Public Broadcasting Services Ltd was characterised by an independent editorial policy, and PBS programmes showed diversity where people were given the chance to air their opinions, Education Minister Dolores Cristina told Parliament on Monday.

Speaking during the debate on the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill, she said this was proof enough that the government cherished the subsidiarity principle and was determined to exploit opportunities offered by modern technology.

The Bill would enable the Broadcasting Authority to license satellite radio and television services. Minister Cristina said one satellite station had already been granted a licence, but there were other requests.

The broadcasting national policy would be reviewed over the coming months. She referred to the Parliamentary Select Committee which was also discussing broadcasting.

Broadcasting in Malta had been strengthened over the last few years when structures had been set up to ensure its independence.

Mrs Cristina said that over the past months the Leader of the Opposition had been given more coverage in PBS news bulletins than the Prime Minister. PBS news bulletins were no longer a political noticeboard. Their political content had gone down from 27 per cent in 1997 to 17 per cent in 2005. Decisions taken had shown that there was not the imbalance alleged by the opposition. It was very rare for PBS to be found guilty of not fulfilling its constitutional obligations.

Viewership statistics for 2006-08 showed that PBS had increased its audience on a daily basis. In the last quarter, TVM had a greater audience than all the other local TV stations together.

The minister said that the national station needed to be strengthened with more resources and investment in technology. An evaluation exercise on the financial aspect was being carried out because one had to seek more quality programmes.

Gino Cauchi (PL) said the opposition was in favour of the amendment because it transferred certain powers from the government to the Broadcasting Authority. But, he said, there were problems in broadcasting because the Broadcasting Act was not updated.

Mr Cauchi referred to the bureaucracy of obtaining licences. It was high time to regularise the situation, making the Broadcasting Authority a one-stop shop.

He said that a certain station in which Labour was a shareholder had been complaining with the MCA about an Italian station interfering over its frequency, but the MCA's answer had been that the Italians were strong and could do whatever they wanted.

Such things were happening because of political interference, and the situation could be improved if everything fell under the responsibility of the Broadcasting Authority, where there was also a lot to be done.

Mr Cauchi pointed out that balance in TVM also depended on how a story was written and the way the story's footage was edited, among other factors.

He referred to the incident last week when Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando had objected to censorship of a radio programme in which he was going to take part. Certain disparaging remarks were trading in the PBS corridors.

Mr Cauchi said that with this amendment, the government was not ready to hand all of its powers to the Broadcasting Authority, which should also be related to other sectors such as an important role in controlling PBS finances.

While the opposition agreed with the Bill, the amendment alone was not enough. The House needed to do more to improve this sector in the public interest, he concluded.

Continuing the debate yesterday, Charlò Bonnici (PN) said that public broadcasting should be independent, particularly when it came to current affairs and news. A regulator should be appointed to ensure that high standards were maintained. It was time to stop using broadcasting as a tool of the government of the time, as had happened in the past.

The PBS newsroom had never been as independent as it was today, when an item of news value came before other news of political interest. This was the way it should be. This was not to say there was no room for improvement, but with more resources it could continue to improve.

PBS had to become a benchmark for other stations.

It was not right that news and current affairs on PBS were financed by adverts. This had to change so that independence could be safeguarded.

Referring to the opposition's criticism to Where's Everybody?, Mr Bonnici said that perhaps the reason was not only that they produced popular programmes, but because they had poached a number of persons from One News.

PBS needed more financing, to become Public Media Services. The website had the potential to be the best, but needed more resources.

Mr Bonnici said The Times' portal, timesofmalta.com, was a success story, and today was a main source for news.

He concluded by putting forward a number questions. Was it acceptable that political parties remained the owners of channels, with absolute power over the news? Did the statement that political stations balanced each other still hold? Were there high standards when the main stations could not pay for quality and viewers had to be satisfied with what they were presented with? Finally, if a benchmark were to be set, would any channels still be broadcasting?

Franco Debono (PN) said that more coverage was given to politicians taking part in media programmes than to MPs' contribution in Parliament, and more resources should be allocated to the House. He questioned if it was time to explore whether Parliament should have its own adequate broadcasting service.

More resources should also be allocated to PBS to produce current affairs programmes. There was a lot of energy in PBS, and with more resources, better results would be achieved.

Dr Debono said that in a democratic society broadcasting has fundamental importance. Viewers were presented with role models and, therefore, if sensitive issues such as drugs were not treated well there might be adverse effects.

Certain programmes on TVM, produced by private enterprises, should be treated in a correct way. There were instances where so-called "experts" were no experts at all, and this was dangerous.

Concluding, Dr Debono said public broadcasting was a showcase of the country's culture and identity, and one should therefore be careful not to be driven by commercialism. While advertising revenue was very important to finance the station's activity, there should be standards to ensure the highest level of national broadcasting.

Winding up the debate, Parliamentary Secretary Jason Azzopardi said the Bill, albeit technical, was an important one. It gave the Broadcasting Authority the right to give licences for satellite television and radio broadcasting.

The amendments provided the chance for better regulation in the sector, and they were a practical example that the government was determined to adopt a policy which encompassed the digital divide.

A satellite station could broadcast to other countries, even though it was licensed in Malta. This was a new investment niche for financial gain to the country. However, stations would still have to follow local regulations and European directives.

There were lateral opportunities arising from the Bill because Malta could be promoted through advertisements on these stations.

The government was committed to giving more resources to PBS to update its technology. He did not agree with what he called "the persecution mania" which members of the opposition perceived in the news and in particular programmes aired on PBS. Statistics showed that there was no such concentration in PBS news and other programmes.

Concluding, Dr Azzopardi said Malta was making a step forward in technology.

The Bill was approved without a division.