Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Oct 1966

Vol. 224 No. 14

Committee on Finance. - Vote 42—Posts and Telegraphs (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

—(Deputy M. Dockrell.)

Mr. Cosgrave

In considering this Estimate, we are all agreed that it would be highly undesirable if the radio and television services were found to be working in some way to undermine fundamental national policies and ideals. That question is not in dispute. We accept that in the highly unlikely event of this happening, the Government would have the duty and responsibility to take action to correct such a situation. The recent attempt by the Taoiseach to invoke this basic principle to justify what happened in the event of an interference with news broadcasts by a particular Minister is totally unacceptable. There is no suggestion, nor is there any evidence whatever for arguing, that Telefís Éireann is or was acting to undermine fundamental national ideals or policies. Should that be so, the Government have available, under the terms of the Broadcasting Authority Act, a prescribed method of approach to the radio and television Authority, either directly by withdrawing the warrants of appointment for the members of the Board, or by the power invested in the Act which entitles the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, and that Minister alone, to direct in writing that a particular item should or should not be broadcast.

It is therefore entirely unacceptable that any Minister other than the Minister responsible to the Dáil for the radio and television services, namely the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, should surreptitiously approach individual members of the staff who, because of the position of a Minister, may act, and in this case did act, in a particular way. I think it departed from the terms of section 18 of the Broadcasting Authority Act which lays down broadly that in presenting news, it shall be the duty of the Authority to secure that when it broadcasts any information, news or feature which relates to matters of public controversy or is the subject of current public debate, the information, news or feature shall be presented objectively and impartially without any expression of the Authority's own view. As a result of the interference, in the manner in which it was done, no direct request apparently being made that the item should be dropped, but because the Board of Radio Telefís Éireann is appointed by the Government, and to the extent that they are Government-appointed, are creatures of the Government in office, and because the staff of Radio Éireann, or some of them, may feel that they are obliged to conform with the views or directions or opinions, or in some way not to conflict with what may be the view or opinion of a Minister, a certain action was taken.

I do not accept the description that this was an editorial error of judgement. It is well settled, and the terms of section 18 make it abundantly clear, that where news is to be presented, it must be presented impartially and objectively. It may be that many items of news — in fact, it is inevitable — will be critical of Government policy or of Opposition viewpoints but provided these news items, provided the statements made or the opinions expressed are not contrary to the fundamental liberties of the citizens or, in some way, in conflict with the law, then the person or persons responsible for expressing these views are entitled, if section 18 is to be interpreted as this House intended, to have those views expressed and disseminated over the radio or television network. Of course it is open, and must be open, to the Government or to any Minister — and it should be open to any Deputy — to have on a matter of this kind his views or opinions stated and given equal publicity.

The members of the RTE Authority are appointed by the Government under the terms of the Act as laid down here for the very purpose of ensuring that the service is run in accordance with broadly accepted national policies. The members of the Authority and nobody else are responsible to the Government for the conduct of the service. If the Government are dissatisfied with the manner in which the Board they have appointed is performing its duties, they may legitimately either bring their dissatisfaction directly to the notice of the Board or do so through the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. The Government have the ultimate safeguard of being able to replace the members if they become dissatisfied with them.

Members of the staff of Telefís Éireann are responsible only to the Board: it is for the Board to take what action it may consider desirable with individual members of the staff if it feels such action to be desirable in the light of the views expressed to it by the Government. In fact it was for the very reason and for the express purpose of ensuring that there would be no undue pressure on the Board by the Government that the Act establishing the Authority laid down that communications of this kind from the Government to the Board must be in writing, thus providing a record of a particular intervention, both for the members of the Oireachtas and the public.

It is clear that, so far from envisaging as acceptable the kind of interference which has recently been exposed, Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann when passing the legislation establishing the RTE Authority, were most anxious that not even the Board itself should be subject to informal or hidden pressures by the Government. I have said already and it is no harm to repeat, that it is common knowledge— and I do not think the members of the RTE Authority would deny — that the vast majority of the Board are well-known supporters of the Government. It is therefore reasonable and natural that in those circumstances the Board would view sympathetically any complaints made to it by the Government. For that reason it is important that the whole matter should be considered in the perspective that the Board could not be, and certainly the vast majority of the Board could never be, regarded as unfriendly to the present Government.

The recent example of interference which was acted upon with what one can only regard as undue alacrity in having a particular item deleted from the news may of itself not be of very great significance but what is at stake here is the danger of interference with the authority vested in the Board of Telefís Éireann and the obligation expressly laid down in section 18 of the Broadcasting Authority Act that the presentation of news should be impartial and objective. The recent event must give rise to anxiety as to the dangers inherent in individual action by individual Ministers because a particular item or a particular programme or a proposed broadcast may in some way conflict with the policy of or cause embrassment to the Minister.

The Taoiseach, in the course of a reply to a Parliamentary Question, delivered himself of certain views and opinions which are reported in volume 224 at column 1046. Some of these views and opinions are in no way included in the express provisions of the Broadcasting Authority Act. There is no obligation in that Act to present or not to present a particular viewpoint because it may or may not be in conflict with Government policy. Provided the individuals in the community or any group or section in the community act within the law, they are entitled to coverage and in fact, provided it does not conflict with the law or with the Constitution, free public expression is guaranteed.

It is worthwhile contrasting the manner in which certain recent events were covered by RTE and a particular dispute or difference of opinion to which we have been referring with the situation which exists in respect of the BBC in which not merely was every meeting and expression, every parade or agitation carried on by the trade union representatives, in which they conflicted with the current policy of the Government given full coverage on the television service, but, of course, the Government or the responsible Minister, during some of the time the Prime Minister, was given equal coverage. It is vital that the essential liberties which we value as the raison d'être of democracy should be ensured and guaranteed and that no one should be allowed to interfere with those rights.

The provisions of the Broadcasting Authority Act under which the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority was established meant and intended that the Authority would be independent of the Government. By independence was meant that in preparing news bulletins and in presenting news to the public, the staff of Radio Telefís Éireann engaged in that broadcasting part of the service would be free to apply exactly the same standards as those applied by reputable newspapers and the journalists employed by them, that is, that items for inclusion should be selected on the basis of their news value, and the amount of prominence given to them should be determined by the same standard. There would be no need and, in fact, it would be quite wrong for such a news item to have to get the approval of Government Ministers or to have their views taken into account in preparing news bulletins. No employee of Radio Telefís Éireann should feel under any pressure from Government Ministers or anybody else in preparing material for broadcasting.

It is therefore essential that there should be a very clear and unambiguous statement by the Minister in replying to this debate that the unfortunate recent incident will not be regarded as standard method of operation, and I hope that those members of the staff of Radio Telefís Éireann who may have felt compelled to act in this way will, in the future, have enough backbone to stand on the terms of the Act. It is an essential part of the democratic system that, provided people are acting within the law, they are entitled to have their views, whether for or against the Government, broadcast.

I believe the vast majority of the people of this country would not wish to see Radio Telefís Éireann services in the same relationship with the Government as, say, the Irish Press or for that matter with any other Government that may be in power. This is a healthy thing in a democracy, provided there is no attempt to interfere with the law or with the essential guarantees of freedom, provided there is no attempt to weaken or jeopardise respect for the institutions of the State established and maintained in the public interest, but once that is done, those responsible for disseminating either news broadcasts or any other programme should not have to look over their shoulder to see whether there is a Minister or a member of the Board there.

It is all the more important, because this Board is well known to have a particular political colour, or the majority of it, that excessive care should be taken to ensure that everything is done impartially and that broadcasts of any category should be presented because of their news value or their entertainment value or for any other reason, subject to the single safeguard that nothing is allowed to undermine public confidence or to conflict with the law. However, conflicting with Government opinions, conflicting with what may be Government policy, is not undermining public confidence or the institutions established by the State.

There is a very great difference between conflicting with the law, a very great difference between a policy designed to undermine or weaken the structure of the State, and the policy designed to criticise or to express opinions or views on policy or on decisions, however much they may conflict with the views of the Government of the day on particular matters. This incident may well serve to highlight the need ever present in any democracy, and just as much here as anywhere else, for eternal vigilance as the surest guarantee of the liberty of the individual and ultimately the liberty of the State.

Mr. Mullen

This Estimate affords one an opportunity of mentioning a number of matters which come within the ambit of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. It would be wrong of me if I did not raise a number of matters which have been brought to my attention by a considerable number of my constituents. For example, very often I have been asked to explain, if I can, the system operated by the Department in the allocation of telephones: what is the order of priorities? How does one succeed in getting a much-needed telephone? In a number of cases people have been denied a telephone service in their homes, although there was formerly a telephone in the house. Quite a number of nurses made application in different parts of the country for a telephone to enable them to carry out their work, and they have been unable to obtain it. I know also of a number of trade union officials who are still awaiting a telephone. I know of some people who have had to forgo promotion in employment because they have not a telephone in their house and could not give any assurance to their employers who were offering the promotion that they would have a telephone within a reasonable time.

I believe that in relation to the allocation of telephones there is discrimination against the "have nots" in favour of the "haves". This is borne out by the fact that new applicants are now required to pay in advance a year's rental of £12, together with an installation fee of £10, a total of £22. It is not unusual for persons in employment to find themselves in need of a telephone because of the responsible position they hold. However, this does not mean that they are men of affluence, and sometimes it is not easy for them to put their hands immediately on £22. This is something to which the Minister should give consideration.

There has been a very poor effort on the part of the Minister's Department in providing more public telephones throughout the country. In that connection I am sure the Minister is very conscious of the fact that in many parts of this country one can make quicker contact with London than with another part of this country. The exasperation expressed by people in Kilkee about the time it takes them to get through to Dublin is beyond description. I wonder why the Minister and his predecessor have not done anything positive about this matter. I also feel that insufficient attention is being given to the maintenance of the public telephone system. That is particularly true in the city of Dublin. In the area I represent, the phones are frequently out of order. The Minister may say that this is due to vandalism but surely there is some liaison between one Department and another and the situation should not be allowed to arise in which people are left for a considerable time without service while the telephone is being repaired? The condition of our telephone boxes leaves much to be desired and it is time something was done about them.

The Minister must be inundated with complaints about lost letters recently. I am aware of a number of cases of lost letters and the satisfaction given to people who complain about this matter is not very great. There should be a thorough investigation of this matter. There is a need for more pillarboxes in built-up areas. It would appear that although it is common knowledge that a number of new houses are being built in an area and that the population is increasing, the Department ignores the need for pillarboxes in such areas. It is not a nice exercise to have to travel a considerable distance to post a letter or even to take a bus into town to do so. The Minister must also do something about the frequency of collections from these pillarboxes.

I would ask him if he would indicate whether he has any intention of remedying the situation in regard to temporary postmen. That situation is ridiculous when one takes into consideration that these people are employed by a Department which is supposed to have their interests at heart. Many of them have now been working for the Department for a long number of years and they have neither security nor pension rights. The time is overdue for the Minister to give postmen civil rights, to afford them an opportunity of seeking election to local authorities or to this parliament. Other State employees holding much more lucrative posts have been given this right but for some reason postmen are denied the opportunity of representing the people.

Yesterday the Minister in answer to a question said that it was his intention to have more stamp vending machines installed in different parts of Dublin. I hope that steps will be taken to see that when these machines are installed, they will operate satisfactorily, that they will not just be placed there and remain unworkable as frequently happens in the Phibsboro area.

People are frequently being asked to put their savings into the Post Office. The majority of people to whom this appeal is made are people who have not got large amounts to invest and the amount of interest offered to them is no inducement to them to use the Post Office Savings Bank. It is time for the Minister to take another look at the interest rates extended to people who use the Post Office as a savings bank.

There has been a great deal of talk and newspaper publicity about the treatment of Tibor Paul. In fairness to the people in Telefís Éireann, some statement should now be made telling exactly what happened in that case. I am very conscious of the fact that there are two sides to the story. I have heard a lot about Tibor Paul. I know that he was not a very easy man to get along with. I know that there have been complaints about the manner in which he approached people and treated them but surely the manner in which he was himself treated is not in keeping with the way in which we Irish people would like to do things? It was wrong, no matter what he was guilty of, and I do not know what he was guilty of, that a man about to perform on an important occasion should be given a letter indicating that he was finished. This is not the way things should be done.

I hope it is not a new trend in Telefís Éireann. If it is, the trade unions who protect the various classes of people working in Telefís Éireann will not stand for it. In the interests of everybody who has any connection with Telefís Éireann the atmosphere should be cleared and some explanation given of the treatment of Tibor Paul. I know that he held two positions in Telefís Éireann, Director of Music and Director of the Symphony Orchestra. He has been described as a very talented person. Apart from his many talents and the fact that he is a temperamental person, I have had people telling me that he was a hard taskmaster and difficult to get on with but a genius at his work.

Surely the treatment meted out to him was wrong? It will do real harm to this country if the people who are looking into it believe that we are a people who have no culture, no manners and no regard as to how human beings should be treated. Even if Tibor Paul were a man detested by the people about him, the way in which he was treated is scandalous. This whole happening convinced me that there is a need for a public relations officer in Telefís Éireann. There is a need for somebody there who will be allowed to explain things without being incited to do this, that or the other thing. We should not forget that television is the most modern method of communication and a great medium of propaganda, a great medium of education. That being so, we must be extremely careful to ensure that nobody arrogates to himself the right to censor what goes on television. This is undoubtedly being attempted and is what is promised, if one has regard to what the Taoiseach said quite recently as to whether or not he would interfere with television. It will certainly be a most peculiar situation we will find ourselves in.

I remember when I tried to put down Parliamentary Questions about things that had appeared on television, the answer I got was that it was not a matter for the Minister. There is no better example of that than the attitude adopted by the Minister for Transport and Power when he says that he has no responsibility for CIE. This is a peculiar situation. We now find the Taoiseach indicating that any Minister, if he feels like it, on a whim, can pick up a telephone and make a complaint and stop something from going on television. John Citizen cannot do that. I maintain that neither the Taoiseach nor any Minister of State was ever given authority to perform in such a manner. It is absolutely wrong. It is about time it was realised that Ministers of State, no matter who they are, are appointed, having placed themselves before the people on given issues, and have no right to take unto themselves the right to decide as to whether or not a matter will be presented to the people. It seems to me that Fianna Fáil, like everybody else, have grown very much alive to the usefulness of television and have become extremely afraid of being exposed on television. This is the only conclusion that one can come to.

I am satisfied that this is not the first time that there has been this blatant interference with what was attempted to be put on television. I am very conscious of the fact that more often than not a one-sided version of a story has been given on television and it did appear that somebody was playing a part in insisting that that one-sided version went across. Television has been used repeatedly to give a one-sided version in relation to industrial disputes. Only a few weeks ago it was announced on television that a strike in Dublin had been settled and, to everybody's surprise, the next morning the strike was still on. What sort of carry-on that was remains to be seen.

Having regard to the fact that television is an important medium of access to the people, better use can be made of television to enable the people to appreciate the problems of the day. I would ask the Minister to use his influence to try to have more programmes dealing with trade union-employer relations. The Minister could well utilise the services of the NIEC who could undoubtedly put on suitable programmes which would give the employers' point of view and the workers' point of view in relation to important matters and perhaps bring about a better understanding of matters of vital interest to the nation's economy. Far too infrequently is there any type of discussion of that kind on Telefís Éireann. On the other hand, there are a number of programmes which serve out absolute tripe. There is a lot of pretence going on. As a Dublin man, I can say that one of the recent objectionable programmes was under the title "Noble Call". This was supposed to be a portrayal of what happens in singing pubs, which are a very well-known feature of parts of Dublin. One imagined that the television camera crew would go around the pubs and show the people disporting themselves and singing, reciting, and so on. That is not the case. This programme is televised in the station, not in the pubs.

There is amateurish handling of some of the shows that are put on. It has been suggested to me that the reason for this is the cutting down of expenditure and allowing people to attempt things for which they are not really trained.

Having said what I have said by way of criticism, I must say that the Minister's Department are to be complimented on the progress they have made in the personnel department of Radio Telefís Éireann. At last, somebody has wakened up to the importance of having a sufficient number of personnel and competent personnel staff in the establishment. It has been said that there were very awkward situations in the past few years. Being a young and new station, it could have very easily happened that all sorts of disputes could have arisen, all brought about by the wrong people being placed in positions and being put into jobs because of the influence they had with the Government. As a result of consistent agitation and, I understand also, an indication by trade union representatives that they would not tolerate this carry-on any longer, the personnel staff has been increased and some competent persons have been put in there and, in consequence, a great deal of understanding has been created and there is comparative peace in Radio Telefís Éireann.

While we realise the importance of that being the case, we cannot ignore the importance of the men at the top doing what they should do to create a proper image for Radio Telefís Éireann. This brings me back again to the point I have made about having a proper PRO and about the necessity to explain what exactly happened when Eamonn Andrews ceased to be Chairman and what exactly happened in connection with Tibor Paul, and not to have everybody giving free play to his imagination and circulating rumours.

I am sure the Minister is not without knowing the many rumours that were in circulation about 12 months ago in connection with persons in high positions in Telefís Éireann. They were supposedly involved in this, that and the other thing. Shocking rumours went about. Some of the persons found it necessary to publish statements in the newspapers. This is all wrong. If the job is to be done right, the people should be told why this or that action is taken. Care should also be taken to ensure that Radio Telefís Éireann are kept free from interference in regard to programmes. In particular, the news should not be lop-sided. The Minister, his colleagues and the Taoiseach should be the last persons to pick up the telephone and object to criticism, whether it be good or bad. We are supposed to be living in a democratic State. One can only come to the conclusion that this is merely pretence when we find the Taoiseach stating clearly that he or any other Minister can and will interfere with what goes on in Telefís Éireann.

Mr. Dillon

We have moved to refer back this Estimate. That is a procedure deliberately taken by the Opposition for the purpose of indicating to the House and the country that there is a grave matter involved relating to the administration of the Minister's Department during the previous year. There is such a grave matter involved. It arises from the administration of the Act under which the Minister answers to this House for the radio and television service operated by Radio Telefís Éireann. Section 18 of the Act passed by this House states:

It shall be the duty of the Authority to secure that, when it broadcasts any information, 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 without any expression of the Authority's own views.

The Legislature when enacting that Act of Parliament did not stop there. It went on in section 31 to make provision for the very exceptional circumstances in which the Government thought it right to notify the Authority that some specific item of news was inimical to the public interest or constituted a national hazard. In this very exceptional circumstance, the Minister was given authority, under strictly defined and limited conditions, to issue an order to RTE which they had a statutory duty to comply with. But Oireachtas Éireann laid down that in any such circumstance there was a statutory duty on the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, if questioned, to render an account to this House as to why he did it, in what circumstances he did it and what the particular item of news or information or other feature was that he had to direct the RTE Authority to delete from its programmes.

There is a well-known doctrine of the law, the doctrine of exclusion. The doctrine of exclusion provides that where the Oireachtas lays down certain specified conditions for the exercise of power, it says by implication that this power must not be used except in accordance with the specific proviso it has laid down for the use of it. I want to say it is a shocking thing, and a very dangerous thing, that individual Ministers of State should claim the right to ring up RTE and ask them to delete items of news. The awful thing about this is that in matters relating to our fundamental rights, it is unquestionably true that, if they are overtly or openly challenged, we have a long democratic tradition in this country which will excite the vast majority of our people energetically to resist. But the danger is that these fundamental rights are nibbled away without the people perceiving what is afoot. It is the function of Dáil Éireann primarily, because we are trained politicians and proud of it, to call the attention of the public at large to such minor infractions of fundamental rights as may hereafter be used on which to base intolerable claims of censorship which would reduce this country to the position of a byword before the world.

A good many people, the fathers and grandfathers of us all, made very substantial sacrifies to set up a free, independent republic in this country. We have every right to hold our heads high among the countries of the world that we have in this country maintained under great stress and trouble our democratic institutions. It is something we can be very proud of, that we carried them safe and secure through a Civil War, through the years that ensured on that Civil War, through the changes of Government that have since taken place — all in strict accord with the highest principles of democratic action. That has been in no small measure due to the fact that we had functioning in this country throughout this whole period a free press. We had Government papers; we had papers that did not support the Government; we had papers that sometimes went one way and sometimes the other. But at all times no Government would seek to order a newspaper to delete from its columns an item of news because they did not like it.

There is added to the great media of public communication, which heretofore have been the press, a new medium, that is, radio and television. Unless the Government of the day are prepared to impose on themselves, whatever Government are in office, the self-denying ordinance that they shall treat the independent Authority set up by this House on the same basis as they would treat the Fourth Estate, that is, the Press taken as a whole, we are on the highroad to the vilest form of censorship. I deliberately use the adjective "the vilest form" because it will be a form of censorship masquerading as freedom. If the Government came out bluntly and said: "We claim the right to censor," you can fight that and the people are at once awake to the danger with which they are confronted. But the Government are trying sleazily to hold: "We do not claim the right to censorship," but in effect are carrying out a vicious, unauthorised and shameful form of censorship which they themselves are ashamed to avow.

There is one crude instance of this. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries made a statement in Dáil Éireann in which he advised the small farmers to hold on to their cattle. That statement was challenged by the chairman of the NFA organisation who made a comment upon it. That was broadcast, whereupon the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries — not the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs — rings up RTE and says: "I think you are failing in your public duty in publishing what the NFA said about my statement." He did not complain that his statement was not being published: he complained that the comment on the statement would be published. He said, further, that he thought the comment ought to be taken off and, to the eternal discredit of the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority, they submitted to that covert threat.

I put it to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, in the exercise of the duties imposed on him by section 31 of the Act, that he must be prepared to act within the ambit of his authority as the Minister responsible to this House. If the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries honestly believed that the comment to which he objected constituted a hazard to the welfare of the State, was not his proper course of action to ring up the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and to say to his colleague in Government, in effect: "I ask you to exercise your functions under section 31 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960, to write an order to Montrose asking them to withdraw the paragraph which seems to cast doubt on the veracity of my prognostication and advice in regard to holding cattle by the farmer"? There is not a Deputy who does not know that if the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries were acting in good faith, he had the means to act in accordance with the law. The Minister had the means to delete the paragraph which, in the judgement of the Government, was contrary to public authority and then he had the subsequent duty to defend that decision in Dáil Éireann.

I will defend the ultimate authority of Dáil Éireann against any other authority in this country, Radio Telefís Éireann or anybody else. We are the supreme judge; we are the representatives of the people. We choose the Government. The Government are entitled to act executively, subject to their obligation to answer to Dáil Éireann for their executive acts. But here is employed a sleazy, backdoor, corner-boy procedure to get by devious and dishonest means that which the Minister could have got if he were entitled to get it through the ordinary channels provided by Dáil Éireann under section 31 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960.

The Radio Telefís Éireann Authority — I think deplorably — published a statement that the paragraph subsequently deleted at the request of the Minister for Agriculture was an editorial error. They would have done much more for the dignity of this country, and particularly for the dignity of this House, if the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, when introducing this Estimate, had said frankly, in effect: "I will admit that this misunderstanding arose from an executive error on the part of my colleague, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries who, if he wanted something deleted from the programme in the public interest, should have asked me to exercise my powers under section 31 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960, when I would have done so if it appeared to the Government that it was my duty so to act." Instead, we have this silly position of the Taoiseach, in an effort to cover up for the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Haughey, making a new claim which, if pursued to its logical authority, would reduce this country to the deplorable situation in which France finds itself today, of protesting it is a democracy but allowing its Government shamelessly to slant the public service on the national radio and television service.

There may be Deputies who will say that what is good enough for France is good enough for us. There is nothing good enough for us but the best. We have no atomic bomb; we have no mighty armies; we have no vast wealth. However, we have a long tradition in this country of faithfulness to the fundamental principles of freedom. In the troubled world in which we live, it is useful to have some democracy to point to that, in fair whether and foul, has clung fast to that. Furthermore, in this country, even the most unpopular man in Ireland can be certain of one thing, namely, that if, within the law, he seeks to make his point heard in any public place, then all resources of the state will be employed to protect his right to say it.

If an unpopular man gets up on a barrel at a street corner anywhere in Dublin or throughout the country and proceeds, within the law, to promulgate unpopular views it is edifying and dramatic to see the Garda Síochána throw a cordon around him to protect him against any mob that seeks to deprive him of that right. What are we to say about that situation while, at the same time, the sneakthief, like a pickpocket, is reaching into the people's breast-pocket to take by stealth from them the freedom which, in public, they alleged they are concerned to protect for the humblest citizen of the land? Which is the greater injury — to stop a man from speaking his mind in the public streets of Dublin or to say to Radio Telefís Éireann, whose programmes enter the parlour of every home in Ireland, in effect: "We do not like that item of news. Take it off"? If they claim that right, then I put it to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs that, if he is true to the Oath of office which he took when his seals of office were given to him, he must reconcile that claims with the section of the Act under which he acts, section 18, which states:

(1) It shall be the duty of the Authority to secure that, when it broadcasts any information, 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.

That was not done on the night the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries intervened to remove an item of news.

Now I shall make an allegation which I know to be true. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and many other Ministers are making it a more and more frequent practice to make representations of the character made by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries on that occasion to Radio Telefís Éireann. They are simply ignoring their own colleague, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, and I want to say to him that if he had the spirit of a jack rabbit, he would rise in his wrath at his own Government and say, in effect: "Either you make me responsible for this to Dáil Éireann, or you make the whole bunch of you responsible but you cannot have it both ways. If I am the Minister responsible for controlling Radio Telefís Éireann, and answering to Dáil Éireann, for it, I shall not have every Minister and Parliamentary Secretary interfering with the discretion reposed in the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority under section 18 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960. If there is to be any abatement of that discretion, then I am the Minister to make it under section 31, in accordance with the law."

The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs presents to this House a ludicrous spectacle if, holding the seals of office that he does hold, at the same time he suffers himself to be turned into a despised doormat by any colleague who chooses to ignore him, and go behind his back, to do by stealth what he, in the exercise of the statutory authority conferred upon him by section 31, has decided cannot or should not be done.

If I am to judge the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs by his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, the claim will be made that anyone can make representations. Of course he can and anyone has a remedy against Radio Telefís Éireann if that body makes a statement which is libellous or slanderous, according to the decision of the courts, and they can sue for damages and recover damages. Any citizen of this State has a right to ring up the Radio Telefís Éireann authority and protest against the quality of a programme, but no citizen has the right to order them to take it off.

I want to make this proposition now: nobody in this country has the right to order Radio Telefís Éireann to take an item out of a programme except the Minister for the Posts and Telegraphs under the authority conferred upon him by this House under section 31. I do not want to make the extreme case that the Minister responsible for a State Department, hearing an item of news broadcast at, say, six o'clock, is not entitled to make a statement commenting on that item and is not entitled to ring up Radio Telefís Éireann or instruct the Government Information Bureau to communicate with Radio Telefís Éireann and say: "You have published a statement that such-and-such is the case. I ask you to publish with that statement in any future broadcast the following comment by me, to the effect that the facts related by you are not true and the Minister is in a position to say that the allegation made is without foundation", and such further comment as may be fair and equitable to keep the Minister's position as clearly before the people as the allegation complained of; but the one thing that is absolutely certain is that nobody in this country has the right to go to the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority, as we constituted it, and, remember, we are the people who did constitute it, and order them to remove an item except the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, and then only within the strict limitations of section 31, the major restriction of which is that in any such action taken he must do it in writing so that there can be no ambiguity about what he actually did, No. 1, and, No. 2, he must be prepared to answer to Dáil Éireann for whatever writing he issues under the appropriate section.

I warn this House. Mark you, it is nearly time this House began to flick its earns when I warn; some of my friends in the press complain sometimes that "Mr. Dillon is making the same speech for the 15th time", the reason being, of course, that the first 15 times it did not penetrate the thick skull but, on the 16th time, the thick skull wakes up in astonishment to discover: "My gracious, he said that 15 times and it only sounded like a feeble echo in my ears. By heaven, it was true. I was the gom who did not understand him the first 15 times. Now that he has said it the 16th time, I understand it, when it is too late, when there is no money to build houses, when we are borrowing in Bonn, borrowing, or trying to borrow——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with the Estimate for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.

Mr. Dillon

It has got to do with my prophecy. That is what I am talking about at the moment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are not discussing prophecies.

Mr. Dillon

I am discussing prophecies and I am going to go right on discussing them because I am going to make another one now, if you will listen a minute. The simplest citizen in this country, never mind a public representative in Dáil Éireann, has the right to commend his wares for what they are to potential purchasers and I am offering prophecies now urging Deputies to heed them while there is time and not on the 16th time of repetition when the tornado is upon us.

I am warning Dáil Éireann now, as certainly as you are sitting in your seats, this is the first step on the road to censorship of Radio Telefís Éireann. Mark these words: people grew eloquent in warning others of the danger of the atomic bomb. Compared with the power of television, the atomic bomb has not the significance of a popgun. The worst the atomic bomb can do to any of us is to kill our bodies. As surely as you are sitting in this House, it is in the power of television to corrupt our souls and, what is worse, to corrupt the souls of our children. You are dealing now with the greatest power the world has ever seen for the corruption of the human soul.

Remember, when George Orwell wrote his famous book "1984", prophesying the horrors that can come upon us, one of them was that into every home would be poured the voice of a great controller, who would mould the minds of men until ultimately the whole of society would be like putty in his hands. Does none of you realise that that is what is happening? That voice is now speaking in every parlour in the country. Go out and look at any of the suburbs of Dublin. Go into any country town. Start now along the country roads of Ireland over which we carried rural electrification. Village, town, city and country are all now subject to this omnipresent and devastating influence. No one can exaggerate its danger. No one can exaggerate the complexity and difficulty of finding a method of control which, while preserving essential ultimate control in the hands of the people, will prevent the possibility of executive control by the Government for the time being. It is an inexpressibly difficult thing to do. I think we devised in our Television Act a very fair and prudent machine to achieve our purpose. I warn Dáil Éireann that the first steps are now being taken, the first probes are being made, to discover whether we are prepared to connive at a breach in the citadel we raised for the protection of the public mind from indoctrination by any power in this country in relation to the facts. Stand now, or you will never get the chance to stand. It is because we feel the time has come to stand and fight, so that this detestable vision of George Orwell will not take shape in Ireland, that we put down this motion to refer back. I have spoken strongly on this subject because I feel strongly on it and because I want the Deputies who share my passion for freedom to feel with me that now is the time to stand firm.

I want now to make some cursory remarks on other matters which are of minor significance. I have often pleaded for objective reporting of the proceedings of Dáil Éireann and by that I meant that the people should be told substantially what Deputies said here. I want to compliment Radio Éireann on the success which attends their efforts to provide just that. The programme at 10.30 "Today in the Dáil", is a good, conscientious effort to present, in the time available to them, what Deputies said here. Sometimes it would appear to some of us that it does not adequately cover what we think to be of vital importance, and on other occasions it would appear to other Deputies that matters which were of deep interest to them have not been adequately covered. However, taken by and large, it is fairly done and it is honestly done, bearing in mind the obligation on the newscaster to give a fair exposition of Ministers' replies to questions and the resultant apparent weighting of the news in favour of ministerial pronouncements. Once that duty has been discharged, and I see no escape from it, fair coverage must be given to Ministers' answers to questions proposed and in the subsequent reports of debates, the reporter goes as near to reaching the ideal of objectivity as it would be reasonable for the most captious critic to demand. I do not know who he is and I do not give a damn. If I did not like what he was doing, I would tell him so here, but whoever is doing it, I offer him my congratulations on a job discharged in accordance with the highest ethics of the profession to which he belongs.

I want to say a few words now on some matters mentioned in the Minister's very sketchy statement. In regard to one thing, I do think that the Minister does himself a great disservice. I do not know whether the story of what the postal, telegraphic and telephone services provide has ever been adequately told. We all air, and rightly air, in the discussion on the Estimate our criticism of their shortcomings but we should sometimes hear—and we can hear it from nobody but the Minister because he is the only person who knows — that story. While freely admitting that there are defects, perhaps once in every five years somebody might get up and say that bad and all as it is, it has this to claim, and then tell us of its difficulties and the measure of success that attended the efforts to overcome them, tell us of the expanded services and of the things that have been done.

I see a reference in the Minister's statement to stamps. There is a lot of philatelic interest in them. As they are 5d apiece, certainly they have a financial interest, if not a philatelic interest, but why must all commemorative stamps be as big as a bench? To carry them about in your wallet is a labour of love; to find room on the envelope to accommodate one, never mind two, unless you have an envelope which is five inches long, is virtually impossible. A stamp well designed and skilfully executed can be just as impressive in the ordinary square size as it is when, as I say, it is as big as a bench. From every point of view, I suggest that some attention be given to the convenience of the public as well as to the shortsightedness of the average philatelist.

There is no use in the Minister telling us—and it only exasperates Deputies when he does tell us—that we are not as badly off as we think we are in relation to operators answering 10 calls when we lift the telephone. I know the Minister's difficulties and I took the trouble, through his courtesy, to visit the central Dublin exchanges, the better to understand the problem they have, and it is a problem. The problem is exacerbated by staff difficulties in the night time service. As I understand the problem from my experience—and if I state it incorrectly, the Minister may correct me—most of the young ladies at these exchanges are young and attractive and therefore not unnaturally a very large proportion of them get married, God bless them. A girl is not trained to the level of a high degree of skill, when she lands in with an engagement ring on her finger and gives three months notice that she is going to get married at Christmas. That is a difficulty: by the time you have her trained, she has also been trained for matrimony, though that is a training that has been going on unknown to the Minister and he does not hear about it until she tells one of the lady superintendents. Therefore, you have a continual turnover of young ladies getting married. That unfortunately provides the Minister with the problem of trying to build up a large, permanent skilled staff and we must make allowances.

The second problem as far as I can see it—I do not know if Deputies have visited exchanges as I have — is that an operator sits in front of an array of lights, say, 12 rows of 12 lights, each light representing one contact point. One of the most difficult things on God's earth is to persuade a temperamental, intelligent young lady all day long to pursue the weary task of reading her switchboard like a book. If she would start at the top left-hand corner and then read across line by line everything would go like a wedding bell, but unfortunately some of the more enthusiastic girls do not do this. They read line I and attend to a call and then read line 2, where there is no call, then line 3, no call, and then line 4, and then the trouble starts because a call comes in on line 2 and she cannot resist going back to line 2. If she would only realise that that call is appearing on 11 other boards and read on to lines 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, dealing with the calls as they come up, and leaving the other eleven girls in her block to deal with the lights coming on in the lines she has already scanned, the service probably would be largely maintained.

However, the trouble is that as soon as you have trained her to realise that somewhat tedious discipline, some charming creature with whiskers has got her to apply for an alternative position and she is wheeling a pram before you know where she is. None of us can complain and we can only rejoice because it is very natural, but one cannot help feeling — I am a little shy of saying it because I know how difficult it is to train people in special arts and crafts, and particularly in the techniques of a very mechanical and, one might say, dreary, occupation— that that created a very real defect in the operation of answering the 10 signal and that it ought to be possible to overcome it somewhat better than is being done at the moment. I certainly got the impression, and I was not dead to the fact that my approaching visit was communicated to the staff, that those responsible for the administration of the day-to-day work of the exchange were highly competent people, most earnestly desirous of giving the public the best service it was possible to provide.

The last problem—probably there are others in the administration—was that I thought one room rather gloomy whereas another seemed more cheerful and brighter and I said to one of the officials: "If I have any criticism to make, it is why have you got one very cheerful, bright room and the other which is rather gloomy and drab by comparison?" He replied that he would be inclined to agree with me but that they had asked the girls and that the girls would much rather work in what I thought was the rather gloomy room. It seemed to be easier for them to work there. These are things one has to learn by experience and therefore I do not set up to instruct the instructors. That is a very highly skilled job but I think that probably one of the difficulties of this problem is trying to persuade the young ladies to read their switchboards like a book.

Now we come to the night service in which connection Deputy Tully spoke about a lorry driver who drove a lorry for eight hours and worked four or five or six hours as a temporary telephone operator. "Surely one does not expect a man to work 18 hours a day," I said to Deputy Tully and he replied: "If they do not, you will not be able to get operators at all."

Mr. Coughlan

That was in Limerick.

Mr. Dillon

I am aware that this practice is pretty general. It is all based on the crazy notion that it is good economics for the Post Office to work with cheap labour. I do not believe that: I think the Minister would be quite justified in coming to the House and saying he was going to stop this business of employing, as a normal thing, operators on a part-time basis and declaring that he would have a day staff and a night staff or three shifts, if necessary, I do not think that would be necessary; I think a day shift and night shift would be sufficient, with a skeleton staff, perhaps, to bridge the gap. I think the Minister should go to the Government and tell them this cock will not fight, that no matter what they do, they cannot provide a tolerable service without permanent trained staff. That simply means recruiting more girls. We need them and whatever the cost we must pay it. The telephone service is paying its way and will pay its way much better when the Minister is in a position to provide the appropriate equipment and services.

I believe that one of the problems is that he is trying to operate with a part-time staff, not properly trained and who, if the truth were known, do not give a damn. It is not their principal job. I do not believe they have any pride in the work they do at the Post Office as temporary telephone operators. They are lorry drivers, porters, carpenters or perhaps building workers and that is their normal avocation and the work in which they take the pride which makes a man give of his best. Their work in the telephone exchange is merely a sideline to earn a bit of extra money. You cannot possibly expect them to take the interest in that work that people earning their living in the Department ordinarily take. Until the Minister makes that change, I do not believe he can solve the exasperating problem of interminable delays.

Let us be clear on this. I have no complaint if the telephonist comes in after four or five rings and says: "Would you mind waiting a moment; the board is very busy." No rational man would complain about that, but it is absolutely infuriating to ring for five or ten minutes while nothing happens except that the bell buzzes. For the benefit of my colleagues, I can give one piece of information which the never-failing courtesy of the officials of the Department prompted them to give me. It can happen that you have got a defective circuit so do not thump down the telephone, pick it up immediately and dial 10 again because if you had got a defective circuit in the first case, you will probably get it again. Instead, you may thump down the telephone, then count ten and dial 10 again and if you have been on a defective circuit, the probability of getting back on to it after counting ten is reduced to virtually nil. This may spare some of my colleagues trouble.

Mr. S. Dunne

Thanks very much.

Mr. Dillon

I got that information as a result of tramping down to Exchequer Street and enjoying the hospitality and courtesy of the officials who took the trouble to give me all the information I sought and anything more they thought might be useful.

Finally, I know nothing of the merits of the termination of Mr. Tibor Paul's contract. I am not going to discuss the merits at all but I want to say that we live in a civilised community. Artists are artists, and when dealing with them we recognise that we are dealing with temperamental people; they would not be artists if they were not. How in the name of commonsense and humanity can anyone explain to me or to anybody else the alleged fact that the final notice of the termination of Mr. Paul's contract was given to him on the Royal Dublin Society's premises, three minutes before he began to conduct a concert? Why was that done? Is it true that it was done, can the Minister tell us?

Mr. J. Brennan

When the Deputy hears the whole story, he will understand.

Mr. S. Dunne

Are we going to get it?

Mr. J. Brennan

Yes.

Mr. S. Dunne

From the Minister?

Mr. J. Brennan

From somebody.

Mr. Dillon

I want to warn the Minister that I could not understand, no matter what the whole story is, how the final notice, when the period of uncertainly or ambiguity had concluded, could properly be delivered to any man at any address other than his home. I do not think that is an unreasonable stipulation. If he were a business man with an office, it could properly be delivered to his registered office, but in the alternative so categorical a document as that, albeit its advent was forecast, could not with propriety be delivered anywhere but to his home where he would have the privacy of the domestic circle in which to accept the finality of the inevitable, however distressing.

I put it to the Minister—I suppose we politicians are artists in our own way—that if he were about to address an important dinner, with invited guests who had come from foreign countries to study Post Office methods in this country, if he were about to speak as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs on behalf of the people and on behalf of the State and the Taoiseach suddenly took it into his head to reshuffle the Cabinet and sent him a message asking him to place his resignation in his hands, saying that for the time being he must ask him to accept the fact that there was no room for him in the Cabinet, would he think that the moment before he was called on to speak was the appropriate moment to send in that letter by hand to a public place which was not his home? Even though the Taoiseach had said to him in the morning: "Listen, Minister, I have to reshuffle the Cabinet and it may turn out that when it is done, I will have to ask you to retire to the back benches either permanently or for a period," would the Minister not think it was a cruel, brutally offensive thing to send the letter by hand to be delivered just as he was about to rise and speak at the dinner? That is in substance what was done to Tibor Paul.

I do not care how inefficient the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs might be. I do not care how insubordinate he had been. I do not care how difficult a colleague he had proved himself to be. I would say if the Taoiseach was a man at all, he would have finalised this matter with a letter addressed to the Minister's home or at least to his residence in Dublin. That is the only feature of the Tibor Paul incident of which I am qualified to speak. I do not claim the qualification to speak on its artistic implications. However, on the ordinary fundamentals of decent relations between Christian men, I think, to say the least of it, a grave error of judgement was involved in the circumstances of the finalising of the notice Mr. Tibor Paul received.

I think the Minister has a better story to tell of the work of the Post Office and the telephone service than he has succeeded in indicating to this House. Deputy Mullen was talking here about public relations and how useful they were. Tell the House the truth. Tell the country the truth. The Minister will agree with me he has a staff with an immensely good tradition. He will agree with me they do extremely difficult things with a courtesy and skill which many other Departments of State and semi-State bodies could with great advantage, emulate. They are entitled to have that story told, and if the Minister tells the whole story to the House, he will find he will not be addressing an unsympathetic audience.

We have moved to refer this Estimate back, not on the record of the general administration of the Post Office but on the issue as to whether the foundation stone of censorship is to be laid in our presence and with our approbation through the medium of television. Our answer is "No, never" and if you try to do it, some day we will get the opportunity of undoing the dirty work to which you put your hand.

Mr. S. Dunne

Deputy Dillon has, as usual, performed a very necessary and a very useful parliamentary function in stating here in his own inimitably lucid and eloquent way one at least of the fundamental freedoms which go to make up what is loosely called a democratic society. No thinking person who is a member of this House and no thinking person outside this House could but feel perturbed and anxious at the recent instances of intervention by a Minister and of the effective manipulation of a news item by a Minister of State. I am not concerned with the discussion or arguments which coverage around this matter, but I am concerned with the violation of law which herein occurred.

It has been said, and I do not want to be repetitious, that the Act which enabled the setting up of the Television Authority, while it provided in theory that there would be no censorship or no interference with the running of Radio Telefís Éireann from any quarter, that the policy of the Authority would be so to conduct its affairs as to ensure that all sections of the people would have their business, in so far as it was of interest to the public, reported objectively, at the same time, section 31 of the Act, to which reference has been made, did and does enable the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to direct, in writing, if he thinks it necessary, the removal from television programmes of an offensive item, or direct, if he thinks it necessary, the Authority to proceed in so far as its functions are concerned in a certain way, provided he is satisfied that the public interest is at stake and provided he does this in writing, the object of that being that there may be a record of any such interference or intervention on the part of the Minister.

In the case which has been cited here, we have had the extraordinary experience of a Minister watching television, having his own statement of a matter concerning his Department reported, hearing a report of an opposition view from a spokesman of a section of the people with whom he was concerned, ringing up and, not just trying to achieve censorship but, in fact, securing censorship. It may seem a matter of small moment but to me, at any rate and to the Labour Party it is a matter of very considerable importance. Activity of this kind must be stamped on immediately it rears its head. It is not to be thought that this administration is going to live much longer—the death wish is on it and certain of its members are busily engaged in assembling their own political coffins, but even in the short period in which it will remain in control of this country, we, in so far as we have any power as members of the Opposition in this House, will try to protect the fundamental liberties.

It is of no moment to me what the political colour of the Government may be in a situation of this kind. Everybody who has made any kind of examination of the historical development of the Europe of the 'Thirties, who has given even the most cursory glance at that dramatic time, will know that the forces of evil, where they came to power, did so in the main by the manipulation and deployment of the organs of propaganda. It has been said that no greater organ of propaganda exists in the world today than that of television. It can affect even the illiterate. Formerly propaganda could have been said to be confined to the printed word or to the spoken word, whether addressed from platform or public roster, but—and I do not use the word "propaganda" in any denigratory fashion—the propaganda that can be exercised through the medium of television is of such a fantastic nature that there is not any comparison with any other form heretofore known to man.

That is why we have to be very jealous, very careful and very scrutinising when we come to discuss and examine how television in this country is being employed. I could say a great deal about Telefís Éireann, both complimentary and uncomplimentary. One could talk about nepotism in Telefís Éireann and we could have quite an illuminating half hour were we to trace relationships through blood or marriage in certain sections of it but one must also say that we are fortunate in having attracted to the service some of the keenest brains to be found in these islands in that avocation.

To return to the most important thing with which this Parliament has to deal and with which it is our duty as members of the Dáil to deal, the question of the exercise of a political censorship, let me add that it is not alone this censorship which was so crudely exercised by the Minister for Agriculture on a recent occasion. Let me add that this is not the only example of the attempt to seize Telefís Éireann by the Government Party, to make it their own, to use it for their own purposes and to use it to mould public opinion in their own interests.

We have an example in the programme called "Division". I am not speaking of the actual discharge of this programme by the technicians. I want to refer to the manner in which the Government have grabbed an unjustified representation in this programme. If we look at British television and their method of political reporting, not all is admirable but one aspect is. If there is a question of national importance for discussion in Britain, we are accustomed to seeing one person speaking for the Government, one for the Conservative Opposition and one for the diminutive Liberal Party. That is not the rule that Fianna Fáil follow.

Mr. J. Brennan

Wilson would be entitled to have a few more.

Mr. S. Dunne

You were so friendly with him a few months ago it is a pity you did not suggest that to him.

Mr. J. Brennan

We are still friendly with him today.

Mr. S. Dunne

The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries described him as your enemy today.

Mr. J. Brennan

It is not a very good analogy you are drawing.

Mr. S. Dunne

It may not be a good analogy to the members of the Government who have in their minds the hallucination of perpetual power and who think that by this method they can shore up the collapsing facade of the Fianna Fáil Party in their attempt to trample on the democratic rights of the people. The Minister sneers at the very mention of democracy. That is nothing new in the ranks of Fianna Fáil. We are well acquainted with that attitude over a long number of years. Democracy is a word to be used at election times and forgotten in between. Let us look at the situation in the programme called "Division".

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.