen broadcast in the same news item.

He said it was no source of pride that TVM attracts only one third of the national audience. This meant that many were abandoning local TV stations to foreign stations.

PBS was not only ignoring the PL but other groups as well. Public broadcasting should be nearer to the public. This could only be achieved through professional integrity, something which Dr Pirotta and Dr Fenech had failed to achieve.

Mr Bartolo also criticised certain absurd themes discussed on Xarabank and Bondiplus. On the other hand, he praised the programme Dissett for being investigative and acting as a democratic watchdog.

State broadcasting was still politically controlled. There were other TVM programmes like the breakfast show where the government was being promoted through its spokesmen, but the opposition was not invited. He also described the PBS website as pathetic.

Mr Bartolo said that national broadcasting had a future if it opted for the web portal where the convergent and interactive platform would make use of television, radio and newspapers. This technological change was necessary because the consumer was choosing how and when to access news.

He mentioned the sacking of engineer Patrick Attard from his place of work because he had blogged his remark criticising the Bishop of Gozo on timesofmalta.com. This was as wrong as sacking architect Ċensu Galea from the Public Works Department in the 1980s because he had criticised the then Labour government. He hoped that a remedy would be found in the case of Ing. Attard.

In a pluralised market there was a greater role for public broadcasting if it made the necessary technological and cultural changes to provide a better service.

More people were opting for the interactive media. This could lead to cultural alienation, with people physically living in Malta but not actively participating in this society.

Mr Bartolo said one had to save public broadcasting from becoming irrelevant and obsolete for larger sections of the population. It was essential in a democracy to modify the model adopted by the government, especially when this served as a tool in the hands of the government and not in the interests of the public. Technological change was important in strengthening democracy and in promoting e-learning and lifelong learning.

Change was necessary in appointing the members of the PBS Board and the PBS Editorial Board. He augured that the government would be bringing forward other amendments on national broadcasting because these were indispensable to strengthen democracy.

David Agius (PN) and Owen Bonnici (PL) also took part in the debate.

At the beginning of yesterday's sitting, the House gave the first reading to the Consumer Affairs (Amendment) Bill.