Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 11 Mar 1952

Vol. 129 No. 11

Committee on Finance. - Vóta 58—Gnóthai Eachtracha.

An tAire Gnóthaí Eachtracha (Proinsias Mac Aogáin)

Tairgim:—

Go ndeonfar suim fhorlíontach nach mó ná £10 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfas chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1952, chun Tuarastal agus Costas Oifig an Aire Gnóthaí Eachtracha agus Seirbhísí áirithe atá faoi riaradh na h-Oifige sin (Uimh. 16 de 1924) lena n-áirítear Deontas-i-gCabhair.

Ní gá dhom mórán a rá ar an meastachán Forlíontach seo. Tá costas £25,000 sa bhreis orainn ach shábhálamar an méid sin beagnach.

Nil dá lorg againn ach deich bpúint.

There is no great necessity, I think, for me to make any long statement on this particular Estimate. There is an increase in cost in certain sub-heads of the Department of £25,000, but against that, Appropriations-in-Aid increased by £500, and with savings on other sub-heads, there is a total of £24,990, leaving only a nominal sum of £10 to be met at this stage. The principal reason for this Supplementary Estimate for the news agency is that last year, when the Estimate was being brought forward, a sum of £25,000 was included for the cost of the news agency. At that time the board estimated that it would be £37,000, but since then costs have gone up to a total of £45,000. I am asking the Dáil to give an additional £20,000 in this supplementary. As Deputies will have seen from the Book of Estimates, there is a sum included in it for next year. We can, on that, debate the news agency in detail, and debate the whole policy. I think it would be inappropriate to do it on a Supplementary Estimate.

The other sub-head, however, is something new, and Deputies may want to know what it is all about. It is the contribution towards the technical assistance programme of the U.N.O. for which a sum of £5,000 is being asked. This sum is really in respect of a subscription which should have been given in the last financial year. Through inadvertence it was not included and we now have to make provision for it in the current financial year. The Estimate arises out of a decision of the Government on 11th July, 1950, to contribute a sum of £5,000 to the United Nations expanded programme of technical assistance. That decision was notified to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 14th July, 1950. It was necessary to pay the sum promised and, therefore, it was paid out of the Contingency Fund, and we are now asking the Dáil to reimburse that fund by means of this Supplementary Estimate.

The United Nations expanded programme of technical assistance arose out of consideration by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations of the manner in which effect could be given to President Truman's "Fourth Point." This point was enunciated by President Truman in January, 1949, during the course of his inaugural address as President of the United States. He described it as

"a bold new programme for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of under-developed areas."

In the course of his address he invited other countries to pool their technological resources in this undertaking and urged that.

"this should be a co-operative enterprise in which all nations work together through the United Nations and it specialised agencies wherever practicable."

Following consideration of this matter, the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations adopted a resolution by virtue of which the Secretary-General of the United Nations put on foot an examination, both by the United Nations itself and by the specialised agencies, of potential fields and types of technical assistance with a view to drawing up programmes for such assistance. The specialised agencies, which undertook this examination, were the International Labour Organisation (I.L.O.), the Food and Agricultural Organisation (F.A.O.), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (U.N.E.S.C.O.), the International Civil Organisation (I.C.A.O.), and the World Health Organisation (W.H.O.). Ireland is a member of nearly all these organisations with the exception of U.N.E.S.C.O., or the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. It is not, of course, a member of the United Nations itself.

The results of the work undertaken by the United Nations and the specialised agencies on this subject were incorporated in a report issued by the United Nations early in 1950. This publication outlined certain schemes for assistance of a technical nature to under-developed areas to be undertaken by the United Nations proper on the one hand and each of the specialised agencies, in its own particular sphere, on the other. The report also gave an estimate of the cost of the schemes in each of the first two years of the operation of the programme as approximately 37,000,000 dollars for the first year and 52,000,000 for the second.

Technical assistance in this context means a programme of assistance through the use of expert technicians working with the authorities of the countries concerned to find out what needs to be done, how it can be done and showing how they can do it themselves. While definite standards were not laid down to determine what are "under-developed areas" the area of operations of the United Nations programme is Latin America, the Near, Middle and Far East and Africa. The yardstick of measurement adopted is the average annual income per head and on this basis the generally accepted dividing line between "under-developed" and "developed" is 100 dollars per head income. The Irish figure, as Deputies are aware, was in 1939 about 266 dollars and in 1950 338 dollars.

The programme was launched at the United Nations conference held in New York on 4th June, 1950. Ireland was represented at this conference by invitation from the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The conference was attended by representatives of nations comprising the greater part of the non-Communist world. At this conference a total fund of slightly over 20,000,000 dollars was voluntarily pledged for the financing of the programme for the first period of operation, which was the period to end on 31st December, 1952-53.

So far as this country was concerned, the Government at the time recognised that the programme could not be of any direct advantage to us, that we required the full use of all our resources for home development and, indeed, were calling to a considerable extent for this purpose on technical assistance from the United States. For that reason it was the view of the Government that, while this country would wish to associate itself with what was clearly an important international objective in the development of the under-developed areas of the world, our material contribution to this objective could not be more than a goodwill contribution. On this basis, the Government in July, 1950, pledged, on behalf of this country, in respect of the first period of operation of the programme, a contribution of £5,000 and, in addition, assistance in principle by way of training and research in the fields of agriculture and medicine.

While this country does not derive any direct benefits from this programme, we do, of course, secure some indirect advantage therefrom as a member of the specialised agencies, the F.A.O., I.L.O., I.C.A.O., etc., to which funds flow from the programme. It is in our interest that these specialised agencies should be fostered and strengthened.

The programme is to be continued throughout 1952 by virtue of a resolution adopted by the Economic and Social Council on 30th August, 1951. A United Nations meeting, similar to that held in June, 1950, was held in Paris on 6th February, 1952, to deal with the financing of the programme for that year. This country was represented at the conference by invitation from the Secretary-General of the United Nations and pledged a contribution for 1952 identical with that pledged for the period ended 31st December, 1951, i.e., £5,000 with, in addition, an offer in principle of assistance by way of training in the fields of agriculture and medicine. Provision for the contribution of £5,000 has been made in the Estimate for the Vote for International Co-operation for the year 1951-52.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think the time has arrived when the operations of the news agency should be reviewed. When the news agency was established it was understood that it would not compete with newspapers in the dissemination of news that the newspapers ordinarily supply. I understand that that practice has since been departed from and the news agency has extended its operations into other spheres.

Deputies will recall that when the Bill to establish this agency was being passed through the Oireachtas the present Tánaiste, then Deputy Lemass, described the proposal to establish the agency as a joke and a fraud. The present Taoiseach, then Deputy de Valera, described the scheme as not practical. When the present Fianna Fáil Government assumed office, or some time subsequent to that date, I endeavoured to elicit from the Minister for External Affairs what the intentions of the Government were in relation to the future of the news agency. He stated at that time that it was proposed to continue the agency in operation in order to endeavour to earn a profit. The agency has been almost two years in operation and the proposed Supplementary Estimate, though perhaps a small sum, is in effect an additional sum of £20,000 for the news agency for this year.

I believe that the time has arrived when we should consider whether there is any justification for continuing the news agency at all. In order to take a decision on that matter it is essential to ascertain whether the news agency's services are availed of by any of the foreign Press representatives and if so, are the reports submitted by the news agency published abroad. Does the news agency supply to Irish papers news not already available to them or is the news agency merely an adjunct to the sources of information already available to the Irish newspapers? In addition, it is necessary to inquire whether the expenditure at present incurred by the news agency is justified in any circumstances. As I understood the original proposal, the news agency was to operate on a modest scale. Since then, I understand that one large office in Fleet Street—I suppose it is not an inappropriate street for a news agency to operate from—is utilised for the purposes of the agency and since the agency started a second office in Grafton Street has been acquired.

I think the House is entitled to know how many persons are employed by the agency and how many have been retained in the services of the agency since it was established and where were they recruited from. The information supplied in the annual report gives comparatively little information which could be availed of in order to enlighten anyone anxious to discover what the actual position is.

Leaving aside the cost of the present agency, present circumstances pose the question whether the country can afford the luxury of a news agency and, if so, whether the present Government agree with the proposal to continue the news agency in being and whether it is correct to describe the news agency as a joke and a fraud.

I believe that the House would like to be informed in what way the news agency has now become a practical proposition and if the present Government still adheres to the view expressed by the Tánaiste during the course of the passage of the Bill to establish the news agency when he announced that against frauds and fakes of that sort they promised continuous and undying opposition. The House would like to be informed when that decision was reversed and the circumstances in which it was reversed.

We know it may be stated that, when the News Agency Bill was passed, Deputies on this side of the House supported it. That is perfectly true, but having watched the operations of the agency since it was established almost two years ago, I think Deputies are satisfied that the operations should be reviewed. A number of Deputies are convinced that the country can no longer justify the operations of the news agency and that what was originally an experiment has not proved to be a success and that there is no real justification for continuing the news agency.

Further, it is, of course, a fact that this money is required to meet existing commitments but I should like to hear from the Minister whether it is proposed to continue the news agency in the coming year? From the book of Estimates it appears that it is proposed to continue the operations. If it is proposed to continue it, has the Government recanted on the stated policy as enunicated by Deputy Lemass then in opposition and does the Government accept the news agency as a practical proposition?

Mr. Burke

Deputy Cosgrave struck a rather peculiar note this evening in dealing with this Estimate. He pointed out that we were definitely opposed to the News Agency Bill going through. We were but if we were to follow Deputy Cosgrave's argument to its logical conclusion it would mean that every time there was a change of Government every scheme to which the incoming Government were opposed should be scrapped. It was in that way, of course, that the Government which took over office in 1948 scrapped a number of very practical schemes initiated by Fianna Fáil. If democracy is to survive at all and if ordinary parliamentary procedure is to survive longer than the individual, the sensible way to approach matters of this kind is to allow Bills, passed by a previous Administration, a fair trial on a change of Government, particularly if those Bills have already become law. Deputy Cosgrave's argument seems to be that every time there is a change of Government every scheme of the previous Administration must be destroyed without giving it due consideration and examination.

The Minister for External Affairs stated that this matter would be dealt with on another Vote and that he was only looking for a Supplementary Estimate in respect of the year that has already passed. He is not dealing with policy. I think the Minister is to be congratulated on his wisdom because the Opposition would be very hostile towards him if, directly on assuming office, he had, by one stroke of the pen, put the news agency, as set up by his predecessor, out of commission altogether. I think history will prove that the attitude of the Minister for External Affairs was right. He has established a favourable record for himself by doing this. He was opposed to the news agency as was his Party, but the Minister desired the news agency to have an opportunity of proving its usefulness to the whole nation. Exercising that wisdom of his, he gave the news agency an opportunity of surviving whereas the Government established in 1948 could not tear down quick enough the practical schemes that Fianna Fáil had in operation—schemes that were of the utmost advantage to the country. That was done through some vicious hatred or other. It was done because the schemes were established by their predecessors. Anything that Fianna Fáil attempted to do for the good of the country was bad in the view of the Opposition and the Opposition approached the matter in that way. I think Parties should have grown up by now. The wisdom and foresight of the Minister for External Affairs in giving the news agency an opportunity of proving its usefulness or otherwise is very praiseworthy. He has been a good example to the members of the Opposition—an example they wanted badly—for the tactless way in which they have torn down a number of the practical schemes initiated by Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Dunne

I feel sure that the Minister for External Affairs is duly gratified by that able defence from Deputy Burke.

I always have believed and always will believe that a national news agency of this kind is a highly desirable organisation, and something which the country should have in order that its views on important subjects may be disseminated throughout the world and in order too that Irish news of a general character may be presented to the world through the Press of the world in a fashion which will do credit to this nation and to the journalists of this nation. I feel that it could not be visualised at any period that this project should become a profit-making concern. I think it would be totally unreal for us to imagine that it could, at any stage of our development, be self-sufficient or pay for itself. In my view, all we can hope from the Irish News Agency is that it will do a very good job in accordance with the traditions and outlook of our own people.

The question I want to put to the Minister is this: "Is he satisfied that, during the last six or eight months, the news agency has done a satisfactory job in the presentation of news for foreign consumption?" I have my doubts. I will come in a moment to so-called news being released from this country by the news agency which can have no other effect but to bring Irish journalism and, indeed, the reputation of our nation as a whole into contempt. It is from that point of view that I would like the Minister to examine what has been happening with regard to the news agency and to decide what will be the policy for the future.

I am about to quote now from an Irish News Agency dispatch released in Fleet Street on November 3rd of last year. It is headed: "Fairy Fort Stays—30 Houses Go. Ballynanty Beg, Limerick, Saturday, Irish News Agency." It goes:—

"Limerick City Mayor, Matthew Macken, declared to-day—‘If I have to get a gun to defend the fort, I will certainly do it.' He was referring to a circular mound believed locally to be the headquarters of Limerick leprechauns, which this week caused the partial hold-up of the new housing scheme. It started on Monday when workmen employed by Limerick Corporation to build 475 houses refused to clear the mound on the site because it was a fairy fort. Limerick City Mayor, Macken, investigated the matter and then announced: ‘We will have to give in to the fairies. We have decided to leave the fort standing.' The men resumed work on condition that they would not have to touch the mound.

Said corporation overseer, John McNamara: ‘The people of Limerick will not go within miles of the fort. Several members of the bulldozer crew said they saw leprechauns making shoes there that night.'"

It must have been on Monday morning that they saw them. I will continue the quotation:—

"Previously, the corporation brought men in from the adjoining County Clare, but strange things happened to them when they tried to build houses near the fort.

Said Overseer McNamara: ‘They built a few house gables, but next morning not one of the gables was standing.' Other people recalled queer things that happened during recent years at the fairy fort. Farmer Collins owned the land on which the fort stands and was forced to sell it Said he: ‘I just had to sell it because all my cattle died.' It was purchased by Matt Foley. Said he: ‘I had to sell it, too, because my cattle losses were phenomenal.' Farmer Dan Kennelly purchased it and turned his milch cows to graze on it but they stopped giving milk. He had to accept a low price for it from the corporation.

Local schoolteacher, Robert Cashin, says: ‘The fort is bounded by a number of fruit and nut trees. We were always warned not to touch them, but I remember, as a boy, a playmate of mine pulling some hazel nuts one day from one of the trees. He became a cripple for life.' Limerick's Deputy Lord Mayor, Gerard Dillon, says: ‘I would not lay one stone upon another within 100 yards of the fort. I live quite near the place and, as a boy, my mother always told me not to go anywhere near the fairy playground...' Because of the decision to preserve the fort, 30 fewer houses will be built."

This was issued by the Irish News Agency for world consumption and it appeared in the overseas Daily Mail, in several other English newspapers and in other publications. I do not think anybody will try to justify the like of that as being a legitimate product of a news agency operating in this country for the purposes of building up respect abroad for the Irish nation and for Irish traditions. As I said at the outset, there is no question about the fact that we need a news agency. One of the greatest difficulties under which the Irish nation has had to labour for, it may be said, a century has been the difficulty of trying to get the Irish point of view put over in sympathetic terms in the foreign Press.

I move to report progress.