When progress was reported on the last occasion this Bill was before this House, I was explaining to the Dáil my reasons why the amendment in my name should be accepted in preference to the sub-section as it stands. I indicated that the section was dangerously wide and that it enabled this news agency to be operated for the dissemination of news within the jurisdiction of the State. I pointed out what I considered to be an objection to that in view of the observations made by the Minister on the Second Reading of the Bill, and the Minister invited me to quote what he had said on the Second Reading of the Bill with regard to that. I find the Minister's observations reported in column 843 of the Dáil Debates of Wednesday, 13th July, 1949, Volume 117, No. 6:—
"I want to make it quite clear that it is inevitable that in any publicity, inside or outside the country, statements made by the Taoiseach or by myself, as Minister for External Affairs, are bound to get more publicity than any other statements."
Those were the observations of the Minister to which, speaking from recollection, I drew the attention of the House and I find that my recollection was quite good with regard to what the Minister did say. What perturbed me about that is that at that stage of the Bill the Minister should consider it desirable or necessary to make such an observation that in any publicity inside or outside the country statements made by himself or by the Taoiseach were bound to get more publicity than any other statement. Obviously the Minister must have been giving some consideration to the value of the news agency from the point of view of publicity for the Taoiseach and for himself because otherwise I could not imagine a statement like that being made on the Second Stage of the Bill. I think that the Minister made that statement clearly so that if in the future there are objections or comment about propaganda or publicity given by the news agency he would be in a position to say: "Well, I warned the House clearly on the Second Reading of the Bill that it was inevitable that statements made by me were bound to get more publicity than other statements." This House would then be faced with the position that having heard that very clear statement from the Minister they had given him the Second Reading of the Bill. I think, therefore, that it is undesirable and dangerous to agree to the sub-section as it stands, which says that the principal function of the agency shall be to ensure the collection, dissemination, publication and distribution of news and intelligence inside and outside the State. My amendment would probably be too restrictive because it would limit the agency to articles and news of a high literary and cultural standard in the interests of the Republic of Ireland outside the State. When, again on the Second Stage of the Bill, the Minister was queried as to what this news agency would produce he said, reported in the same volume on the same date at column 841:—
"I consider that the news agency, when in operation, should aim at issuing approximately anything from 500 to 1,000 words a day, reckoned with a view to the particular market where it is directed. The news items should be selected to be of interest in the particular part of the world to which they are being sent."
It was the Minister's view—and I take it that he had given some consideration to the matter—that this elaborate news agency would produce 500 to 1,000 words a day and that is not what one would call extensive writing. I make a rough calculation that it would be about 750 to 800 words, in other words there would be produced by this news agency the amount of print that fits in one page of the Official Reports. There are approximately 800 words in one page of the Official Reports. The Minister, therefore, visualised at that stage of the Bill that this elaborate machinery, which incidentally is going to cost us £25,000 a year, will produce an article each day about the size of one page of the Official Debates. I felt that if that is the limit of production visualised by the Minister then clearly, on the lines of my amendment, it should be of a high literary and cultural standard. I do not think it is asking too much of the gentlemen or ladies that the Minister will find to govern, advise and operate this news agency. I think that the House should know clearly at this stage whether the Minister has revised his thoughts and views regarding the productive capacity of the news agency since he made that declaration on the Second Reading. If he has not, this 500 to 1,000 words a day will cost roughly £500 a week and allowing people of the standard and quality the Minister has in mind to work a five-day week this production of 800 words will cost £100 a day. If it is reasonable to ask for £100 a day, for 800 words, we ought to have a very high literary and cultural standard and that should be insisted on. It is for those reasons that I put down that limitation in the amendment to which I am now speaking.
At any rate, whether the Minister will continue to work on the lines of his original estimate or not, I think it is particularly dangerous to have the very wide powers that are contained in the section.