In introducing this Estimate the Minister gave a very full account of the operations of his Department over the last year and of his plans for the future. I think the statement he made met with the general approval of the House though there was a certain amount of criticism in connection with one or two matters. That criticism related mainly to the employment of outside artistes and the proposal to set up a council under the control of the Minister rather than an independent corporation on similar lines to the B.B.C.
In connection with the employment of outside artistes everyone will agree that we ought to ensure as far as possible that our own nationals are employed in so far as that is consistent with the overall policy of maintaining the highest possible standards. Deputy Everett referred last night to his policy of rigidly confining employment to Irish nationals during the years in which he was Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. He told us about difficulties he had in securing buglers and trumpeters for the orchestra. I do not think he should have found such great difficulty even within the narrow limits of the Government of which he was a member. He should have been in a position to employ some very effective buglers and trumpeters.
With regard to the setting up of an independent corporation I do not think it is altogether desirable that Radio Éireann should be cut off completely from either parliamentary or ministerial control.
I doubt if the Deputies who advocate that course would be entirely satisfied subsequently. Some years ago legislation was enacted which cut Córas Iompair Éireann off from the control of this House and there have been many protests because of the inability of parliament to direct the policy of Córas Iompair Éireann. The Land Commission is a relatively independent body. Yet, we frequently have vehement demands for the abolition of that body and the handing over of control to the Minister and the House.
The Minister has acted wisely in giving Radio Éireann the widest possible measure of independence while at the same time retaining a certain amount of control. We might not be too pleased with the antics or actions of an Irish broadcasting corporation completely independent of this House. That corporation might act in a manner of which this House would strongly disapprove. The course outlined by the Minister is a reasonable one. The country generally is satisfied with the personnel of the council and with the new director.
I do not want to go too deeply into my personal opinions as to how Radio Éireann should be conducted but so long as this House controls that service it is only right that Deputies should make suggestions and that those suggestions should be considered. Deputies are not perhaps the best people to advise on broadcasting programmes because they have not very much time for listening to such programmes. One suggestion I have put forward repeatedly here has been accepted by the Minister. I have always advocated more debates on controversial subjects over the air. There is no subject too contentious or too controversial for broadcasting provided it is a subject of some interest and some importance. We ought to learn how to differ on important issues without becoming personally offensive. Frequently, there is a tendency here and elsewhere when a difference of opinion arises to ascribe all kinds of motives to our opponents. That does not help us in advancing towards a better solution of our problems. We should give others credit for good faith, for sincerity and for honesty.
If we had more debates on contentious subjects over the air our young people would have an opportunity of finding that it is possible for people to differ on questions of importance without heat, without rancour and without malice. Our people badly need that kind of education. There is a tendency to ascribe all kinds of ulterior motives to those who differ from us. That tendency could be counteracted by frequent debates such as I have suggested amongst the younger men upon whom the future of this nation depends. We should have debates on subjects such as socialism versus private enterprise, free trade versus protection, democracy versus dictatorship. All these subjects could be debated intelligently. There is no limit to the variety of subjects upon which people hold firm views. Let us have more debates over the air. It is particularly desirable that we should have debates on agricultural policy and agricultural practice. The merits and demerits of wheat growing could be debated. The merits and demerits of barley growing could be debated. There is an infinite variety of subjects which concern the agricultural community. These are all subjects which ought to be debated frankly over the air.
In this connection, I have listened to some debates on Radio Éireann and they were quite good, but I think there were technical faults. I am not an expert on the subject, but I think there were faults in these debates. One fault I find is a tendency towards incoherence owing to two speakers joining in the debate together. Where you have three speakers debating a subject and one man has made a good point I notice very frequently that you then have the other two trying to chip in. That is very irritating for the listeners. A clear, distinct diction is absolutely essential in broadcasting, and I think it is the duty of the chairman presiding over a debate of this kind to ensure that each speaker gets an opportunity of putting his points across and that only one speaker is allowed at a time. The tendency of two or three to chip in together does make the programme very irritating to the listeners.
Then there is no reason why we should not have political debates, why people listening over the radio should not hear Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour putting forward their particular points of view as strongly, as convincingly and ably as they are capable of doing. That would be a good education for the people. The people would have a chance of hearing the different points of view. There are many people in the country who have a tendency, because their leanings are towards one side or another, to listen only to the side they support. But if there is a good interesting debate, people will be tempted to listen to both sides. That would have a good educational value, and would be good for the creation of a better public spirit in this country and better citizenship. All that is needed is that the debates should be conducted with moderation and restraint, and technically put over as well as possible. I suppose it requires a certain amount of experience and training to be an effective debater, but it should be always possible to find in each of the political Parties some person who is quite good on the air, and that is very desirable.
During the past year the Minister introduced a programme of weekly comments on the proceedings of this House. That is a step in the right direction. I cannot say, however, that I entirely approve of the form which this commentary takes. The commentary is broadcast, I take it, by an impartial person, whose main idea is rigidly to avoid showing any favour to one side as against the other. That is all very well, but it does make for a certain amount of dullness, lack of interest, and coldness in the broadcast. Political discussion is entirely a clash of conflicting views, and I think that the commentary on the Dáil proceedings should be given by people who have partisan views. If half-an-hour per week is given to this commentary on parliamentary work, a quarter of an hour could be given to one side and a quarter of an hour to the other. In other words, you get a person who is favourable to one side to give a 15-minute broadcast on what he considers was the important business transacted during the week, and 15 minutes to a person on the other side, to give his views on the business transacted during the week. That is more or less the system operating in Britain. It may not be exactly as I say, but they usually select from one side of the House a member who gives his commentary on the work in Parliament. On the whole, I think that is proper. You cannot have a live, interesting commentary upon Dáil business, which is by its very nature controversial, by a person who tries to take an absolutely cold and detached view of the whole political discussion.
In addition, I do not think the person who gives that particular commentary does it unduly well. There is a tendency towards superiority in his commentary. It is impossible to please everybody in matters of this kind, but I have often felt that the commentator was reading his broadcast while standing on the bank of a river after having a cold plunge into the water. There is a tendency to rush through the proceedings and to be rather unduly cold and detached in his approach to the subject. I think that you would have a much more warm type of commentary if it were given by Deputy Corry or Deputy Corish or Deputy MacEoin and that the listeners would appreciate it more.
There is another matter to which I have frequently referred and to which the Minister should give some attention. I have frequently complained of the low standard of our Sunday night plays. We have a dramatic feature every Sunday night. These plays, or most of them, I suppose are well-known Irish plays written by Irish playwrights. For that reason, one would imagine that they would be generally acceptable. I have found, however, that most people, particularly in the country areas, regard them with a certain amount of horror. They consider that most of these plays are coarse, vulgar and brutal. There is nothing amusing or inspiring in them. Of course the Minister may say that he cannot do anything about that, that he has to take the plays that are offered and which are the only ones available. It is a pity that in this country over the last 50 years nobody has been found capable of writing a decent play with a really inspiring motive. This is a Christian country and surely we have some sense of nationality. Is there any nationality in the King of Friday's Men, Juno and the Paycock?