Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Nov 1963

Vol. 205 No. 12

Private Members' Business. - Telefís Éireann: Supply of Information by Minister—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that the attitude of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in declining to supply important information to Deputies as to the activities of Telefís Éireann is contrary to the assurances given by the Minister during the debate on the Broadcasting Authority Bill, 1959; Dáil Éireann, therefore, calls on the Government to arrange that all reasonable information will be supplied by the Minister to Deputies when requested.—(Deputy Corish.)

Mr. McQuillan

On the last night this motion was discussed, I pointed out that in regard to questions in this House about the Television Authority, it was a waste of time trying to elicit facts because either the questions were ruled out before they got to the Minister concerned or, where the Minister did get the limited number of questions which passed through a screening process, he then blandly pointed out that he had no function in the matter and referred Deputies to the Television Authority for further information.

Deputy Corish and other speakers said here that the public as taxpayers and as licence payers to the Television Authority are entitled to information on its running and are certainly entitled, through their representatives, to a certain amount of respect from the officers or the people who control Telefís Éireann.

When a body like this was set up by this House, it was not intended that they were to live and operate from an ivory tower as completely independent of public opinion as if they lived on another planet. It would appear that they have taken unto themselves the belief that they are supermen and are aping the Mickey Mouse pictures which they show on their screen. I am afraid it has gone to the head of the members of this Authority and I blame the Government for allowing that position to arise.

Some people may argue that the Government are leaning over backwards, through the provisions of the Act, to ensure that as far as the public are concerned, there is no interference by the Government with the running of the television institution. In relation to the Acts of this House, it would appear that such is the case, that the body is independent but, as is the case with other State or semi-State bodies which are by Act supposed to be independent, the Government have taken the backdoor method of exercising control. The simple way it is exercised is: pass the legislation first making the body independent and then proceed to place in the controlling body of that organisation your own nominees.

That is what has happened in the Television Authority. The Government appear to be out of the picture but behind the scenes, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs or any other Minister can take up the telephone and exercise as much control over the running of Telefís Éireann as if he were a member of the Board itself, because the Government have put one of their key Party nominees on to the controlling body of Telefís Éireann.

As I pointed out here the other night—and I was quoted incorrectly in the papers — with reference to various items of controversy that appear to have been kept off Telefís Éireann: "When Eddy says no, it's curtains for the show." I was misquoted in the papers as saying: "If Kevin says no, it is curtains for the show." In fairness to whoever Kevin may be, let me say I did not use the name "Kevin". I said "Eddy" and I will leave it at that.

Mr. Corish

It is not "Mr. Ed."?

Mr. Sweetman

There is no prize for guessing.

Mr. McQuillan

It is not the talking horse either. I do not suggest it is the Minister for Social Welfare or indeed the Director General of Telefís Éireann to whom I am referring when I mention the name "Eddy".

This approach to State and semi-State bodies is dishonest on the part of the Government. It is no use trying to tell the public that the Government have no influence when there is a hatchet man prepared to do all the chopping inside a State body. It would be much better to have control exercised over such a State or semi-State body by an all-Party Committee of this House. If controversial matters arise, as they do from time to time, and matters of public importance in connection with the functions of Telefís Éireann arise, the proper way to deal with them is to have them investigated by an all-Party Committee in this House who could examine the situation in conjunction with the officers of the Authority. Such action would save the Minister from a good deal of criticism and it would place responsibility on other groups in this House to see that a balance was kept.

As regards the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, I am satisfied that he personally has not intervened in the running of Telefís Éireann, that he is innocent of any behind-the-scenes action or the use of the telephone for the control, or shall I say, the control by mirrors, of Telefís Éireann. That does not mean that other members of the Cabinet are not doing it. They can be doing it without the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs being informed of what is going on. We must appreciate that in regard to some programmes over which controversy has arisen, the hand of his Party has reached into the Television Authority and contacted the Party member in that Authority who in turn has been in the position to do the necessary hatchet work.

This Authority as it stands must have a little more regard for this House. We are precluded in this debate from going into detailed discussion of this question but if we take their approach to members of this House as proof of what they think, it should be an eye-opener to the public as to what Telefís Éireann thinks of Dáil Éireann. Some time ago, the Television Authority pointed out that they were anxious for members of Dáil Éireann to visit the studios in Montrose.I have often been invited, like other members of this House, by a State body, Bord na Móna and other such bodies, to visit as part of a group of Dáil Deputies the works of one of these companies. However, the invitation was always issued to me personally as an elected representative for a constituency.

When Telefís Éireann decided to invite Deputies to visit the studios, the only way my invitation came was through the Chief Whip of the Fianna Fáil Party. I am not in Fianna Fáil and I take a very dim view of receiving an invitation, as a public representative, to visit Montrose studios through the Chief Whip of the Fianna Fáil Party who was handed a bunch of invitations by some backroom boy in Telefís Éireann and told: "Dish those out to members of the Dáil and arrange to have them out in groups on dates to be specified." I want no invitation from Telefís Éireann to visit their studios unless it comes to me personally. I will not accept it through the Chief Whip of the Fianna Fáil Party, the Chief Whip of the Fine Gael Party or anyone else. I mention that because to me, at any rate, it shows in what regard members of this House are held by the Television Authority. It was just a casual performance, just as you would bring a busload of school-children on a visit to the Zoo or to the Dáil itself and have them shown around by the Chief Whip. That is a point I would like the Minister to bear in mind.

On 11th October, more by accident than by design, I looked at a programme from Telefís Éireann. It was Encyclopaedia: the Union of South Africa. That programme nearly gave me blood pressure. This Government have, for many months, tried to show their antagonism in the United Nations and elsewhere towards the type of government that operates in South Africa. The film shown that evening was nothing other than a documentary which was a publicity stunt by the South African Government. If that film was paid for it was a scandalous waste of money and was a waste of the time of the Authority.

I rang the Authority straight away and I was put through to some individual who described himself as public relations officer and he told me to calm down. He said that they often got telephone calls after a programme from people who were very indignant but that when these people got time to cool off, they were not too bad. I asked could I be given an explanation and from that day to this I have not had a word from the Authority. I believe the Minister has more regard for the members of this House, being a member of it himself, than to allow them to be treated in such a way by this Authority.

I have frequently been asked by people to raise various questions here about Telefís Éireann and my questions have been disallowed. On many occasions I felt that if the questions had been answered, a good job would have been done for Telefís Éireann instead of allowing the rumours to grow and go around without contradiction.That is the reason I feel that the Minister is very foolish in interpreting the Act in such a narrow fashion and that he is only doing harm to Telefís Éireann by not giving information when it is asked for. It is a bad answer to tell me to go to the Authority for my information because we know they will give no information to Deputies on matters of a controversial nature.

Comment was made here on the political débâcle that took place on Telefís Éireann on the night of the No Confidence Vote in the House. No one need suggest to me that Deputies have tender skins and that they do not want criticism on Telefís Éireann. To suggest that would be wrong and I do not think that is why Deputy Corish and other Deputies were critical of the programme. If a professor or anybody else is called on by Telefís Éireann to comment on a matter of political importance, I would like to give it as my opinion that there is no such animal in Ireland as a neutral observer or any institution that could be accepted as neutral. If the Man above Himself came down to comment on that programme, He would not be accepted by one side as neutral and I will not say which side.

The proper approach of the Authority should be to give both sides a fair crack of the whip. You cannot have one without the other. It was a bad mistake that night and I hope the Authority will learn from that mistake. If they can spend so much time copying BBC and UTV, if they can learn so much about Coronation Street and the disc jockeys of BBC and UTV, they may also copy the type of programme put on by these stations as far as politics are concerned. All political parties in Britain get a fair crack of the whip and if the leader of the Government there gets a roasting, the other side of the picture is presented as well. No Deputy would be afraid of answering critical questions, provided the programme was a fair one.

I have watched interviews on Telefís Éireann—I am not now referring to the show that took place recently, but to interviews at airports and other such places. It is pathetic to hear the stupid questions that are asked and it looks as if the interviewer, on most occasions, is afraid to ask questions for fear he might lose his job within the hour. The public are not impressed by that approach because they have access to similar programmes on the BBC. I am very glad of that because as long as that access is there and they have the opportunity to look at such programmes on the other stations, they are able to judge how pathetic are the attempts made by Telefís Éireann.

The excuse will be put forward that Telefís Éireann is young. Telefís Éireann is young but if you get something young starting off on the wrong lines, you are going to have a hard job changing it on to the proper lines. If Telefís Éireann starts off on the wrong lines in its formative stages, we will be unable to do anything about it. It will be impossible to mould it into an institution of which the Irish people will be proud. Nobody is proud of it now and there are very few programmes that are worth looking at. The top man in Telefís Éireann said recently: "You cannot please everybody; it would be an impossibility to please everybody." I hope he did not crack his skull in thinking up that great thought. It is wonderful to discover that suddenly, that you cannot please everybody. One thing which is certain is that Telefís Éireann is fast succeeding in pleasing nobody. Which is worse I do not know.

Like every other Deputy, I should like Telefís Éireann to be something of which we would all be proud. I do not want programmes that just suit me, but a decision on the arranging of programmes, or anything else like that, should be made by people who understand this country, who understand rural Ireland and know what it is like. I do not think it could ever be seriously suggested that an Irishman could go to Spain or France as head of a television authority and decide on the kind of programmes for the French or Spanish people. No Irishman could be expected to do that and he would have a brass neck if he attempted to do it. We do not want that happening here.

It is time we had a few intelligent programmes, discussions in which social and economic problems would be spotlighted. I would ask the Minister to use his position of power on this occasion with the Authority in regard to the preparation of programmes and ask them to put on programmes that are, if you like, thought-provoking discussions which will cause people to think; and which will be vigorous and in which no punches will be pulled. If they do that, a truer picture of life will emerge. After all, even in local publichouses, one hears first-class discussions and debates in which no punches are pulled. Why is it that when we set up an Authority which is to portray life in the country, to be as true to life as possible, the result is a milk and water effort? We do not get programmes worth looking at.

Most of the points I should like to raise are on matters of detail and it would be unfair to try to discuss them on this motion. The motion itself, even though it is very mild, may be the very thing necessary at this stage. The Minister is anxious to see the Television Authority doing a first-class job. If he takes the advice given to him here, he will give, as far as possible, all the information he is asked for by members of this House. If he does that, he will be doing a good job for television if they have nothing to hide in regard to questions put down.

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. Hilliard)

This motion was put down following my answers to three questions asked by Deputy Dr. Browne on 4th April, 1962 on matters in which I clearly had no function and which I suggested he should take up with the Authority. I was not breaking any new ground in making this suggestion. The same type of reply had been given to a number of other questions following the establishment of the Authority; and even during the period 1st January, 1953 to 31st May, 1960, when Comhairle Radio Éireann were responsible under the Minister for the broadcasting service, it was not unusual to invite Deputies to address their questions on programme matters to the Director of Broadcasting.

The motion as worded conveys the impression that I have unreasonably withheld information from Deputies in a large number of cases. What are the facts? Since the Authority was established on 1st June, 1960, I was asked 147 Parliamentary questions regarding radio and television matters. I replied to 126 of these questions, although many of them concerned matters in which I had no special function. There were only 21 cases where I said that I had no function or suggested that the Deputy address his inquiries to Radio Eireann. In other words, I gave the information in six out of seven cases. Does this record bear out the suggestion that I have been unreasonable in withholding information from Deputies? On the contrary, it seems to me that it could be held that I have been unreasonable in asking the Authority for information about matters of day-to-day administration or programming in order to enable me to reply to Deputies' questions.

Here I would like to point out that in the three years 1957 to 1959 the average annual number of Dáil questions on broadcasting matters was 23. Following the setting up of the statutory authority, one would have expected a drop in this number, even with the television service that was then initiated. The figures for recent years are, however, as follows:

1960	35
1961	32
1962	64
1963	42
(to date 20/11/63)

I suggest that the inference to be drawn from these figures is that some Deputies have been unreasonable in looking to me for information about broadcasting and television in view of my now limited function in these matters.

I entirely agree of course that all reasonable information should be supplied by the Minister to Deputies when requested and that has always been my practice. The question is: what is reasonable? Since the Broadcasting Authority Act was passed, I have never refused to supply information on any matter in which I had clearly a function. Difficulty has arisen only in relation to matters which fall primarily within the Authority's bailiwick.In replying to such Parliamentary questions, I have been as informative as possible on matters concerning general broadcasting policy and on matters which gave rise to public interest or concern. I have, however, suggested that other questions looking for detailed information about individual programmes etc. should be addressed to the Authority. Some Deputies apparently consider that this practice is contrary to assurances given by me during the debate on the Broadcasting Authority Bill, but I cannot agree that the quotations given by Deputy Corish in his speech on 12th November contain any such assurance.

The whole tenor of my remarks on the Bill was that broadcasting was a creative medium which was not suitable to a Civil Service form of organisation, with the detailed controls which are inherent in such organisations, and that the new Authority should be quite free to exercise its functions of providing a national television and sound broadcasting service, with power of intervention by the Minister or the Government confined to a small number of matters in which State interests must be safeguarded. Moreover, I stressed that the Authority would have the maximum freedom regarding programmes and matters of day-to-day administration. It would be quite inconsistent with this approach if the Minister were to supply information to Deputies on day-to-day matters which involve no question of general policy.

I mentioned already the position between 1953 and 1960 when Comhairle Radio Eireann were functioning. The appointment of that body made no change in the Minister's legal position but he announced that he intended to entrust them with the day-to-day policy of broadcasting and that he himself intended to intervene only in questions of important policy. He appealed at the same time to Deputies to refrain from asking Parliamentary questions about details of day-to-day broadcasting and to address their inquiries to the Director of Broadcasting and I am glad to say that Deputies, in general, did as he requested.

This was the position when I introduced the Broadcasting Authority Bill. In the circumstances I have described, is it conceivable that I should give the House an assurance that the entire working of the proposed new independent statutory authority could, with propriety, be raised here by way of Parliamentary question and answer? But whatever about assurances, the fact I would like to repeat is that since the Authority was established, there were only 21 cases out of 147 where I referred Deputies to Radio Éireann.

Deputy Corish may wish to be reminded of something he said during the debate on the Broadcasting Authority Bill. I quote from col. 610, volume 180 of the Official Report of 16th March, 1960 where the Deputy, referring to the position of fact at the time the Bill was introduced, said:

In his opening speech the Minister said that legally he was responsible for Radio Éireann, even for the day-to-day administration. I do not say that there was any malice in the evasion of the responsibility by this Minister or any of the past Ministers in regard to the day-to-day running of the station but I think it is desirable that the Authority should be transferred now on a legal basis to this Board which this Bill proposes to establish because I do not think it is desirable that the Minister should be questioned in this House, as he has been on many frivolous matters raised from time to time in regard to plays, items of news, songs or other programmes that Deputies thought were undesirable or offensive in any way.

At column 611 of the same volume, Deputy Corish said:

When the statutory body is established, any criticism had better be directed towards that body.

I would also like to refer to Deputy Dillon's remarks on the Committee Stage of the Bill when he felt that there was some ambiguity in an off the cuff reply I gave to a question asked by Deputy Dr. Browne when we were discussing the absence of a provision regarding censorship. At col. 1578 volume 180 of the Official Report for 31st March, 1960, Deputy Dillon said:

I rather imagine that we desire this Authority to have a certain quasi-autonomy while retaining in the Oireachtas the ultimate right to determine major issues of policy but that, in setting up the Authority, by implication, we divest ourselves of the claim to deal with each programme by way of Parliamentary question and answer as we are entitled to deal with the day-to-day administration of the Minister's Department by Parliamentary question and answer.

At cols. 1578 and 1579 of the same vol. I made the position quite clear. During the present debate, Deputy Corish quoted what I said at that time but I think it desirable to repeat portion of it here. I said:

I do not want any doubt to exist in regard to this matter. When Dr. Browne asked the question I assumed he was making reference to a programme that would be regarded by the people as generally objectionable. ...If such an objectionable programme were put out by our broadcasting service and our people took grave exception to it and so expressed themselves, I think it would be very hard for a Minister to resist a discussion on the matter in this House, a matter which was of vital interest and which so affected the moral standards of our people. It is true that the Authority will be an autonomous Authority and that the Minister will not have any interference whatsoever with the day-to-day programmes of that Authority but we have an overriding responsibility to our people in the matter referred to by Dr. Browne.

In other words, I felt that the Minister should have some responsibility in programme matters which are of wide general interest or concern.

I think it would be appropriate at this stage to quote what I said on section 31 of the Act which gives the Minister the power of veto. In col. 761 of volume 179 of the Official Report for 24th February, 1960, I said:

I should make it clear that this section is not intended to provide the Minister with a general power of censorship as the whole approach has been to place the minimum of restrictions on the Authority in the matter of programmes. However, the service to be provided will be a national one, and in the final analysis, there must be reserved to the Government some means of ultimate control over broadcasts which might be inimical to the national interest. The power is necessary for use in most exceptional cases and I am sure that no Minister would try to abuse it.

This power of veto has never yet been used.

Deputies will have seen Radio Éireann's third annual report and statement of accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1963 which was issued recently. These annual reports contain much useful information about the Authority's activities and I think that Deputies should refrain from asking Parliamentary questions on matters which are covered in them. I feel sure that if any Deputy has suggestions on how the reports could be improved or made more informative the Authority will be glad to receive them and will give them the most careful consideration.In this connection I have been assured by the Authority that Deputies are very welcome to visit the television studios at Donnybrook to see for themselves the conditions under which programmes are produced and to discuss their views on how the programmes can be improved with the Director-General and his staff.

I think Deputy McQuillan could take the matter up with the Director-General.He could write to him and say when he is going up to see him rather than depend upon his invitation, regardless of the manner in which it is sent out.

Deputy Corish referred to section 26 (2) of the Broadcasting Authority Act and asked whether the Authority had been asked to include in its annual report information on any particular aspect of its proceedings. I may tell the Deputy that following the issue of the Authority's first report my Department furnished some comments on how future reports could be improved and made more informative. It suggested, for instance, that more facts and figures should be given regarding programmes, advertisements, etc. Deputies will have noticed, I am sure, that the later reports are more informative.If I consider that further information on any particular point would be useful, I shall certainly use my power under this section to have the matter covered in the annual report.

Deputy Corish also referred to section 17 of the Act and quoted my reply to Deputy Treacy and Deputy Rooney on 30th October, 1962, regarding the use of Irish on Telefís Éireann. I thought at the time that my reply was a full and reasonable one and I am still of that opinion. It would seem that Deputy Corish's real criticism is not that I refused to give information on this matter but that I had not intervened to ensure that Telefís Éireann would do more than they were doing to promote the use of Irish. May I point out that, at the time these questions were asked, the television service was in operation for only ten months and that none of the provincial transmitters was in operation?I felt, therefore, that it was too early to criticise the Authority for failure in any particular direction.

Deputy Corish further referred to my reply of 4th April, 1962, to a question by Deputy Dr. Browne who wanted me to direct Telefís Éireann to reject advertisements for cigarettes on their programmes. I would not agree and in reply to a supplementary question, I said that the Oireachtas had taken this matter out of my hands and placed it in the hands of the Authority. Deputy Corish objects to my saying that I have no responsibility in this matter. I would like to point out that my only function in relation to advertisments is that under section 20 (3) of the Act the total daily time fixed for advertisements and the distribution of that time throughout the programmes require my approval.

Mr. Corish

Suppose they decide to advertise reefer cigarettes, has the Minister no function?

Mr. Hilliard

That is their business.

Mr. Corish

Fair enough.

Mr. Hilliard

On an entirely different matter, it seems to me that it is quite wrong that Deputies should use the privilege of the House to make allegations of the kind made by Deputy Corish, namely, that at least one person in Radio Éireann has a financial interest in what he calls the preponderance of American film shown on Telefís Éireann. If this is intended to refer to an officer of the Authority, I am authorised to say that no officer of Radio Éireann has any financial interest whatever in any company supplying film material.

Mr. Corish

Is everybody who is employed in Telefís Éireann described as an officer?

Mr. Hilliard

There are some servants.

Mr. Corish

You said "an officer".

Mr. Hilliard

No officer has any connection with any company supplying films here.

Mr. Corish

There are others in Telefís Éireann.

Mr. Hilliard

It seems unlikely that it would apply to the servants.

Mr. Corish

What about a director?

Mr. Hilliard

You said "an officer".

Mr. Corish

Will the Minister exclude directors?

Mr. Hilliard

The Deputy had better look at what he said. If the allegation were repeated outside the House——

Mr. Corish

That is the usual Fianna Fáil tactic. That is why we are elected here as members to say what we like.

Mr. Hilliard

If the allegation were repeated outside the House and it could be fairly inferred by a particular officer that he was the person in question, such officer would consider what action would lie open to him to rebut the slander.

Mr. Corish

I am terrified: I am afraid of my life.

Mr. McQuillan

Are these officers threatening Dáil Éireann now?

Mr. Hilliard

We can talk on another more appropriate occasion about "canned" programmes and some other miscellaneous issues that were raised here on 12th November, 1963 and today but which have little or nothing to do with the subject of the motion. I might be excused if I took the same line about the two recent programmes to which most of the debate was devoted. However, so much publicity has been given to these matters that I feel obliged to say just this—that the An Fear agus a Scéal programme was withheld, I understand, for the reason that it would not have been in the public interest to broadcast it.

Mr. Corish

Why not?

Mr. McQuillan

Not in the Fianna Fáil interest, they mean.

Mr. Hilliard

The Authority recognises that the broadcasting service should not be used for the dissemination of subversive policies. This is an eminently proper line for them to take, one the House would expect them to take, and they do not require any prompting from the Government or any prior authority from me for taking it.

Mr. Tully

They should not allow any Irish history.

Mr. Hilliard

This Government set up the Authority and they did not set it up for that purpose.

Mr. Tully

It was at the country's expense, not the Government's.

Mr. Hilliard

We are protecting the people's interest.

To my mind, there is a big difference in principle between the An Fear agus a Scéal programme and the interview with Professor Williams. The Authority considered the former to be so lacking in moderation on a matter concerning the security of the State that it decided that it should not be broadcast. In the other case, no such vital national interest was concerned and the criticisms of the programme were that Professor Williams was not objective or impartial in his comments on the political Parties.

Mr. Tully

He was simply insulting.

Mr. Hilliard

As regards the interview with Professor Desmond Williams, I would refer Deputies again to what I said in reply to the Parliamentary questions on 7th November. I said that I regard it as important that objectivity and impartiality should be strictly observed in the presentation of public affairs programmes and that I thought programmes dealing with matters of public controversy should be as well balanced as possible.

Mr. Corish

Was Professor Williams well balanced?

Mr. Hilliard

I did not see it; I was here.

Mr. Corish

Ask anybody.

Mr. Hilliard

It would be wrong to convict the Authority of political bias on the basis of one or two isolated programmes; it should be judged on the way it has dealt with programmes over an extended period.

I have sometimes thought that programmes could have given the Government a fairer crack of the whip. I and my colleagues would have liked things done differently at times. But we realised that this is what had to be expected when an autonomous body was set up.

I might say at this point that the decision to place the conduct of Radio Éireann under an independent authority was taken by the Government with very considerable hesitation and doubt. The view was strongly expressed at the time that direct ministerial responsibility for the control of the authority, and for its television and sound programmes, was the preferable arrangement. Arguments advanced by Deputies opposite in this debate suggest that this view is shared by others in the House. The present arrangement must be regarded as experimental. If the Government have reason to think that it is not working satisfactorily, they will reconsider it. While the direct responsibility of the Minister for the programmes would create some new problems, it would remove others. It is not yet clear on which side the balance of advantage lies, but if we should decide to restore the principle of direct responsibility by the Minister, it will involve legislation so that the Dáil will have full opportunity of debating it.

Mr. Corish

Nobody on this side of the House asked for it.

Mr. Hilliard

That is what you are suggesting.

Mr. Corish

We asked you to be reasonable and to give us the information you get from Telefís Éireann in this House.

Mr. Hilliard

You want me to interfere. The Deputies who criticise said that I have no responsibility and they want me to accept responsibility.

Mr. Corish

No; we want information.

Mr. Hilliard

The Oireachtas took that responsibility from me. I am prepared to come back to the House and take that responsibility if a decision is taken to restore ministerial responsibility for this service. Meantime, I am sure the House will realise that it would upset the whole basis on which broadcasting is administered if I were to sit in judgment upon the decisions of the Authority in regard to particular programmes.

Mr. Sweetman

Again and again it has been said at the Committee of Procedure and Privileges and again and again the Chief Whip of the Fianna Fáil Party has given an undertaking when a matter was raised that it would be complied with, that when a Minister came in here and read a speech, he would do the House the courtesy of circulating copies of the speech so that Deputies could look at it while it was being read. I regret the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, who normally observes the usual courtesies, has broken not merely the courtesy of the House but also the specific undertaking of the Chief Whip of his Party.

I should not have intervened in this debate at all were it not for the television broadcast that took place following the Dáil debate on the recent vote of No Confidence. Immediately after that telecast various constituents of mine got in touch with me objecting violently to the partisan nature of the broadcast. I did not see it for the same reason as the Minister said he did not see it. I wrote immediately to the Director General of Telefís Éireann and asked to be shown the recorded script of the broadcast because I felt that it was perhaps unfair to judge purely on hearsay evidence when I had not seen it myself. I regret that the Television Authority replied saying they were not prepared to make the script available to me or any other Deputy and quoted as their reason for doing so the reasons given by the Minister himself on 17th November, 1960.

Not having seen the telecast myself, I can only say that all the reports I have received show clearly that the information was not disseminated in the manner required by section 18 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960.

That section states:

It shall be the duty of the Authority to secure——

to secure, mark you

——when it broadcasts any opinion, news or feature which relates to matters of public controversy or is the subject of current public debate, the information, news or feature is presented objectively and impartially and without any expression of the Authority's own views.

Nobody can deny that the matter discussed that night was a matter of public controversy and current public debate. Everybody will agree, in fact, that whether the Government is going to stand or fall is the most important controversy that can take place in any year. It was the duty of the Authority to secure that the information, news or feature was presented objectively and impartially.

As I say, I did not see it myself, but everybody to whom I have spoken has taken the line, not in relation to the Radio Éireann political correspondent, may I say, but in relation to the views expressed by Professor Williams, that the Television Authority failed in its duty of presenting the feature objectively and impartially. I do not blame Professor Williams for having his views. He is entitled to them just as I am entitled to mine. The Act, however, is most specific; in a matter like that Telefís Éireann must disseminate its views objectively and impartially. They failed to do so completely on that occasion.

It would be wrong for me to criticise the Television Authority on that occasion without, at the same time, making it clear that on another more recent occasion I felt they approached the matter in the correct way. As the Chief Whip of the Fine Gael Party, I received last Friday a letter from the Television Authority in which they informed me that it was their intention to have a political discussion on the turnover tax and to have that on a date in December. On the following day, I received a letter saying that the political discussion which was to take place in December was going to take place tomorrow night and that they were inviting—I mention this to show they were perfectly fair on this occasion—to take part in that debate a representative of the three main Parties. Needless to say, we in Fine Gael accepted that invitation with alacrity. I understand the Labour Party likewise accepted the invitation.

I commend the Television Authority for their impartiality in extending an invitation to all three main Parties and I must confess I was astounded when I was informed today in a letter from Telefís Éireann that the Fianna Fáil Party had declined the invitation to participate in the discussion. I mention that to make it quite clear that Telefís Éireann are not always to blame for operating in a way that is not objective and impartial. In the Professor Williams instance, I am quite sure they failed in their duty. In the recent case to which I refer, they did their duty. The unfortunate thing is the Government have run away from public discussion on the turnover tax.

Mr. Tully

I intervene in this debate in order to put a few facts straight. I do not condemn the effort to which reference has been made for the same reason as some of the other speakers. Someone was put on Telefís Éireann on the night of the vital vote here and that someone made a scurrilous attack on the Labour Party and on its Leader in particular. An insulting reference was made to Deputy Corish. Now all of us in the House have been the victims from time to time of letters written without real names being signed or signed by someone so little known that the names mean nothing to most readers. We all of us bracket that type of letter as anonymous. It was an insult to the intelligence of the viewers to put on Telefís Éireann an anonymous speaker. The person who was put on that night was not known to the general public. He was put on to attack someone who was well known. He should have been treated by Telefís Éireann in the same way as the anonymous letter writer is; he should not have been allowed to put his views before the public the way in which he did.

The only member of the Government Party who has spoken on this matter, with the exception of the Minister, made an attempt to justify this action by Telefís Éireann on the ground that we all have to take attacks made on us in the Press and from public platforms. Of course, we have. If we merit these attacks, or someone thinks we merit them, they are perfectly entitled to make them; but we do not have to pay a £4 licence to listen to these attacks. That is the difference and I think the individual who made the comment did not appreciate that particular point. He did not seem to understand that it was a different thing altogether.

So far as the Minister is concerned, I am rather surprised at the attitude he has taken in this debate. I have known him a long time. He is a reasonable, courteous man. I was rather surprised to find him trailing his coat across the floor of the House. Perhaps it was not his own coat he was trailing. Deputy Sweetman pointed out that he read his speech and I may assume, perhaps, that it was someone behind the scenes who presented the coat to be trailed.

Mr. Hilliard

No such thing—it was my speech.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister is responsible for his own statements in this House.

Mr. Tully

I accept that, but it was entirely out of character for the Minister to take the attitude he did in this debate.

Mr. Hilliard

No such thing.

Mr. Tully

He read certain quotations from speeches. I should like to refer to one in particular, the one in which he referred to his limited function.

Mr. Hilliard

That is right.

Mr. Tully

In vol. 180, col. 1595, the Minister said:

The Government will have to bear in mind that in section 18 the Authority is obliged to maintain impartiality in the presentation of news and public discussion.

He did not say anything about limited function there. By "the Government", I take it he means the Minister. Surely the Minister will agree that, if he is obliged, there is no limitation. He either does something or he does not do it. He also stated: "The Authority must be free to present its own news and information service. I am satisfied that the Authority is conscious of its obligation to preserve impartiality and objectivity in its programme."

Deputy Sweetman referred to letters received by him as Chief Whip of the Fine Gael Party from Telefís Éireann. I, as Whip of the Labour Party, received similar letters. Like Deputy Sweetman, I also would like to say that in this instance Telefís Éireann seemed very anxious to do the right thing. Not alone that, but they were very honest when they gave the reason in the letter from which I shall quote now, the letter of 20th November:

Further to my letter of November 15th, I have to inform you that the Fianna Fáil Party has declined our invitation to participate in the discussion of the Turnover Tax which we had hoped to transmit on November 21st at 9.30 p.m.

Since we would not be able to maintain the impartiality required of us in matters of public controversy without the participation of the principal supporter of the measure under discussion, we must, with regret, cancel the programme.

Here is an example where Telefís Éireann were particularly anxious to be impartial and where the Government were particularly anxious that such a programme would not be put on the screen.

General MacEoin

Did the Deputy not know that the Fianna Fáil Árd Fheis was held yesterday and they could not let them go on?

Mr. Tully

The Fianna Fáil Árd Fheis should have nothing to do with this question of whether or not a programme will go on on Telefís Éireann.

Mr. Coughlan

They were given the boy-scouts' warning yesterday: "Bí ullamh".

Mr. Tully

We know they got instructions to attack and, unfortunately, one of the Deputies attacked the Minister for Local Government at Question Time to-day. Deputy P.J. Burke did not know it was the Opposition he was to attack.

There were three programmes taken off: "Guth na Tíre,""Broadsheet" and "An Fear agus a Scéal". The Minister has given the explanation that he considered one of them subversive.Was "Guth na Tíre" considered subversive? Was "Broadsheet" considered subversive? Was that the reason they were taken off or was it not that they were presenting a cross-section of Irish life?

Surely the Minister must accept responsibility for something like this? Surely, in view of the statements he made when the Authority was being set up and since that in this House, he has to admit that it is his job to see to it that things are done properly?

There was a comment by Deputy McQuillan about an invitation to Montrose which he did not like and the attitude he adopted to it but it is on record here that a member of the Labour Party who could not go to Montrose on one of these organised parties phoned at a later date to say that he was anxious to see Montrose and asking if it would be possible to make arrangements so that he could see it. What was he told? He was told he should join an organised party. I do not know whether they meant a political Party or not. Maybe they meant that he should become a member of the Fianna Fáil Party and there would be a great welcome for him out there. That may have been the idea. However, that was the comment made and that, apparently, is the way the public relations personnel in Telefís Éireann deal with people who want to go there to look around. So I am afraid the Minister's invitation to get in touch with Telefís Éireann and they would be welcome there does not seem to have worked out so well.

There was a very apt comment made last week in the French Parliament by a Deputy who suggested that the Minister who is in the same position as our Minister here was becoming the Minister for propaganda. I should not like to see our Minister for Posts and Telegraphs becoming a Minister for propaganda but there is a grave danger, if the present trend continues, that that will happen. It may be a very useful thing around election time to have all propaganda given out through the national television service. It would not last too long, however, and when the election was over, the people who would be trying it on might find that they had made a big mistake.

For that reason, I appeal to the Minister, when he is asked a reasonable question here, not to do the childish thing that another Minister does here and say he has no function, that it has nothing to do with him, that Deputies should go elsewhere. The Minister for Transport and Power owns those words. They are his stock reply to practically everything he is asked. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is a reasonable man, a courteous man, an intelligent man. Therefore, he should establish the fact that he is entitled to be able to give the information which, on the setting up of the Authority, he guaranteed to this House he would give. He should now be prepared to give that information to the House and not force on Deputies the necessity to put down a motion such as that before the House to-night.

It is all right to say that the people who are running Telefís Éireann must get freedom to run programmes as they want to. I know quite well that there has been very severe criticism of Telefís Éireann here and I should like to go on record as saying that I do not agree with a lot of the criticism levelled at Telefís Éireann as regards programmes. I believe that, like every other television station, there is good and bad in it. I believe that they do give a fair amount of reasonably good material. They give a fair amount of tripe, but most television stations do that.

The one thing which most people in this country seem to criticise is that the television station is in the unique position that, in addition to being subsidised by licences, it is subsidised by advertisements and yet claims to be chronically short of money and, for that reason, has to produce sub-standard programmes. Perhaps my taste in television material differs from that of other members of the House. In my view, the Television Authority have on occasions risen to great heights and have on occasions descended to very great depths, but, taken all in all, they are perhaps making a reasonable effort to get on and to do the right thing.

But when it comes to the question of important national problems, that is where the Minister will find himself running into deep water if he allows the Television Authority, or allows his Party to use the Television Authority, to send out a certain type of propaganda, and particularly if he allows them to use it for the purpose of an attack on personalities, because that would not be accepted by the Irish people.

Mr. Sherwin

On reading the motion, it sounds reasonable but I am quite satisfied that what the movers have in mind is not what they say in the motion. I have no objection to the House being given all reasonable information, but, quite obviously, the motion is intended as an attack on Telefís Éireann and Radio Éireann because they are not subject to this House. In my opinion, it would be a bad day for this House and for the people of this country if, in fact, Telefís Éireann and Radio Éireann were subject to the Minister or to this House in their day-to-day actions because, if they were, they would curry favour with whoever would be in power, especially if the people in power were strong. In other words, it would become a one-sided affair. In the long run, it is for the good of the people and for democracy that Telefís Éireann and Radio Éireann should not be subject to this House in their day-to-day actions. It would be a very dangerous thing if, in fact, they could be subject to the attacks of groups here who are in the main wrong and unreasonable. Politics is not based on reason; it is based on expediency. It is based largely on lies, on what you can put over. We do not want institutions, therefore, to be subject to that sort of influence in the House.

Mr. Corish

The Deputy is speaking for himself, I hope.

Mr. Sherwin

Just leave me alone. I do not go out to get beer. I am quite sober. Keep your mouth shut.

Mr. Coogan

The women will not leave you alone.

Mr. Sherwin

Reference has been made to one-sided views. I am the most slandered person in this House but the most innocent. The people who slander me have not the guts, the decency, to make one reference to me outside the door of this House. They are cowardly, miserable individuals. They say all they have to say in here where they are safe. I invite all of them to say one word outside this House— one word, and I will have them in the High Court.

That may have little to do with the motion under discussion. That is my challenge—one word. I am only praying for it. You will not do it, like the people in the newspapers who give no names.

Mr. Coogan

The housewives will say a lot to you.

Mr. Sherwin

Letters are appearing in the papers in the names of housewives which in reality are written by T.D.s.

In regard to what Professor Williams said, I do not know the man but it would be very difficult for an intelligent man to say other than what he said. Politics is for chumps. At least, that is what Machiavelli said. That is how he described people who were so easy to be convinced, who did not reason. Surely the people on the other side of the House did not expect people like Professor Williams to be chumps? If intelligent people go on Telefís Éireann, they have to express a commonsense view in their knowledge of the subject under discussion. The whole attack on the Government recently was of the stuff by which chumps, but not intelligent people, are convinced. Deputies opposite talk about getting a fair show. They have a monopoly of all the yahoo in the Press. Even here when leaders are asked to speak, it is a case of Fianna Fáil Party speakers, then Fine Gael and then the Labour Party. That is three speakers against one. You have the advantage all the time. Even on Telefís Éireann, we are told that the Leaders of the Fine Gael Party and Fianna Fáil were asked. That would be two to one— two yarns against one. With all the yarns you had on your side, assuming they were all yarns, you would have a monopoly of yarns. You have no reason for complaint because some independent person expressed an intelligent point of view.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has about five minutes. I suggest that he should use it.

Mr. Sherwin

For your information, I was invited to speak on Telefís Éireann and it was cancelled. There is one for you! It was not on this programme but another one. I am willing to go on Telefís Éireann. I do not want any feather-bedding or any monopoly. I will willingly go on with any member of the Opposition. I will stand up in Telefís Éireann or anywhere and I want no monopoly. All I ask Telefís Éireann to do is to give me a show and put up representatives even of the two Parties and I will make monkeys out of them.

Mr. Coogan

Make monkeys out of the women tomorrow.

Mr. Sherwin

It is the Parties behind the women tomorrow. Do we not know that that is another fix?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has only four minutes at the most and he ought to make some use of them.

Mr. Sherwin

They have a monopoly of everything and are not satisfied.There was a show last week and someone who marches around in front of women was there giving their views —exaggeration, lies. Everything was 15 per cent or ten per cent. They picked out one or two things that may have been charged, but we should not judge on one or two things that may have been charged when there are lots of things that are not being charged on at all. They might as well have said that the charge was too low. One is as logical as the other.

Mr. Coogan

What is he talking about now?

Mr. Sherwin

I am talking about an anti-Government show that was on Telefís Éireann last week where people said that 15 per cent or ten per cent was being charged as turnover tax as an argument against the Government. Even if there were a case to make that an item or two were charged at 15 per cent or ten per cent, it could also be said there were dozens of items that were not charged at all. Is that not so?

Mr. Coogan

What are they?

Mr. Sherwin

The truth is that what is being said about the Government even on Telefís Éireann was a monopoly of nonsense and lies. I do not want to talk any more because there is no point in talking here. I do not want to talk before a lot of silly, ignorant people either, but I will at any time before an intelligent body of impartial people.

Mr. Coogan

The women will talk tomorrow.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Sherwin

I will say no more than this, that if Professor Williams or anybody else expresses a point of view, just because it is on one side more than the other, it is the most natural thing in the world that an intelligent person should give his view. A judge gives a view and does not please both sides. One thinks he is right and one thinks he is wrong, if he gives a proper type of sane judicial view. I say again that it would be a dangerous thing for anybody—Radio Éireann or Telefís Éireann—to be subject to the pressures in this House. It would be a dangerous thing for democracy.While I have no objection to any reasonable information being given, I would object to these bodies being subject to the pressures of politicians. I hope that they remain independent.

Mr. Corish

I think Deputy Sherwin would be at one with us in consideration of this motion. He said in the latter portion of his speech that whilst he did not think that Telefís Éireann should be subject to attack for its various programmes, the Minister should give all reasonable information to the elected representatives of the people. That is all that this motion asks. I admit that there has been in this debate a certain amount of criticism.That is inevitable when people talk about Telefís Éireann and we stray into the error of talking about individual programmes. This motion of ours was not intended nor has it been a medium by which to attack Telefís Éireann for its various individual programmes. This, frankly, is an attack on the Minister and not on Telefís Éireann. As Deputy Tully has said and as most people here will agree, within the short space of time during which Telefís Éireann has been established I do not think that anybody could criticise it unduly when one has regard to its resources and its personnel at the present time.

As I said last Tuesday night, because we are the representatives of the people, whether Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour or Independents, the Minister is bound to give all reasonable information, but since Telefís Éireann has been established, despite the figures he has given us as to the number of questions answered, the invariable reply we get from the Minister, if not in the initial reply, certainly in reply to supplementary questions, is that the Minister has no function. I am not suspicious of Telefís Éireann for what it does. I am not critical of views expressed by Telefís Éireann, whether by those who make comment on public affairs, newscasters, playwrights who have their plays shown on Telefís Éireann or anyone else. I honestly believe that the Minister should, as he promised he would when he successfully sold the Broadcasting Act to this House, give information to the public.

The Minister talks about people wanting him to interfere with the day-to-day administration of Telefís Éireann. He talks about people wanting to question this, that and the other programme. When he spoke on 31st March, 1960, he said as reported in volume 180, at column 1575:

If it should happen that there would be a television show that would not measure up to our standards it would be necessary for the Minister, or the Government, to take immediate cognisance of that, and for the Authority itself to take cognisance of it and do something about it to make certain there would not be a repetition of shows that were sub-standard, so far as our ideas of good shows are concerned.

He repudiates that to-night. Has the Minister had occasion to reproach Telefís Éireann in any single instance for the type of programme they show? Does he think that all the programmes shown on Telefís Éireann are in accordance with the standards of the Irish people? He must, because he does not interfere. He pretends that it is non-interference, but it seems to me that he could not care less what Telefís Éireann does. He does not seem to have any inclination whatsoever to take an interest in the affairs of Telefís Éireann. He was eager, in selling the Act to this House, to assure Dáil Éireann that if any reasonable information were required, he would give it. He assured Dáil Éireann that if a question were raised as to any particular programme, not alone could it be raised by question but a motion could be put down in the House. He said, for example, that if a county council thought that a certain programme was objectionable, it might be debated in Dáil Éireann by way of a motion.

No matter what Deputy Sherwin may think of any of us in the Opposition, I would say that we are a lot more important than any county council, and if we have views, the Minister should listen to them. If we require information, he should be prepared to give it. We do not want to run Telefís Éireann and we do not want to run Leinster House. We do not want to go to the extremes to which the Minister suggests we want to go. It is not the intention amongst the Labour Party that the Minister should tell Telefís Éireann what particular programme ought to be put on from day to day or from week to week. We accept the position whereby Telefís Éireann has autonomy. We also demand that the Minister accept the responsibility given to him by the Government under section 18 and section 31 of the Broadcasting Authority Act.

The Minister tells us that if we want information, we should ask the Director. I asked questions of the Director on two occasions. The first one related to the percentage of live programmes as compared with canned programmes. The second was one which I had previously asked the Minister; how many times the Directors met. I could not be given that information.Had they something to hide? Had they met too often? They will not give information. Deputies S. Dunne and McQuillan have told us how they were received. One was told to calm down and when Deputy Dunne said: "What the hell", there was an objection as the person to whom he spoke was not used to that sort of language.

The Minister says all the information we require is contained in Radio Éireann's third annual report. This was published about a week or two weeks ago and that is the report for the year 1962-63, up to 31st March. I think that is far too long to wait for that type of report. If information is asked of the Minister, he should be prepared to give the information he has up-to-date, just as the Minister for Finance did today when he answered a question about financial returns up to the latest date for which figures were available.

I want to reiterate that as far as the Labour Party is concerned we do not care what Professor Desmond Williams thinks about the Labour Party or any individual in it. We would be prepared to defend his right to say those things. I am not concerned with whether he is a supporter or a member of Fianna Fáil but all I ask is that when Telefís Éireann gave these facilities to one person to give what was subsequently described by the Minister and Deputy Sherwin as objective comments on the proceedings of Dáil Éireann on 30th October, similar rights should be given to other people. The Minister defended the right of the Director to have just one person in the studio on that occasion and give his comments on the members of the Labour Party, the Fine Gael Party and the Independent Deputies.

I questioned the Director on that and we had a pleasant conversation. He told me that the interview had not been pre-recorded but he defended the idea of just one man giving his comment.One man, if he is honest, can have only one view and I think Fianna Fáil would have been entitled to object if he had lambasted Fianna Fáil. The only objection we had to the programme is that the two points of view were not put forward in it. Whether the Director General knew the views of Professor Williams or not I do not know, but, as one of my colleagues reminds me, he could have ascertained them before he put them on and he should have had the other point of view put forward. I gather the Minister did not approve of the programme and I will say that the Director General will not put that type of programme on again so that the fact that this motion has been put down in Dáil Éireann has done some good.

We want to see political controversy on Radio Éireann. We want to see Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Deputy Sherwin appear on Telefís Éireann and debate things that are topical in the general life of this country. I do not accept the reasons given by the Minister and the Director General for the cancellation of An Fear agus a Scéal. What is going on in Telefís Éireann? Up to 6.30 p.m. on that date, they were advertising the fact that Con Lehane was going to be interviewed by Proinsias MacAonghusa and between that and 10.30 p.m., we had the cancellation.Surely somebody should have known what was in the interview?I understand that the interview was done two or three days before Telefís Éireann advertised it.

The Minister said that the programme was cancelled because it was regarded that what was said by Con Lehane was subversive. Could what was said by Professor Williams on the live programme not also have been subversive? He could have said: "To hell with Lemass, and up the IRA" and what could be done about it? It is nonsense to say that you can censor the pre-recorded programme and let people like Professor Williams go on the live programme and say what he likes. He could be subversive.I suggest that if you employ somebody to conduct a programme of this nature and if you invite a reputable man like Con Lehane for interview, his comments should have been heard by the people, no matter what they were.

The Minister should be concerned about expenditure on Telefís Éireann. Recently we were told that the licence fee was to be increased from £4 to £5. I am sorry the Minister did not have an opportunity to reply about the matter I am about to mention but he must have heard of the play "Miss Julie". Perhaps he will get a chance later to tell us about it. I understand that this play was produced by Telefís Éireann at a cost of between £1,200 and £1,300. I do not know when it was due to be shown but I have been told now that it has been cancelled because it was considered not fit to be presented to the Irish public. I accept that.

If those who set themselves up as censors consider that a play is not fit to be presented to the Irish public, I accept it, but is this a waste of £1,200 or £1,300? Can the Minister answer that now? Now that he has been told about it, is he prepared to inquire about it and tell the Dáil about it? Is he concerned about these things or is he prepared to leave it to the people in Telefís Éireann and never ask a question about it? Will we be told about the waste of money on "Miss Julie" when the Minister presents his new Bill here next week?

There is only a minute or two left for me and there is so much I want to say. We do not want to be unreasonable with the Authority or to interfere with its day-to-day operation. The Minister has said that all the questions we have put to him were answered but he answered the easy ones and referred the ones which he thought were sticky to somebody else. The Minister threatened me and said that if I repeated what I had said here about canned programmes outside the House, somebody would take action.

Mr. Hilliard

I did not threaten you.

Mr. Corish

The Minister said that I had said that some officer had a financial interest in the canned programmes.Whether there is a difference between an officer, employee, director or chairman I do not know but what I said was that a person had such interest. The Minister's research people had better look at the debate again because what I said was "a person". This matter was brought up in the general debate when the Bill was being put through the House. I ask him now to examine his conscience and ask himself if, in fact, what was forecast in that debate has happened.

Mr. Hilliard

It has not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the motion being withdrawn?

Mr. Corish

Not at all.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 42; Níl, 67.

Tá

• Barry, Richard.
• Burke, James J.
• Byrne, Patrick.
• Casey, Seán.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Collins, Seán.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Coughlan, Stephen.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Desmond, Dan.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Dunne, Seán.
• Dunne, Thomas.
• Everett, James.
• Farrelly, Denis.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
• Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• McQuillan, John.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Murphy, William.
• Norton, William.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Donnell, Thomas G.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.K.
• O'Keeffe, James.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Reynolds, Patrick J.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Spring, Dan.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tierney, Patrick.
• Treacy, Seán.
• Tully, James.

Níl

• Allen, Lorcan.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Burke, Patrick J.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carter, Frank.
• Carty, Michael.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Faulkner, Padraig.
• Flanagan, Seán.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James M.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Hillery, Patrick.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Leneghan, Joseph R.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Colley, George.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Cotter, Edward.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Mick.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dolan, Séamus.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Meaney, Con.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• Mooney, Patrick.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
• O'Connor, Timothy.
• O'Malley, Donogh.
• Ormonde, John.
• Ryan, James.
• Sherwin, Frank.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Timmons, Eugene.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Tully and Pattison; Níl: Deputies J. Brennan and Geoghegan.

Question declared lost.