Before the adjournment of the debate on Wednesday last I referred briefly to the speeches of one or two Deputies who said that nobody in the country listens to Radio Éireann—that they listen to Radio Luxembourg instead. Probably these Deputies have an outlook which makes them reluctant to listen to a national broadcasting service and as they do not listen themselves they take it as absolute evidence that nobody else does either. I wonder if the same Deputies would contend that the people in Britain do not listen to the B.B.C. because large numbers of people there listen to Radio Luxembourg? We have evidence that Radio Éireann in Ireland is listened to by a far greater number of people than either of the other services named.
Broadcasting Authority Bill, 1959 [Seanad]—Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Why are the Hospitals' Trust people stopping their programmes from Radio Éireann?
The Deputy had better ask the Hospitals' Trust.
The Minister had better ask them.
I have nothing to hide in relation to the Hospitals' Trust. It is purely a decision arrived at by the Hospitals' Trust people themselves.
Would the Minister not see the Hospitals' Trust people and tell them it is their duty, as a contribution to this country, to continue with the half hour?
It is not my business to tell the Hospitals' Trust people their duty.
They owe something to this country, as well, and to Radio Éireann.
I admit they do. However, they have their own reasons. They are the people who will give Deputy McQuillan or anybody else the reasons why they are terminating their contract with Radio Éireann.
I appreciate the Minister's line. However, does he not agree that they show a lack of confidence and appreciation in Radio Éireann?
No. It does not follow at all. They have their own reasons.
Their programme is one of the best on Radio Éireann.
Mr. Ryan
Can the Minister say what the daily loss to Radio Éireann will be when that programme is withdrawn?
I am replying to the Second Reading of the Bill. I will not be interrupted by questions. I can tell the Deputy the loss if he wants to know it—that is, if there will be a loss. Other people are looking for the same half-hour. As I was saying, we have recorded evidence that Radio Éireann is listened to by a greater number of people than in the case of the other two stations. While that is the position, I freely admit that Radio Éireann is working under a handicap. Last Wednesday, I mentioned one of the handicaps, that is, the fact that they have not a building designed for Radio broadcasting. However, they have another handicap.
Radio Éireann is expected to put on one single programme serious music, light music, serious drama, variety and they are also expected to broadcast in two languages. It is asking a great deal of Radio Éireann to broadcast, on a single programme, such a variety and at the same time to hold the listener to the particular programme in which he is deeply interested.
I might say in this regard that the remedy for this state of affairs will be to provide a second network to arrange for separation of programmes of the serious and lighter types. I told the House on the last day that I hope the Television Authority will be able to give consideration to the provision of a V.H.F. network. If the new Authority in time provide a V.H.F. network it will be possible to give the greatest coverage all over the country to broadcasts from Radio Éireann and at the same time to provide a second programme and therefore to enable Radio Éireann to compete with its competitors. Of course, I would not expect a national broadcasting service to provide the same type of programme and to provide it in the same way as programmes from Radio Luxembourg. I would expect that our programme would be of a much higher standard than that put forth by Radio Luxembourg.
The adverse effect of television on the cinema has been mentioned. It has been stated that television will result in the closing-down of many cinemas and in the loss of entertainment tax and local employment. The position is that, over a large part of the country, television has already come. There is nothing within reason that we can or indeed should do to prevent it or to prevent people from availing of it. Nobody has suggested that the possible effect on the cinema is a reason for not having a television service of our own. To give the cinema people their due, they have recognised the inevitability of the coming of television here and that there will be room for both television and the cinema. Personally, I have no doubt that the cinema industry will meet the challenge of television. People will still go to the cinema provided they will see a good show and see it in comfort.
I should like to deal with two points which have been made on behalf of the cinema interests. One is that the State proposes to subsidise a television service to the extent of £500,000. That is absolutely incorrect. That £500,000 is not being provided for the television service. It is being provided for the sound Radio service. It is the intention of the Government to see that the sound service pays for itself. At the moment, that service is subsidised to the extent of £130,000 per year by virtue of the fact that the State, through the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and other Departments, provides services for Radio Éireann free of cost to the extent, as I have stated, of £130,000. That does not take into account the added expense which the new Authority will incur by providing for superannuation and depreciation.
We are providing £190,000 for the new Authority to enable them to get over that difficulty in the coming financial year. The £500,000, as I have stated, is to provide for the smooth hand-over to the new Authority of the Radio Éireann service. I expect that that £500,000 will be used within the next three years. It follows that the new Authority will have to increase the licence fee for sound broadcasting to enable it to recoup some of the added expense which it will incur by reason of the losses the Authority will sustain by having to pay the Department of Posts and Telegraphs for the services it now renders free.
The second is the criticism of State aid in the way of loan for the establishment of the television service. It should be remembered that, if the State did not provide the necessary capital to enable itself to set up this public authority to provide a television service for the people, private interests were ready to step in and provide a television service. In that event, in all probability the cinema industry would meet stiffer competition from such a television service because they would not be concerned as much as the new Authority will be with providing an Irish service and home-produced material in its programmes. So that, as far as the effect of television on cinemas and the desire of the industry to meet the situation by an elimination of the cinema tax are concerned, these are not questions for which I have any direct responsibility.
It is a matter, mainly, in the first instance, for the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance has at all times met the representatives of the cinema industry with sympathy and consideration. I cannot forecast what the position will be in relation to this matter but it will have to be viewed each year as the television service develops. I could not anticipate, under any circumstances, what it would be necessary for a Government to do to meet the situation in which the cinema industry will find itself in a few years but we have no reason to doubt that the cinema industry will continue as an industry.
The point was made that the advent of television will affect the employment position in the cinema industry. Of course, it may affect the employment position in the cinema industry but at the same time it will provide new avenues of employment for Irish people and we cannot, I think, escape the responsibility of providing a television service for the people. A television service can be received in a large part of the country at the moment and the remainder of the country asks for a television service. If we did not provide it, we would be the only small country, I think, left in Western Europe which failed to accept the obligation of providing a television service for its people.
The powers reserved to me in this Bill have been criticised from two opposite viewpoints. On the one hand, it was said that I am retaining too many powers. This, incidentally, was the kernel of the Opposition's viewpoint in the Seanad. In the Dáil, on the other hand, it was argued that the Minister and the Dáil should have closer control over the new Authority. The arrangements proposed in the Bill are aimed at allowing the Authority the maximum freedom in regard to formulating its own policy and conducting its own business, particularly in regard to programming and advertising.
I should say here that the powers reserved to me in Section 31—that is, the veto section—to give certain directions to the Authority as regards programmes are not intended to provide for the continuous supervision and censorship of the Authority's programmes. Their main intent is to give me and the Government an overriding authority to veto programmes in certain circumstances in the public interest. The Government have an ultimate responsibility in this regard for a national broadcasting service and I think that the Government cannot get away from that responsibility. Section 31, in the main, is necessary in a Bill of this nature.
Deputy McGilligan, when speaking on the opening of this debate, the other day, took me up over a reference I made in the Seanad to the success of certain semi-State bodies, namely, the Electricity Supply Board, Aer Lingus and Bord na Móna. I should like to point out that it is not the duty of semi-State bodies to earn big profits. Most people would be quite satisfied if they fulfilled their functions satisfactorily and, taking one year with another, paid their way. That is what we hope this television Authority will do.
It is quite true, as Deputy McGilligan said, that the E.S.B. have lost some money over the past two years of operation but it would be fairer to take a more extended period. I notice that over the past five years of operation for which accounts are available the Electricity Supply Board, after meeting all charges, earned over £750,000. Aer Lingus, over the same period, made a net profit of several thousand pounds, while Bord na Móna, which suffered a heavy loss in 1959, due to the very bad weather in 1958, succeeded in making a modest profit in each of the four preceding years. On any reasonable view, therefore, I think these businesses are examples of the success of public enterprise.
Deputy McGilligan and some other Deputy went a little further and said that I shied off from mentioning C.I.E. I did not shy off from mentioning C.I.E. There is no comparison between the inheritance of C.I.E. and the setting up of a new service such as Bord na Móna or the Electricity Supply Board, Aer Lingus or the service to be provided under this Bill. The Government of the day took into consideration all the circumstances that faced them at the time when establishing these new services. They had no history of a system or a business which was loaded with debt when the State took it over initially. I think there is no comparison whatsoever between the establishment of this service and C.I.E. or between C.I.E. or any of the other services I named.
Deputy McGilligan referred to the need for a strict audit of the general accounts and general control of the Authority's finance. I think we have all the control in this regard that is needed in Sections 25 and 26 but if Deputy McGilligan or any other Deputy wishes to deal further with this aspect of the problem, I think it would be better to leave it for detailed discussion on the Committee Stage of the Bill.
As regards the placing of contracts for programmes referred to by the same Deputy and by others, the Authority themselves will, of course, be responsible for whatever contracts procedure that they adopt. That is their job. No doubt, they will reserve to themselves approval for the placing of specially valuable contracts or long-term contracts and in delegating any powers in that regard to the Director General or to other officers of the Authority, they will take appropriate measures to ensure against irregularities. However, I cannot visualise any arrangement of the kind envisaged by Deputy McGilligan being approved under which an officer or officers of the Authority would get commission on programme contracts as such a procedure would be so obviously open to abuse, I do not think any Authority in this country could stand for it. I would not anyway. In these matters any organisation must rely in the final analysis on the integrity of its permanent fulltime staff.
Doubts have been expressed in regard to the financial prospects of the Authority which we intend to set up under this Bill and I have been asked to give a statement in regard to the prospects of the Authority paying their way. I have dealt to some extent with one service that the Authority will be taking over—sound broadcasting— and I have informed the House that, with regard to that service, it is the view of the Government that it should pay its way and that the listener should not oblige the taxpayer to subsidise it any longer. As I said, we are providing £500,000 to enable the Authority to take over Radio Éireann and to operate that service and when that £500,000 is expended, the Government's intention is that the Authority shall make that service pay its way. One half-crown on the licence fee brings in £60,000.
It is a different matter with the television service. The cost of establishing that service will be borne, as the House knows, by the £1½ million capital provided. That is an estimate, of course, but it is an estimate made by the Television Commission. It is not the lowest estimate that was before them. There were lower estimates. Of the £1½ million, £1¼ million roughly is for physical assets and £250,000 for working capital. That makes up the total figure and that working capital is intended to provide against loss during the initial period of the service. We have no reason to doubt that £1½ million will be sufficient. Deputy Dillon, Leader of the main Opposition, asked what was the amount of capital to be invested by the Irish people in receiving sets. Some time ago an estimate was made that we had 40,000 receiving sets in operation in the country. My own view is that the number of sets is much in excess of that figure. It is being added to and sets are being purchased every day but if we assume that each set costs £80 we already have a capital investment on 40,000 sets of £3.2 million.
If we accept the estimates of television sets made by the Television Commission for the third year of operation, namely as 120,000, the capital investment by our people will stand at something short of £10,000,000— £9.6 million at £80 per set. That takes into consideration only the price of the sets. There is over £3 million already invested in sets and if we wish to prevent people from investing capital in television sets the only way we can do it is to make it illegal to have a set. We have decided on providing this service for the people and therefore I see no point in raising the question of how much capital will be invested in sets. It would be invested in sets anyway and at present the £3 million odd is invested in what is called the fringe area of reception. Who knows but that the fringe area can be extended in a very short time by the new technical developments and that people in the outer fringe area will purchase more sets? Then we would have the £10,000,000 invested in sets just as it will be invested when we provide our own television service.
Deputy Esmonde thought the financial estimates of the majority of the Television Committee were unreliable because they did not cost programmes at £1,000,000 a year for one hour's programme per day. Other members referred to a point in the minority report that programmes on the B.B.C. cost £1,500 or more an hour as compared with estimates of £220 per average hour mentioned in the majority report. There is room for a possible misunderstanding as regards the first-mentioned figure between averaged total costs (including engineering expenditure on the transmission network) and the averaged programme costs. However any comparisons between the costs of organisations such as the B.B.C. and I.T.V. which can afford to spend £1,500 or more per hour on a programme are quite unreal. Both B.B.C. and I.T.V. are huge organisations which think in terms of high programme costs, spectacular shows, the most popular stage and screen personalities and numerous regional studios and offices to give programmes a regional flavour. These features and others all contribute to the high cost of their programmes.
An Irish television service can afford to dispense with many of those features and still present popular and high quality programmes to our own people. If we were to accept the argument that we must be able to match the B.B.C. or I.T.V. costs, before attempting to set up a television service here, we should logically attempt nothing in radio, television or in almost anything else. The fact is that just as the big city cinema or theatre pays more than the small local house for the same material, the big television organisation which broadcasts to 10,000,000 homes is expected to pay, and does in fact pay, more than is paid by small organisations. This factor will be of particular importance in connection with the prices which the Authority will pay for film and tele-recorded material which will initially, at any rate, have to constitute a high proportion of the programmes. The majority report of the Television Commission pointed out in Paragraph 35 that this material is available—and here I quote—"at rates which are based on the number of receiving sets capable of being reached by such programmes and the capacity of the organisation to pay."
If we assume for the moment that the B.B.C. were to pay £1,500 for an hour of filmed programme to be broadcast to 10,000,000 homes, the pro rata cost to a service such as ours, with about 100,000 sets would be 1/100th part of that amount. The figures I have quoted are quite hypothetical and there are other considerations involved, but the principle of charge I have indicated is none-the-less a very real one. When this is taken into account it will be clear that a large part of the programme budget of nearly £1,000 a day by the Television Commission was intended for home-produced programmes and that an average figure of programme costs per hour can be very misleading.
Because of the relatively low cost of popular films and tele-recordings as compared with live programmes, there would I understand be no difficulty in making the service pay its way practically from the start by broadcasting films and tele-recordings only. It is the Irish produced programmes—and in that connection I do not mean Irish language programmes—that will constitute the really expensive ingredient. In the final analysis the economics of the service will depend largely on what the Authority spends under this particular heading. We will have to wait until the Authority is in operation, until it is actually broadcasting, to know what percentage of Irish programmes we can use and still make the service pay.
Deputy McGilligan worked out from the estimates made by the Television Commission that the Authority would need to charge about £50 per minute to advertisers to cover the differences between its receipts from licences and its total expenditure. He wondered whether advertisers here would be prepared to pay this amount and whether they would be getting value for it. I do not want to anticipate what the Authority is going to do in the matter of charges to their advertisers. It is their business to fix the rate. However, I think I could say this straightaway, that on the basis of 120,000 sets envisaged by the Commission after three years of operation of the service, a charge of £50 per minute would be a very reasonable charge and should be readily acceptable to advertisers.
Let us look at the published rates of Ulster Television. I think that is the best comparison. They have about 120,000 viewing homes in their service area, and for one minute "spots" between 7.30 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. or 11 p.m. the charge varies from £50 to £80 per minute depending on the night of the week. Moreover, the total cost to an advertiser of a 15-minute sponsored programme on Radio Éireann including approximately one minute of advertising is estimated at £50 or £60 and in some cases it is considerably higher. The fact that there is a waiting list for sponsored programmes on Radio Éireann indicates that advertisers think it is worth the money. The greater effectiveness of television for advertising should make it more attractive for advertisers. I should add that numerous requests to be put on the list for advertising space on television have already been received from interested firms within and without the country.
It should be remembered that Ulster Television and the programme contractors in Britain have to pay a substantial rental to the Independent Television Authority to cover the cost of providing and maintaining the transmitters apart from meeting themselves the cost of studio facilities and programmes. In our service it is more than likely that licence revenue will cover the fixed charges for the operation and maintenance of the transmission system from an early stage so that it should be sufficient for advertising revenue to balance programme costs, exclusive of the expense of the countrywide transmission system, to make the service self-supporting.
In short, while it is necessary to be cautious about forecasting the result of our entry into such an experimental field, there is reason for some confidence that the service will not become a charge on the Exchequer. In that view I am supported by the opinion of 15 of the 19 members of the Television Commission—that the service can be made to pay its way within a few years. Moreover, private interests with considerable experience in this field were satisfied that they could make the service show a profit without any assistance from licence revenue. On that basis a public authority, which will have a considerable source of income apart from advertising, should, one would think, be able to do the same. But, as I have stated, I should like to be cautious in this matter. We cannot, of course, be sure what exactly will happen in a new service such as this because we are going into an experimental field of which we have not got prior experience.
We have to work on estimates at this stage. If there is any miscalculation, if, for instance, we do not have the estimated number of sets or sufficient income from licence fees, the calculations made would not work out exactly as indicated to me. Nevertheless, I have no reason to doubt the future prospects of the television service. I agree with the 15 members of the 19 on the Commission that in a certain number of years the television service can be run without being a charge on the Exchequer.
On two occasions the Minister mentioned "a certain number of years". Would he be prepared to put——
Three years. After three years of operation it is hoped we will have 120,000 sets in operation and from that year we should break even.
The Minister spoke about estimates. I was not present and maybe the Minister has mentioned this, but in the estimation of the Commission or the Minister's experts what would be the initial licence fee for television?
The fee will be determined after consultation with the Authority. The amount has not been decided yet. The estimates are on the assumption that the licence fee will be £3. I am not saying that it will be.
On that basis. The revenue is estimated on that figure?
Yes.
The Minister will not be held to it or anything like that.
Before I leave this general question of the cost, I should like to say that the State is already spending over £15,000,000 a year on education. It has nothing to do with this Bill. You may add to that a further considerable sum in respect of expenditure by local authorities and parents to obtain the total public expenditure under this heading. It is arguable whether the young today are not influenced as much by what they see and hear through the modern mass media of communication as they are by what they learn in school. In any event it is virtually certain that in the future broadcasting, and especially television, will play an increasingly bigger part in informing and moulding the minds of the young, and even of those who are not so young. I do not suggest that for this reason we must provide a television service regardless of cost, but I do suggest that if we are prepared to pay so much for education and enlightenment generally, we cannot afford to remain at the receiving end only of the latest means of mass communications. We simply cannot afford—in a world in which communications have become so important— to be without a television service of our own.
I was asked whether I could give any idea of the extent to which the advertising service would be availed of by Irish advertisers as compared with foreign advertisers, or to what extent advertisers will use the Irish language in their programmes. I cannot give any estimate. Any estimate I might give would be quite unreliable, because so much will depend on the rates to be fixed by the Authority. I do not accept the view that, because the proportion of Irish programmes must necessarily be small initially, the expenditure involved will not be warranted. It is all important to remember that the balance of the programmes will be selected by a responsible Irish body from the best material obtainable with Irish taste and interests and Irish standards constantly in mind.
I shall deal shortly with a few general points made in regard to advertising. Firstly, I do not agree with the suggestion that the service will be dominated by the advertisers. Several Deputies made that point in their speeches. I want to point out that the Authority's first responsibility will be to the public and I have no doubt that as a responsible public body, it will take every possible precaution to avoid excessive commercialism. In any event, I have powers under Section 20 to control the amount of advertising and its distribution throughout the programmes.
Secondly, the point was made that television advertising would increase the cost of goods to persons too poor to have television sets. I think it was Deputy Dr. Browne who made that point and who said that the fact that an advertiser was paying for advertising his goods on television would mean that the increased cost of those goods would be passed on to the poorer sections of the people, who could not afford to have television sets. There are other views on that matter. Senator George O'Brien pointed out in the Seanad that advertising has a definite commercial value in that it makes competition more keen and that the public generally get things cheaper than they otherwise would, as a result of competitive advertising.
I shall deal next with the line standard. Several Deputies referred to the question of the television line standard to be adopted. This problem was dealt with in some detail in Chapter 10 of the Report of the Television Commission. As I said before, the matter is a complex one involving both technical and practical considerations. However, I shall try to explain it as I see it. There are advantages and disadvantages in adopting either the 405 or the 625 line standard. I understand it is generally admitted that the 625 line standard would give an improved picture but not, many say, a substantially better picture. On the other hand, because of the arrangements under which frequencies have been allotted, we could not at present use the 625 line standard for a national network here without causing interference to British transmissions on the 405 line standard unless we were prepared to bear the much greater costs of providing a larger number of transmitters of reduced power so as to avoid such interference.
We must also take into account the many 405 line sets already in use in Irish homes, and that transmissions on 625 lines only in present circumstances would result in the erection of another needless barrier between ourselves and our fellow countrymen in the North. I make that statement regardless of the advice given to me by Deputy McQuillan. He anticipated me in making that statement, and he said it was worn out. I do not think it is worn out. I think the people in the Six Counties will listen to our programme when it is broadcast from our own television service here. For all these reasons it is inconceivable that we should open the service on the 625 line standard. That means we must start with either dual standard transmission on 405 and 625 lines, or with the 405-line standard only.
What about the 819 line standard?
We are not concerned with 819 lines.
France is nearer to us with its 819 line standard than any other country with the 625 line standard.
I am well aware that France and Belgium broadcast on two line standards. In any event we must have a 405 line transmitter in the Dublin area, where there are so many 405 line sets. That is why it has been decided that the Dublin transmitter will be on a 405 line standard.
The arguments for dual standard transmissions are very plausible. However, apart from the question of greater expense, we would have to consider very carefully what would be the position if the transmissions from the Dublin station were on both the 405 line and the 625 line standards, while the two British services continued to operate on 405 lines. Owners of 405 line sets would have the best of two worlds. They would have a choice of Irish and British originated programmes while owners of 625 line sets would receive the Irish programmes only. The effect on sales of 625 line sets in such a situation may be imagined. Moreover, unless we decided definitely to adopt the 625 line standard generally, and as I have already indicated there are serious difficulties in doing so while the British retain the 405 line standard, we would be spending money unnecessarily on a second transmitter.
Some people are under the impression that conversion from the 405 line standard to the 625 line standard is imminent in Britain. The facts are, of course, that the British have announced no decision on the matter yet and the position is such a difficult one that, even if they announced a decision in principle in the morning to change their existing services to the 625 line standard, it is certain that it would take very many years indeed before 405 line transmissions could be abandoned in Britain. That is the advice that was given to me and I have no reason to doubt it.
In short, we are proceeding cautiously in this matter. The only decision so far taken is that the Dublin station will begin to operate on the 405 line standard and this is necessary anyway. Further decisions will be taken in the light of the best technical advice available and the circumstances obtaining at the time. Obviously, we shall be very interested in what happens in this regard in neighbouring countries.
As regards appointments to the Authority, this a matter which was raised by many Deputies and I should like to say that it is the intention of the Government that the members should be broadly representative of different aspects of our national life. They must, above all, be people of sound commonsense with an intimate knowledge of Irish life and conditions. They will not be appointed to represent sectional, political or any other particular interests; their responsibility will be to the public as a whole.
It may be taken that the Government will, before making appointments, consider the suitability of the persons they have in mind from all relevant aspects, including the possibility that they may have interests incompatible with membership of the Authority. That has been the general position in regard to appointments to other State boards. As regards Section 8 of the Bill——
The Minister is not serious now, is he?
I am. That is the position in regard to many of them, anyhow.
The Agricultural Credit Corporation for instance?
I shall not go into that here.
The Minister will not. It would be embarrassing.
It would not be one bit embarrassing to me. I have nothing to hide in relation to this Bill. Any questions that are asked I shall be glad to answer. If there are any doubts in anybody's mind in relation to appointments in this Authority, I shall be glad to be made aware of them. I have nothing to hide.
The Minister will have nothing to hide.
I have nothing to hide in regard to commitments. The four people on the Television Advisory Committee will be asked to accept membership of the Authority.
The only fear we had was that the Minister said they would be appointed in accordance with the practice in relation to other State-sponsored bodies. We accepted him up to that. We hope he will behave in accordance with our earlier acceptance.
The Deputy is speaking a little bit away from the point I made.
No. It was the Minister who did that.
I did not.
If they are appointed in the same way as the members of Bord na gCon, the appointments will not reflect very much credit.
The appointments to each board have been made in accordance with the provisions of the Act setting up the board. In this Bill, Section 8 covers the position. That section is a standard clause covering the possible interest of members of semi-State boards in contracts made by the boards. As I have said, this section appears in many previous Bills. It was not drafted specially for this Bill.
Would the Minister mind letting us know the Acts to which he refers?
I named them in the Seanad. One is the Electricity (Supply) Act of 1927. I have not got the others here at the moment. I shall make the information available to the Deputy later. This section appears almost word for word in three different Acts.
Almost? There is a difference, I think.
We shall be happy to go into that on the Committee Stage of the Bill.
That is the reason I should like to have the Acts, in order to make a comparison.
I shall send the information to the Deputy.
With regard to the Director-General, I would have no difficulty in listing all the desirable qualifications for this key post. The trouble will be to get a man who will have 80 per cent. of them. It is for that reason that I consider it wiser not to put anything in the Bill which might prove an obstacle to securing the best man available.
Surely the Minister has promised that already to Mr. Gorham. Does everybody not know the Minister has?
I promised nothing to Mr. Gorham.
Is the Minister sure of that now?
Do not ask me if I am sure. I am certain.
Order! The Minister must be allowed to make his statement in his own way.
Will the Director-General have to have a competent knowledge of Irish? That is an important question in view of the Government's policy in the matter of the Irish language.
Does the Deputy object to that policy?
I do not object to that, but the Fianna Fáil Government object to it when they make appointments in the case of men who have no Irish.
The Deputy can discuss that on the Committee Stage. There is a section dealing with the appointment of the Director-General and, on the Committee Stage, I shall answer any questions raised in connection with him.
The suggestion was also made in the course of the debate that this legislation should lapse after a certain period so that the position might be reviewed. The Oireachtas will have ample opportunity of reviewing the work of the Authority during each of the first five years. The grants under Section 22 must be voted by the Dáil. Secondly, the annual report and statement of accounts must be submitted each year to both Houses and may be the subject of discussion on a motion. Finally, the authority to continue financing by means of Exchequer grants under Section 22 will expire at the end of five years and there will have to be further legislation then, if the Authority is to continue to receive the proceeds of the licence revenue. I think there will be ample opportunity to discuss the workings of the Authority over the five years and, at the end of the five years, there can be a full appraisal of the position which obtains.
In the opening of my speech on the Second Reading here, I made reference to interference. I pointed out the difficulty of dealing with interference from foreign stations. I also dealt with the non-reception of Radio Éireann broadcasts in certain parts of the country. There is, however, yet another type of interference from electrical equipment. That I have not dealt with so far. We are taking power under this Bill to deal with electrical interference by amending the Telegraphy Act of 1926 in the Third Schedule to this Bill. The provision is so framed that, before any definite action is taken in regard to types of interference, we shall have to establish committees consisting of the interested businesses or interested parties to advise the Minister as to how best to deal with such interference. It is not intended that people, such as owners of large firms or factories, where the cost would be excessive, should be compelled overnight to deal with the situation. We shall be prepared to deal with such people in a reasonable way. Up to now, whenever the Department here interviewed people responsible for interference, they have got a good deal of co-operation. We hope that that co-operation will continue in the future under this amendment.
Would the Minister consider placing responsibility in this matter on the manufacturers or suppliers and not on the individual citizens?
We have two aspects of the matter to deal with. There is the electrical equipment already in the country; we have to deal with the people who own that first. We have also, then, to deal with the manufacturers. The ideal position would be to secure that the manufacturer would do the suppression necessary so that the equipment would be sold with the suppressor already attached. It will take time to deal with that aspect of this thorny problem.
Could the Minister tell us whether he has technical advice that any interference can be suppressed at the present time?
No. We say "to the greatest possible extent." I do not think it is technically possible to suppress all interference.
I was thinking particularly of hospital apparatus and equipment. Can that be suppressed without damage to the work of the hospital?
I shall have to get technical advice on that.
The Minister has dealt with interference by foreign stations and electrical equipment and appliances. Has he anything to say about bad reception?
I have already dealt with it. I have pointed out that we are making £500,000 available to the new Authority and that it is hoped that the Authority will expend some of that money in the provision of V.H.F. transmitters. A survey was made for the provision of such transmitters in 1956-57 and if the Authority goes ahead with that project, the result will be to give us full national coverage for sound broadcasting.
I have, I think, covered all the points raised proper to be dealt with at this stage. Any points of detail will, I am sure, be dealt with on the Committee Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 30th March, 1960.