Before Questions I was dealing with postal deliveries and complaints from people that their post does not reach them until 12 noon or one o'clock in the day. Would it be possible, I wonder, to interchange the routes periodically so that those who get their mail early one week might get it late the following week and vice versa? I do not know whether or not that would please everybody. Those who are used to getting their mail early in the morning might not like to surrender that amenity. Another solution would be to employ more auxiliary postmen but, if one does that, it would scarcely be worth the auxiliary postman's while to go to work because he would have only an hour or two in the morning. You will not get anyone to do that work. However, I will leave it to the Parliamentary Secretary. I may have a chat with him some time about this matter.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 42: Posts and Telegraphs (resumed).
Say it all in public.
It is not a case where it can be arranged that the Deputy's supporters will be getting their post first.
It was the chairman of the Deputy's Party who mentioned it to me. He said he was getting his post late in the evening. He wanted me to do this. He met me on the adjournment one night and mentioned it.
Would the Deputy put in a word for me?
Business people demand the right to get their post early in the morning. I agree that business firms and others should not be deprived of their post. I have often made representations in this House about business firms getting their post late in certain areas. These firms should be able to co-operate a bit more. I am sure the Post Office would facilitate them if they sent a man to collect the post, but then you would be doing a postman out of a job, and that is another point.
I want to deal now with auxiliary postmen. When an auxiliary postman is employed he should be given sufficient hours to give him a week's wages. I do not want to labour that point. Auxiliary postmen are full-time postmen within the meaning of the Act but they have not all been appointed and, in a society like ours, we should have a new look at that problem. They may not have passed some particular examination but some of them have 40 years' service. They have the same hours as permanent postmen and they do not get a pension when the time comes to lay them off. That is the outlook of the 17th and 18th centuries. This is a social problem. The Government could set an example here. Red tape should not prevent those men from getting a pension. If there is a fault in the system which has grown up over the years surely, in the light of our experience, it could be corrected. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would take this up with the Government.
I dealt in general with telephone kiosks which I consider to be a social necessity in every area, especially along the main roads, and especially where accidents have occurred. They could be the means of saving a person's life. I got many replies from the Department stating that it would not be economic to put a telephone kiosk in this area or that area. I know it would not be economic, but there are a number of things we do which are not economic. It is not economic to pay social welfare benefits. I regard a telephone kiosk in each district as a social necessity. I should like the Minister to tell the House how many telephone kiosks will be put up in County Dublin during the coming year.
In the Garrettstown area the public telephone is in the post office. The post office closes at 6 o'clock and, if the people want to make a call later for a doctor or a nurse or on urgent business, they cannot do so because the post office is closed. I cannot understand why the Department cannot put a public telephone box outside the post office. Surely it would not cost anything, and it would be an advantage because people would use the phone outside the door of the post office. I have taken up this matter and I hope the Department will see their way to doing this. I cannot understand why a simple request like this cannot be granted. It is a social request. It would help the people in the area considerably, and there are not many telephones in the area. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister would have another look at it. Sometimes people ask us what they are electing us for if we cannot do something for them. Therefore, I am forced into the position of raising it publicly.
The majority of the post offices are kept very clean and that is a good thing from the tourist point of view. I agree with other speakers that post offices should be bright places and should be well kept because of the impression that creates on the tourists. It looks well and they see that this is an up and coming country. We depend so much on our tourist trade that we should make the most use of any show window we have.
A number of facilities have been made available for the blind. That is a step forward and I should like to thank the Minister on behalf of those people who are dependent on those facilities. We are living in an affluent society. Hundreds of people have been looking for telephones during the past few years. I welcome the statement made by the Minister about RTE this morning and every decent citizen will welcome that statement too. Today we have a number of people roaring and shouting about democracy. There are certain sections who think it is a great pastime to insult the established order as we know it. They think they are very smart in challenging authority in every way they can. So far as public men are concerned, we expect that in public life but we want to protect others. This House is in a position to protect decent people who were attacked on RTE by people who hold no authority. Any old crackpot who forms an organisation can get on RTE to blackguard someone else.
I agree with the Minister's statement today. If there is democracy on one side there should also be democracy on the other side. People who are being attacked should have the opportunity to defend themselves. I am very happy that the Minister is taking a democratic stand on this. I do not want to stifle the opinions of any person good, bad or indifferent. Indeed, speaking on the Criminal Justice Bill I said I thought we should have a safety valve like Hyde Park Corner where these people could speak and would not be holding up the traffic. Let them go there and say what they have to say. I am not saying anything against the officials on RTE. I have had the honour of meeting them and I want to thank them for the courtesy I received on all occasions. I am just pointing out that people of standing have been attacked and they were not in a position to defend themselves.
The Minister's statement today was most important. It will bring a lot of credit to him and to Telefís Éireann. If he continues along that line, he will be defending a free democracy and will not allow it to be abused by any old crackpot who comes along. One cannot always be right in every statement one makes, but there should be some little safeguard for decent people. I shall not mention names but there are people of standing in our society who are entitled to our protection if any effort is made to pull them down. Furthermore, they are entitled to have somebody there to defend them. I do not like our media of publicity to be misused by this small minority who have no regard for anybody. Indeed, I do not think they have any regard for themselves—but they have a cure for all ills. I shall not say any more on that point.
The television programmes are very good, as are also the radio programmes. They are doing a very good job. I wish them well.
The Minister has a big job to face. I welcome his programme for extending the telephone service and improving the service generally.
There are just a few points in the Minister's opening speech on which I should like to comment. The Minister stated, in relation to the reorganisation of the postal service, that 16 sub-post offices were closed in 1967. He went on to point out that the policy now is to close sub-post offices which, to put it in his own words, are not being used sufficiently to justify keeping them open. This whole question of closure of sub-post offices, dismissal of auxiliary postmen and the motorised delivery of letters requires examination. I am not at all convinced that it is a good policy.
In my locality, where a sub-post office was closed and two auxiliary postmen lost their jobs, the mail is now being delivered from the central post office by van. All down the years, the post was delivered to my house at 8 a.m. but, since the introduction of the van delivery service, we get it at 11 a.m. With van delivery, a much wider area is covered. It stands to reason, then, that some people will get their post early and that others, at the end of the route, will get their post very late. I have had complaints in this connection from other areas in Limerick, from people who were getting delivery of their mail in the forenoon in the old days from the local sub-post office and who are not getting their mail now until well into the afternoon. That is one result of the changed methods of delivery but, in addition, we must face the fact that a number of auxiliary postmen have been thrown out of employment. It is a scandalous state of affairs that these postmen have been treated in this manner by the Department. I have asked questions in this House on a number of occasions about the matter. I have seen cases of men who were employed for a long number of years and who, with the closure of sub-post offices, lost their employment. As far as I know, there is no provision for pensions for these men, although the situation may now have changed. I should be glad if the Minister would elaborate more fully on the policy of his Department for the future in relation to the closure of sub-post offices and the reorganisation of the delivery system of mail.
We all agree that an efficient telephone service is vitally important to any country. It is tremendously important here because of the fact that we have a developing industrial arm and a developing tourist industry. It is not always appreciated that one of the things an industrialist will look for, when proposing to establish an industry in an area, is an efficient telephone service. There has been quite a considerable improvement in the efficiency of the telephone service in the Limerick region in recent times. We are now part of a large complex embracing the Shannon Industrial Estate and the Shannon International Airport. A topclass telephone service in that area is, therefore, vitally essential. From time to time, there have been complaints from people, but, for the past year or so, there seems to be a considerable improvement in the efficiency of the telephone service there.
The Minister also referred to the programme for the installation of automatic telephone exchanges, which is a very important matter. I am glad to note that considerable progress has been made in the installation of automatic telephone exchanges.
The Minister mentions another problem in the Post Office Engineering Section, namely, the difficulty of recruiting engineers. Would it be possible for the Post Office to devise some scheme whereby they could ensure sufficient engineers for the service? Could some type of studentship be operated whereby suitable recruits to the service could be taken on after leaving certificate and could be sent to university, while at the same time obtaining practical experience in the service. I understand that this type of approach has been used fairly effectively in Britain.
We have a scheme like that.
Good. The Minister referred to the Telex service. This is something of which I have not very much experience but quite recently I saw this Telex system in operation. The Minister referred to the fact that it has now been possible to reduce the costs of installing a Telex system. In relation to industry and tourism and to all fields of activity which demand an efficient communication network a Telex service is of vital importance. However, I understand that even though the Minister states it has been possible to effect a reduction in installation costs, the installation of a Telex service in a firm is still a pretty costly business and in many cases the cost is prohibitive.
The most interesting part of the Minister's speech is in the final pages in which he enunciated some very important basic principles in relation to the broadcasting service. While I have disagreed with the Minister on many occasions in relation to various things, I want to say that I fully agree with the principles enunciated by him here in relation to the national broadcasting service, particularly where he states:
A national broadcasting service should not follow the prevailing trend of stirring up protest in such a way as to emphasise all the weaknesses of human nature and defects in social and economic structure leaving not an impression of constructive policies to be pursued but a cynical and destructive impact on the viewer and listener.
He goes on to say that it is important that RTE should encourage constructive thinking. This is very important. There is nowadays too much of a tendency towards sensationalism in reporting. We find this in the question of student rioting and protests by various sections. The sensational aspect of it tends to be highlighted. It is a fact that side by side with the people who protest there are hundreds of students in this country who quietly and without any exhibitionism or sensationalism are engaging in charitable and social works of a very high order. I know examples of students who devote their spare time to looking after the aged and people in need and other students who spend their holidays doing constructive work. I have in mind particularly the students who spend their holidays on projects such as the Cheshire Homes. Unfortunately nowadays there is a tendency on the part of the communication media to play down this type of constructive action and Telefís Éireann is an offender in this respect.
In the economic sphere, I call to mind incidents in my own constituency a year or two ago when the problem of unemployment was being highlighted and when Telefís Éireann did a special feature on it which presented a completely wrong picture of the whole problem. A short time later when a news conference was held in Limerick to announce a major industrial project Telefís Éireann or Radio Éireann did not consider it even worthy of mention.
I agree with the Minister that RTE should not be used to create a murky cynical atmosphere in regard to what are ultimately problems due to inadequacies of character in people as a whole. I feel that Telefís Éireann could play a better role in creating a climate of opinion conducive to constructive action. It could play a much more constructive role in national development and I feel very strongly— I mentioned the case of the students and the Limerick incident—that Telefís Éireann is not doing enough to highlight community projects.
There are numerous examples all over the country of local communities, through the application of the principles of community development and local co-operation, overcoming many problems of an economic and social nature. These are rarely mentioned on Telefís Éireann but if some buffoon gets up and makes an outlandish statement his views will be highlighted and he will most likely be interviewed. I want to say that people who are engaged in social and economic activity and people who have a proper sense of community effort and citizenship are not satisfied with the philosophy—if one might call it that—of RTE in the presentation of news or news features.
We might as well be honest about it, politicians are very sensitive to news presentation. I want to say that in so far as parliamentary reporting or political programmes go there is only one programme—and I am including sound and vision—which is beyond criticism. That is the programme "Today in the Dáil". This has been mentioned before. Whoever is responsible for compiling that programme has undoubtedly the ability to a high degree to pinpoint the main points made by Deputies in their contributions in this House. It is completely objective, unbiased and beyond criticism. Many people have said to me and I have discussed it with other Deputies: "Why can Telefís Éireann not broadcast `Today in the Dáil'?" I understand the tape is there from the sound programme and I do not think, from inquiries I have made, that there is any financial or technical problem about beaming this programme on television. It would be well worth while for some of the political commentators to study the techniques and the methods of presentation used in the "Today in the Dáil" programme. The great thing about this programme is that it reports what Deputies have said, not what political commentators think they said or meant to say. I would urge the Minister—whom I know to be sincerely interested in having a good television service—to use his influence to persuade the authorities of Telefís Éireann to have the 15 minute programme called "Today in the Dáil" transmitted on television as well as radio.
The Minister in his speech said that some programmes on television are good and others are trash. The Minister did not say it quite as strongly as that but I am saying it. I am sorry to say there has been a certain deterioration in the overall programme content on Telefís Éireann in the last twelve months. Two or three years ago Telefís Éireann broke new ground when they introduced their winter programme. Unfortunately, the standard set at that time has not been maintained. There seems to be a tendency now to revert to what, as far as I know, are called "canned programmes". It is also true to say that Telefís Éireann has done a tremendous job in certain types of broadcasting to which the Minister refers as public service type programmes. Telefís Scoile, for example, is an excellent programme.
I have always been, and I still am, keenly interested in adult education and I hold the belief very strongly that Telefís Éireann could do more in the field of adult education. A good start has been made with the introduction of such programmes as Telefís Scoile and the other programmes which the Minister mentioned: "On the Land", "Mart and Market", "Radharc", and the various documentaries on continental countries. This is the type of programme which people in this country want. I would welcome any development which includes increasing the number of programmes of this type. I also note that the Minister commented on the fact that:
... The Authority has taken steps to modify the recent trend in interviewing persons of all political and social opinions in a manner which has aroused the strongest criticism.
This is a change for the better. The Minister has also invited Deputies to make their views known to Telefís Éireann. I am glad the Minister has stated that he himself has made his views known to Telefís Éireann. In the final analysis, we shall get in this country the broadcasting service we demand, but unfortunately the people of moderate views to whom the Minister has referred are often not very vocal. It is important that the people should make it known clearly if they are dissatisfied with the contents of certain programmes and with the attitudes and philosophies transmitted in them. I would urge on the Minister the importance of maintaining close contact with the RTE Authority. The only opportunity we ordinary Deputies get to express our views is once a year or so when the debate on the Estimate comes up. I have had occasion to express my views to Telefís Éireann and, as often as not, I got very little hearing.
To be parochial for a moment, I frequently get complaints from people in the Limerick region about the inadequacy of the news coverage there both by radio and television. In fact, I was extremely embarrassed myself last September when 150 people from France came, in a chartered plane, to the Limerick region to spend a holiday. The group had been sponsored by a well-known French company, and I was at Shannon Airport with other people to meet this group. There were television crews from the BBC and from French television but not even a reporter from RTE. We get complaints, too, that Telefís Éireann gives little or no coverage to the St. Patrick's Day Parade in Limerick City. I am voicing all these complaints in the hope that we might get our fair share of coverage in the news on radio and on television.
The House will be grateful for some further elaboration by the Minister on sentiments expressed in his Estimate speech which must give every person in this House cause for grave disquiet. I should not like it to go out from this House that the Members here were united behind the Minister in some of the statements he made in relation to Telefís Éireann and especially to public affairs programmes. The Minister says in his speech:
It is evident from viewing foreign television and from a study of intelligent debate on the effects of TV on the public mind that the Establishment is always on the defensive.
I do not know what he means by the "Establishment", but I am talking about the political Establishment, and as a member of a Party which has suffered from the Minister's own smear campaign which he has run for the last few weeks in different parts of the country, I have little confidence in the Minister's sentiments in relation to fair play or the standard of public debate. Repeatedly, for the last two months, this Minister has gone up and down the country smearing my Party for their policy and repeatedly in the last few weeks he has continued to make allegations against this Party and to throw red paint on it. He has continuously during the last few weeks said that the democratic socialism, to which this Party subscribes, is in some way totalitarian and alien. Therefore, I am not too happy and I would like some information about what the Minister means when he expresses disquiet about certain trends in Telefís Éireann.
Deputy Tully agreed with me.
I am speaking about the sentiments the Minister has expressed and I said I would require some elaboration.
Deputy Tully did not require it.
I am now speaking and I require some elaboration on some of the sentiments the Minister expressed here. The basis I am making this on is the Minister's conception of political fair play. It would be very dangerous to allow the Minister to go unchallenged in this House on the speech he made here on the Estimate. There is an impression abroad that we must have cotton wool treatment of TDs when they appear on Telefís Éireann to be interviewed. If the Minister is saying here that somehow Government spokesmen are getting a raw deal on Telefís Éireann I want to say that this is a view with which I do not agree. Within all their limitations Telefís Éireann are doing their utmost to give a fair and just proportion of views in this country at the present time. Mark you, I have suffered from awkward questions on Telefís Éireann but if one goes for interview on Telefís Éireann and this is marked on occasions by awkward questions it is no excuse for making rash statements about a necessity for changing the trend in public discussion in Telefís Éireann.
In general, it is a very good thing that the public have a chance of looking at and hearing from their public representatives on Telefís Éireann, whatever difficulties and embarrassments may be involved. It is a good thing that the public have a chance to decide on the immediate reactions of their public representatives when they see and hear them in a discussion. It can only strengthen the public's ideas of the limitations and the talents of the people which they have elected in election after election.
I do not think any Member of this House should wish to hide behind statements issued to the press. If we enter public life we take on the risk of answering awkward questions when they come. I do not believe that we should attempt to put a barricade between ourselves and awkward questions. There has been in the last year or two an impression created outside that somehow Members of this House wish to wrap themselves in a cocoon against the community. There has been an impression created abroad that all of us here subscribe to a club atmosphere and that that is what we wish to preserve. I say if we are interested in the future of this House as a Parliament the more we open the affairs of it to public scrutiny the better for all of us.
I do not know what the Minister intends in those rather ambiguous statements about his discomfiture with regard to present trends in Telefís Éireann. I must say I find this rather strange coming from the Minister. I must say I see more shots of Ministers on Telefís Éireann when they are opening this thing, or that thing, or speaking in this place or that place, than anyone else. Over the Christmas period we saw the face of the Minister for Local Government, Deputy Boland, as he warned the public, at least three times every night, about hazards on the roads. His face was to be seen on the screen almost every time we turned it on. We all had to witness the paternal solicitude of Deputy Boland over the Christmas period. I must say we are all greatful, particularly the pedestrians and motorists, that this probably had some effect but the Minister for Local Government, over the Christmas period, certainly did not lack his personal snapshots in his warning with regard to the hazards of the roads when he was on Telefís Éireann. Likewise, I have never seen any lack of viewing time to show the solicitude of this Minister or any other Minister. I have always considered that they got a very fair showing from Telefís Éireann. My impression has always been that the Government got more than their proportion of coverage of news programmes.
I would say that there is a very delicate balance between a television service which is reasonably free of Government control and one which must answer to every Ministerial whim. I am very apprehensive about the statements made by the Minister today about the situation in Telefís Éireann. Here they are attempting to run a reasonably free service and also a reasonably responsible service. I cannot see that the Minister can blame our television service for the disagreements which are a fact in the community. Does the Minister imagine, or believe, it beneficial that Telefís Éireann should ignore matters in which the public are interested? After all, if the Minister wishes to protect the people from adult political discussion on Telefís Éireann they can quite easily turn the switch and hear it from Britain.
The Minister says this is a Christian community. So it is. I have not seen any programme on Telefís Éireann to suggest that this community is otherwise. In fact, most of the public discussion and inquiry programmes seem to me to be inspired by Christian standards. I would say all of them are in fact so inspired. I must commend the religious programme "Outlook" which shows us that such a programme can take up social issues. I know there are many people who would not feel that this is a very good thing. I know there are many people in the Fianna Fáil Party who take this view. I must say, although some people say you should not bring social issues into religious programmes, that many of those who attended the proceedings of the Second Vatican Council, and who have spoken on it since, would also agree with me.
Sometimes it can be said that to be a socialist in this country is to be anti-Christian. We would suggest that in the Catholic Faith there is no contradiction whatever between being a Democratic Socialist and a Catholic and that it is utterly wrong for the Minister to imply that Telefís Éireann were anti-Christian with regard to some of their programmes. I am extremely uneasy about what the Minister says with regard to some of the programmes on Telefís Éireann as it seems to me he is hinting at further action. In his speech he says:
In connection with programmes on current affairs and news bulletins, I have on a number of occasions indicated some objectives which I consider should be aimed at. News programmes should include a high proportion of constructive and praiseworthy developments and advancement in the national and international sphere and should inculcate love of our cultural heritage.
The programme "Bring Down the Lamp" was certainly one programme which attempted to do this and it would be a good thing to have more like it. I do not think that Telefís Éireann should ignore programmes which deal with positive developments in the country. I am not aware of programmes on Telefís Éireann which apparently laud anarchy, as the Minister seems to suggest.
The Minister says:—
A national broadcasting service should not follow the prevailing trend of stirring up protests in such a way as to emphasise all the weaknesses of human nature and defects in the social and economic structure, leaving not an impression of constructive policies to be pursued but a cynical and destructive impact on the viewer and listener. I wish to make it clear that whatever be the practice in other countries, the standard of RTE in encouraging constructive thinking and positive solutions to problems must be of the highest order.
We make no bones about the fact that our Party is protesting against the situation at the moment. Does that mean that policies which apparently express dissatisfaction with the present sort of economic policies being pursued by this Government are to be described as stirring things up? We make no bones of the fact that we wish to stir things up—to stir things up, in fact, to the point where we stir the government out.
These are very alarming sentiments coming from a Minister who has a great deal of responsibility in relation to the national television service and, as I say, the Minister's own contributions to democratic debate prove that he is as good a mudslinger as any of his colleagues. It does not alter matters that he throws the mud with an Oxford accent; it is still mud.
If criticism is to be made of Telefís Éireann, I think that there are others in the State besides Deputies who must be heard. As well as welcoming the views of Deputies, the Minister should also welcome the views of other sections of the community. Where we have only one television station and where that station was founded by the State, there is a very delicate balance to prevent that service being run on authoritarian lines. I may read things into what the Minister has not said, but certainly I get an impression, both from the Minister's make-up and from statements made here and elsewhere during the last few weeks, that he is teetering on the brink——
May we have a quotation from those expressions the Deputy is talking about?
I have just been quoting liberal——
I do not think the Deputy will be able to substantiate his statement.
There is a difference between Cuban socialism and Christian socialism.
There is nothing in my statements to suggest anything of the kind that the Deputy is suggesting. If he reads the two statements he will find that there is nothing there that he can object to and Deputy Tully has entirely agreed with what I have said. I was not referring to reports of Deputies either.
The Minister referred to public discussion programmes. I am most certainly entitled to be somewhat uneasy at the sentiments expressed by him in this Estimate. We should require further elaboration of what exactly is meant by these rather ambiguous statements about worry that the Establishment might be annoyed by programmes. I am referring to the political establishment here, which is the Minister's Party and Government, and I am saying that his Party get a very fair share indeed of public discussion programmes.
I am also making the point that, in common with other Deputies, we must expect awkward questions on television programmes. I myself have often been the butt of very awkward questions on Telefís Éireann, but I believe that is the nature of the medium and it is one that either we are ready to meet or we are not. What kind of democracy would it be if we were to do a little brainwashing, as it were, on television interviewers so that they might ask us the questions we like to be asked?
I am also suggesting—frankly I am a little biased on this but I just mention it as a tribute to the way things are being run—that every week has its quota of Ministerial pictures on television programmes. Fair enough, they are the Government of the day and you can equally say justly that some achievement has been made or has not been made.
If we begin to make a total change in the set-up because we feel irked at one programme or another and if we reach for our phone and say that such a thing should or should not be repeated, the people, especially those on the east coast who can do so, will very soon turn the switch on their set and get a programme from Britain which suits them better. We cannot get away from the fact that we must give the Irish public adult programmes. They have been getting adult programmes, particularly in the religious programme "Outlook" and in the political programmes. I am not so sure that the political programmes have the highest TAM rating; probably the politicians, in the view of the public at any rate, have not got the most interesting things to say. But the programmes that have gone on have been a worthy attempt to uncover real political issues. It may be disquieting to some to realise that ranting and raving on a television programme is not the type of thing the viewers are interested in.
If our political and current affairs programmes succeed in breaking through apathy or inertia on any particular question then, surely, this is praiseworthy. Short of having a second television station in this country, I do not see how one could ensure that there would be fairness in presentation if we interfere and intervene in the present situation. For myself, I would say that it would be wrong for us to intervene or interfere because of the handling of a representative of a Party, whichever Party it may be, on a television programme.
If the Minister is thinking along the lines of changing the present status of the Authority or changing the present drift of programmes, the House should be fully informed about what steps he intends taking. I should not like the Minister to go away with the feeling of being given carte blanche from this House to proceed to Telefís Éireann and tell them that a new order is on the way and that he does not want what he calls the establishment to be criticised and that this is the unanimous feeling of the House.
We want constructive programmes. Surely responsible and free discussion of political questions, in which the representatives of political Parties or interests discuss particular social questions and attempt to engage the interest of the public in these questions in an effort to break through apathy or inertia, is the best way in which we can ensure that we have a mature and adult democracy?
That is what this Party would like to see and God knows our democracy is in need of adult political discussion after 40 years of irrelevant chatting about the Civil War politics. Surely this is the thing we need most at the present time on a national television service? One of the most alarming things which I see at present is the contempt among the young for the whole idea of this Parliament. This is something about which every Member of this House must be alarmed. Affairs of this Parliament since 1922 and topics discussed here do not really enable this Parliament to claim that real political issues have been discussed here. Let us understand that.
Is the Deputy saying they have not been discussed?
I am saying that when it comes to the discussion of real issues this Parliament does not deserve an accolade. I say this as a member of a Party which puts its hope for change in our society in winning in majority in this Parliament democratically. We do not believe in demoany other sense. We believe in democratic control at the ballot box to win a majority in this Parliament. I am honestly expressing my uneasiness——
The Deputy believes nothing of sense has been discussed here in the last 40 years?
Real political issues have not been discussed——
Nor economic nor social problems?
Real political debate has not existed in this Parliament——
Deputy O'Leary on the Estimate.
All of us of whatever political beliefs must see to it that this Parliament regains a high place in the interest and respect of the Irish people and that it be really seen to be a forum in which we discuss relevant issues and that our television service reinforces the idea that this Parliament is the place where real issues are to be discussed. Such a Parliament has nothing to be afraid of from a free television service.
I am suggesting the discussion of real political issues in this House. In a free television service such discussion would receive ample coverage. I am saying, as a member of a Party which cherishes the idea of a Parliament and of practising democracy and of gaining control of that Parliament, that I would be very loath indeed to suggest that Telefís Éireann should be interferred with.
After all, we all talk about the freedom of the press. There is in this country several large newspaper chains which persist in attacking and smearing Labour politics. On communications media, I may say that, on balance, whatever discussions or questions we may have been faced with in Telefís Éireann, we cannot complain about the kind of programmes which have opened up public debate. On the other hand, several of our newspapers, by the policy measures of their editorial board or otherwise, insist on giving little cover to Labour's political ambitions in this country or to the real policy we have put forward, apart from publishing the smears of our enemies.
I would appeal to the Minister to elaborate further on what exactly he means by these statements mentioned in this Estimate, which appear to me to give grave grounds for disquiet and to suggest that there must be a definite change in the kind of discussions on public affairs programmes of Telefís Éireann and that there is cause for alarm in the trend there. I should like to know by what means he hopes to correct these trends. Taking the rough with the smooth and taking in general the achievements of Telefís Éireann, I feel they have done a good job under difficult circumstances because—and let us admit it—politicians are pretty thin-skinned, whether the public know it or not. We are sensitive to criticism, especially criticism that appears to be misdirected or based on wrong information. For myself, I am sensitive when criticism which is incorrect is made. This is part of being a politician of a persecuted minority Party. We must get over these personal drawbacks in that sense.
I would certainly say that, taking the rough with the smooth and in the general course of events, Telefís Éireann have attempted to give a pretty fair approach to political matters in this country. They have attempted to give all members of all parties in this House a pretty fair innings on programmes. Awkward questions have been put and will, I hope, continue to be put to representatives of all Parties in this House. These programmes on public affairs discussions must hold the attention of an adult public. If we decide to interfere with them, as we have seen done in Communist countries, where there is no free discussion as we see in France, where the Government intervene in every television programme and even suppress programmes, it would be a very bad thing. It would be bad if we followed such precedents just because we felt that something, mysteriously referred to as "The Establishment," was being knocked.
I suggested nothing of the kind.
The Minister referred to the concept in other countries of "knocking the Establishment". The conclusion may be drawn from that that the Minister is critical of the approach of the service in relation to the present Government or to people with whose political views I would agree. This is a fair interpretation of what the Minister said. I would be glad of further elaboration from the Minister to ascertain exactly what he did mean. The Minister cannot expect to come to the House with statements like these and feel he would not be asked for further elaboration.
The television service is a most important connection with the public. The Minister could not expect to make these statements without question. The TV service must hold an adult public in these public affairs discussion programmes. If we intervene and ensure that only questions or programmes to the liking of our political viewpoint—it will be the responsibility of a future Government also to see to it that we have a free television service—and if we try to tailor make programmes to specifications according to our political approach, the public will give their verdict by turning the programmes off. Would this be to the benefit of any political achievements which the Minister wants the Irish public to understand and acknowledge? The practitioners in Telefís Éireann are aware that they are given under an Act of the Oireachtas this job of making the station as economically viable as possible and producing as much as possible of public interest. None of us can interfere with the freedom of the viewer to turn off the programme. I suggest it would be to the detriment of politics in this country, and of public discussion, if such a feeling went out among the Irish public.
I have no doubt that next month or the month thereafter, when the Third Programme for Economic Expansion is issued, we will have at least one week devoted to the themes of that programme. We will not complain: we appreciate that there is an election coming off and we say: "If this is your policy for 1969 you must get a fair innings in the national television network". I have no doubt we shall have discussions night after night, all on this programme, all lauding this achievement of the Government which the Government, as is their wont in policy matters, say will be realised in the years ahead. The Minister would give me a sharp answer if I came in the following week to complain about this new economic programme put out by the Government. He could say, justly I suppose, that it is a serious programme and that it is the public's duty to be interested in it. I do not, for instance, think that Telefís Éireann gave an unfair coverage to the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis.
Or to yours.
We had excellent contributions from delegates at the Ard-Fheis. There was Mrs. Byrne, for instance. There were others who spoke——
And we have not forgotten Cruise O'Brien's contribution.
Speaking as one who is never likely to be at a Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis, I must say it gave me an insight into the make-up of the Ard-Fheis. I was able to make an assessment of its democratic composition. It was an educational experience to see on Telefís Éireann an account of that Ard-Fheis. As I had said, fortunately or unfortunately I have never been as close to a Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis and as one who is not likely to be at one of those gatherings, it was an educational experience. Similarly, there must have been other viewers who were grateful for the opportunity. Surely, in the same way, in May next when Fine Gael have their Ard-Fheis—I am not likely, either, to be at one of theirs—I shall be very interested to view the make-up of that assembly. I am doing my best to be impartial.
We can see that.
It would be wrong for this House, as I have said earlier, to give the impression to the outside public that somehow we are afraid of television as a medium. I believe television is here to stay and that in the future it will be an essential element in any democracy—and, therefore, that we have got to come to terms with it as a communications medium. Let us hope that our newspapers, and our newspaper political commentators come to terms with it because there has been a certain amount of evidence recently that they have not. Politicians of all Parties must come to terms with it and not attempt to give the public the idea that they view it as a vicious animal which must be reined in as soon as possible.
The more this House gets rid of the idea of exclusiveness, the more we open up our affairs to the public scrutiny, the more we shall be able to drive home the lesson that this Chamber is a place where democratic discussion occurs, where legislation is begun and where the country may observe its affairs being discussed. We would not be doing a service to the whole ideal of democracy if we allowed our annoyance at one television programme or another to suggest that we must alter the whole basis of television. Finally, it may be that the Government of the day—any Government, composed of any Party, in the future—may suffer the overwhelming temptation to interfere in a television service set up by the State. We have had unsavoury examples in the past of warnings being made and ministerial suggestions about how one programme or another should be run. Though it may be difficult to do so, we should resist the temptation to interfere.
It may be that the only satisfactory solution which would ensure there would be a certain amount of freedom in a State-run television service would be the establishment of another television service in the country, run by newspapers—by a consortium, shall I say, of provincial and national news-papers. There are examples in other countries which show it is nearly impossible for one station in a country to ensure that it can defend itself against pressures from outside, especially Government sources. This is one area in which, possibly, the best guarantee of freedom in communication would be competition between a State-run station and another. One could arrange, perhaps, that as a result of one being a commercial station some of its proceeds could be utilised to subsidise the State station.
All of this is on the lines of thinking how do we ensure that this important element in a democracy is kept reasonably free from interference. Let us never put out the idea that the only custodian of responsibility in a country must be a Minister or a TD. I am sure that the RTE Authority are as conscious of their responsibilities to the country. I am sure there is no group in the country which could give us such a tale of woe in their attempt to give the Irish public a service which attempts to record the happenings of the country than the programme directors in TE.
There are many organisations in the country which from time to time feel extremely annoyed at a programme. I feel sure there are many organisations which from time to time have felt that Telefís Éireann are not doing a proper job overall, in the period during which they have been operating, because of the kind of oversensitive reaction from Government sources to certain programmes—a reaction which I do not believe Telefís Éireann can be held responsible for because if Government policies were being put over insufficiently well, then that is a Government responsibility. The Authority may justly say: "Send us the representatives. Send us David Andrews to defend Government policy". I am merely giving an example of a Fianna Fáil Deputy who puts over Fianna Fáil policy very satisfactorily in the circumstances. I am attempting to be fair. It is not the fault of the Authority if certain Ministers are unable to defend Government policy. Possibly you should change your Ministers if you think it important enough. The fault must lie with all the Parties concerned if we cannot put across our policies on Telefís Éireann without prior screening, prior rehearsal and a tailormade programme.
It seems to me that one great gain we have had from the television service is that the public have had an opportunity to get behind the propaganda, behind the election promises, of seeing their politicians face to face and of drawing their own conclusions. There is a challenge, undoubtedly, in television for any parliament. There is a challenge in recognising increasingly that it reaches a very vast audience, that it presents the possibility that more people may become interested in politics, that more discussion may be engendered in the community on political issues. I should imagine that it could be said that an increase in interest in political issues on the part of the public at any time certainly puts pressure on the Government of the day, whichever Government that may be.
Undoubtedly, the best climate for Government majorities in any country approaching an election is "all quiet", a low key and low temperature. If the temperature is heightened, if there is a great deal of discussion, it has happened, and political scientists have noted this trend, that it does not work too well for the Government of the day. Again, Telefís Éireann cannot be blamed for this.
I would agree with the Minister that possibly more could be done in terms of traditional Irish music. Possibly there is not enough being done. I read a criticism recently that suggested that the traditional Irish music programmes always apparently take place in stoneflagged kitchens, that such kitchens no longer exist and that traditional Irish music programmes should be given a more modern setting. That is just by way of suggestion. Possibly, we could do more in this area. While little progress may have been made in making the Irish language more widely used, while policies may not have succeeded in bringing about this desired end, there is a wide public for traditional music and possibly a little more time could be given to this cultural heritage for which no compulsion has been needed at any time.
Those people who go in for modern pop music might feel that they are not getting sufficient time on Telefís Éireann programmes. There is a programme on Saturday night. Possibly they have an organisational gripe about the little time that is being given to their interests. I am sure there are other organisations who have their own axe to grind about omissions by the Authority. Having regard to the hours of viewing I think the Authority do their best within the limits prescribed.
My opinion is that there are too many very ancient films screened on Sundays and that we could do better with some more home produced programmes. In the advertisements which unhappily are necessary for the economic upkeep of the station, possibly too many British produced advertisements are used. If we must rely on advertisements, possibly we could use home produced advertisements and thus give employment to Irish actors and actresses. Too often one hears advertisements for this toothpaste or that toothpaste in a Cockney accent or some other accent not indigenous to this country and one wonders what is wrong with using an Irish voice to proclaim the virtues of one toothpaste over another toothpaste.
These may be small points but they are points that occur to me. Possibly we could have more educational programmes from this station. Possibly we could do more to involve the schools. There was a suggestion here today that we should try to produce programmes that would be suitable for a university audience. I do not know whether there would be much basis for doing that at present although one of the areas that should be very carefully considered is adult education. If there has been more attention given in recent years to education and its problems, it would appear that adult education is a matter that could do with more attention and perhaps more could be done by Telefís Éireann to produce programmes that would be of value to adults interested in particular cultural matters or disciplines.
There are limitations on what Telefís Éireann can do at present. There is only a limited amount of viewing time. There are several things that must be done. The Authority must cater for the agricultural population. There have been excellent programmes on matters of interest to the agricultural population. Telefís Éireann must compete in interest with cross-Channel stations. Let us not forget that. The majority of the public can switch off the home television programme and switch to Wales, Northern Ireland or the BBC. If our public affairs programmes do not appeal to them they can switch to these other stations and hear what Mr. Wilson thinks about the world and about Britain's problems. They might prefer to listen to Mr. Wilson talking about world problems than to a discussion on purely Irish domestic problems, or to the Taoiseach making excuses about the Third Programme for Economic Expansion. Personally, I would much prefer to hear of the ill-directed speeches of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs than to listen to British politicians because if I have to listen to a speech of Deputy Childers attacking us for some imaginary policy, a policy which exists only in Deputy Childers's imagination, it is of interest to know the limits of Deputy Childers's imagination and that is at least something gained.
All in all, this House has cause to be grateful to its station working under difficulty, making many mistakes but on the whole with a pretty good record, under the circumstances of its working. I would not fault them on the matter which apparently is a matter of gravest concern here today, their handling of politicians and public affairs programmes. We could possibly express far more serious criticism in regard to other areas in which the station has not done all it should. Certainly since its inception, in its political, adult and public discussion programmes the station, it appears to me, has attempted to blaze a very courageous trail in between all the vested interests, accepting all the criticism, subject to all the thin skinned reaction which I believe is a politician's reaction to criticism in any form and one which I share myself. I suppose if we enter into public life we do not do so on the basis that we should be welcome throughout our careers but on the basis that we must receive criticism, some of it unjust. I suppose it is most hurtful when such criticism comes from those who know, in fact, what we said and have no cause for throwing mud or imaginary accusations and yet insist on doing so. Still, that must be borne also.
The public discussion programmes on television have attempted to get ordinary people interested in political and social questions. Especially in this regard the "Outlook" religious programmes have attempted to break through this kind of inertia, this idea that a religious attitude could have no approach to, no voice in particular social questions; that kind of sentiment about religion expressed so arrogantly by the Minister for Local Government here a year ago when certain statements about the housing situation in Dublin were made by a particular priest and he expressed himself in very strong terms about that priest.
I believe that Christians of all denominations have a right to speak on social issues and that the "Outlook" programme should surely have reminded official Christians—the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs reminds us that this is a Christian community; we all subscribe to that—that there are responsibilities involved in the Christian faith which cannot be confined purely to attendance at religious duties but which involve also concern with social and political action for the solution of the problems of under privileged people. The "Outlook" religious programmes appear to me, in several of the burning issues they have taken up, to show Catholics that there is a dimension of action in belief; that it simply does not lie in belief, that there is also a call to action. These programmes seem to me to fulfil that particular demand. The "Radharc" programme and the people involved in it are to be specially commended.
I congratulate the Minister on the statement he made this morning about his attitude and the attitude of the people to the present conduct of affairs in Telefís Éireann. I did not take it that the Minister meant what the previous speaker has mentioned, or that the Establishment he spoke about was a political Party or a Government. I took it that the Establishment was this House and all the people and Parties in it. I do not quite follow his reasoning. I hope I shall not be led into following him point by point because it was not my intention to do so. I do not follow his reasoning when he said that his effort is to make people have more respect for the House, and himself and his Party, when in the same breath he says that this House has done nothing worth while in politics for 40 years, since it came into existence. I think a statement like that from a Front Bench Member of one of the Opposition Parties will not do anything to raise the prestige of this House in the minds of the public and especially of the young people who are so impressionable these days.
We follow a democratic system of Government. Surely we know democracy is a very weak system, a system that must be guarded against its weaknesses, and it is because we want to continue to enjoy the freedom we have under democracy that we must be careful to ensure that freedom is not eroded by a new medium which carries rather sensational views into every home. I am very much a television fan myself when I am able to see it and I enjoy television but I am certainly perturbed by the influence it has and will have on our people. It has tremendous influence. Surely, whether it is a churchman or politician, an employer or worker who is concerned he is entitled to be treated with respect when he comes on the television screen as a guest? He is entitled to respect for himself as an individual and also for the position he holds. I hope I am not speaking on behalf of any political party, because it does not matter to me in this sense what party is in Government: there are some who must govern and some who must be governed. It is the duty of all of us to see that law and order is respected so long as it is the wish and will of the people that that kind of order is maintained.
While the younger people may not know as much of their recent history as they should, it took a great deal of sacrifice by the previous generation to enable us to live as we are living today and to ensure that we can enjoy the freedom we have. It is no service to the community now to intimate that everything here is worse than it is everywhere else and that it would take street protests and violent demonstrations to rectify the position. The fact is that, by and large—I am not taking credit for it or saying that the Government have anything to do with it; I say that the Government, the Opposition and Parliament and everybody have an equal right to say they are responsible —the country was never as well off materially as it is today. That is evolution. It is the way things have worked. It is not as well off as many of us would like it to be but it is better off than it ever has been and that is due to sacrifices made by a previous generation.
To my mind, it is quite untrue to say that nothing worthwhile was done here in the last 40 years. I intended to open by saying: "We could spend a complete day here usefully discussing Telefís Éireann." But having listened to the previous speaker spending one and a half hours saying nothing, I think we could usefully spend a week talking about Telefís Éireann, its influence and what it needs. It is all very well to pay lip service to democracy, our form of Government and the way we live here, but if this medium is not properly used it will do untold harm to our people. That is why I welcome what the Minister said this morning. It should be, and I think will be welcomed by everybody in the country except those few irresponsibles who cannot become known outside their own street or village unless they do something that is completely contrary to law and order. If they do, nine times out of ten they will appear that night on television as national personalities. Their one chance of becoming famous is to do something stupid. That is certainly something that should not be encouraged. I know the television people are doing their best but I do not welcome this recently-developed habit of interviewing people and insulting them— I do not mind what kind of person is concerned. I have heard Opposition leaders, Labour members and Government members being interviewed. I have seen the Taoiseach being insulted. To my mind, all these people have been insulted on television. It is not that they are thin-skinned themselves; if they were, they would not have put up with it. Think of the effect it has on the viewer. How can our young people have any respect for Church or State, or for public figures of any kind, if they see these institutions and these people treated in that fashion on television? There are good features on Telefís Éireann. Some of the programmes are second to none. There have been excellent Shakespearian productions. There are excellent discussion groups, religious and lay, to which it is most interesting to listen. Nevertheless, Telefís Éireann has offended in the recent past and it is only right the Minister should have the backing of this House when he suggests that something should be done to put a stop to any kind of offensive programme by Telefís Éireann.
I think Telefís Éireann do not do enough to publicise the good that is being done. They publicise the person who does something illegal, who sails too close to the law, or who does something that is regarded as novel, but they give very little publicity to voluntary associations and to the hundreds of workers who voluntarily help the handicapped, the blind, the sick, the old and the infirm. It is very seldom they get any publicity. On the other hand, the fellow who disrupts the traffic or throws himself off a bridge is quite certain to have the television screen at his disposal. I would welcome a change in that attitude.
We have a long tradition of being a courteous people. We have freedom. I want to see that freedom and that courtesy maintained. Visitors should be treated on television with the courtesy they would receive if they were visitors in one's own home. The way in which some visitors have been treated has done nothing to enhance our reputation as a courteous and mannerly people. If we permit the present situation to continue we will be in danger of losing our freedom altogether. If the right people are not recruited to Telefís Éireann—people of sensitivity, education and know-how —Telefís Éireann will finish up like the newspapers; it will slant news without telling a deliberate lie. It will give more emphasis to one side rather than the other and, by doing so, give a false picture. Not everybody is as aware of the undercurrents and the trends as we are in this House. Television goes into the rural areas, the areas in which the people have the old tradition and the old faith. It undermines their confidence in what the previous speaker called "the Establishment", in the Church, in Parliament and in ordered institutions. If that confidence is completely undermined, it will be a very sad day for this country because, no matter how weak the system may be, it is the system we know best and I hope that all will unite to ensure that nothing is done in any service in the name of freedom which will end up in taking away from us the freedom we all so dearly cherish.
I confess to some confusion of thought in relation to Deputy M. O'Leary's speech. I was not quite clear as to whether he was denigrating the Telefís Éireann authorities or this Parliament. It seemed to me he had not much time for either. The weight of his remarks was directed to the concluding paragraphs of the Minister's speech. I think Deputy O'Leary misconstrued what the Minister said. What the Minister meant to convey was that he would far sooner see Telefís Éireann producing what was helpful to the national outlook rather than producing that which is not very much to our advantage.
We are not alone in street demonstrations. We are not alone in student riots. We are not alone in protest meetings or protest marches. Our standards in relation to these things would appear to be higher than those in other countries but, at the same time, it is perfectly true that if somebody makes a public idiot of himself, as the last speaker said, he is practically certain to get a flash of some sort on television that night. Perhaps, these things are getting a bit overdone now but if I were to lie down in the Custom House or walk up and down with a placard outside the Department of External Affairs I could be quite certain of getting all the notice which I was seeking. Recently I saw some half dozen people being carried out of the Custom House. They were surrounded by cameras. We cannot put all the blame on Telefís Éireann because it was not only television cameras that were concentrated on these publicity seekers. There were press cameras there as well. Now there has to be a certain coverage but that coverage need not be quite so extensive as it is. As the previous speaker said, there are many things being done by voluntary bodies in order to help the community which could be highlighted much more on television than they are at the moment. For instance, we see a great deal of students when they lock themselves in somewhere, or chase Ministers out through windows, and that sort of thing; we do not see quite so much of the students who do such good work to raise funds for charities. They get some publicity. In my opinion they do not get nearly enough. Their work is something of which we should be very proud.
To return to Deputy O'Leary for a moment: he said that French television and radio were under dictatorial control like television and radio behind the Iron Curtain. He does not, of course, know what he is talking about. French radio and television are completely free. I happened to be in France during the last presidential election and all the candidates and those who supported them were allowed to go on French television and speak their minds to the fullest extent permissible in any democratic community. Therefore, I think it is foolish for Deputies to come in here and try to substantiate their arguments when they have not got their facts right.
Our television service, taking it by and large, is reasonably good. We have always to remember that it is still pretty well in the embryonic stage. Deputies will agree that over the past few years this service has been improving. Not only is it improving in what it actually produces as live television, but it is also producing some better films.