Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 5 Apr 1960

Vol. 180 No. 12

Broadcasting Authority Bill, 1959 [Seanad]—Committee Stage (resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:—

Before section 8 to insert a new section as follows:—

"(1) A member of the Authority who, on becoming a member, has any financial interest in any company or concern which has sought or seeks to make or with which the Authority has proposed or proposes to make any contract or financial arrangement shall, immediately on becoming a member, divest himself of such interest.

(2) A member of the Authority who has any financial interest in any company or concern which during his membership seeks to make with the Authority or with which the Authority proposes to make, any contract or financial arrangement, shall, immediately upon such seeking to make or proposing to make, either—

(i) divest himself of such interest, or

(ii) resign his membership of the Authority."—(Deputy Dr. Browne.)

Dr. Browne

I was making the point, when the debate adjourned, that it seems somehow wrong that the Government should be beholden to any individual, no matter how talented or gifted, for the success of this service. It seems wrong that on his participation in this organisation should depend the success, or otherwise, of the undertaking. It would appear as if the Government is handing over a great deal of its powers. As the Minister has said, this is a service which will make a very deep impression from the point of view of entertainment and education. It is rather unwise then that the Government should be so completely dependent on this individual and I do not think they should feel they are dependent to that degree.

In passing, may I say that I think it is very wrong that in two successive weeks here we should be discussing very important propositions without any power of altering decisions taken? One was the Supplementary Estimate for a sum of £7,000,000 for the building of a new University, and now we have this proposition in which a sum of £2,000,000 is involved. As Deputy Carty has said, we come in here and find ourselves presented with a fait accompli. It is very wrong that this Assembly should be deprived of the right of counter decision after discussion and debate here. In these two instances that I have cited, decisions were taken in advance of discussion here.

The Minister said that the individual concerned has given an assurance that he will not allow his business interests to interfere and he would resign should there be any danger of that. The Minister then went on to say that the Government could take a decision. In fairness to the proposed Chairman, I do not think there are any circumstances in which the Government could legally insist on the Chairman resigning because one cannot have gradations of responsibility to the Authority and gradations of responsibility to one's business interests. A person has either no responsibility or he has some responsibility. The Government has made no attempt to define the borderline between the Chairman's personal and private responsibilities and his public responsibilities. The Minister is under an illusion if he thinks the Government could legally go to the Chairman at any time and say to him: "You are allowing your private and personal responsibilities to interfere with your responsibility to the Government." The Minister, therefore, cannot depend on that way out of his dilemma.

We might get a Chairman who was very authoritarian and who might infringe on the bounds of propriety in exercising his dual capacity as a businessman with access to decisions relating to questions of contracts coming before the Authority. Even though the Minister has two precedents in relation to electricity and transport, there is no doubt at all but that the more desirable precedent is the 1927 one in relation to electricity. Just because the Government departed from that in 1950, the Minister should not feel justified in doing so now in 1960. I do not think the Minister has made a good enough case.

Mr. Hilliard

Section 8 was not, as I have already pointed out, put into this Bill to meet the case of any particular individual. It is of general application to each member of the Authority. Writing in further restrictive clauses will not ensure a better Authority or a higher standard. I do not think there is any departure in principle in this section as compared with similar sections in other Acts. Practice and usage are more effective in obtaining high standards than anything that can be written into legislation. The 1927 Act was the first Act under which a public authority was set up to undertake a public service. At that time, the State was young, speaking from a purely parliamentary point of view. Speaking from the point of view of having a Parliament in which legislation could be passed, the country was very young. As Deputies have said, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since the time of which we are speaking, 1927, and this country is growing up. We are becoming more mature in our attitude towards Parliament, towards public authorities and towards public administration. Our country stands high in that regard.

I cannot see anything in Section 8 which would interfere in any way with the statutory progress this country is making in that regard. I think the amendments would not improve the position one iota and I hope the sponsors of the amendments will see fit to have them withdrawn.

Mr. Sweetman

I shall not yield to the appalling temptation the Minister has put before me to compare 1927 with 1960. It would be somewhat extraneous to our discussion, but it is a very great temptation, after hearing those few remarks from the Minister.

Let us be quite clear about this section. I want to make it clear again that it was the Government, in their wisdom, who decided that we had to discuss this section in the context that it was known that a particular individual would be Chairman of the Authority. Let me say again that I do not know him at all, except in so far as I see him on a screen. I have nothing but respect for what I see, but it does not seem to be at all relevant, at all necessary, or even at all desirable, that an actor or a producer should be the administrative chief of the television Authority.

In fact, in relation to such an Authority as this or any similar body, the less technical the man you have as Chairman, the better. The difficulty about a technical man is that he is not able to see the wood for the trees. The difficulty about a person who is so wrapped up in one aspect of a certain job is that he cannot see the broad lines of general policy. If there is one quality necessary for the chairman of any board, it is that he should be able to see the broad lines of general policy which the board should follow.

There might be, and in fact I think there is, a case for ascertaining that the chairman of any board is not a technician. The board of any authority such as this, of any statutory company, or any State board, is able to get, and must be made able to get, the best technical advice available, and it is on the application of that technical advice on the administration of the service as a whole that the selection should be made, rather than on technical qualifications as such.

I think, therefore, that when one says that the person concerned is not the best person to be Chairman, one necessarily means it in that sense, and not in the sense of any personal reflection on the person concerned as a producer or as an actor. To be quite fair, I think the Minister understands that that is the case being made, and that it has no relation to a personality, as such.

The Minister based part of his defence on the fact that the Electricity Supply Act was the first Act to set up a public authority in the country. That is true. It is perfectly true, but how many amendments have there been to the original Electricity Supply Act? We have had them down through the years. I have not counted them, but there have been a good many. Probably if we were to go through them, we would find, quite apart from mere Finance Acts affecting electricity, that there have been at least six amending Acts in relation to the main powers of the original Electricity Supply Board. If it were a mistake to include that provision in 1927, as the Minister now suggests, it would have been amended long since. I do not think any Minister of any Government would dare to come in here and delete Section 11 of that Act because he would know that its deletion would be resented by all sections and all parts of the House. The fact that it has stood unamended completely disproves the argument the Minister has made.

We have not perhaps adverted, either, as much as we should to paragraph 69 of the Majority Report which makes it clear that the Commission did not wish the members of the Authority to have financial contact with the Authority as such. In paragraph 69, we read: "...should have no such financial or other interest as would be likely to affect prejudicially...." The Report then went on to say that a member of the Oireachtas should not be a member of the Authority. My view is that a member of the Oireachtas probably should not be a member of the Authority, but I think that it was very impertinent of the Commission to say so. This House should be the place to decide that, and nobody else.

Is it not peculiar that the Minister has chosen to take the disqualification of membership of this House out of the Commission's Report, and has disregarded the other recommendation that persons should not have the interests to which I have referred? It seems, shall I say, rather strange that he has adopted one part of the recommendation and rejected the other.

The fundamental basis in relation to this matter is that it is impossible —and I use the word deliberately— for a person whose full ordinary business is broadcasting, to have contractual relationships with the Authority and to preserve outside the Authority the air, the atmosphere, of impartiality which is so vital to the success of this Authority. I think the Minister will come this distance with me, that it is essential, not merely that this Authority should be successful, but that it should enjoy the confidence of the people. I do not think it is possible for a board, the members of which, day in and day out, make contracts with the Authority itself, to enjoy that confidence.

I am not making any suggestion that the contracts will be arranged on an improper basis. I am suggesting that the public will inevitably believe that they are on an improper basis even though they may be on the most proper basis under the sun. It is inevitable that anybody whose programme is turned down in favour of a programme put up by the company of which the Chairman is also a director will feel and say that he was turned down because the Chairman had more influence with the Director-General. That is a most unfair handicap to give this Authority when it starts.

The Minister would be very wise indeed to think twice on this matter and to ensure that the Authority is not put under that heavy penalty at the beginning of its work.

Mr. Corish

In a Bill of this kind which is introduced to set up a State or semi-State body, as far as I can remember the inevitable practice has been that the legislation determines the personnel of the board. It seems that in this case it is the personnel of the board to be appointed who are determining the legislation that is brought before the House and that the Minister hopes will finally be enacted.

I support the idea embodied in Deputy Dr. Browne's amendment and I would be prepared to support Deputy Palmer's amendment. I do not want to go over the ground that has been covered here this evening about the undesirability of having people on the board who have a vested interest in the business generally. I sympathise with the Minister in what he is trying to do. I know he has to put up certain arguments in justification of Section 8 and against the amendments.

The Minister wants to get a certain man on this Television Authority and wants him to be Chairman. I want to see that man connected with Irish Television, as well. Apart from his ability as a performer on television, apart from his ability generally as far as television is concerned, I think everybody regards him as a very good Irishman. It is undesirable that the Chairman of a board of this kind should have any contractual interest or any other business interest in Irish Television. However, if the Minister wants this man—I think all of us agree that he should have some connection with Irish television— could he not be employed in some other capacity? Could he not be employed as an adviser——

Mr. Sweetman

A consultant.

Mr. Corish

——or as a consultant? I think the Minister has a way out there. The man is a good man and he is a big man. He will be good for Irish television. We should not create a precedent which will be quoted by this Minister in a few months' time and by that Minister in two years' time and by Ministers of other Governments for the next 50 or 100 years. It is a very undesirable practice.

The Minister ought to consider the idea not of having this particular man as Chairman of the Television Authority but of employing him in some other capacity, say, in an advisory or consultative capacity. Being the man he is, I am sure he will be prepared to participate in that way in the establishment of Irish television.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá: 31; Níl: 53.

Tá

• Barry, Richard.
• Belton, Jack.
• Browne, Noel C.
• Burke, James.
• Byrne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Tom.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Costello, Declan D.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hogan, Bridget.
• Kenny, Henry.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, Denis.
• Lindsay, Patrick.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Manley, Timothy.
• Murphy, William.
• Norton, William.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Wycherley, Florence.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breen, Dan.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Collins, James J.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Fanning, John.
• Faulkner, Padraig.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Johnston, Henry M.
• Kenneally, William.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• Moloney, Daniel J.
• Moran, Michael.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Smith, Patrick.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dr. Browne and Kyne; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman.

Question declared lost.

Mr. Palmer

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, line 4, to delete "who has" and substitute "may not have" and to delete lines 9 to 12, inclusive.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Committee divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 37.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breen, Dan.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Collins, James J.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Fanning, John.
• Faulkner, Padraig.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Johnston, Henry M.
• Kenneally, William.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• Moloney, Daniel J.
• Moran, Michael.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Smith, Patrick.

Níl

• Barry, Richard.
• Belton, Jack.
• Burke, James.
• Byrne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Tom.
• Carew, John.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Costello, Declan D.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hogan, Bridget.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kenny, Henry.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, Denis.
• Lindsay, Patrick.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Manley, Timothy.
• Murphy, William.
• Norton, William.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Wycherley, Florence.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl: Deputies O'Sullivan and Crotty.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is Section 8 agreed to?

Mr. Sweetman

No, Sir; I should like the section to be put.

An Ceann Comhairle

Very well. Does the Deputy intend to speak on the section?

Mr. Sweetman

I should like it put. I should not like it to go on record that I agreed with it.

Question: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill." put and declared carried.

SECTION 9.

Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Sweetman

I wonder could the Minister explain in relation to subsection (2) if it means it shall be authenticated by either the signature of the chairman or of some other member? In other words, does it mean that the Authority have to decide at the beginning which they are going to have, the chairman or a designated member? Supposing they decide it is to be the chairman and supposing then the chairman is bound by Section 8 does it mean he cannot take any part in the decision? If the decision requires the seal for its implementation, how can he do it or how can the Authority do it? The word "either" is normally inserted but it is not in this.

Mr. Hilliard

A deputy could be nominated in advance, if necessary, but the section as it stands is standard in legislation setting up a body.

Mr. Sweetman

Usually the word "either" is there.

Mr. Hilliard

I have not seen the others myself.

Mr. Sweetman

By the signature of either the chairman of the Authority or some other member—or at least shall I put it, in company articles, the word "either" is always there. Will the Minister look at it between now and the Report Stage?

Mr. Hilliard

I shall, but I think it is all right as it stands.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 10 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 15.

Mr. Dillon

I move amendment No. 3:—

In subsection (1), line 38, to delete "contributory".

My sole purpose in putting down this amendment is to restore to the Authority, and indeed to the Minister himself, a discretionary power of which the Bill, as drafted, deprives him. Under Section 15, provision is made for the establishment of a superannuation scheme "for the granting of pensions, gratuities and other allowances on retirement to or in respect of such officers or servants of the Authority as it may think fit." In other words, the Bill requires the Authority to submit for approval a contributory scheme. I am informed by experts in these matters that when a superannuation scheme comes to be drafted, in certain conditions, a contributory scheme is the best and in others, a non-contributory scheme; but that is a matter on which expert advice is available and might with advantage be taken by this Authority.

There is provision in subsection (4) of the same section that no scheme can be put into operation until it has been submitted to the Minister and has been approved by the Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance. I suggest that if the Minister and the Minister for Finance, having heard the merits of the case argued before them, come to the conclusion that the contributory scheme is the right one, they can require that to be enforced. But I do not think they ought to close their minds at this stage on this question and it is purely for the purpose of leaving them that discretion that I move the deletion of the word "contributory" from the Bill.

Mr. Hilliard

The provision in this Bill that any superannuation scheme submitted by the Authority should be on a contributory basis is a carefully considered one. The superannuation schemes adopted by most existing semi-State bodies are contributory and it is desirable on general grounds that that should be so. But in the present case there is liable to be a certain amount of movement of staff, particularly programme staff, to and from other organisations with contributory schemes, and any person who leaves the service of the Authority without a pension or gratuity will normally have his contributions repaid to him. No repayment of that kind would be possible under a non-contributory scheme.

Last week, I informed the House that I had hoped for an agreed contributory scheme. Since then, I am glad to say that agreement has been reached, through the Civil Service conciliation machinery, with the staffs concerned for the provision of a contributory pension scheme for existing Radio Éireann staffs. The discussions which led to the agreement have been rather protracted. In view of the delay which has occurred, I think I should take the responsibility of prescribing the provisions of the scheme which will be applicable to the existing officers. For that purpose, I have tabled an amendment to subsection (4) of this section. Retrospective applications will arise out of the delay to which I have referred and will provide against hardship in certain cases. Pensionable civil servants who transfer from the existing Radio Éireann service to the service of the Authority will carry their pension entitlement with them. As these officers will constitute a minority of the staff concerned, it is better to deal with them specially rather than have both contributory and non-contributory classes in the one organisation. I trust that, in the light of this information, the Deputy will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Dillon

I think the Minister is misunderstanding my amendment. I think he regards my amendment as directed to the merits of a contributory or a non-contributory scheme. It is not.

Mr. Hilliard

But we have a scheme.

Mr. Dillon

I know; I do not want to argue that with the Minister. All I am trying to do is to put into the Minister's hands the full discretion to determine, not only now but always, whether the scheme shall be contributory or non-contributory. I do not profess to be capable of arguing the merits of one system or the other. However, long experience has taught me this. You bring in a Bill here and you tie your hands to a contributory scheme. In 15 or 20 years' time, you would gladly substitute for that a non-contributory scheme, but you find to do that you would have to bring in amending legislation and it does not get done. Whereas, if there is no mandatory duty on the Minister to insist on a contributory scheme, he has a wide discretion to adopt any scheme which in the circumstances is most acceptable in the situation obtaining for the time being.

To tell the truth, it is not a matter of vital importance one way or the other, but, mark you, I think it is a useful thing to give the Minister occasionally some gambits he can afford to give away to show that the process of debate and discussion in this House has some value. Nothing more harmless by way of amendment could conceivably be put upon the Order Paper of this House than this amendment. It is designed solely to give the Minister greater flexibility and I would recommend, as a mighty indication of the Minister's growth in stature as a Minister of the Irish Republic, that he should rise up and tell his advisers: "To hell with your brief. I am going to accept this amendment." If he did it once, it would be like a draught of oxygen to him, making him strong as a giant drenched in wine; but to reject this amendment is to reject commonsense, reason and everything else. The only conceivable effect of this amendment is to leave the Minister with the fullest power to do what he intends to do. Why on earth he will not accept it is a mystery to me.

Mr. Hilliard

All the other State organisations have contributory schemes, and we do not propose to depart in this.

Mr. Dillon

That is all right; I do not care. All I want to do is to give the Minister the power to decide.

Mr. Hilliard

I am not accepting the power.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hilliard

I move amendment No. 4:

Before subsection (4), page 6, to insert the following subsection:—

"(4) (a) The Minister may determine the provisions with respect to pensions, gratuities and other allowances which are to be made pursuant to this section in relation to any of the officers and servants of the Authority who, immediately before the establishment day, were officers and servants of the Minister employed in the broadcasting service.

(b) Any such provision may, if the Minister so thinks proper, have effect as on and from a day, not earlier than the 1st day of January, 1960, before the day of the Minister's determination.

(c) The provision determined under this subsection shall be communicated by the Minister to the Authority and the Authority shall include them in the first scheme prepared and submitted under this section.

(d) Where—

(i) a person dies or retires on the ground of ill-health before the 31st day of December, 1961, and while he is an officer or servant of the Minister, and

(ii) such person was, while an officer or servant of the Minister employed in the broadcasting service, informed by the Minister that the first scheme under this section would apply to him if he became an officer or servant of the Authority,

then, unless the Minister otherwise directs, the first scheme under this section shall apply to him and there shall be paid to or in respect of him such benefits under the scheme as would have been payable if he had been at the date of his death or retirement a member of the scheme."

Amendment agreed to.

Section 15, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 16.

Question proposed: "That Section 16 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Sweetman

There is a point I want to raise in regard to the line standard to be adopted and I do not know if this is the proper section on which to raise it.

Mr. Hilliard

The line standard will be declared on the licence to be issued by the Minister.

Mr. Sweetman

On what section would the Minister like me to raise the question?

Mr. Hilliard

This section.

Mr. Sweetman

Let me start off by saying that I know nothing about the technicalities of television and the sending out of its rays, but I have been led to believe that the more lines used in the sending out of programmes, the clearer is the reception image. The image on a television screen is built up by a great many lines and, when we talk of 405 lines, that means that the picture is sent out by 405 lines within a certain ambit. What that ambit is, I do not know. The next line standard is 625 lines and that means that there are half as many lines again in the picture transmitted by it and, therefore, presumably the picture is a little clearer. On this issue, let me be quite clear that I agree entirely and completely with the decision the Minister has made in choosing the 405 line standard rather than the 625 standard, for the reasons he has given. However, he said something the other day which I did not understand and I want to elicit from him what he meant.

There is a third system and I think the arguments we have in favour of the 405 line standard are probably equally good, technically, against this third system but I should like to be informed of that. It is the French system of 819 lines and I have heard it said—but I should like the Minister to give me the benefit of the technical advice he got—that one can get 819 transmissions on a 405 receiving set, but that 625 transmissions cannot be received on such a set. I do not know whether that is correct or not but it seems to me that, if one can get 819 transmissions on a 405 receiving set, then because there are more lines, one could get a clearer picture.

I want to make it clear that I am not a technician and I know nothing about the technicalities of this. I suppose the Minister himself does not know much about them and has to rely on the advice he gets, but if my advice is correct, I do not understand why the Minister, on Second Reading, said we did not consider the 819 line system at all. I should like him to explain why it was not considered. The 625 line system is in use in parts of Europe that are further away from us than France, where the 819 line system is operated, and apart from Great Britain, France is the most contiguous television broadcasting country to us. I do not understand why we did not consider the French line transmission though we did consider that of Belgium, Germany, and Italy, which are farther away from us. To me, that does not seem to make sense. As I say, I agree entirely with the Minister in his decision to choose the 405 line standard instead of the 625 line standard but I do not understand why the 819 line transmission system was not considered.

Mr. Hilliard

Any more than Deputy Sweetman, I am not a technician and I do not pretend to be one. This question of a line system is very perplexing, though very interesting when one comes to study the matter with a completely fresh mind. One can make due allowance for people outside the House—I am not referring to Deputy Sweetman—who give advice freely in the newspapers and elsewhere on the line system to be adopted, and that was one of the reasons which prompted the Government to set up the advisory committee, so that there would be no mistake made in the type of equipment we would purchase for our station.

I am given to understand that it is very doubtful that one can receive 819 transmissions on a 405 line receiver, and the principal objection to the 819 line system is that it requires nearly double the frequency space of a 405 line standard system. Furthermore, at the international convention in Copenhagen in 1952, we accepted the 405 line standard. We thereby committed ourselves to 405 line transmissions and to adopt any other line standard now would mean a great deal of interference with our neighbours, and would also add to the expense of establishing a television service. I went into this matter very fully, I think, on Second Reading.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister went into the question as between the 625 line standard and the 405 line standard.

Mr. Hilliard

That is the reason we did not consider the 819 line system.

Mr. Sweetman

Why was it not considered?

Mr. Hilliard

Because we accepted the 405 line standard in 1952.

Mr. Sweetman

If the Minister puts the case to me in respect of frequencies, he is talking of something about which I know nothing.

Mr. Hilliard

There are channels, bands, frequencies and lines.

Mr. Sweetman

There are, but if the Minister wants to argue with me on the binding force of the Copenhagen Convention, on the events that have happened since and on the way in which other nations have advocated and utilised their television stations since then, I am afraid we shall be here for a very long time.

Let me put it quite clearly to him that the information available in relation to that Convention was available to me when I was in office but I do not think that is the full story at all. The interpretation of these conventions is now a very tricky matter of international law. The usage that has grown up on those interpretations are matters that must also be considered, and the interpretation that we here genuinely and honestly believed in immediately after the Copenhagen Convention, is not necessarily the correct interpretation at the present time. I do not think it matters very much in relation to this issue now but, as the Minister has mentioned that convention, I want to go on record for the future as saying that I do not accept the indications that he has given as to what those conventions meant and I do not think the viewpoint that he has given, quite bona fide, is the correct viewpoint, and, if it became necessary to consider at a later stage the functions of the Television Authority and the manner in which they should operate, I would ask the Minister to have, very carefully indeed, a new look taken at what has heretofore been the accepted interpretation of the conventions— Copenhagen, Stockholm, and Buenos Aires.

Mr. Coogan

Will the Minister say that he is not being forced, unknowingly, into accepting the 405 line by vested interests in this country and will he guard against that?

Mr. Hilliard

I said Copenhagen; I should have said the Stockholm conference.

Mr. Sweetman

I would not blame the Minister in the slightest for mixing them up. There was one in Copenhagen, one in Stockholm, one in Buenos Aires and a fourth one which I can never remember.

Mr. Hilliard

It is difficult to keep track of all of them.

Mr. Sweetman

It certainly is. One refers to sound and the other to television.

Mr. Hilliard

That is right.

Mr. Coogan

Will the Minister assure the House that he is not being pushed into that channel by vested interests in this country?

Mr. Hilliard

I would not think so.

Mr. Coogan

I am not suggesting that the Minister knows that he is.

Mr. Hilliard

No—far from it.

Mr. Sweetman

I must confess that it is the other way, that the vested interests are trying to push him into 625, from my information at any rate.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 17 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 20.

Mr. Hilliard

I move amendment No. 5:

To delete subsection (5) and substitute the following subsections:

"(5) (a) In acting pursuant to this section, the Authority shall have regard to the special position of Irish advertisers and may fix reduced charges and preferential conditions for advertisements from them which are Irish advertisements.

(b) For the purposes of the foregoing paragraph, each of the following advertisers shall be an Irish advertiser:

(i) an advertiser who advertises articles, being articles with respect to which he satisfies the Authority that they are made, produced or manufactured wholly or substantially within the State,

(ii) an advertiser who advertises services, provided that he satisfies the Authority either that the services are provided wholly or substantially within the State or that his sole or principal place of business as a person providing those services is situate within the State,

(iii) an advertiser who advertises activities other than services, being activities with respect to which he satisfies the Authority that they are conducted wholly or substantially within the State,

and an advertisement by reference to which an advertiser is an Irish advertiser shall be an Irish advertisement.

(6) Charges and conditions referred to in subsection (1) or subsection (5) of this section may be fixed subject to variations benefiting advertisers who use the Irish language in their advertisements.

(7) A power under this section to fix charges and conditions shall be construed as including a power to cancel or vary any charges or conditions fixed under such power and, where charges or conditions are cancelled, to fix other charges or conditions in lieu of those cancelled."

In the Seanad I gave an undertaking that I would reconsider the section and bring in an amendment to deal with the points raised there by certain Senators. As it stands, the subsection empowers the Authority specifically to grant preferential conditions and reduced charges to Irish advertisers and, in addition, to vary such preferences and reductions to benefit such of those advertisers as use the Irish language in their advertisements. On reconsideration, I feel there is a need to define what is meant by an Irish advertiser and I have come to the conclusion also that the preference for the use of the Irish language should be available to any advertiser and the proposed amendment provides accordingly.

Mr. Sweetman

I think it is an improvement on the original section.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 20, as amended, agreed to.

Section 21 agreed to.

SECTION 22.

Mr. Hilliard

I move amendment No. 6:

In subsection (1), page 9, to delete "Minister for Finance shall," in lines 23 and 24 and substitute "Minister, with the approval of the Minister for Finance, may," and to delete", with the approval of the Minister for Finance," in lines 39 and 40.

This amendment is intended to make it clear that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, and not the Minister for Finance, will be primarily responsible for the grants proposed in this section, including the presentation to the Dáil of an annual estimate in respect of the grants. As the section stands it might be held to imply that the Minister for Finance, and not the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, will be responsible for these matters.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 22, as amended, agreed to.

Section 23 agreed to.

SECTION 24.

Question proposed: "That Section 24 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Sweetman

When we were discussing the cost of television on the motion for the Money Resolution the other day, we discussed at some length the comparative cost which is referred to in paragraph 35 of the majority report of the Commission, on the one hand and, on the other hand, the cost as set out in paragraph 23 of the minority report. I think I somewhat misled the House the other day in that respect. I was comparing a cost of £600 per hour with a cost of £1,800 per hour, £600 per hour being the cost in relation to the Irish programme; £1,800 per hour—£1,730 is the exact figure—being the cost of the B.B.C. programme. Of course, the comparison, under the Minister's proposals is not anything like as favourable to us as that would be. The cost is £600 per hour for a live programme, £100 per hour for an old canner. The majority report of the Commission visualises 25 per cent. "live". Take four hours transmission. We shall not take 30 hours per week, because that might create more difficult mathematical sums. For every four hours transmission, according to paragraph 35 of the majority report of the Commission, one hour will be "live" and three hours will be canned. The cost of one hour "live" is £600 and the cost of three hours canned is £100 apiece, namely, £300. That makes the cost £225 per hour on an average over the four hours. We are asked by the Minister to believe that a programme costing that amount of money would be able to compete satisfactorily with a B.B.C. programme which cost, in 1957-58, £1,730 per hour. We may take it, I am pretty sure, that the figure of £1,730 in 1957-58 is probably very nearly £2,000 now but certainly £1,800, which is the figure I used the other day. I cannot understand how the Minister thinks he will be able, with a programme costing £225 an hour, to compete with a programme costing £1,800 an hour.

Obviously, there will be some programmes that will have a special Irish flavour that we will look at regardless of their cost. If a particular football match or if Punchestown Races were being televised and Deputies were kept in the House, as they will be this year by the Budget, Deputies interested could go up and have a look at the television programme. Apart from items of special interest to Irish viewers I do not know how you will get the average viewing public in Ireland or, to be strictly accurate, in the northern half of the country, which can get reception steadily, day in and day out, both from the B.B.C. and the commercial service to look at the Irish programme. If you do not get them to look at the Irish programme there seems to be very little chance of getting commercial advertisers to advertise and without the commercial advertisers you will not be able to have any programme at all. The figures show that the basis upon which the Minister is proceed-is fallacious and contrary to all the arguments we have heard.

Mr. Hilliard

The Deputy, in arriving at his conclusions, does not take into consideration the fact that large, wealthy organisations such as the one he has mentioned are charged far more for filmed and tele-recorded programmes than small organisations such as ours will be. In arriving at a figure per hour for that kind of programme, that fact must be taken into consideration. That kind of programme material, as far as my advisers and I understand, is freely available at the prices which I have quoted. Therefore, it follows that the television service here can put forth a programme of a high standard in tele-recorded and filmed material at a reasonable cost. We will not need to pay as much for that material as the B.B.C. pays for it. We are also forgetting that a large part of this country is not yet receiving a television service and that a large part of the country will receive our own television service solely when it is operating all over the country. I feel that the costs per hour I have indicated to the House are the costs at which we shall be in a position to operate our television service.

Mr. Sweetman

Has the Minister any up-to-date figure of the number of sets there are at present?

Mr. Hilliard

I have no estimate of figures other than that which was available at the time the Television Commission sat.

Mr. Sweetman

Does that not indicate that the overwhelming number of viewers will be in the area which is capable, even at present, of receiving other stations?

Mr. Hilliard

It can be.

Mr. Sweetman

It must be obvious to the Minister that we are in an age in which the technical possibilities of television and the range of television are being increased almost day by day. The Minister would be very foolish to bank on the fact that, even by the time the Authority is ready to start, the range of television programmes will not have exceeded the present range. It will almost certainly be possible in a very short time to receive television, be it Irish or foreign, at a range at least double what the present range is. I am not a technician but I understand the technicians have to be able to overcome only the difficulty that television waves do not travel in and out following the contour of the earth in the same way as sound radio travels in order to make reception virtually unlimited in distance. It will be limited always, of course, by the strength of the transmitting signal. However, it is quite illusory for the Minister to base his computation on the fact that large areas in the country will be able to get only our service; indeed, it is also rather offensive for him to say they must take it and that, therefore, it does not matter what you give them. That is not the right attitude.

Mr. Hilliard

The Deputy is misinterpreting what I said. I did not say they would have to take any old programme.

Mr. Sweetman

No. They had to take the service.

Mr. Hilliard

I did not say that. I should not like to bank on that.

Mr. Sweetman

I am not trying to put words in the Minister's mouth. He said they would have to take the service, not the programme.

Mr. Hilliard

I am not banking on that as an argument at all. I am banking on the knowledge that we can purchase programme material at a much lower cost than the B.B.C. can purchase their programmes. They are sold on the basis of the number of viewers. There are 10,000,000 receiving sets in England; we shall not have so many —120,000. On that basis tele-recorded and filmed programmes are sold and purchased by broadcasting authorities throughout the world. We can purchase our programme material at a much lower cost than the B.B.C. I indicated already that we should approach this problem of costs and expenses with caution and therefore, we must wait and see how this television service proceeds before we can come to a final decision on the number of live programmes that can be used as against the number of tele-recorded and filmed programmes that the Authority can use and still maintain a sound financial position.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 25.

Question proposed: "That Section 25 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Sweetman

Can the Minister tell me: is it proposed to appoint the Comptroller and Auditor General?

Mr. Hilliard

I would say "yes".

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 25 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 31.

Mr. Dillon

I move amendment No. 7.

In subsection (3), line 52, to delete ", subject to the consent of the Minister,".

This amendment is moved in an attempt to remedy what appears to be a major defect in the section. The section authorises the Minister for the time being "to direct the Authority in writing to allocate broadcasting time for any announcements by or on behalf of any Minister of State in connection with the functions of that Minister of State, and the Authority shall comply with the direction." That is a power which we view with considerable apprehension but when the section goes on to say in subsection (3):

The authority may, subject to the consent of the Minister, announce that a direction has been given under this section.

our anxiety is greatly exacerbated and I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the section, as at present drafted, may fairly be described as reeking with fraud. There is no conceivable reason why, if the Minister decided to direct the Authority to allocate broadcasting time for an announcement by or on behalf of the Minister or any other Minister, that the Authority should not have the right to say that they were making the broadcast by the direction of the Minister.

It is highly unlikely that this situation should ever arise but it is possible that on some future occasion the Minister might in an arbitrary way use the powers of this section to compel the Authority to publish material which the Authority considered it unnecessary or inappropriate to broadcast, and in that event the Authority ought to have the right to say it is being done by direction of the Minister. It should have that right because if it does not have it, the fact that the Authority appears to broadcast the material vountarily gives the material broadcast an implied meaning to which it is not entitled. In short, the Minister may direct the Authority to broadcast what, in the Authority's opinion, is nothing other than pure propaganda but the Minister is getting that power under the section.

All we ask is that if, on some future occasion some Minister sought to abuse this power by compelling the Authority to broadcast what in the Authority's judgment was no more than propaganda, the Authority would have the right to say: "This material is being broadcast by direction of the Minister," naming the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs as the true source of the material broadcast. That puts the public on notice that they are listening to something other than factual and detached news reporting. It puts the public on notice that the material to which they are listening, or at which they are looking, has been prescribed for them by a member of the Executive for the time being, but if the Authority is forbidden—as they can be under subsection (3) of this section—to fix the public with notice that the material is being broadcast or televised by direction of the Minister, the public may be misled and are being denied information which, in our judgment, they are clearly entitled to. Therefore, we have moved this amendment to delete the words "subject to the consent of the Minister" and the subsection would then read:

The Authority may announce that a direction has been given under this section.

That seems to me to be a moderate and reasonable proposal and one which I would urge the Minister to accept.

Mr. Hilliard

I am opposing the amendment.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister's flexibility is quite admirable.

Mr. Hilliard

The intention of the subsection is to ensure that when a direction has been given to the Authority, particularly a direction to refrain from broadcasting a particular programme item, the Authority may not announce that it has received such direction, if, by doing so, it would be likely to defeat the purpose of the direction. That is the reason why it is in. The Government will not lightly interfere, of course, with the programming of the Authority, but if, for instance, at a time of tension, they feel the necessity to direct the Authority to refrain from broadcasting some programme which would add to the tension, it will not help if the Authority announces it is doing so in accordance with a Government direction.

Mr. Dillon

Would the Minister leave out subsection (1) and make the amendment applicable to subsection (2)?

Mr. Hilliard

I have already explained what subsection (1) is confined to, but this is a new Authority. This provision appeared in the British Act and remained there for 25 years before they removed it.

Mr. Dillon

But they have removed it?

Mr. Hilliard

They have, after 25 years. We have no experience in this matter. I shall be quite frank with the House and with the Leader of the Opposition on these matters. The fact is that we are dealing with a new Authority——

Mr. Dillon

We are not the Mau Mau.

Mr. Hilliard

It is all right for Deputy Dillon to intervene like that, but we are dealing with a new form of broadcasting so far as our country is concerned and we feel this authority should be retained in the Act for some time at least. This measure will be looked at again in five years' time and whoever is here can apply his mind to the particular question, if he wishes to do so.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister realise the form of his observations? This is the kind of thing that Arthur Balfour used to say, that you cannot trust "the dirty Irish".

Mr. Hilliard

Oh, no.

Mr. Dillon

But it is. He used always to argue that, of course, for the highly-civilised residents of Great Britain, these more liberal institutions were permissible but that for "the dirty Irish" they must have more effective and stricter power to keep them under control. The Minister himself says that this power, having existed in Britain for many years, has been struck out of the legislation there as being unnecessary or not even permissible, and after it has been removed from the corresponding legislation in Britain, we propose to insert it in our Bill.

I am prepared to come half-way to meet the Minister. He says that if the Minister prohibits the broadcasting of something, he wants to deter the Authority from announcing that fact. Very well: we shall give him that. All we ask is that if the Minister directs the Authority in writing to allocate time for any announcements by or on behalf of any Minister of State in connection with the functions of that Minister in that event, and only in that event, the Authority shall have the power to say they are broadcasting the material by direction of the Minister. Will the Minister consider for Report an amendment of that restricted application, leaving subsection (1) of the section unaffected?

Mr. Hilliard

I am surprised that the Deputy should deal with this as he has done. He referred to our desire to retain this power here as if we would not trust our own people. That is not so. The Government are ultimately responsible for the broadcasts by this Authority and the Government must, therefore, retain some power by which they can in time of tension, stress or strain veto the right of the Authority to broadcast. In so far as the B.B.C. is concerned, they were restricted for 25 years. Commissions of Inquiry considered this question in Britain. The last commission—I am open to correction here—were thinking of making a recommendation that this power should be maintained. The provision was withdrawn so far as the B.B.C. was concerned. It has not been so far as ITV is concerned. I shall consider the recommendation made by the Leader of the Principal Opposition Party.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister will consider that.

Mr. Hilliard

I will consider that for the Report Stage but, of course, I cannot give any firm undertaking in regard to it.

Mr. Sweetman

We understand that. We shall also consider the method of drafting an amendment to meet the situation.

May I advert now to one aspect to which the Minister did not advert?

If the situation is that the Authority are not entitled to say as of right— forget for the moment about subsection (1); I shall meet the Minister completely on subsection (1) and his power of veto—that they were directed to publish certain material and they are subsequently criticised publicly for such publication, if the Minister agrees to this they will have no recourse open except for the Authority, as a whole, to resign and the Minister will then have on his hands the crisis which, I am sure, he would wish to avoid. The situation, on the other hand, will be quite simple if the Minister agrees to the amended suggestion now made by Deputy Dillon and which he has promised to consider. In the event of acceptance of that suggestion the Authority will not have that necessity forced upon them. If there is criticism they will be able to say that the material was published by direction of the Minister for So-and-So. Responsibility will then be transferred to the responsible Minister.

It would be impossible to tell whether any particular matter had been published by the direction of a Minister without putting down 13 separate questions to each individual Minister because it is "any Minister of State". The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs might answer for all, but "any Minister of State" can get the material over, so to speak. I do not think that would be desirable. I think the Minister would meet his own difficulty if he agreed to some amendment.

I accept at once that there is a difficulty in the case he made against publication of the veto because publication of the veto would be just as bad as publication of the material. Up to this there has been sweet reasonableness on this side of the House; there has not been the same reasonableness on the other side of the House. We hope there will now be a change and the Minister will agree to ensure, in relation to this subsection (2), that where the Authority are forced to publish something they can say they are publishing the material in question because they are so forced.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section agreed to.

Sections 32 to 36, inclusive, agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.

Question proposed: "That the First Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. Sweetman

Are the powers taken there following exactly the precedents in relation to normal acquisition, such as the precedents included, for example, in the 1919 Act for the assessment of compensation? The Act is referred to at the end of page 15. Is the general procedure under that Act to be followed in relation to compulsory acquisition here? The reason I ask is because I do not quite understand the difference between clause 3 (1) at the end of page 15 and clause 3 (2) at the top of page 16. In my innocence, I always understood that you either worked under the 1919 Act or under the 1845 Act. It seems to me now that, because of this clause, you can proceed under both. I should like the Minister to explain how that arises.

Mr. Hilliard

I think it would be better if I explained that on the Report Stage. This is a matter with which I am not very familiar.

Mr. Sweetman

That is fair. I do not understand it myself and I ought to have a better understanding of it than the Minister.

Mr. Hilliard

The Deputy ought to have a better understanding of the matter than I have.

Question put and agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.

Question proposed: "That the Second Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

What does Part IV of the Second Schedule cover?

Mr. Sweetman

I take it that that is where the Radio Éireann transmitter is situated.

Mr. Hilliard

It describes the site of the transmitter station at Moydrum, Athlone, to which title is held by the Commissioners of Public Works.

Mr. Sweetman

As we are on that, would the Minister tell us what Part III refers to?

Mr. Hilliard

Part III refers to the option acquired by the Commissioners of Public Works over portion of the property adjoining Blackrock College.

Mr. Sweetman

Is it adjoining Ardmore?

Mr. Hilliard

Montrose.

Question put and agreed to.

THIRD SCHEDULE.

Question proposed: "That the Third Schedule be the Third Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. Sweetman

Is this the one that deals with interference?

Mr. Hilliard

Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Title be the Title to the Bill."

Mr. Sweetman

May I say that it has suddenly dawned on me what the difference between the two clauses is? One is to fix compensation and the other is to determine how the compensation is to be paid out.

Question put and agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

When will the Report Stage be taken?

Mr. Hilliard

Could we have it tomorrow?

Mr. Sweetman

We have two amendments to put in.

Mr. Hilliard

Yourselves?

Mr. Sweetman

We have two, but we shall have only one if the Minister will give a firm undertaking in relation to "subject to the consent of the Minister".

Mr. Hilliard

I am not giving a firm undertaking.

Mr. Sweetman

The drafting of the amendment is a matter I should like to consider.

Mr. Hilliard

Will the Deputy agree to put it down for tomorrow? An arrangement could be made through the usual channels. If it is not taken tomorrow, it could be taken on Thursday.

Mr. Sweetman

The usual channels are always most accommodating.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 6th April, 1960.