Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 3 Aug 1923

Vol. 4 No. 24

INTOXICATING LIQUOR BILL. - WIRELESS BROADCASTING.

If time permitted, I think the question I am raising could be raised by a question or series of questions. The matter arose only in yesterday's papers, and I had not time to deal with the matter by way of question. This advertisement appeared in yesterday's paper:—

"The Postmaster-General invites applications from Irish persons or firms who are prepared, under licence from him, to undertake the establishment and operation of a `Broadcasting' Station in Dublin for the supply to the public, by means of wireless telephony, of concerts, lectures, theatrical entertainments, speeches, weather reports, etc. No application will be considered which has not been received on or before the 20th August.

"Applications should be addressed to:—

"THE SECRETARY,

"General Post Office,

"Dublin."

In the same paper appears a paragraph which states:—

"The Postmaster-General has had several conferences with the Irish firms interested in broadcasting, and has placed before them an outline of the scheme which he would be disposed to sanction. The firms in question have, however, failed to agree among themselves, and the Postmaster-General is therefore reconsidering the situation. In the meantime applications from any genuine manufacturing firms, who have not hitherto applied, will be received."

I have good reason to believe that that paragraph was sent out from the Postmaster-General's Office. One would have thought that that advertisement should have appeared in the papers before the conference. I do not know the firms with whom the Postmaster-General has had a conference. I do not know the method he employed in selecting them, and I do not know what method he adopted to find out what firms were interested in broadcasting in this country. Some time ago I was approached by two groups of people in Dublin who wished to start a broadcasting company. They asked me if I could find out some particulars from the Postmaster-General. I interviewed him several times, and I am sorry he is not in his place. He suggested that it might possibly be taken up by the Government as a monopoly. He was not prepared to make any statement with regard to broadcasting and listening-in, but he also told me immediately any arrangements were being made he would inform me. He has not done so. I do not know what the intentions of the Government or the Postmaster-General may have been, but I think I may be pardoned for assuming that if those firms with whom he had conference had not failed to agree that the Dáil would have been presented with what Mr. De Valera would call a fait accompli, without having one word of hint from the Postmaster-General as to what his intentions were. When the British broadcasting company was being established, Mr. Kellaway, the British Postmaster-General, kept the British House of Commons informed step by step as the negotiations proceeded. It was a very necessary thing in view of the fact that the Government were involved in agreements, licences and concessions in every single step of the Bill. The Postmaster-General is reported to have submitted a scheme which he would be disposed to accept. Would it be any harm if the Dáil were to know that scheme? I do not think business of such magnitude as broadcasting, which is going to involve the expenditure of a large amount of capital, is going to be dealt with in a hole and corner manner by the head of a Department without the knowledge of the Dáil. The last sentence in the paragraph is “In the meantime applications from any genuine manufacturing firms, who have not hitherto applied, will be received.” That paragraph is probably the result of confusion in the mind of the person who dictated it as to the difference between broadcasting and listening-in, or reception. I think everybody knows that broadcasting is the sending out of the messages, and listening-in is the reception of the messages. So far as manufacturing is concerned it does not enter broadcasting to any great extent, but the manufacturing of the instruments for the reception and listening-in is a very big industry. It would seem that there is an attempt to make the firm who gets the concession for the manufacture of the broadcasting instruments, the manufacturer also for the reception or listening-in apparatus. If that is so there are two dangers. The Postmaster-General, if that is his idea, is creating or endeavouring to create a monopoly. I do not think that is his intention. I rather think that is a matter of confusion. Not alone would he create a monopoly, but you and I and every citizen of the State, who has to pay for his licence will have to pay more for their sets, and you will encourage the manufacturer of amateur sets which will pay no licence. You can take up any technical paper in England and you can find there sets advertised for 5 guineas up to £25, say, for an ordinary serviceable set of 150 to 200 miles range. When the British Broadcasting Company were starting they did not ask for a monopoly for manufacture. A group of representatives of these manufacturing firms came together; they took the risk; they spent several hundred thousand pounds on the broadcasting business, and they did not ask that these firms should have a monopoly. They welcomed competition with all other manufacturers, and they let everyone who wanted to make these machines make them and sell them, provided that they got the royalty. At the present time in Ireland there is no firm which manufactures these sets. It will be a long time before they manufacture them, and if you had a firm in Ireland to manufacture the sets, I wonder then, does the Postmaster-General know that there are 700 patents involved, and to get the use of these patents will, practically, mean 700 arrangements with the patentees. Unless you are only going to broadcast “Phil the Fluter's Ball” and “Bonnie Mary of Argyle,” you have got to have agreements with Press Agencies, the Composers' Association, the Playwrights' Association, the Stock Exchange, the Commercial and Maritime Agencies, for political and general information, and the Meteorological Society for weather reports, and so on.

I would like to know whether the Postmaster-General will place a scheme before the House. I think a Committee of the House should be formed to go into and report upon how the Broadcasting business is to be started here. Any company started here in Ireland at the present time would have to be satisfied to lose money for several months. The loss would gradually become less as the number of users increased. I shall be glad to know if the Postmaster-General would appoint a committee so that he could give the House all the information possible.

The Postmaster-General is, unfortunately, absent on important business, and he has left me the legacy of his proof. I take it that the Deputy will have no objection to my giving his reply to the House. He says:

After the transfer of the Post Office Services from the British Government on the 1st April, 1922, permits for the installation and working of Wireless receiving apparatus were issued by the Irish Postmaster-General to experimenters and other persons who complied with the conditions laid down as regards the apparatus and aerial to be used and on payment of a fee of 10s. a year. On the outbreak of the disturbances in the country in July, 1922, these permits were withdrawn at the request of the Military Authorities and all persons in possession of wireless apparatus were required to surrender it to the Post Office for safe custody. The sale, importation or manufacture of wireless apparatus was also prohibited. This general prohibition against the use of wireless apparatus has not yet been removed. For some time past, however, special permits have been given on specified conditions with the approval of the military authorities for wireless receiving demonstrations at fetes and other entertainments organised for charitable and public objects.

Applications were received from some Irish and British firms for a licence for the establishment of a Broadcasting station in the Free State. The consideration of the British applications has been deferred for the present, but in order that all persons or firms in Ireland interested in the matter might have an opportunity of having their claims considered, notifications were made in the Press inviting applications.

Numerous applications were received, and after examination and sifting three main companies were left. As it was considered that only one Broadcasting station, which should be in Dublin, was warranted if there was to be a reasonable chance of success the firms were asked to confer together with a view to uniting in a joint scheme.

The parties having failed to agree on a plan of co-operation the Postmaster-General summoned them to a Conference and laid down the general conditions on which he would be prepared to grant a licence for broadcasting. These were as follows:—

1. That a Broadcasting Company should be formed with a guaranteed capital of not less than £30,000, which would undertake to erect and operate a Broadcasting Station in Dublin.

2. That the Company should be open to any bona fide firm or person carrying on business of manufacturing wireless apparatus in the Free State on taking one or more shares in the Company. The Board of Directors should consist of seven members nominated by the constituent Companies.

3. That the licence should be for five years and to be renewable thereafter at the pleasure of the Postmaster-General. Power would be reserved to terminate the licence at any time for failure to fulfil its conditions.

4. That the importation of wireless sets or component parts of sets should be confined to the Company and its members.

5. That the Company would be at liberty to manufacture and sell wireless receiving apparatus and would receive a share of the fee to be charged by the Post Office for licences in accordance with the following scale:—

Ordinary Licence Fee, £1 a year. Company's share, 12s. 6d.

Private Constructor Fee, £2 a year. Company's share, 32s. 6d.

Schools and Institutions Fee, £1 a year. Company's share, 12s. 6d.

Hotels, Restaurants, Public Houses, &c. Fee, £5 a year. Company's share, £4 10s.

Occasional Licence Fee, £1 each. Company's share, 12s. 6d.

Traders' or Dealers' Fee, £1 a year. Company's share, £1.

Amusement Purveyors' Fee, £1 a week. Company's share, 90 per cent.

These terms were found to be generally acceptable to the three firms referred to, but while two of them were willing to join in the formation of the proposed Broadcasting Company they could not see their way to co-operate with the third party. The Postmaster-General met the representatives of the firms in a further Conference and endeavoured to induce them to reconsider their attitude, but without success. He explained that he could not grant a licence to a Company which sought to exclude another Company from participating in the concession, and stated that unless agreement were reached he would have to terminate the negotiations and consider the whole question again. As agreement between the three firms has not been reached the whole matter is now being reconsidered and further applications are being invited. In the meantime it is not possible to release wireless apparatus generally.

I may add the Postmaster-General also said that if the statement was unsatisfactory, or if the Deputy was not perfectly satisfied, he would undertake to meet him and go into the matter with him.

The statement is not satisfactory. First of all, £30,000 is not sufficient, and secondly, what I feared would occur has occurred as indicated in the last portion of the statement. The Minister by only allowing this Company to do Broadcasting would allow them to import all their machinery and they can get for that any price they like. You will encourage the manufacture of this machinery from which you will get no revenue. I think also the Postmaster-General was quite wrong in picking out three or four firms and suggesting that he would come to terms with them without giving other people any opportunity of coming forward and saying what they were willing to do. I think the answer is most unsatisfactory.

Before we pass from this I should like to say a word or two. I knew nothing at all about this until within the last week or ten days, when certain of the people concerned came to me with regard to the matter. I am quite prepared to discuss this at any time very fully, but I am perfectly sure that it ought to be postponed and nothing done until we have a new Dáil. I urge that very strongly and for reasons which I say frankly I do not want to bring in here now. I feel very strongly on this matter, but I leave it at that, that no action whatever should be taken until a new Dáil is elected, and that no action should be taken until the consent of the Dáil is first got.

Top
Share