This motion was put down following my answers to three questions asked by Deputy Dr. Browne on 4th April, 1962 on matters in which I clearly had no function and which I suggested he should take up with the Authority. I was not breaking any new ground in making this suggestion. The same type of reply had been given to a number of other questions following the establishment of the Authority; and even during the period 1st January, 1953 to 31st May, 1960, when Comhairle Radio Éireann were responsible under the Minister for the broadcasting service, it was not unusual to invite Deputies to address their questions on programme matters to the Director of Broadcasting.
The motion as worded conveys the impression that I have unreasonably withheld information from Deputies in a large number of cases. What are the facts? Since the Authority was established on 1st June, 1960, I was asked 147 Parliamentary questions regarding radio and television matters. I replied to 126 of these questions, although many of them concerned matters in which I had no special function. There were only 21 cases where I said that I had no function or suggested that the Deputy address his inquiries to Radio Eireann. In other words, I gave the information in six out of seven cases. Does this record bear out the suggestion that I have been unreasonable in withholding information from Deputies? On the contrary, it seems to me that it could be held that I have been unreasonable in asking the Authority for information about matters of day-to-day administration or programming in order to enable me to reply to Deputies' questions.
Here I would like to point out that in the three years 1957 to 1959 the average annual number of Dáil questions on broadcasting matters was 23. Following the setting up of the statutory authority, one would have expected a drop in this number, even with the television service that was then initiated. The figures for recent years are, however, as follows:
1960
|
35
|
1961
|
32
|
1962
|
64
|
1963
|
42
|
(to date 20/11/63)
|
I suggest that the inference to be drawn from these figures is that some Deputies have been unreasonable in looking to me for information about broadcasting and television in view of my now limited function in these matters.
I entirely agree of course that all reasonable information should be supplied by the Minister to Deputies when requested and that has always been my practice. The question is: what is reasonable? Since the Broadcasting Authority Act was passed, I have never refused to supply information on any matter in which I had clearly a function. Difficulty has arisen only in relation to matters which fall primarily within the Authority's bailiwick.In replying to such Parliamentary questions, I have been as informative as possible on matters concerning general broadcasting policy and on matters which gave rise to public interest or concern. I have, however, suggested that other questions looking for detailed information about individual programmes etc. should be addressed to the Authority. Some Deputies apparently consider that this practice is contrary to assurances given by me during the debate on the Broadcasting Authority Bill, but I cannot agree that the quotations given by Deputy Corish in his speech on 12th November contain any such assurance.
The whole tenor of my remarks on the Bill was that broadcasting was a creative medium which was not suitable to a Civil Service form of organisation, with the detailed controls which are inherent in such organisations, and that the new Authority should be quite free to exercise its functions of providing a national television and sound broadcasting service, with power of intervention by the Minister or the Government confined to a small number of matters in which State interests must be safeguarded. Moreover, I stressed that the Authority would have the maximum freedom regarding programmes and matters of day-to-day administration. It would be quite inconsistent with this approach if the Minister were to supply information to Deputies on day-to-day matters which involve no question of general policy.
I mentioned already the position between 1953 and 1960 when Comhairle Radio Eireann were functioning. The appointment of that body made no change in the Minister's legal position but he announced that he intended to entrust them with the day-to-day policy of broadcasting and that he himself intended to intervene only in questions of important policy. He appealed at the same time to Deputies to refrain from asking Parliamentary questions about details of day-to-day broadcasting and to address their inquiries to the Director of Broadcasting and I am glad to say that Deputies, in general, did as he requested.
This was the position when I introduced the Broadcasting Authority Bill. In the circumstances I have described, is it conceivable that I should give the House an assurance that the entire working of the proposed new independent statutory authority could, with propriety, be raised here by way of Parliamentary question and answer? But whatever about assurances, the fact I would like to repeat is that since the Authority was established, there were only 21 cases out of 147 where I referred Deputies to Radio Éireann.
Deputy Corish may wish to be reminded of something he said during the debate on the Broadcasting Authority Bill. I quote from col. 610, volume 180 of the Official Report of 16th March, 1960 where the Deputy, referring to the position of fact at the time the Bill was introduced, said:
In his opening speech the Minister said that legally he was responsible for Radio Éireann, even for the day-to-day administration. I do not say that there was any malice in the evasion of the responsibility by this Minister or any of the past Ministers in regard to the day-to-day running of the station but I think it is desirable that the Authority should be transferred now on a legal basis to this Board which this Bill proposes to establish because I do not think it is desirable that the Minister should be questioned in this House, as he has been on many frivolous matters raised from time to time in regard to plays, items of news, songs or other programmes that Deputies thought were undesirable or offensive in any way.
At column 611 of the same volume, Deputy Corish said:
When the statutory body is established, any criticism had better be directed towards that body.
I would also like to refer to Deputy Dillon's remarks on the Committee Stage of the Bill when he felt that there was some ambiguity in an off the cuff reply I gave to a question asked by Deputy Dr. Browne when we were discussing the absence of a provision regarding censorship. At col. 1578 volume 180 of the Official Report for 31st March, 1960, Deputy Dillon said:
I rather imagine that we desire this Authority to have a certain quasi-autonomy while retaining in the Oireachtas the ultimate right to determine major issues of policy but that, in setting up the Authority, by implication, we divest ourselves of the claim to deal with each programme by way of Parliamentary question and answer as we are entitled to deal with the day-to-day administration of the Minister's Department by Parliamentary question and answer.
At cols. 1578 and 1579 of the same vol. I made the position quite clear. During the present debate, Deputy Corish quoted what I said at that time but I think it desirable to repeat portion of it here. I said:
I do not want any doubt to exist in regard to this matter. When Dr. Browne asked the question I assumed he was making reference to a programme that would be regarded by the people as generally objectionable. ...If such an objectionable programme were put out by our broadcasting service and our people took grave exception to it and so expressed themselves, I think it would be very hard for a Minister to resist a discussion on the matter in this House, a matter which was of vital interest and which so affected the moral standards of our people. It is true that the Authority will be an autonomous Authority and that the Minister will not have any interference whatsoever with the day-to-day programmes of that Authority but we have an overriding responsibility to our people in the matter referred to by Dr. Browne.
In other words, I felt that the Minister should have some responsibility in programme matters which are of wide general interest or concern.
I think it would be appropriate at this stage to quote what I said on section 31 of the Act which gives the Minister the power of veto. In col. 761 of volume 179 of the Official Report for 24th February, 1960, I said:
I should make it clear that this section is not intended to provide the Minister with a general power of censorship as the whole approach has been to place the minimum of restrictions on the Authority in the matter of programmes. However, the service to be provided will be a national one, and in the final analysis, there must be reserved to the Government some means of ultimate control over broadcasts which might be inimical to the national interest. The power is necessary for use in most exceptional cases and I am sure that no Minister would try to abuse it.
This power of veto has never yet been used.
Deputies will have seen Radio Éireann's third annual report and statement of accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1963 which was issued recently. These annual reports contain much useful information about the Authority's activities and I think that Deputies should refrain from asking Parliamentary questions on matters which are covered in them. I feel sure that if any Deputy has suggestions on how the reports could be improved or made more informative the Authority will be glad to receive them and will give them the most careful consideration.In this connection I have been assured by the Authority that Deputies are very welcome to visit the television studios at Donnybrook to see for themselves the conditions under which programmes are produced and to discuss their views on how the programmes can be improved with the Director-General and his staff.
I think Deputy McQuillan could take the matter up with the Director-General.He could write to him and say when he is going up to see him rather than depend upon his invitation, regardless of the manner in which it is sent out.
Deputy Corish referred to section 26 (2) of the Broadcasting Authority Act and asked whether the Authority had been asked to include in its annual report information on any particular aspect of its proceedings. I may tell the Deputy that following the issue of the Authority's first report my Department furnished some comments on how future reports could be improved and made more informative. It suggested, for instance, that more facts and figures should be given regarding programmes, advertisements, etc. Deputies will have noticed, I am sure, that the later reports are more informative.If I consider that further information on any particular point would be useful, I shall certainly use my power under this section to have the matter covered in the annual report.
Deputy Corish also referred to section 17 of the Act and quoted my reply to Deputy Treacy and Deputy Rooney on 30th October, 1962, regarding the use of Irish on Telefís Éireann. I thought at the time that my reply was a full and reasonable one and I am still of that opinion. It would seem that Deputy Corish's real criticism is not that I refused to give information on this matter but that I had not intervened to ensure that Telefís Éireann would do more than they were doing to promote the use of Irish. May I point out that, at the time these questions were asked, the television service was in operation for only ten months and that none of the provincial transmitters was in operation?I felt, therefore, that it was too early to criticise the Authority for failure in any particular direction.
Deputy Corish further referred to my reply of 4th April, 1962, to a question by Deputy Dr. Browne who wanted me to direct Telefís Éireann to reject advertisements for cigarettes on their programmes. I would not agree and in reply to a supplementary question, I said that the Oireachtas had taken this matter out of my hands and placed it in the hands of the Authority. Deputy Corish objects to my saying that I have no responsibility in this matter. I would like to point out that my only function in relation to advertisments is that under section 20 (3) of the Act the total daily time fixed for advertisements and the distribution of that time throughout the programmes require my approval.