Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Apr 1947

Vol. 105 No. 13

Committee on Finance. - Vote 62—Wireless Broadcasting (Resumed).

Mr. D. Morrissey

I regret that I was not in for the debate on this Estimate last night. There are just one or two points on which I should like to get some enlightenment from the Minister. I do not know whether the points have already been put to him. I should like, for instance, if the Minister would explain why, in the giving of the news relating to the business of this House when questions put and answered in the House are being dealt with, the name of the Deputy putting a question is always omitted and the name of the Minister answering the question is given. I do not know whether the other matter has already been referred to, but I have no intention of going into it, that is, regarding the very definite bias that is shown in giving political news or news of the business transacted in this House. That has become so notorious that I do not think it matters whether or not we refer to it here.

So far as the service itself is concerned, I think that we ought to have reached the stage in this country when we can have a better and a more continuous service than we are getting. I am not, of course, now referring to the curtailment of the programme which has been brought about by recent conditions, over which I know the Minister any more than anybody else had no control. But ordinarily I think that the people are entitled to get a more continuous service and I am not, I think, overstating it when I say that, even with the service we are getting, the people are not satisfied that the principal items in the ordinary service that we get from Radio Éireann are given at times when the majority of listeners would be free to listen to them.

I am not satisfied that better use could not be made of wireless here so far as the agricultural community are concerned. I think it is a service which could be used to greater advantage during the winter months—in the long winter evenings—to propagate news which would be of interest and of benefit to the farming community. I am not so sure that there are some features that we would not be better off without. Equally, I think there are a number of features which are barred by the Minister from the people and which, I think, the people want and are entitled to get.

I do not know to what extent, if any, the features given over the radio are a reflection of the Minister's own tastes with regard to music and so on. I would not like to decry in any way the value of what people call classical music. I do not know very much about music, but I am told that there is an unreasonable amount of the limited time which is utilised for broadcasting here devoted to features which, as large numbers of people say, are entirely over their heads. I find in rural areas, and perhaps it is natural enough, that the majority of the people want to get native music which, I suppose, they understand better than the other, and I find considerable numbers of farmers and farmers' sons who are anxious to keep abreast of every modern development which would help towards increased agricultural production.

I think it would be helpful and very instructive if we had over the radio from the experts who reside in this country short talks or lectures on modern developments tending towards an intensification in agricultural production. The utilisation to the best possible advantage of the limited fertilisers we have, the intelligent use of lime on certain classes of land, the varieties of cereals and root crops likely to give the best return from soil of a particular type or in different counties or parts of counties—all these things might be broadcast in an interesting fashion and unquestionably the information would be very useful to the agricultural community. I would not like to see what I am now suggesting carried out in the way in which we have been accustomed to get things from the Department of Agriculture. That is, in a general sort of way, as if the land in every county was the same, as if there was no difference whatever in the soils. We all know there is a vast difference, and a particular variety of seed that would be suitable for land in one parish would be quite unsuitable for the land in the next parish; what would be suitable in one field might not be suitable in another.

What I am endeavouring to convey to the Minister is that we should get through our radio a number of features that would be useful to the people generally. I would like the radio to be used for what I think everybody will agree is badly needed in this country, and that is to convey to our people, particularly those who are growing up, some sense of civic responsibility, some sense of respect for public property. We know that irresponsible children and, indeed, persons who are not children but who are still irresponsible, have, not only in the city here, but through various parts of the country, caused great damage to public property of one kind or another. I think responsibility of citizenship in this State is absolutely ignored. It is one of the things that we are lacking in and I think the wireless could be used, at least to some extent, to help in that direction. I think most Deputies will agree with me there.

I do not want to suggest that the wireless station should be used entirely for instructive purposes, if I might put it that way, as people look to it for a certain amount of relaxation but at certain periods of the year, and at certain times of the day, we could have, judiciously blended with the ordinary entertainment programme, some features that would be as I say instructive, useful and beneficial, not only to the individual but to the country as a whole. Our wireless station and its personnel are I think sufficiently long in existence now to be able to give us, having of course all the time regard to the size of the country and to our resources, as good a service as any other national broadcasting system. I do not think, as I say, that we are making the best use or the fullest use of it. I know that the Minister and that particular section of his Department, have, like other Departments, been carrying on under difficulties. I know their difficulties have not lessened since the war ended but at the same time I feel that we are not getting as much from this service as we might get from it. I know there are numerous complaints from people who pay an annual licence fee that they are not getting the worth of their money. That is a view to which I do not subscribe. I think that the annual licence fee is very reasonable and a very moderate one but it does bring in a rather substantial income in the year.

I do not know whether we have yet reached the stage that we are spending on the station even the amount realised from wireless licences. I think that the income from the service is the least that should be spent and, personally, I should be prepared, should it be necessary in order to derive the fullest benefit from the service, to vote any sum additional to that realised from the licence fees.

I do not know whether the position is still that which existed for many years, that artistes and other people whose services are utilised for broadcasting purposes have the complaint that they are very badly underpaid, and whether people are expected to come up from the country to take part in a particular feature, the recompense for that being two or three guineas. If so, I think it should be discontinued. If you want to get good service, whether on the wireless or in any other way, if you want to get the best man or the right man, you will have to pay for it. I think that if the wireless service were utilised to the fullest extent possible it could confer many benefits on the country as a whole.

Mr. Cogan

The outstanding development indicated by the Minister for the coming year is the provision of a new short-wave station. The Minister indicated that it is the intention of the broadcasting service to provide talks and entertainment for our people abroad. This opens up a very wide field for discussion and consideration. If we are to provide a big expansion of our broadcasting service, if we are to give a more frequent news service, if we are to give talks to our people abroad, in addition to providing entertainment, the question raised by Deputy Morrissey at the outset comes up for consideration. That question is: are we assured that through the broadcasting service all Parties in the State will receive fair treatment so far as the programmes are concerned? Broadcasting may be compared to the Press in a certain way. It provides news, information, and frequently a certain amount of entertainment.

The freedom of the Press is maintained because you have in every free country a number of newspapers competing against one another — rival papers, some privately owned, some owned, perhaps, by the Government or by the Party associated with the Government. In broadcasting you have just one service controlled by the Government and every section of the community has to contribute to the upkeep of that service. People who disagree with the Government on matters of policy have to pay licence fees just the same as supporters of the Government. It is, therefore, essential if we are to continue to have a national broadcasting service that we must have impartial administration, so far as all Parties and all political views are concerned.

I think the time has come when we should consider the setting up of a council, representative of all Parties in the State, to control our broadcasting service or, at least, advise in the control of our broadcasting service so as to ensure that people whose views are not in complete agreement with those of the Government, will get a fair voice in the service. Some people might say that the best way out of that difficulty is to have a kind of neutral broadcasting service, something similar to a Government Department, a service which confines itself only to the broadcasting of topics which are not the subjects of controversy. That kind of service, not only where news is concerned, but where comments on passing events and things of that sort are concerned, is certain to be a dead-and-alive affair.

You can imagine a newspaper run exclusively by civil servants. Such a newspaper would have to avoid offending any section of the community. The news contained in such a newspaper would be so could and dead that nobody at all would read it. The same is true of broadcasting. If you try to avoid contentious subjects, try to avoid offending anybody, you have got to confine yourself to very neutral subjects of discussion. I think that would not make for good broadcasting and would not make for a service which would hold the interest of people abroad. If we are going to have a short-wave station, to address, first of all, our Irish citizens and people abroad of Irish birth and, secondly, the citizens of other countries, and interest them in the affairs of this country, we shall have to speak on matters of topical interest, not only in this country but in every country in the world. If we have to do that, we cannot express a dead neutral point of view on all questions. This matter comes to my mind in regard to our Irish people in Great Britain. It is desirable that our broadcasting station, speaking to our people in Great Britain, should uphold the good name of this country, should seek to convince our people in Great Britain that this is a nation with a future and seek to inspire them with respect and admiration for their mother country. Until very recently, I was supplied, free of charge, with a newspaper which circulated amongst our Irish people in Great Britain. It is definitely a Communist organ, calling itself The Irish Democrat.

That paper has a wide circulation, and I think it is a terrible thing that our people in Great Britain, and particularly our young people, should be exposed to the type of propaganda contained in that paper and similar papers, without anything being done by our broadcasting station to counteract Communism. I think it is the duty of our broadcasting service to uphold the Christian concept of life and to fight Communism, and particularly to fight it when it seeks to win the support of our Irish-born people. There is no doubt whatever that the propaganda of the Communists in Great Britain, particularly when they call themselves the Connolly Association, and seek to win our young people over, will have a certain amount of effect. It is our duty to fight that, but we cannot fight it through a broadcasting service which is run as our present service is run. We must have a council representative of all responsible Parties in the country controlling the propaganda of our broadcasting service, and directed, as I say, to keeping the Irish Christian and national viewpoint before our people abroad.

Then, again, there is the question of utilising our broadcasting service to advance the cause of national unity. We cannot expect civil servants to direct a campaign in support of national unity, to fight to uphold Ireland's case and to contest all the contentious issues that may be raised in regard to Partition. There again a national council representative of all Parties in the country is essential, if such a world-wide propaganda campaign is to be directed by Radio Éireann. We must have people expressing the Irish viewpoint over the radio, people who are not confined exclusively to one Party and who are not paid officials of the State. A considerable amount of freedom must be recognised and accepted, and such a campaign will require the united and careful consideration of all Parties in the State. It is a national question, the biggest national issue facing us, and a question upon which all Parties in the State can and should co-operate. There can be no question of having only the viewpoint of Fianna Fáil in regard to Partition expressed by Radio Éireann. The national viewpoint must be expressed, and, for that reason, it is essential that machinery be set up to provide for the co-operation of all Parties.

It may be that the Minister will tell me that there is no intention to utilise this short-wave station to conduct a campaign for national unity. If that is so, I hold that the expenditure on a short-wave station is to a very large extent a waste of public money. We must use that short-wave station for national propagandist purposes. Propaganda is being used and will continue to be used against this nation outside this country, and it is the duty of the nation to counteract that propaganda and to put the Irish case clearly before the people of Great Britain and other nations. We may be told that if we set out to educate British public opinion in regard to this matter of national unity we are merely repeating what the various constitutional political Parties undertook in the past century, that we are merely repeating or reintroducing the policy which was discredited in 1916 or 1918. I do not quite agree with that view. I do not quite agree that the energy, the enthusiasm and the effort which was put into the work of educating British public opinion in regard to the Irish question by O'Connell and the other constitutional leaders who succeeded him was entirely wasted. I believe it contributed in very far-reaching measure to the ultimate independence of this country, and I believe that a campaign directed towards educating British public opinion in regard to our rights in the matter of national unity will also bear fruit.

It is essential that such a campaign must not be rushed into in a headlong or haphazard kind of way. It must be carefully considered and must receive the whole-hearted attention of every Irishman who has the interests of the Irish nation and the interests of Irish unity at heart. It must not be a haphazard, slapdash affair. Carefully considered and carefully directed, a propagandist campaign in support of Irish unity, appealing directly to the people of Northern Ireland and Great Britain, will bear fruit. Its message and its effort will be supported. I am sure, by our people in the United States.

Progress reported.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 1st May.