Nobody has ever suggested that this tax was for the purpose of protecting an industry. It has been clearly stated on previous occasions here that the intention is to raise the necessary revenue to bridge the gap between the revenue received from licence duties and the expenditure. Deputy Cooper has taken a new line— a line which is uncommon in connection with the agitation which we have had on this question for the last four or five months. It has, to me at any rate, the advantage of being an honest facing up to the facts. He has not, for instance, argued that by the abolition of this import duty such a wide extension of sales will materialise that the necessary revenue will be secured. He frankly admits that is not the case, and his plea is therefore one rather for the Minister for Finance than for me. I am not concerned, beyond the position of an ordinary Deputy, with expenditure from the Central Fund, except to express my own view, that I think it would be wrong to take money from the national exchequer for a specialised purpose of entertainment like this. I know there are at least a few countries where this is done, and that strong arguments can be put forward in favour of a State subsidy. If we could afford to spend the money nobody would be more pleased to see it spent in this way than I would. It is an excellent thing to find the homes of the people brightened, and an equally excellent thing to find that a medium has been provided for the State whereby information—the truthful reflection of the events of everyday life—may be radiated as we are now beginning to do.
Beyond that I have nothing to say to Deputy Cooper's points except this: that few will agree with his theory that a high-power station is not necessary. In the absence of a high-power station, the poorer people who are outside the limited circle covered by the Dublin and Cork stations, would be entirely ostracised. This high-power station is their only hope. They cannot afford valve sets, and a high-power station is indispensable to them. The valve set user without doubt would have preferred if the number of competitors in the atmospheric realm were reduced to the minimum. But the valve user is the exception, and we must necessarily cater for the majority. In providing a high-power station we are catering for the overwhelming majority.
It would be well if Deputy Heffernan would permit himself to be corrected when he suggests that the station we have in contemplation for Athlone will not provide for that majority within the entire radius of the station. It will as a matter of fact. Its radiation will extend to a guaranteed 80 miles, and, from experience, to a certain 100 miles. Taking the points of the compass from Athlone, one will at once see that only a very small circle, and as we know in practice, no part of this country will be outside it. Therefore, in providing this station—the provision of which depends on the collection of this money, as pointed out here by the Minister for Finance in his Budget statement—we are doing a real service to the poor man, and, in the absence of it, wireless would remain something foreign and unknown to him.
Deputy Thrift has adopted quite a different line—one familiar to those who have been following this controversy for a long time past. I hope from the figures which I have here to convince him that, in the absence of a subvention from the Minister for Finance, the working of broadcasting, as we now find it, would be impossible. Last year our revenue from licences—on the ten-shilling basis, of course—amounted to £11,151—otherwise, something over 22,000 licences. The expenditure reached something like £28,000. The difference between the revenue from licence fees and the expenditure was made up from £19,000 received from this much-debated import duty, leaving a slight balance as against an inherited loss. The position as regards broadcasting to date is that we have a couple of thousand pounds to our credit. Next year the anticipated current expenditure—not including capital expenditure —is £38,415. In addition to that, on the assumption that the Galway and Athlone stations are proceeded with, as now intended, provision is sought for an additional £25,800 capital. That does not concern the House. At any rate, the point we have to bear in mind is that for the coming year the current expenditure will be £38,415. Of this sum we count on securing £20,000 from licence fees, and it is not too optimistic to hope that £18,000 should be secured from import duties. In other words, on the assumption that these two sums of £20,000 from the licence fees and £18,000 from the import duties materialise, we shall be able to pay our way. It will be noted that in this calculation no provision is made for the payment of interest or repayment of principal in connection with this contemplated capital expenditure, but that will be a small item.
We have come to this: that by the arrangement in vogue we are in a position to pay our way. I believe that broadcasting ought to pay its way. It is sufficiently advanced now to do so. I may further say that when the subject of broadcasting was discussed some four or five years ago by a special committee, the public generally, with very few exceptions, rushed to the conclusion that we had in this matter an El Dorado—something that the private investors were going to make a fortune by—and that it was a great shame to contemplate handing it over to a private investor. Now we see the kind of El Dorado it has proved itself to be. We have learned quite a lot, and in the direction pointed out by my Department at the time. We have got in this particular instance to make up £38,415, and on a maximum calculation the licence fees for the current year will produce £20,000 of that sum, leaving a balance of £18,000. Eighteen thousand pounds would mean 36,000 extra licences. Deputy Thrift believes that by the removal of the import duty we will add 36,000 to our present numbers. In other words, that whilst the present number is 40,000—I mean that by the end of the year we believe it will be that—the removal of this one-third import duty would during that period result in practically a 100 per cent. addition. I do not believe that.
I have heard similar arguments put forward in regard to other matters in other places. I have heard it argued time and again that a reduction of the letter postage to 1½d. would not result in any loss of revenue. In England that reduction resulted in an increase of 2½ per cent. in correspondence. There is a big difference between 2½ per cent. and the 25 per cent. anticipated. The result in this case would, perhaps, work out in the same way. I am not prepared to chance it except everybody is agreed that if it does not materialise the stations must be prepared so to curtail their programmes as to work within the limits of revenue. That, I think, would be unfortunate and undesirable. There is no prospect whatever of producing through this particular source anything like £38,000. We might add a few thousand pounds to the £20,000—we might come up to £23,000 or £24,000—but we could not carry on broadcasting with that sum. The balance must be made up in some way.
I have made a proposal to some of the enthusiasts behind this abolition proposal, to the effect that if they are so satisfied that the removal of the import duty will result in such a wide increase in sales and receipts from licences, it would not be unreasonable to expect the big combines which they represent to guarantee that fact by a cheque, and if a deficiency arises that they should make it up. They are the only people to make anything by this. No doubt they will sell some more sets. They believe themselves they will sell many more. If they do, well and good. If it is a case of selling many more, and if the thing works out all right, then they do not lose; but if it does not, under the present arrangement we lose and they gain. I think my proposal is a very fair one. They argue that if the import duty were done away with there would be such an increase in the sale of sets that the revenue would be made up. In return I say: "If that is so, you represent very big companies, and £18,000 is a small matter to you; then plank it down and that will finish the matter." That is a fair test. There is no other test worth arguing about.
There is just one other point. In England, after four years of continued development—development supported by big finance and in very favourable surroundings—the number of licencees had, up to the end of March, reached about 2,200,000. On that basis, our population should, in three or four years from now, have about 145,000 sets. I do not believe that development here will be so rapid as that. I think our people are somewhat slower to take on a matter like broadcasting than the people of England, where technical matters are more a part of daily life. I hope I am wrong, but I must be permitted to express the view that within the next four years the total number of holders of sets in this country will not exceed 100,000. The Minister for Finance shares that view also. His Department and mine went into the matter fully, and we concluded that within the next four years it would be safe to hope that the number of wireless sets in the State would be about 100,000. At the end of this financial year, on my calculation, we will have no less than 40,000 sets in the State. In other words, we shall have reached 40 per cent. of our development after two years. That is not checking development. It is very rapid development—40 per cent. in two years. There is nothing to cry about there. To suggest, on the other hand, as Deputy Thrift has, I think, suggested, that we should meet expenditure during the current year by a 10/- licence fee——