I should like, first of all, to say to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs that he should perhaps remind his Department when representations are made by a Member of the Oireachtas on any matter which concerns a constituent the Member of the Oireachtas is entitled to get something better than this piece of card-board as a reply.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 42: Posts and Telegraphs (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1969, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and of certain other Services administered by that Office and for payment of a Grant-in-Aid.
—(Minister for Posts and Telegraphs).
Is it in Irish?
It is but it is very bad Irish.
Did the Minister sign it?
They say they are viewing my letter. It is probably from a distance, in a distant place. I want to protest on my own behalf, on behalf of all the Members of this House and on behalf of all the citizens that this kind of a reply coming from a Government Department in connection with a letter addressed to a Minister or indeed to any Secretary of a Department is disgraceful. Every citizen is entitled to receive a proper reply under the seal of an envelope to whatever representation he makes, and not least of all, in spite of the allegations which are being made about Members of the Dáil abroad at the present time, all Members of the Dáil are entitled to receive a proper reply to their representations.
I am sure this does not occur often. I think it occurred very regularly until some 15 or 20 years ago when steps were taken to destroy what must have been a huge mass of slips of paper printed probably around 1925, ordered by the ton and written in obscure Irish. I remember one of those acknowledgments, a free translation of which went: "We have to admit we got your letter". I accept that this is unusual certainly from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, or indeed from most Departments, but it should not happen at all. That is the point I am making. It is waste of time, it is waste of money, it is wasting the time of the postman and everybody concerned. It means nothing. If a Deputy sends that to a constituent it means nothing to that constituent and certainly it means nothing to the Deputy. There is certainly no intimation on it as to the subject matter of the original communication received from the Deputy. It is merely a serial number which again is referred to in Irish. I hope there will be an instruction that that sort of thing should be avoided.
We were talking last week, when the Adjournment interrupted our deliberations, about Telefís Éireann, that never failing topic of interest, and we were talking about the remarks made by the Minister in the course of his introductory speech concerning the type of interview of which politicians are made the subject matter. Whether he meant to or not the Minister very clearly gave the impression, even to some of his friends, judging by what one of his openly professed friends had to say on Telefís Éireann the other night, that he was subjecting television interviewers to some kind of restraint or censorship as regards the manner in which they deal with politicians.
This is a very false impression to have going abroad so far as the majority of politicians are concerned. I think politicians are well able to mix it verbally, some of them more than verbally, with anybody on television or anywhere else. I do not put much meas, as they say, on the remarks regarding television which are made by politicians and which have been made in the course of this debate by politicians who proclaim themselves to be tribunes of liberality and free expression, but who have never themselves been on television or have never had the experience of television interviewing. That is meaningless and the kind of thing which has no relevance. I am one who has had some little experience of this. At times, I have not been entirely pleased by the questions which have been put to me, but what politician is ever fully pleased with the kind of questions put to him at any time? However, one must admit—I am the first who will—that in courtesy and manners our television interviewers are not wanting. If there were any breach in that connection, it would be inexcusable but I have never observed any.
Regarding the type of question and the type of interviewer, I must say that I have seen one or two efforts to copy the British style—a style which consists of a rapid series of questions addressed to the person being interviewed, be he politician or otherwise. Take, for instance, the David Frost programme. The style of this programme is one of hurling a rapid series of well rehearsed and prepared questions at the subject of the interview. The questions are put in such a fashion so as not to afford time for the interviewee to reply to the questions before the second, third and subsequent questions are asked of him. However, we have yet to see this happen here and I sincerely hope we never shall.
From time to time we have seen unfortunate people, for instance, drug addicts and so on, being interviewed on programmes like the David Frost programme and they are literally tortured before millions of television viewers just to titillate the intellectual palates of those in Britain who like that kind of thing. But, as I said, we have not reached that stage here but it is something we must guard against. I have heard song and dance men compering programmes on Telefís Éireann and I recently heard one such gentleman ask the question as to why so many politicians are camera-shy in the television sense. If this is so, I must say that it is a quality which I have never noticed as being unduly pronounced in any of our politicians. In fact, we have in this country some of the greatest camera performers in Western Europe. We have some men who have the ability to find the lens even if it is behind them; they find it instinctively. This, of course, comes from long years of application and study and the graveyard circuit helps, too.
However, I would ask the individual who talked about this camera shyness to tell us where in the world one would have found on television on the eve of a referendum, as we did here, the Leader of the Government, the Leader of the main Opposition Party and the Leader of the second Opposition Party in a personal confrontation before the nation. I have never seen it happen anywhere else. It certainly does not happen in Britain and it is not heard of in France. As regards the latter country, I do not suppose anybody would have the temerity to enter into the same palace as Le Grand Charles. Neither have I heard of it happen in America. The only time there was anything approaching this was the confrontation between Kennedy and Nixon, and we all know the result of that—it was disastrous for Nixon and triumphant for Kennedy. However, this kind of confrontation took place here and that, to my mind, was the absolute ultimate in proof that politicians are available for public exposure and that they should not be subjected, as they have been during the past few days, to criticism of a most unenlightened fashion. We have even heard the word "corruption" mentioned. It is now suggested that, if a constituent comes to a Dáil Deputy and asks the Deputy to write a letter on his behalf to a Government Department, there is a slight suggestion of corruption unless the Dáil Deputy goes to the trouble of explaining to the man that he is quite capable of writing the letter himself. The people in this country know very well that they can do those things for themselves.
This does not seem relevant to the Estimate on Posts and Telegraphs.
Perhaps I am straying a little but these things do come up and need answering and I am not going to be numbered amongst those at whom this sort of thing is levelled by people of that kind. In an editorial today I read the notion that television people are the great defenders of liberty and that politicians, and many other people too, have but one goal in mind and that is to subvert our democratic institutions and to execute and destroy freedom. Not alone do the television people consider themselves as the last bastion of freedom but we have the same claim from the press and those of us who know the press well enough will appreciate the irony of that particular statement.
I am forbidden by the Rules of Order from delivering what I should like to deliver—a somewhat detailed lecture on the manner in which the press protected our liberties and our freedom and their complete lack of partisanship in their reporting of the proceedings of Dáil Éireann, of county councils and public meetings and the fact that it would be unheard of that they would have eliminated from reports the names of politicians with whose views their own views did not particularly coincide. They are all honourable men. The press are there, if Gay Byrne and company fall down in the great battle to defend liberty against politicians. The press are there and the fact that they are anonymous and that nobody knows the names of the editors of these newspapers is to their credit. They are doing good by stealth. I am prevented by the Rules of Order from dealing fully with this matter, as I would like to. However, I hope another opportunity will arise when I will be enabled to do that. Doubtless my remarks of today will be reported, but as time goes on if the editor does not get me the sub-editor will, and if he is not interested somebody down along the line from the owner to the office boy will be lying in ambush.
They will get there by stealth.
I hold the view that it does not really matter a damn about that and that the truth is more important, and that anyway the amount of influence they have on votes is far less than they imagine.
The Deputy does not accept the "Divine Right" then?
I am somewhat sceptical. After a long time in politics one becomes slightly sceptical. The background is a continual swishing sound and at first you might think it was a ventilator but it is the sound of the axes being ground.
Could we get back to the Estimate?
I should like to refer to an event which occurred in the Crumlin area within the past couple of months. I refer to the allocation of a post office. This was an instance of a sub-post office having been in existence for a number of years at an address in a shop at Lissadell Avenue. A man whose health was not good, and who had a family, invested his life savings in the purchase of this post office and in the acquisition of the premises in the belief that should anything happen to him and should his wife and family be deprived of his earning capacity, he would have left them something to which they could look for security. In fact, tragedy did strike and shortly after he made the transaction he died suddenly leaving his widow, with children, in the post office. One would have thought in these allegedly humane times in which we live, when everyone professes the greatest anxiety about far away places and the sufferings of people overseas and the welfare of those who are thousands of miles away, that in our own city justice could be applied in the matter of this post office and that it would be left to the widow so that she might continue its operation and secure a livelihood for herself and her family.
In fact, this did not happen. The post office was taken from her and given to another person who, I understand from my information, is wellequipped, and more than wellequipped, to meet the economic problems of life. I could not let this debate go by without saying that I consider it was most unjust that this should have been done by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I make no bones about it and I am not in any position to prove anything in relation to the political aspect of this matter. I do not suppose there were any political aspects but from the point of view of humanity it was quite obviously wrong that it should have been done. I want to avail of this opportunity of saying to the Minister, and through him to the Parliamentary Secretary, that he should do all that he possibly can to redress this injustice. I will not say any more than that about it at the present time. It is appropriate that it should be raised on this Estimate in the interests of the widow and the children.
There is welcome news about cigarette advertising. This is to be terminated by Telefís Éireann. It shows how rapidly attitudes may change. I recall, when the suggestion was made some years ago in this House that smoking should not be encouraged and that Telefís Éireann should not be used for the encouragement of smoking or its advertising, there was a how of derision and all kinds of criticism of the suggestion that tobacco and cigarette advertising should be eliminated. That is now quite accepted. It is a very logical, sensible and necessary thing to do.
Let us turn now to the question of drink. I am one who has had some acquaintance with this pastime, recreation or problem, describe it as you will. The temptation for people to indulge in alcoholic refreshment is sufficiently strong without us continuously seeing, every quarter of an hour, on the television screen expensive and highly artistic productions and seductive arguments as to why one should go out and enjoy a nice cool pint or glass of this or that or the other long drink during the summertime, or, indeed, a heart-warming drop of something else in the wintertime. The association which has been built up in these advertisements between drink and sport is not something which should be encouraged. There is a kind of implication now that, to be a good rugby player, hurler, ping-pong player or any kind of an active man at all in those lines, you must be one who immediately dashes in and lets out a few shouts of "Hurrah" and starts in on a "pint" right away. I think the association of ideas there is not beneficial, socially, especially with young people. The danger with elderly people such as myself does not arise. However, I do think we might be more circumspect in this matter. We should play down, as far as possible, the promotion of drink consumption because, while it can be entirely one of the happiest experiences, properly controlled, on the other hand, let us face it, it can bring unbounded human misery. It can bring self-destruction. It can and does break up homes. For those reasons, it is not to be unduly encouraged. As a nation, we are supposed to be drink-prone, if the description is excusable. I do not think we are any more so than other nations. Perhaps drink takes effect on us more quickly—I do not know. However, our international reputation—which is probably false and which it is very advisable for me to say is false, anyway—is that we are "found of the gargle" as they say.
It is an expensive reputation.
But the French and surely other Continentals can beat us any day on that. I saw an exhibition of "pint" -drinking on British television. A man consumed, I think, 30 "pints" in an hour, which is pretty good going, pretty good, so that we are not unique in that regard. I suggest to the Minister that we should underplay advertising where drink is concerned. We should not glamorise it. We should not suggest to the young people that, if they will try a certain type of drink, then, automatically, all their dreams will come true—that they will find themselves taking off on some yacht which is skimming along by Lambay Island, not to mention other aspects of it. That is one of the points which occurred to me, at any rate, in connection with advertising. I suppose it will be answered by the statement that the drink "lolly" is responsible for the great proportion of our income in Telefís Éireann. That may very well be true but we have to draw the line somewhere. The public good is the first thing we must look to. The station which does pretty well economically, from the point of view of the endeavour to make it economically sound, is not to be regarded as a capitalist enterprise about to make a profit. It is, first of all, a social service. I know that the Minister will take some persuading on the matter of social services. It took him several years to accept the view that CIE is a social service. I do not know if he has even yet accepted it but certainly his general manager has accepted it and stated so publicly a considerable time ago. On several occasions, the Minister has refused to accept that——
It always was a social service.
The Minister denied it.
I did not. I said there are many losing services in CIE. There always will be losing services in CIE.
In my hearing, the Minister insisted at all times, up to very recent years, up to a couple of years ago at the very earliest, that CIE must be made a viable economic concern. That was the primary aim he had in mind. That is not consonant with regarding it primarily as a social service. It is impossible, certainly it is undesirable, to make money on a social service. It is self-defeating. Furthermore, it is very difficult to make a social service meet its own costs. That is practically impossible. There has always to be an element of subsidisation of some kind in it. Television has now become so much a part of our lives that it, too, must be regarded as a social service and, therefore, that factor should be the uppermost consideration in our minds when the matter of advertising is being looked at. Undoubtedly, the temptation to go where the money is, to accept advertising where the money is, is strong and must be resisted on all sides.
Finally, I want to speak about a programme which I have always considered outstanding. Great credit is due to Telefís Éireann for it. I refer to Amuigh Faoi'n Spéir. It has an artistic and educational content which I fail to see in programmes on other channels even from other countries. Those responsible for it deserve the commendation of this House. It is very well done and it is, indeed, an example of what could be and will be done, in times which lie ahead of us, in the matter of the development of Radio Telefís Éireann services.
I do not want to go on making final observations but I assure the House that this is my last one. The programme "Garda Patrol" is also highly thought of by everybody throughout the country. The men who put that programme on the screen and the men who participate in it, as well as those behind the scenes whom we do not see, do a professional job always, which they had to learn by dint of their own efforts. I do not know any programme similar to "Garda Patrol" which operates in any other country. It seems a very popular programme here. When the Minister is replying to this debate he might tell the House and the country the considered view of the Garda as to its value. I think it must have a very considerable value in so far as the keeping of the law in this country is concerned.
We have had the benefit of an exhaustive and very detailed speech by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs covering the three main headings of this particular Department, namely, the Post Office itself with its peculiarly inherent work of postage, telephones and telegrams and, then, the other side of it, the investment side. Then too, we have the progress of sound radio and lastly we have television. There is but little, apart from isolated incidents from time to time, that one could complain about in relation to the actual working of the Post Office itself, vis-à-vis postage facilities, times of delivery, and the telephones. The only thing in relation to telephones that might cause some public criticism or irritation is what appears at times to be an abnormal delay in answering by the Exchange. I do not know the reason for this but I am inclined to think that possibly it is due to understaffing rather than to any deliberate delay on the part of the staff concerned.
It is extremely difficult for a subscriber who complains and seeks the reason for the delay to get an answer of a satisfactory nature. Be that as it may, I am sure in time all this will be healed. Perhaps, in the change over from one system to another certain teething troubles are involved and are bound to give rise to difficulties. Generally, the people behind the scenes in all these operations, the engineers, the operators and so on, give a very good display of professionalism and satisfaction in their work. It is only from time to time when we meet these people in our homes, when they come to repair our telephones, that we find they have a normal, honest to God craftmanship and a pride in their work which they carry out with speed and skill. If things go wrong I would never subscribe to the view that the reason is any kind of deliberate effort or lack of effort on the part of the particular technicians concerned.
The closing of sub-post offices, particularly in rural areas and especially in the west of Ireland, is but an indication of the decline in population. The allocation of sub-post officers gives rise from time to time to bitter recrimination among local residents and the feeling that somebody has been victimised because the office has been changed. I suppose these things are done for political reasons but it must be said with reasonable fairness that we have done this, the Government have done this, and this little bit of patronage will continue to be exercised no matter what Government you have. Probably it is not the best system. I know that during the time of the late Deputy Everett a committee was set up to deal with applications for sub-post offices but I do not know whether it still operates. The person first selected from the list would be given the post office. I do not know whether that system operates but the Minister has always to answer why this did not take place.
Post Office charges have become extremely dear but then on the other side of the coin there are rising costs. Telephone charges have increased enormously but apart from the delays which sometimes happen, and about which I have mildly complained, we are still getting very good value for trunk calls and even for local calls. The Minister said that Ballina was included in the next five-year period for automatic exchanges. I should like to see the whole of County Mayo coming in; whether it is east or west or north or south does not really matter from that point of view. Sligo is now automatic and so is Galway and we are more or less isolated and we do not want to have somebody writing not alone about the death of a town but the death of a county.
I would urge the Minister to give the West, particularly County Mayo, and, indeed, Leitrim to some extent, a certain priority because unless these facilities are not alone given but are shown to be given promptly then the people's heart for continuing in these areas must be considerably lessened. Government consideration and departmental consideration for the conditions of people in isolated districts must be a great source of support to them—when they find that consideration is sympathetically directed towards their efforts and towards the provision of amenities for them.
I will leave the subject of the Post Office with a final observation which necessarily I must make from the outside and from the information available to me. The greatest tribute that one could pay to the Post Office workers, be they indoor or outdoor, is the high standard, as far as we, the public, know it, of their honesty in dealing with post office packets, registered or unregistered, and parcels. That, of course, is as it should be, but nevertheless it must be an area of great temptation and as far as the public know that temptation is not succumbed to to any alarming degree.
The first observation I want to make about Radio Telefís Éireann is that sound radio has improved no end since the introduction of television. It would appear, although I do not know whether this is accountable for it, that there is a very healthy competition as between the two. Indeed, the competition offered by television must be very severe because it would take a very ardent radio fan to keep his transistor near him while television is on, or to abandon some television programme in order to listen to a sound programme. Sound programmes have improved enormously and are extremely well presented with great professionalism. The same can be said of our television service. It is relatively new but the proficiency that has been progressively gained in its few years of operation is quite astounding, having regard to the lack of experience at the beginning and the necessity for rounding up technicians, newsmen and all the different types of people necessary to keep a television station successfully operating.
I am not going to be selective in regard to marking out one programme as being better than another; one could always do that on the basis of asethetic selectivity, because the programme that appeals to one does not necessarily appeal to another. For that reason I do not care to single out a programme but I do want to refer to a particular matter to which the Minister adverted and for which he has come in for a considerable amount of criticism.
I must say I was alarmed and I want to preface whatever I have to say with this remark: if there was one liberal in this Government to whom one could look for the liberal expression and the liberal viewpoint I would have looked to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. I do not say this in any spirit of flattery. I say it in the spirit of experience in relation to his attitude and the freedom that he allows to semiState bodies over which he presides in a general way.
Now this Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Deputy Childers, is the very same Minister who, in the same Ministry, before television days set up what was, I think, called a Radio Council. There were several excellent members all down along the line and my information, and I have no reason to reject it, from people closely associated with that council, is that the Minister stood aside and let it work in an independent way. That, I think, was the act of a Minister with a very liberal approach. Surely in relation to television the freedom of operation and freedom of activity should, if anything, be more closely and jealously guarded and interference in any way should not be tolerated either from the Minister or indeed from the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority itself unless it is justified.
It disturbs me and it disturbs many people that a medium that is expected to give the people the whole truth is to be curbed in some way when it is dealing with the Establishment. It is true that the Minister said in the course of his speech that the Establishment is nearly always on the defensive, but why not? If you are the Establishment you are answerable to the great public that tolerates you as an Establishment from one election to another.
The Minister uses a curious phrase or sentence in relation to this matter. I want to quote it because I want to be quite accurate about all this. At column 1884 of the Official Report of 27th February, 1969, at the last paragraph the Minister said:
I understand also 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.
I want to say at once on behalf of the Fine Gael Party we have not had the slightest reason to quarrel with the manner in which any of our members was interviewed on Telefís Éireann, whether it was on "Seven Days", "The Politicians" or in any other capacity in which we were brought on. When the Minister uses the word "all" in that sentence—"all political and social opinions"—I am not concerned here with the social opinions—but "all political opinions" would seem to imply that the strongest criticism, as he said, was aroused from all political opinions. That would, I take it, cover the Fianna Fáil Party, the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and such Independents as are still remaining. We have no complaint against the manner in which we were interviewed. But we seem to be heading for what I would call a two-tiered definitions area in this country. If an interviewer asks a member of the Fine Gael Party or the Labour Party a hard, searching question in relation to their attitudes, policy or something of that kind, that is objective. It is hard, it is searching, but nevertheless it is objective. If an interviewer asks the same kind of question of a member of the Government or the Fianna Fáil Party, he is rude.
I have not said that. I did not say anything of that kind.
No, but it has been said.
It is all right. Deputy Dockrell agreed with what I said, so the Deputy can go on if he wants to. I had plenty of agreement from Fine Gael people other than the Deputy with what I have said, plenty.
Am I not entitled to my opinion?
The Deputy said he was speaking on behalf of the Fine Gael Party.
I am speaking on behalf of the Fine Gael Party when I say that no member of the Fine Gael Party has any reason to complain of the manner in which they or any individual member of the Party were treated by interviewers on RTE.
I choose between you and Deputy Dockrell. Deputy Dockrell understood what I said and did not attempt to distort it.
Deputy Dockrell did not say we were not satisfied. Of course, he understood. Why would Deputy Dockrell not understand that to ask a Fianna Fáil Minister something is rude whereas to ask somebody else is objective?
That is not what Deputy Dockrell understood. He understood perfectly what I said and did not attempt to distort it.
I am not distorting anything. It is the Minister himself who attempted to distort the real state of affairs when he said in that particular sentence "all political and social opinions" because he wanted to include everybody else and to bring everybody else into the shameful manoeuvre of mass denunciation. That is what he has tried to do but he will not get away with. A journal in this country is dying because it presented the news in only one way. Anything else that presents the news to the people in this country in the one way or withholds certain types of news will also die and cease to have any proper or effective function in the life of the community.
RTE would die if it did that, too.
RTE has no need to die. There are no symptoms of sickness in RTE. The symptoms of sickness are in the people who complain about being subjected to rigorous questioning on behalf of the community.
We have no objection to rigorous questioning.
The Minister himself is not so available to come on to this particular body of which he himself is the titular head to answer questions.
I have answered questions.
Not always. Other Ministers go and say that they are being discourteously treated. Of course, they are apologised to. One has to apologise to Ministers, but to say one is discourteously treated is always a way of getting off the hook when not wanting to answer questions.
The Minister says he did not say that any interviewer was rude. Then what is the trend to which he objects or to which the RTE Authority objects? What is the trend? If an interviewer is tough and insists on his question being answered, in so far as he can insist, I think he is just doing his job.
What about the interviewer who does not wait for the answer?
When did this happen? To whom did this happen?
Continue on.
Oh, come on now. To whom did it happen? If Deputy O'Leary chooses to interrupt on a matter so fundamentally important as this and alleges that somebody did not wait for an answer I dare him now to say who it was did not wait and who was being interviewed.
The Deputy is twisting this thing against the Minister in his most unfair way.
I will give way to Deputy O'Leary now if he has the courage or the knowledge that would enable him to say who was being interviewed and who was the interviewer when somebody was not allowed to answer. Will the Deputy name them now?
It has happened so many times that one could not pinpoint one.
Childish.
This kind of blanket denunciation of people will not survive for long in this country and we cannot permit this kind of jackboot carry-on to continue.
As Mr. Joe Grimmond said on our television network recently, if an interviewer is rude or goes over the limits beyond which an interviewer should not go, the sympathy goes to the person being interviewed—they were discussing politicians at that time—it is the interviewer who comes out of it badly. I do not see anything wrong with people being subjected to hard, tough questioning. But, this is an election year. Fianna Fáil are determined not to allow Radio Telefís Éireann, either on sound or vision, to give any views that might be detrimental to them in an election year because they saw what happened last year in the referendum when Telefís Éireann presented the case objectively. An objective presentation of the case never commends itself to the Fianna Fáil Party. It is only when it suits them that it is right. Indeed, in the course of the referendum last year the absolutely objective conduct of Telefís Éireann was in some way making amends for the manoeuvre of the month of May, 1966, when it was decided as a matter of policy not to give any showing to either of the two candidates officially by following them to meetings or anything else in the Presidential Election but every day during that month every official outing, and, indeed, outings artificially created, of the successful candidate were shown on Telefís Éireann, whereas the unsuccessful candidate appeared on Telefís Éireann only when the Party backing him paid highly for it.
When there is interference with the Press or any other medium the freedom of the individual is threatened, his right to knowledge is thwarted and his capacity to form an objective opinion is limited by reason of the fact that vital information and data are withheld from him.
So much for what the Minister had to say. He, of course, says that it was a matter for the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority but I do not accept that for a minute. I think the Minister has a responsibility in this matter and that it is up to him to say to the Authority that they are not to interfere with or to curb in any way the activities of people who are doing a good job and doing it in the proper manner and that if a politician goes on a television programme he should have his homework done, he should not hide behind a cloak of sensitivity; that he has gone into a studio at Montrose to present himself before the people of the country to be asked questions and that it is the right of the questioner to ask and, if the questions are awkward or if the answers to them might prove damaging to the image of the politician being interviewed, then that is the fault of the politician.
Let us listen a little further. Remember, it was on 27th February that the Minister issued his mild rebuke, either genuinely under the impression or, on the other hand, creating the impression, that strong criticism had come from all political opinions. Such is not the case. That was mild enough. That was on 27th February. On Thursday, 6th March, after an intervening weekend, listen to Deputy Andrews of the Fianna Fáil Party whose father is the Chairman of the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority. It is not unlikely that they met during the weekend or communicated in some way.
The Deputy should not make an allegation of that kind. Deputy Andrews is, and I think the House will credit him with being, a most independent-minded person speaking in his own right. There is not the faintest suggestion that there was any kind of collusion between him and the Chairman and I know for a fact that Deputy David Andrews would be incapable of so acting. He is not evolving himself as a comparatively recently-elected TD in that way. It would not be to his advantage. It would not be an advantage to his career. The Deputy should give him the benefit of the doubt. I think this charge is disgraceful.
Has the Minister finished his unwarranted interruption?
The Deputy should withdraw the allegation.
I am not making any allegation.
It is an allegation.
The curious thing about it is that the Minister rose and anticipated an allegation in which he obviously thought there might be some truth.
The Deputy made the allegation that Deputy Andrews consulted his father.
I did not. I said it is not unlikely.
"Not unlikely". That is typical of the Deputy.
Is that an allegation?
Typical of the Deputy.
A legal twist.
A legal twist.
The legal twist?
Yes, and the Deputy is an expert at it.
What kind of allegation is that?
And he has all his qualifications to prove it.
What kind of allegation is that?
I have said it.
All the qualifications for legal twists?
The Deputy gave it a legal twist.
A legal twist—is that the Parliamentary Secretary's conception of what law is? Twist?
No. There is the twist again.
I am going on with this speech whether the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary likes it or not.
Typical.
Typical? It is typical to oppose them. Here is the two-tier definition again.
Twist.
Say anything to Fianna Fáil, you are rude. Say anything to us, it is objective.
The Deputy is twisting again.
I am not twisting.
Of course, he is.
The Minister started this little twist—admittedly, it was only a small one—with the use of words trying to bring Labour, Independents and Fine Gael into the body which was supposed to be criticising these inter— viewers on Telefís Éireann. That is where the twist started. The Minister is now objecting when that little knife he sought to stick in us has been withdrawn, without any bloodshed, luckily enough, and inserted right back into the Fianna Fáil body politic and is drawing blood. The Minister does not like that. The Minister will not like it. Whether the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary likes it or not, I want to read here and dissect and analyse and give my own opinion on what Deputy Andrews said and I want it to be known, if it is not well-enough known already, that Deputy Andrews of the Fianna Fáil Party is the son of the Fianna Fáil appointed Chairman of the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority. At column 2385, of the Official Report of 6th March last, Deputy Andrews is dealing with this question of interviews:
There is no question but that a few Ministers and individuals who went on television recently were treated rather shabbily.
"A few Ministers." I should have thought that, in making a charge of that kind against a small body of interviewers—because there are not many of them—easily identifiable, if they were not being named, certainly the Ministers who were treated shabbily would be named and that other individuals who went on and were treated equally shabbily would be named. He continues:
We hear a lot about adult audiences. Our audiences are adult because in the main these interviews are conducted after the children have been put to bed. Such audiences expect adult behaviour and courtesy from both parties.
In my opinion the opposite of courtesy is rudeness—courtesy on the one side and rudeness on the other—and the absence of courtesy implies rudeness. He continues:
In recent times, as the Minister said, this trend has appeared in a number of interviews.
I am not quite satisfied that the Minister said that much. I have it here. He simply said: "The recent trend in interviewing persons," whereas Deputy Andrews says the Minister said this trend has appeared in a number of interviews. Deputy Andrews goes on to say:
I do not believe in pillorying anyone and I have no intention of mentioning names.
Why not? If this thing is serious enough to warrant its being brought here and debated at this time by the Minister himself, why not say who was discourteous, who was rude and who the Ministers were? But no, he does not say. He goes on:
I think we all know whom we are talking about. I should not like to think that we are in any way whipping these people but I would ask them to cool down a bit, examine their consciences in this context.
What in the name of goodness have the interviewers that we know in Telefís Éireann to examine their consciences about? What have they done? What extraordinary transgression have they been guilty of? Just because they ask the Minister a hard, searching question they are rude; if they ask it of anybody else they are objective. "Examine their consciences" he said, and
——make sure in future that they conduct interviews calmly and dispassionately and not let their own prejudices enter into a discussion between A and B.
I am bound to say at this stage that I have never either in my own personal experience on television with members of Fianna Fáil and Labour or watching television where members of all three Parties were being interviewed, seen an interviewer let his own prejudices enter into a discussion between A and B or C and D or anybody else. Deputy Andrews goes on:
If an interviewer offends in that respect, he ceases to be what he represents himself to be, an impartial seeker of answers to impartial questions.
With that sentiment I agree, but where was the impartiality or the lack of impartiality? Deputy Andrews will not say. He will not say who is guilty; he will not say which Ministers were offended. He merely hints, he merely threatens. Deputy Andrews continues:
We are not indulging in public executions.
That is mild, inoffensive language from Deputy Andrews. The Deputy continues:
These people should be allowed to continue but should be requested to engage in unprejudiced and unbiased interviewing, if at all possible and, if they do not do it——
and here comes the crack of the whip; here comes the sound of the jackboot; here comes the authoritative threat of the man in the know:
then the answer is to tell them to bring their contracts to an end.
It would be a pity to let that model of objectivity pass without making some reference to it. Deputy Andrews has alleged prejudice on the part of the interviewers. He has not said what the prejudices were, nor has he said in whom the prejudices existed. He has accused the interviewers of being partial. He has not said in what respect nor has he said in whose favour they were partial. It is to be assumed, of course, that when they lacked impartiality, they were exercising it against Fianna Fáil. He says they were biased. He does not name them and he does not say what the bias was, but he does say what should happen if they do not conduct themselves.
Who is to be the arbiter of the conduct of the interviewers.
In reply to a question of that kind the Minister might well say that it was day-to-day administration and that it would be a matter for the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority. It probably is the business of the head of that division to deal with this kind of thing, but I have no doubt that before taking the extreme measure of terminating contracts, which Deputy Andrews unmistakably and unequivocably threatens, it would go to the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority. However, the Minister might commend Deputy Andrews for his independent stand, I think there is a great lack of independence in resorting to this language of threats, this language of terminating contracts, where the public of this country quite understandably, could accuse him of having knowledge of proposed action by the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority. He has been unfair to the Authority if he has been independent; he has been foolish if he has disclosed anything he should not have disclosed.
The measure of one's freedom and how one uses and enjoys one's freedom is the measure which one exercises in toleration of the expression of the other fellow's point of view. By suppressing news, by stopping interviewers asking relevant and pertinent questions, one is showing a lack of toleration of the other man's point of view. By such conduct the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs either through himself or through the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority is doing a disservice to the Irish viewing public who are, after all, paying their licence fees to hear and see the truth. Does the Minister want a television service to present the Taoiseach or himself or any other Minister or Deputy of the Fianna Fáil Party on television with a set of questions already prepared and the answers ready so that out to the viewing public can go the innocuous demonstration of namby-pambyism, scratching one another's——
I want nothing of the kind.
This is what I believe. I believe the Minister does not want anything of that kind. I believe that in his speech in reply the Minister should give that assurance to the Irish people; that their television service, for which they have paid and are paying, will give them a completely unbiased version of the news and give them interviews conducted searchingly and toughly, if necessary, in a matter of importance to the public. Let us not create, on one hand, a fear among our people that they are not getting the whole truth or that an interviewer is being nice to somebody. Do not leave an Irish home under such an impression that when "Seven Days" or "The Politicians" is turned off people will have to ask, in relation to a certain item under discussion: "Why did he not ask such a question? Why did he not ask him the other question? Why did he not pursue the question he asked? Why did he allow himself to be fobbed off by the Minister or the Deputy? Why did he not come back again?" It would be a bad interview if such questions were asked in any Irish home. Let the Minister take his hands off the throat of Telefís Éireann and take his hands off the throats of men who are doing their jobs. In this election year let him not try to grab the medium; we will not allow him to do so.
I wish to thank the Minister for the manner in which he presented the Estimate. He put the facts of the progress made by his Department clearly and concisely and backed up what he said with statistical information and data against which there is no argument.
I wish to refer to a few points concerning the Estimate, the telephone service, the Post Office service and the broadcasting service. As regards the telephone service, I know that the number of applications received for telephones is far greater than the Department can cope with and that the Department are doing their best to recruit and train staff so that the increasing number of applications can be dealt with. The increasing number of applications is a sure indication of the progress being made in the country. I think priority should be given to applications for business premises and business purposes. Second priority should go to applications from persons providing accommodation for tourists and third priority should go to person in the public service, particularly those in outdoor work who are often required after, as well as before, normal office hours by the rural community.
The Minister and his Department should see what can be done to provide a telephone service in the very remote rural areas. I have in mind and I refer to an area which I think I mentioned in this Estimate last year and that is the Black Valley area, about 12 miles from Killarney, in which there are about 30 or 40 householders with no telephone service. It is an area remote from priest and doctor and other services and I cannot see why some telephone service cannot be provided there. I know certain problems are involved but I think they can and should be overcome. In the same district there is a store where each year thousands of tourists buy souvenirs and articles made in this country. Unfortunately, over the past few years there have been raids on this premises but no burglar alarm system can be installed there due to the lack of a telephone service in the area. I am drawing the Minister's attention to the matter in the House.
I should like to see more priority given to applications for telephone kiosks in rural areas. There are many good reasons for refusing these applications but the amenity value of a kiosk in a rural area should outweigh other considerations. In particular, there should be a telephone kiosk in the vicinity of every creamery.
If the Department cannot see their way to providing these kiosks because they would not be an economic proposition then the local authority, or some other Department or agency, should be asked to make a contribution towards the upkeep of these kiosks. The chances of these kiosks being destroyed by vandals are far more remote than would be the position in the cities and towns because there is far less destruction by vandals in rural areas than there is in cities and towns.
I should like to take this opportunity to thank the personnel of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs for the excellent service they provide. There have been conflicting statements about Radio Telefís Éireann. I think Radio Telefís Éireann provides a good service. The radio programmes are excellent. I agree with the Deputy who said here last week that politicians should be able to take it as well as giving it. I suppose it depends on what one is taking and what one is giving but, by and large, the interviews where politicians are concerned are, in my opinion, fair. Occasionally one feels a little disquiet. If Deputy Lindsay is in touch with the rank and file of his Party down the country he must agree with me that the supporters of all Parties believe that their leaders and front bench politicians are not always treated fairly. That is particularly so in the case of the current affairs programme. I interrupted Deputy Lindsay — I apologise now for my interruption — and he challenged me to quote instances. I am always prepared to stand over any statement I make. For the information of Deputy Lindsay and others who think like him, on the Seven Days programme the other night we had the Minister for Finance being interviewed on the Third Programme for Economic Expansion. The interviewer asked a question about the Buchanan Report and, before the Minister could reply, another question was asked and the Minister was taken off more or less at a tangent on another matter altogether. The Minister, of course, is resilient, capable and not easily diverted and he brought the interviewer back and reminded him that he had not been given a chance to mention the Buchanan Report. The interviewer apologised to the Minister, which was fair enough, and he told him that he would get an opportunity of discussing the Report later on. That was one instance.
Last year, we had various complaints arising out of the Frank Hall programme. We had an unfortunate situation in Killarney arising out of a disagreement between the jarveys and the Office of Public Works. In that programme the jarveys were interviewed. So was the Urban Council. Strangely enough, the Office of Public Works, which controls the whole situation, was not asked for its views at all. I had no intention of mentioning these things and I do so now only because of Deputy Lindsay's challenge. By and large, the programmes on RTE are excellent. It is a pity that the bulk of the films should be imports. It is a pity something is not done to build up a film industry here. It is a pity more of our own excellent plays and shows are not produced on Radio Telefís Éireann. The sports coverage is excellent. From the point of view of the impact of television on youth, RTE provides a good, healthy service for youth. Possibly a little too much time is devoted to advertising. That may be desirable from the point of view of income but I think a hard look should be taken at this particular aspect of television.
In conclusion, I would urge the Minister to maintain the television licence at its present level because television is a real amenity in every home in rural Ireland. It is of vital importance even in the remoter areas of the country. It is only right that we should ensure that no one is deprived of this great service because of too high a licence fee.
There are a few points I should like to make on this Estimate. Perhaps I might refer to the recent postage increases and say that I am a little disturbed by the Minister's statement to the effect that a further adjustment of postage rates may be unavoidable. I trust he will agree that this would have a very serious effect on business. Perhaps he might give consideration, despite our traditions, to the post box which he states is so popular on the Continent and in the United States. If in this way we could keep down costs it would be an ideal solution to the problem. Perhaps, the Minister would also give consideration to the practice which is in operation in Britain of allowing discounts for bulk mail. This might be a good incentive for business houses.
We must realise that telephones are an essential part of our life, and we must have more of them. I am wondering if the Department are doing sufficient planning for the coming years and if some survey might be made of the requirements in this field. It should be painfully obvious to the Minister that we have an inadequate number of telephones in the community. There is an inadequate number of public telephones available and when we realise how important telephones are nowadays for urgent calls and emergencies, the Minister should give serious consideration to planning for more telephones for the people. I should like to hear what the cost is as compared with the cost in Britain, in European countries and in the United States.
I know that in some parts of the United States you can have a telephone installed and the total cost is £2 10s a month. You pay nothing else for local calls. I am wondering why a similar system could not be operated here. This idea of the classified directory is a good one. I am wondering who will benefit from it? Will the Post Office benefit from this directory in any way? I should like to know why an Irish concern was not considered in the tenders for this directory, and why the contract was given to a foreign country. I should have thought that the Department would have been able to operate it. There is no doubt that the profit from such a classified directory would be tremendous and I should like the Minister to answer some questions on this.
There is also a point about telephone accounts. People get their telephone bills and very commonly forget to pay them. A second notice is received by them but what is important is the fact that this second notice does not differ in any way from the original notice. Many people have been deprived of their telephones, their telephone service has been disconnected, due to the fact that they omitted to pay their bills. I think the reminder should be printed in red with the words "Final Notice" across it in bold print. That would remind people that their telephone accounts must be paid.
Perhaps, there could be a phone call from the Department to the subscriber reminding him that they are about to disconnect the service. This was the procedure up to recently, and I am wondering why it is not continued. A phone call from the Department reminding the subscriber that his service was about to be disconnected due to the non-payment of the account would bring it to the person's mind. I do not think that the reminder as at present received by the subscriber is sufficient to bring to his attention the urgency of the matter. I know that business houses have inadvertently forgotten to pay their accounts and have had the service disconnected with great inconvenience to themselves.
I should have thought that the giro system as operated by the banks would have been a tremendous asset to the Post Office. Certainly in Britain they thought so and were quick to seize on the idea. The banks here, with their eye on a commercial profit, were quick to seize upon this idea and exploit it. I wonder why the Post Office could not do so and have it as a further source of revenue. I do not think the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have been explicit enough in explaining the delay in looking into this problem. The giro system operates very successfully in Britain. Why cannot we operate it here through the medium of the Post Office? Confusion now arises when Irish people look at the Welsh television station and see the giro service operated by the Post Office advertised on Welsh television.
On the question of Radio Telefís Éireann, the advertising must come in for criticism. It is very pleasing to note that the advertising of cigarettes will be discontinued as from April. It took a long time for the Minister responsible to realise that this was very serious, in so far as young people are very susceptible to the effects of advertising. I want to support Deputy Seán Dunne who spoke about the advertising of drink on television and its association with athletics, giving the impression that to be a great athlete one had to drink. A grave responsibility rests with the Minister in so far as drink is advertised almost continuously on television and young people are affected by it. We know many young people who cannot read but can quote very liberally from television advertisements. They are very susceptible to them. A responsibility rests with the Minister where there are grave dangers to young people who are exposed to this form of advertising.
The Minister should seriously consider the possibility of reducing considerably the amount of advertising on television. I do not think taxpayers would be averse to paying extra to cover the loss from the reduced advertising, and this should be considered because the effect of such advertising can be very serious. I should also like to know if some of the bigger advertisers on Telefís Éireann have a say in the programmes. We know advertisers in newspapers can have a say in the policies of the papers. I hope that a similar situation does not exist among the advertisers on Telefís Éireann.
Political programmes on television should be encouraged. "The Politicians" programme, which has a high rating, should be considered for an earlier time in the evening when more people would watch it. I would not be averse to television coverage of the Dáil proceedings. I think people should have a greater interest, and television coverage of certain proceedings in the Dáil might encourage more people to take an interest in Parliamentary procedure and in this institution.
The Minister's remarks about RTE and its interviewers must be deplored. His statement aroused much fear among people that an effort might be made to tamper with the freedom of Telefís Éireann. As expressed by a participant in a programme last weekend, there is a fear in people's minds when any attempt is made to interfere with the freedom of the communications media. It would be very wrong if the Minister intended this by his statement. I do not think that he personally would like to see that — I think he would like that Telefís Éireann should be completely free of any political influence — but his statement has certainly been misinterpreted, in so far as it has aroused much concern among people who are anxious that Telefís Éireann will remain completely free. In his reply, the Minister should emphasise that no attempt will be made to interfere in any way with the news coverage or with any programme which would tell the truth.
No member of my Party has complained about shabby treatment by interviewers on Telefís Éireann. In fact, the reverse is the case: the interviewers have always been most courteous, and when it may be suggested they are a little aggressive it should be remembered they are merely voicing the opinions of the people and asking questions which the people at large would ask. I had occasion once to discuss this with an interviewer. I thought he was slightly aggressive but as the discussion went on I realised he was asking questions which the public would ask, so that at the end of the programme the public would feel satisfied. If the replies to questions are frank and honest, I do not think a person being interviewed need have any fear.
I was disturbed to hear that Deputy Blaney, Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, considered he had been insulted by Telefís Éireann. I do not think any Deputy here could say he has ever been insulted or shabbily treated in Telefís Éireann and I do not consider that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is entitled to any greater or better treatment than that given to any Deputy of this House. It is wrong of him to feel sensitive about this. Perhaps, he thought the red carpet should have been laid for him when he arrived at Telefís Éireann.
There is one danger with Telefís Éireann. This concerns official compéres advertising particular products. This is wrong because I think it leaves in the mind of certain people the idea that an advertising statement by a particular compére could be taken as official. If a compére in Telefís Éireann suddenly appears on an advertising programme and mentions a particular face powder as being good for the skin and so on, this is often taken by certain people as official. I consider official compéres in Telefís Éireann should not participate in or lend their names to advertising on television. This is wrong and should stop immediately.
The radio programme "Today in the Dáil" has been commented on by many Deputies. I agree it is an excellent programme and I should like to see something similar on Telefís Éireann. We had one such programme some years ago but it was discontinued. We need to involve the public more in the affairs of this House. We should let them participate more and we should encourage them to learn more about what happens here. I think the RTE authorities should give consideration to a programme along the lines of "Today in the Dáil" for television.
I should like to make a comment about letter boxes. I wonder how many new letter boxes have been erected in the past few years. I have received many complaints from residents in areas who find the present number of letter boxes inadequate. Recently a letter box in an area in Crumlin was found to be over-full, even though previous requests for an additional letter box in the area were refused. This particular letter box was over-full, vandals in the area were removing the letters and the public did not know that their letters were being destroyed. The Minister will realise that this is a serious problem and is a source of worry to residents who expect that when they post letters they will be delivered. If letter boxes are inadequate in number they should be increased and the Minister might look into this problem.
I will conclude by mentioning the question of the sub-post office on Lissadell Avenue, in which I feel there is a gross injustice to Mrs. O'Brien who has the post office premises. I can see no earthly reason why the Parliamentary Secretary should decide to remove the post office from where it was. There could be no earthly reason for doing so other than political bias. I think this is very evident and it is incumbent on the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister to make a statement on this.
The premises in which the post office was located were adequate. Mrs. O'Brien, who applied for the post, has the necessary qualifications. The Parliamentary Secretary certainly did not explain why she was rejected. He hinted that she might not have enough capital, that she might not, perhaps, have had sufficient money in the bank. I do not think that was sufficient reason to reject her. The successful applicant had no qualifications whatsoever. The public wanted the post office to remain where it was. Mrs. O'Brien, the applicant, had the necessary qualifications. The premises were adequate. The post office had been there for 14 years and there was no valid reason, other than political bias, to change it. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister should have said that where the premises are adequate and where there is no essential difference in the qualifications of the candidates it would have been better to leave the post office where it was.
There were no complaints by the Department about the service not being properly carried out by Mrs. O'Brien's assistant. She was the same lady who had been operating there for years. There must have been political bias when a post office could be taken two doors from where it operated for the past 14 years. We are entitled to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister why this post office was removed from those premises, having regard to the fact that the person who now operates it had not the necessary qualifications and the person who previously occupied it had all the necessary qualifications.
It was a shameful way to treat a widow who was fully dependent on this. While it was made clear she was not buying the post office when she purchased the premises it could normally be taken for granted that where the post office was carried on for 14 years when she was buying the goodwill of the shop she was also buying it to include the post office. She paid £4,000 for the goodwill of the shop. Certainly the shop on its own would not have merited such a goodwill. The decision to move this post office was wrong and I should like the Minister to make a statement on it.
I will not delay the House too long because I know a number of people who have been sitting here all day are still waiting to speak. However, there are a few things I should like to raise on this Estimate. I think I will start off on television since most of the people who have spoken already have done so. I was somewhat disturbed when the Minister stated that, perhaps, television licence fees would be increased. I consider that £5 is quite sufficient to pay for the licence having regard to the service provided. It is not all good as some people would lead us to believe. In fact, I think some of it is positively dreadful.
A few years ago on this Estimate much was said about canned television. We still get a lot of canned American television and it is still appalling but I think we have got immune to it. At least I hear very few complaints now about the standard of this canned television. I consider it is dreadful. We get unlimited hours of stupid, puerile American stuff which is not amusing to adults or children as far as I can see, particularly on a Sunday. Sunday in the country is peak-viewing time but on that day we get old films which must have been made before I was born, and that was not today or yesterday. Some excellent films were made 30 years ago and before then but we do not get those. We get some terrible drivel. Saturday night is also very bad with some dreadful cowboy films. I like good cowboy films but some of those we have got in recent weeks are unbelievably bad.
The public should not put up with it. I am alarmed to find that they are becoming complacent and there is little or no objection to this drivel. This proves the might of television. One does not like bad material but if it is fed to you continuously you will accept it as reasonably good. This is a terrible thing. I have another complaint. I will deal with the complaints first and the credits later. Some of our television programmes for children are good but in this respect we should take a look at the BBC. We would be doing good for ourselves if we could buy some of their throw-outs and show them instead of the stuff we get for adult viewing. I also think that viewing should be half an hour earlier in wintertime, particularly for young children. This would serve to amuse the children and keep them out of their mother's way while she is preparing the evening meal.
I now want to refer to advertising on television. We get far too much of it and the standard is bad. While I understand that the Television Authority have no say in this — it is the sponsors who have to do with it — I am sure the Authority could point out to the sponsors that some advertisements are very poor. I will not actually say they are vulgar but they are certainly in bad taste. I cannot see why television advertising should be loaded with bad grammar. I find myself continually correcting my children's grammar but they say to me: "That is what they say on television." I have now got to explain to my children that what they say on television is not good English. I expect the adult public are supposed to be sophisticated and to say that this is a huge joke but when children are exposed continuously to this sort of thing it is bad. God knows the standard of English is bad enough without injecting this into our children.
The Minister complains about the method of interviewing on television. I should like to preface my remarks by saying that I consider "Seven Days" is the best programme on television. I think the news is well produced. In this connection, however, I notice that on the Irish telecast you will get more actual news than you will on the English news. When the news in English is televised some of the items in the Irish news are deleted. Very often you do not catch them on the Irish news and you do not get them at all on the English news. I do not agree with the Minister about the rude interviewing on the "Seven Days" programme. It is tough, I know. I have been watching television interviewing for quite some time now. I remember watching John Freeman, when the television began first, on "Face to Face" and he was very tough. Goodness knows politicians are not hothouse plants. Goodness knows a person who survives an election and was able to wriggle out of some of the things said to him during his campaign should be able to wriggle out of anything said to him on a television interview?
I have often watched those interviewers and thank God I was not in the hot seat in front of them but, nevertheless, I recognise the fact that if people show up badly it is their own fault. I have seen one particular interviewer who is very tough — he is one of the best interviewers — and most devastating but he had such charm that you forgave him. This is why he has been so successful. He is a very slick and polished interviewer and I am sure this is what the people pay for. Remember the public at large sit back in their seats and see politicians being discomfited and they say "That fellow got it last night; another will get it tomorrow night" because there is a sort of idea abroad that politicians are, as a reverend gentleman said recently, slightly corrupt. There is the feeling that "politician" is a dirty word. We are all only human and if, when watching television ourselves, we see one of our own Party men not showing up to the best advantage, we are disappointed but, at the same time, we realise that this is not the fault of the television interviewer but that it is the man's own fault.
With regard to advertising on television, I agree with Deputies Dunne and Dr. O'Connell in so far as cigarette advertising is concerned. I am glad to see that this advertising is being phased out and I believe also that alcohol advertising should be phased out. I realise that the Government reaps colossal revenue in duty from the sale of alcohol so that Governments are loath to do anything that would bring about a reduction in the promotion of alcohol sales. However, since we have a very high rate of alcoholism in this country, it is too bad that so much time is devoted, night after night, to the advertising of various beers and lagers, etc. These advertisements encourage the idea that if one does not drink this or that particular beer, one is not "with it", to use a modern expression. This must have its effects on the younger viewers.
Television advertising in general could be curtailed. The advertisements are too involved and very irritating and make one feel like turning off the set. I am sure that the sponsors would pay equally as high a charge for a short advertisement if everybody had to pay the same. Who cares "Who put the `oo' in shampoo" as long as we get the name of the product, whatever it may be.
I should like now to say a few words about the telephone service. The telephone service has come in for a lot of praise here but I must say that the telephone service in rural Ireland — I have experience of this in my own constituency — is bad. The delay in making trunk calls in rural Ireland is usually very long. I am a fussy person by nature but I was extremely irritated last Sunday when I tried to make a telephone call from Loughrea to Portumna. I was told that there would be a delay of an hour and a half but, realising that it takes only half an hour to make the journey by car, I decided it would be much quicker to drive there.
I have come to the conclusion that the telephone business has grown extensively and maybe too much so for the Department. I wonder if the Minister would consider the setting up of a body like, for instance, the ESB or Bord na Móna, to deal with the telephone services. The civil servants in the Department are doing the best they can but I do not think that civil servants are trained for big business. Perhaps, those with training in the administrative field and in buying and selling would be more suitable for this job. The telephone service has become big business and there is room for further extension and I believe that this is possible.
Regarding the closing of some of our post offices, I realise that this must come because of depopulation, particularly in the west, but it does create some hardships. For instance, during the weekend an old age pensioner in my constituency told me that owing to the closure of the local post office she now has to hire a taxi in order to get into town to collect her pension. It seems ludicrous to have to pay 17s 6d, which was the amount she mentioned, so that she might collect her pension of less than £3. Surely a system could be devised whereby pensions, children's allowances and other benefits could be paid out in shops or recognised centres? This particular place has no Garda barracks either. I know that in Canada, for instance, beneficiaries of these types of allowances get a little card which is issued from a computer and can be cashed anywhere. Perhaps, we could do something similar here.
I should also like to mention the telephone directory. I cannot see why every subscriber cannot be issued with a directory which has already been punched so that there is a hole through which string may be put thereby allowing the directory to be hung up. This could prevent the directory being left on the floor or some other such place where it will fall to pieces in a very short time. I know that this is done with some of the books that are placed in kiosks and, perhaps, it could also be done with those issued to the subscribers.
Perhaps I am growing old but I find the new telephone directory very difficult to read. If the print were a little larger it would make it much more easy to find a number. At any rate, I now find myself having to go to the window to look up a number.
I do not know if it is in order to refer to the new stamps which I consider to be terrible; they irritate me; the design is ghastly and everything about them is bad. For instance, there is not sufficient gum to stick them to the letters and this includes the one issued for the 50th anniversary of the First Dáil. Postmistresses down the country tell me that the stamps keep coming off the letters and they believe that the amount of gum on the stamps is insufficient. Perhaps, it would be better if, instead of issuing so many stamps, fewer and better ones were issued. Some of the symbolic animals which have appeared on our stamps are certainly not Celtic animals and to my mind they are ghastly things.
I should like to say, in fairness to the Minister, that he has given us a complete survey of his Department — a survey which was clear and concise and I must say that I have not too many faults to find with it. I have not gone through the credits and there are quite a number of them but my biggest criticism of television concerns all this dreadful canned stuff. I consider that Seven Days is an excellent programme. We should have more of this kind of programme. We should have more news programmes, but I do not agree with Deputy Dr. O'Connell that we should have more political programmes.
If the Deputy were on one she might change her mind.
I do not think it is fair to throw questions at politicians without prior notice. One should get even half an hour's notice to collect one's thoughts. We are not supposed to know everything and it is silly to expect a politician to know everything. Questions can be technical and one could make a fool of oneself and possibly lose a seat in the Dáil. It is hardly fair. One is expected to be in the television studio half an hour before the programme. The interviewer should, perhaps, say: "The following six questions may be asked". He might not even tell the exact questions but could, perhaps, give a hazy idea in order that the politician might get a few minutes to have a quick run-down through the questions. A day's, or even an hour's, notice is not necessary but it would be good to have a few minutes' notice of difficult questions.
I remember being on a programme at a time when the interviewers used to have a chat beforehand and say "I might ask you such-and-such a question." On these programmes that is not done now. That was obvious from last night's programme. There was a question relating to something that appeared on the morning newspapers, which I had not even read. If one had no information about such items it might appear bad. It is quite obvious to Telefís Éireann and to the public in general that politicians are not walking encyclopaedias. They do not know everything, in spite of the fact that some of us may try to convey this to our constituents. I always play safe and say that I will see what the ruling is on any particular subject. Some are able to get away with a vague general statement. More luck to them. Others are not able to get away with it. It could cost a politician his seat. It is something that should be looked at. I still hold the view that a person might make a fool of himself on television through his own fault and not the interviewer's fault. I am quite sure I could do it myself; I often think that. I understand well when people say that politicians are television-shy. I am television-shy myself and I believe other politicians in the House are also because it might cost them a seat in the House.
On the whole, live programmes are put over well but the canned stuff is worse than terrible. I cannot impress enough on the House that something ought to be done about that: The educational programmes are quite good. Perhaps, we could have a little more viewing for schools. No doubt more educational programmes will come in time.
Like some of the other speakers, I should like to congratulate the Minister on the detailed Estimate which he has brought before the House.
Like every other Minister of State, he does not expect to get a straight run through this House without opposition. As a Deputy from the West, I feel that my constituents expect me to voice my disapproval of certain aspects of the Estimate, and of the working of the Department.
Let us take, for instance, the telephone service. My constituents feel it is most appalling in the west of Ireland in general, but I can safely speak for West Galway. There is a big influx of tourists in the summertime. We welcome them to this country. A big number of these people do their business by fixed time telephone calls from the West to, perhaps, London, Birmingham, Scotland, Wales or somewhere else. They take up quite a considerable amount of time in directing their affairs over the telephone in the early hours of the morning on weekdays. That is quite all right.
We come now to the native who wants to make a telephone call to a hospital, perhaps, where a man or his wife is sick and the family want to find out how he or she is. One may have to spend a considerable amount of time in the local sub-post office in order to get a call to the hospital. Let me say immediately that I would like to congratulate each sub-postmaster and each sub-postmistress in my constituency. It is very difficult when we have not an outlet to get a telephone call within a reasonable time. That is all we ask for. In certain areas, after the publichouse closes at 11 p.m. or 11.30 p.m. the nearest telephone where one can get a call to the dispensary doctor or the vet may be 15 or 20 miles away. The Minister or his Department, or the Parliamentary Secretary if he is responsible, should ensure as fast as possible that all telephone kiosks inside post offices should be put on the outside of the offices, like some are at the moment. By doing this a person from a country village or townland would be able to go to a kiosk after normal post office hours to make a call. Such a sub-post office is generally connected to a main one which will carry a call to whoever is needed, whether it is the vet or a doctor or anyone of that sort who is needed. The sooner this is done the better it will be for us in the West. We talk about saving the West but we should make a start on this service as soon as possible.
I come now to the postage of letters in this House or, indeed, in Dublin city at any time during the afternoon. Letters posted in this House up to six o'clock in the afternoon should be delivered to any point in the 26 Counties the following morning, even in remote country areas. Trains leave the city at approximately 8 p.m. I can speak freely for my own train which leaves Dublin at 8.10 p.m. This train arrives in Galway at approximately 12 mid-night or thereabouts. There is despatch of mail to the country in the morning from 6.30 a.m. to 7 p.m. but letters despatched here do not reach the country districts until the second day after posting. I do not want the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary to tell me that the delay is in the local sorting office. It is not, because I have proved this over the last 12 months and that is why I am saying this.
Television and radio are included in this Estimate. There is one thing which should be done. I will invite the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary any time they feel like it to visit the West and look at Telefís Éireann for just one night out of the seven nights of the week. They will then realise the type of programme which we can get on Telefís Éireann — streaks, stripes, stars and anything but a programme some nights. There are other nights when the reception is fair enough.
Over a number of years here, since we got television in this country, I have been advocating that the people in the West, who have to pay for a television licence, are entitled to a booster station so that they will receive good television reception. About 12 or 18 months ago, the Minister gave a television booster which was erected on the hill of Curraun just outside Mulrany in County Mayo. At the time, I asked if the booster station would cover the whole West and I think the reply I received was that it would. I can assure the Minister that it has no effect whatsoever on the Connemara Gaeltacht area so far as the reception we are receiving there is concerned. As well as a TV booster on the Connemara hills, I would suggest one on the Twelve Pins: I think they would cover the whole West.
I would ask the Minister to impress on the people responsible in Telefís Éireann that we want more Irish programmes on television. We are not getting enough Irish programmes. The fíor-Ghaeltachta of this country are not getting enough Irish programmes on television. If we are sincere — and I think we are — about our native language, we must get more Irish programmes on television.
(Cavan): Ba chóir duitse a bheith ag caint as Gaeilge.
Bhéinn, gan amhras, ach tá eagla orm nach mbéadh roinnt de na daoine atá' ghá thógail síos an méid atá' ghá rá agam i ndon é a thógaint síos i nGaeilge. Sin é an fá go bhfuilim ag caint as Béarla.
Níl mórán Gaeilge agat.
Moladh le Dia, tá níos mó Gaeilge agam ná mar atá agatsa.
I feel we should express our thanks to the people who are on the telephone switchboard of Dáil Éireann. They are doing an excellent job. They are here from 10 a.m. or earlier, until 10.30 p.m. With these few words, I sincerely hope the Minister will take into account what I am saying and that he will rectify the complaints of the people who sent me here to voice them on their behalf.
(Cavan): I feel it my duty to rise here and to express my concern and to say that I am considerably perturbed at the views expressed by the Minister on the presentation of news and on the method of interviewing on Telefís Éireann current affairs programmes. As I understood the Minister, he believes that, in so far as news is being presented, it should be biased in favour of the type of news that the people would like to hear — favourable happenings, generally speaking, pleasant news — and, in so far as interviewing people on Telefís Éireann, particularly politicians, is concerned, he believes that they should be handled with kid gloves. In fact, one would believe that the Minister would like to have Ministers interviewed on Telefís Éireann by means of the parliamentary device sometimes employed here and known as the “planted question”. In so far as I am concerned, I believe that news bulletins should be factual. If there is good news, either national or international, particularly national, then by all means give it to us and do not minimise it. But if, on the other hand, there is bad news, or if something is going wrong, the people are entitled to know about it.
I agree with the Deputy. That is OK.
(Cavan): In so far as interviewing Ministers and politicians of any description is concerned on a political programme or on current affairs, I do not think they are entitled to expect that they should be handled with kid gloves. The attitude towards them should be that of an inquiring mind.
Hear, hear.
(Cavan): The straight question should be put to them. If they are inclined to hedge that question then it should be followed up by another question. Otherwise, the whole thing would be reduced to a farce and an absurdity. I do not believe that, in the past, or in the recent past, we have had anything to complain about on Telefís Éireann. As a matter of fact, I think the general opinion throughout the length and breadth of the country is that our interviewers are becoming more professional, that our interviewers on Telefís Éireann are improving, and, as I say, are coming up to an international standard.
Now, if the concluding remarks of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, in reference to the presentation of news and to the questioning of the "Establishment," as he called it, stood alone, I should still be perturbed but I am afraid that, in this House, it is our duty to analyse Ministerial statements and to consider them in depth, so to speak. I do not believe that we can consider the statements of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs regarding these two items — presentation of news and interviewing — in isolation. I think we must regard the Minister's attitude in conjunction with other Ministerial statements and other Ministerial actions in the recent and not so recent past.
I believe that this Government are too long in office. I believe, as a result, that the Government and its members have become somewhat arrogant, have become a bit intolerant and, in fact, have arrived at the point where they resent criticism. I believe that they have arrived at the point where they believe that they are entitled to preferential treatment on Telefís Éireann and on Radio Éireann. I believe, in fact, that, quite unconsciously and without any deliberate intention, the Ministers of the present Government regard institutions and services such as Radio Telefís Éireann and State and semi-State bodies as their private property. I know that if they give the matter any thought at all they will know that this is not so. I suppose that, having been in office for a considerable time, this idea has grown. The point I am trying to make is that the views expressed by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs regarding news readers and public affairs interviewers on Telefís Éireann disclose a dangerous trend in Ministerial and Government thinking.
I will refer very briefly to some incidents relating to Telefís Éireann and Radio Éireann. Early last year an attack was made on the "Seven Days" programme because it dared to put on what was an objective analysis of proportional representation and of the effects of abolishing PR. Because that programme was televised the "Seven Days" programme was removed from the control of one department and put under the control of another department. In effect, that programme projected a view which ultimately was accepted by the masses of the people as being the right view. It did not, of course, agree with the view of the Government at that time. Not alone did that programme move from one control to another for having been so bold as objectively to discuss on Telefís Éireann a proposal in which the people were vitally interested and which aroused the ultimate in public discussion, but the people who appeared on the programme, some of them full-time employees of Telefís Éireann, were attacked in this House from those benches, practically throughout last year, by the Minister for Local Government.
That is one example of the attitude of the Government towards this State service and, in my submission, the Minister's remarks here are only a development of that. Recently, we had the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries going to Telefís Éireann to be interviewed about a meeting which had taken place that day between himself and the president of the NFA. However, the Minister imagines that he has a grievance; he believes that he should have had the right to hear the tape recording of what was said by the president of the NFA which, bear in mind, had not been televised. As I pointed out elsewhere, the president of the NFA had no opportunity of knowing what the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries was going to say about the meeting but the Minister, in pursuance of this policy and afflicted with this disease of thinking that he has some particular claim on this State service, demanded this preferential treatment and walked out of the studio and refused to be interviewed when he did not get it. He then burst into print and denounced Telefís Éireann and demanded an apology.
That is to be regretted. It is another example of the thinking behind the Minister's statement here. In this House the other day the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries stated that he had got an apology from Telefís Éireann. I am not surprised that he got an apology from Telefís Éireann, but it is to be regretted. I am sure Telefís Éireann had no alternative but to write a letter expressing regret. Since this debate began it has been said that most politicians experienced nothing but the height of consideration from officials at Montrose when they went there. I am not endeavouring to present myself as somebody who has appeared frequently on television but I have appeared on it on a few occasions and I received nothing but the height of courtesy. I also want to say that on occasion when a Minister was in the studio there appeared to be that little bit of extra fuss and that little courtesy of meeting him at the door, escorting him to the studio and finally seeing him off the premises, all as one would expect. That is quite correct, but I find it very difficult to believe that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries was treated with the discourtesy which he alleges he was. I believe his real complaint was that he expected that he should have this preview of the interview with the president of the NFA. I do not think he was entitled to that but he thought he was and that is what was wrong.
I said that this trend seems to be creeping into governmental and ministerial thinking and it is a bad thing. We know that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, in pursuance of this attitude, refused advertisements to The Farmers' Journal because it criticised him and criticised his predecessors. We also know that the Minister for Local Government, both in this House and in the country, attacked untied newspapers and attributed mal-motives to them for daring to criticise his motives. That is part of the attitude and the make-up behind the views expressed by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in his remarks on this Estimate. I do not defend any attempt to insult a Minister, a politician or anybody else when they are being interviewed on television programmes but I do not believe we have had anything of that kind. I think the Minister and his colleagues are becoming too thin-skinned. I hope I have made my views on that pretty clear.
I agree with something the Minister said about religious and social programmes on Telefís and Radio Eireann. I feel that these programmes should be presented in a way calculated to do good rather than harm, to solve problems rather than create them. I am not a very keen television viewer simply because my political career does not leave me much time to sit down and view television programmes. However, I did view a programme on Telefís Éireann some time ago dealing with the problem of the unmarried mother. It was a film. I watched it through and through. I assumed it was intended to be helpful and that it would make suggestions as to how a girl who found herself in that unfortunate position might try to solve her problems. However, the whole theme of that programme was that there were wonderful ways for solving this problem in England, that the social services there were very good, that there were vast cities in which girls in such a condition could lose themselves and avoid the shame that is sometimes attached to such girls in this country. I watched that programme through and through and the suggested solution seemed to be: take the boat, take the plane, get out. I think that was regrettable. There are services in this country to deal with that problem, but there was not one mention of them on that programme. I really just could not understand the attitude behind the programme. It showed this film and then it stopped. There was no talk afterwards and there was no suggestion that we have these institutions here that try to help girls who find themselves in that condition. I thought that was regrettable.
I also listened one night to a programme on Radio Éireann. This particular programme was broadcast from Cork. I think it was: "Is God relevant in this modern age?" I must confess I probably reached my destination or had to get out of the car before this programme finished but I do not think there was anyone on that programme to stand up for the Christian point of view. It was a young people's programme. This question was shot at them and the theme of the discussion seemed to run something like this: Dear God, if there is one, save my soul if I have one. I think that was an undesirable type of programme to put over the air. I will stand corrected if I can be told that there was somebody on that programme to stand up — as the Minister says there should have been — for the Christian point of view. It was all slanted and all biased in the other direction. I am with the Minister, as far as I interpret his views on that type of programme.
Since the hours of Radio Éireann have been extended they are doing a very fine job. The Radio Éireann programmes have become very interesting. They are well presented and I, for one, think they show a general improvement and that they are well up to any standards that could reasonably be expected. That is speaking by and large. I have mentioned the programme to which I took objection. There may be others. That is all I want to say about Radio Telefís Éireann in a general way. I will get down now to making a few brief points concerning my constituency.
I was very disappointed on reading the Minister's speech to find that he has made no reference whatever to the new general post office or automatic telephone exchange for Cavan town. He mentioned all the work that had been done in various places in the past. He mentioned his programme of work for the next 12 months. He even mentioned a five-year plan. Nowhere can I see any reference to the new post office or automatic exchange for Cavan. I can tell the Minister it is very badly needed. I have been agitating here for quite a while to get this building under way and I only hope that the Minister can tell me that it is under way or practically under way. I believe the fact that it is not referred to in the Minister's speech may not mean that it is as far out of the way as it would appear to be.
I hope that when the Minister comes to build a new post office in Cavan, which will be sited right in the centre of the town, he will listen to the suggestions from the local urban council, the local chamber of commerce, the residents and taxpayers in general as to anything that can be done to improve the appearance of the building and to add to the amenities of the town.
Certainly this new post office in Cavan should have provision for a car park for its employees. Parking space in Cavan town is a problem. The streets are narrow and parking space is limited. The Department of Posts and Telegraphs have taken over an area and there is space there to provide for car parks for which I hope their plan will make provision. Now that it is intended to move from the outskirts to the centre of the town, I trust they will not add to the congestion there by utilising whatever parking space is available for seven or eight hours.
The accommodation in Cavan telephone exchange is deplorable. The staff there are doing their very best to provide a good service but the equipment is inadequate. I am told by business and professional people and travel agents that sometimes in peak periods there are unreasonable delays in trunk calls. I hope the building will go ahead without further delay.
The Minister has not increased the charges for trunk calls but I want to mention the ADC charge. Under the new regulations it will cost 1/- to be informed as to the cost of a trunk call. That is quite unreasonable. This will add substantially to the cost of telephoning from hotels and to that extent will affect tourists by making their telephoning more expensive. If a tourist wants to make a trunk call from a hotel he will have to pay the normal charge plus what the hotel charges plus 1/-. That is regrettable. I understand that the 1/- ADC charge also applies to private telephone calls, that if an inquiry is made from a private telephone as to the cost of a trunk call a charge of 1/- will be added. That is very unreasonable and is particularly objectionable in rural areas where the telephone service is inadequate. There are many isolated districts in which there is only one telephone the owner of which is usually neighbourly enough to allow his neighbours to use it but he expects his neighbours to pay for the calls they make. The cost of a trunk call in such circumstances will be increased by 1/-. The Minister should exempt such cases from the 1/- ADC charge.
We all know that some sections of the Post Office pay their way. For instance, the Telephones Section pays its way and shows a profit. On the other hand, postal charges have been increased. The Minister says that the cost of delivering an item in rural Ireland is as much as 1s. The steep increased in postal charges is adding to the expense of running businesses and to the general expense of management. As in the case of the transport service, certain sections of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs must be expected to operate at a loss but I do not think it is reasonable that business should have to finance this social service and it is in the nature of a social service to provide delivery of mail in isolated places. The cost should not be added to the expenses of people in the towns who use the postal service which, if it were confined to them, could be run at a profit. That is a view that I hold and I would suggest that the Minister should consider it.
Apparently, the Telegraphs Section does not pay. I would say that it will soon be defunct because the cost of sending a telegram has become so expensive. To send a small money order for a few shillings accompanied by a few words costs about 12s. That is an exorbitant charge.
I am dealing with points now more or less at random. I should like to come back to television for a moment. I put down a Parliamentary Question the other day about areas of defective reception, bad vision or no vision. There are such pockets in my constituency. The Minister should take steps to improve television reception in these areas. In areas where there is, in effect, no reception of Telefís Éireann programmes the owners of television sets should not be charged a licence fee even if they can receive BBC or UTV programmes. They are not receiving any service from the State and should not be charged for such service. There are such places in County Cavan and, I am sure, in Donegal and other counties. It is quite feasible for the Minister to identify or isolate areas where reception is nil. Therefore, owners of television sets in these areas should not be charged a licence fee, particularly in view of the indication that has been given that the licence fee may be increased. I strongly suggest that it is unreasonable to charge £5 for nothing, which is what it boils down to in these circumstances.
I would agree with Deputy Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins that as far as Telefís Éireann is concerned the programmes on Sundays seem to reach valley level. Something should be done to improve the Sunday programmes.
I agree with Deputy Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins that some rural post offices should and will be closed down due to depopulation of the country. As a result of that old aged pensioners and other social welfare recipients should not be compelled to travel five, six, seven or more miles to receive their allowances. These allowances were paid through the post offices when there was a post office convenient to everybody. However, if the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs intends to close down these post offices he should use his influence with his colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, to see that another section of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is used to distribute these benefits through the post. Surely, it should be possible to entrust a cheque for £2 15s, £3 or £3 5s to the post office for delivery through the post in the ordinary way. I would remind the Minister that a semi-State service, the Agricultural Credit Corporation, frequently sends out cheques for several thousands of pounds for delivery directly to the borrowers and they seem to be delivered safely. I do not know why the Department of Social Welfare insists on personal delivery of these benefits.
That would seem to be their function, not that of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.
(Cavan): I am suggesting that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs should tout for business and convince the Minister for Social Welfare that he could deliver these pensions and other social benefits efficiently and safely through the post office system. I think it is his duty to get to work on the Minister for Social Welfare, especially as he proposes or is in the process of closing down many post offices from which the people collected these benefits.
I feel very strongly, and I hope I have appeared to feel very strongly, about the Minister's attitude towards news and interviews. I made the other remarks to try to improve the service in general, but I sincerely hope that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs will think again about his attitude towards this question of the broadcasting and televising of news and the interviewing of Ministers. Indeed, I hope that the whole Government, from the Taoiseach down, will reassess their rights as regards this State service and the obligations of this State service to the Government and to individual Ministers.
I should like to compliment the Minister on giving such a detailed description of the working of the Department in the past year. I notice there has been a substantial increase over the past couple of years in the number of new telephones connected. It is good to see a Department that is prepared to go out and work and get new business, as they are doing.
One statement in the Minister's speech with which I do not agree is that 94 per cent of the letters posted were received the next day. Any letters posted in my constituency always take an extra day to get to me because they have to go through Dublin. Anything posted even at 6 o'clock here in the Dáil rarely gets to me the next morning. It will arrive on the second post at 4 o'clock all right. I know the previous holder of the office felt that any letter posted by 5 o'clock in any part of Ireland would get there the next morning. This is not the case. Anything that has to go through Dublin from the country and back down takes the extra day. This is a matter which I should like the Minister to investigate. Perhaps, some part of the organisation would need to be streamlined or there may be some bottleneck along the route to be dealt with.
The Minister mentioned that some stamps are nicely designed. People all over the world collect such stamps. Some of them have tremendous value and I gather the post office makes money on the new issues. However, there are some stamps that are not so nicely designed. The 6d stamp, which is a small one, has on it some sort of an animal with its tail stuck in its mouth. There are plenty of historical places or beauty spots in Ireland which could be used as an advertisement for tourism and would do much more for our country than some of these weird designs that have been created. The stamp commemorating the 50th Anniversary was a perfect example. I see in one of the evening papers that Britain has brought out a stamp to commemorate the first flight of the Concorde. We should use some of our stamps to highlight some of our achievements, some of our traditional beauty spots that lend themselves to providing a good view. We should portray Ireland as she is. Many other countries are adopting such an approach.
While on postal services I think postmen should be provided with a better type of uniform. I suppose the present one is a hardwearing type of uniform but in industry and most businesses there is an emphasis on a better type of uniform or dress nowadays. The present postmen's uniform should be improved, especially now when so many postmen are motorised. This would make them more up to date.
I should like more telephone kiosks in rural Ireland. I know the Department have a standard by which they consider that unless the kiosk produces about £100 a year it is not worthwhile, but this is a great amenity in the country because many post offices close early and people must then depend on neighbours if they want to make an urgent phone call. I am thinking of two areas which the Parliamentary Secretary knows quite well. One is Kildangan which is a purely rural area and it has a telephone kiosk. Only a couple of miles away is the village of Suncroft with a rather big population around it. The people have been repeatedly refused a kiosk. I cannot understand why the number of calls made in the area does not come up to the required figure. The few shops there have telephones with coin boxes. Perhaps, the people leave the village and go to the Curragh to make their calls. Locally, there is a tremendous demand for a kiosk for the village and it seems strange to me that a built-up area cannot qualify for a kiosk when a completely rural area a few miles away with only one shop and a church qualified some years ago.
Going through the constituency I find that in most rural areas we are asked at meetings or by people we meet: "Could we not have a telephone kiosk in this area?" It is a service that would be well justified if we were to provide a number of kiosks throughout the country. Even if they do not pay in the first year, in a year or two they will certainly yield the revenue return required. Nowadays everybody uses the telephone, from the youngest to the oldest. It has become part and parcel of everyday life.
I think RTE are doing a reasonably good job with the resources available to them. Their revenue is very small compared to that of the BBC or ITV. Our programmes compare very favourably with the English programmes. I do not often see television but when I do I think we give a service as good as, or better than, they do even though our resources are only a fraction of theirs.
The "Late Late Show" gives a good service from an entertainment point of view but it shows a tendency to depart from what Irish people consider to be proper concerning one of our heritages, religion, and also a tendency to slightly obscene remarks. I happened to see part of a show recently when they had brought over two witches from the Isle of Man. It seemed strange; they were treating their profession, or whatever you like to call it, as a religion. Heaven knows, Ireland is the one country that takes pride in the religion of the people. The "Late Late Show", over the years, has included items which have slightly shocked quite a number of people by hitting at fundamentals. The Minister has had quite a few letters from me from priests in connection with some items that appeared on this show. I did not see some of them myself. I feel they should not attack religion or bring in other religions on this show. To bear out the other comment I made, at one stage of one show that I happened to see the compére had to say to a cameraman: "For heaven's sake, do not take a close-up of her." He should never leave himself open to a situation in which he should have to say such a thing in the programme——
And the cameraman promptly took a close-up and nobody was horrified. I do not think the Deputy was. I think he was there that night.
That may be. It may be a late programme but it brings in some things we do not like in the country. The producer may wish to have the programme controversial but there are many people in Ireland who could provide good entertainment without introducing some of these queer people. Major Ronald Bunting appeared on the programme. He is diametrically opposed to all that we hold dear in this part of the country. Listening to him on that programme and noting his demeanour one would think butter would not melt in his mouth but, when he returned across the Border, his statements and his demeanour were completely different. Every effort should be made to ensure that those who appear on such programmes do not offend against all that we cherish here.
Telefís Éireann does an excellent job in the sports sphere of activity. I am glad the Saturday afternoon programmes were introduced. They cover a wide field. One thing I would appreciate would be a slow motion playback immediately after some exciting interlude or some breathtaking goal. That is really all I have to say. Once more, I compliment the Minister on the very fine review he gave us of the activities of his Department.
The Minister gave very detailed information, indeed, in relation to the activities in and the plans for his Department. His statement was certainly very informative. There are a few aspects of the Department's activities about which I should like to say a few words. Many Deputies have referred to the need for the provision of more telephone kiosks and reference has been made to the abuse of kiosks in many areas in which they are provided already. With regard to the provision of kiosks in rural areas, it would appear as if this is based solely on economics. The Minister should take another look at this particular aspect in relation to rural areas in particular. Phones are few in number and the need for phones particularly in an emergency should be recognised.
As the Minister is aware, the Minister for Justice is pressing ahead with the closing of Garda stations. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs told us that he has agreed to the closing of 16 sub-post offices. The Minister for Health is engaged in the abolition of dispensary districts. Now both the closing of Garda stations and the reorganisation of dispensary districts must entail an increased number of telephone kiosks if people are to be prevailed on to remain in rural areas and if we are sincere in our expressed desire not to do anything to accelerate the flight from the land. How can any Government in conscience expect people to stay in areas where facilities are discontinued and where, because of facilities being discontinued, they can find themselves helpless in an emergency? The Minister has rightly pointed out that business people need a modern telephone system, but surely it must be conceded that a reasonable public telephone service should be available in remote and isolated areas in view of the almost complete withdrawal of other facilities.
The Minister mentioned also that the Television Authority had suggested that, if we are to meet the commitments involved in their plans for further improvements, there will have to be an increase, and a significant increase, in the licence fee. In the main RTE has been doing an excellent job, having regard to the sources available, but I am sure the Minister will agree that people in areas in which they can get reception from more than one station are in a far more favourable position than those who are dependent solely on the one station. It is generally felt that where reception of RTE only is possible the present licence fee is high enough and any attempt to increase it will be most unpopular and will certainly be resisted. The Minister pointed out the very reasonable cost per hour of programmes here as compared with other countries and he urged the Authority to maintain this, but I am sure we all hope this will not happen at the expense of the quality of the programmes.
Many Deputies have mentioned the treatment meted out to Members of this House. When a Deputy enters politics and appears on television on behalf of his Party he should be prepared to face the most searching questions and equally prepared for every type of awkward question. Whether or not an interviewer is fair can safely be left to the viewing public; if any Member of this House, from the Taoiseach down, is treated unfairly, then public opinion will, I believe, react favourably towards the person being unfairly treated and I am sure it is agreed that a politician can have nothing more powerful going for him than sympathy.
This argument about unfair interviewing is two-edged. As the Minister pointed out, what should be objected to is anything that connotes an abuse of the democratic institutions of our State on the part of those who seek publicity, not by public service, not by honest endeavour, but by outrageous action. We should all be as liberal as we possibly can and as anxious for every conceivable advance but, when the advances that have taken place are ignored and denigrated and an effort made to undermine the institutions of this State, then we should all be on our guard.
We live in a changing world. Change seems to be the order of the day. We of this generation should not forget the sacrifices the people who went before us made so that we could come into this House in comparative freedom and peace. Possibly all these disturbances are taking place because young people are impatient and anxious to see concrete steps being taken to remedy the many injustices in our society. The television people should ensure, or endeavour to ensure, that a wrong image is not created. At the same time, where change is necessary, television can be a powerful influence in moulding public opinion in a constructive way. People who hold extreme views are always very vocal about them, but the vast majority who hold moderate views should speak out and let themselves be heard.
Another comment I should like to make is that more time should be devoted to sports coverage, particularly at weekends. At the moment, on some Saturdays we have excellent coverage, and on other none at all. To cover all our games adequately it would be necessary to have coverage on Saturdays and Sundays. This is a field to which the attention of the people responsible for those programmes should be directed. In this respect it is only right to point out again that people who receive more than one channel have a decided advantage. While considerable efforts are made on the various sporting programmes to cover as much as possible, we certainly could have more coverage and more live coverage of sporting events.
I noticed during the past couple of summers that when the newsreaders were giving an account of people or crowds visiting the beaches throughout the country, very little publicity was given to our premier resorts in Wicklow, to Bray, Greystones, Arklow, Brittas Bay and Wicklow itself, but when something bad occurs, such as flooding, we get more than our share of publicity. This may react to the detriment of our county which, in the main, is a tourist resort.
Another matter which I should like to mention, even though I presume it is not really the Minister's responsibility, is the provision of free television licences for widows. In many cases there are more deserving cases amongst widows than amongst old age pensioners. The Minister should use his influence with his other colleagues in the Government in an effort to have these licences provided free for widows.
The Minister also mentioned that since the interest rates on Post Office deposits had been increased the amount on deposit had increased. It is true to say that a substantial number of people with money in the Post Office are what might be termed small savers. It is hardly necessary to mention that the type of economy we should like to see here depends, to a great extent, upon the ability of our people to save. People can hardly be expected to do this and to deposit their money in Post Office Savings Accounts if the value of their money falls at a greater rate than the interest which they receive on it. To encourage people of moderate means to save more, it will be necessary to increase still further the interest rates payable. At the moment, the amount of interest on small deposits is negligible and something should be done to redress that position.
I should like to thank the telephone operators for their courtesy. I am sure we will all agree that it is difficult for people who are constantly dealing with the public to be always on their best behaviour.
Deputy Dockrell said that it sometimes appeared to him that it would be a good idea if a notice were put up in the television studio saying: "The views being expressed here are not necessarirly the views of the Television Authority, still less the views of the Irish people". Listening to the views expressed during this debate by the members of the various Parties I thought that we might possibly put up a notice saying: "The views which Deputies are expressing are not necessarily the views of their Parties."
Before coming to what is always the meaty part of this debate, the television and radio services, I should like to make a few points to the Minister. I am delighted to see that there has been a tremendous increase in the installations of telephones and that the figure has been increasing year by year. I hope that before very long the Post Office will have the problem of going out to sell telephones and encourage people to take them, because of the fact that everyone who wants a telephone will be serviced immediately.
There is one thing about the telephone system which worries me very much at the moment, and that is the question of open lines. Frequently it happens to me that when I lift up the telephone to dial a number I find I am in on someone else's call. This does not happen just to me but to all of us. So we must realise that the telephone is certainly a very dangerous instrument to use if you have any private business to talk about. This seems to be happening with greater frequency lately. I do no know if there is any explanation for it, whether the Post Office are aware of this problem — I am sure they are — and how they are dealing with it. Possibly when he is replying the Minister might refer to this. I know it is a point of considerable concern to a large number of subscribers.
I am very pleased to learn that direct dialling to London and Belfast will be available in 12 months time. That is not before its time, and it is excellent, indeed, because tremendous business is done between these two cities.
I read recently that in England they are starting a series of programmes shortly to be called University of the Air. I am not entirely certain whether it is on radio or television but I have a feeling that it is on television. If it is, it might be very helpful if RTE could pick up those broadcasts even at a later date. I understand that a viewer will be able to take a degree from watching these courses as a result of an examination at the end. This is excellent.
In Great Britain they have many times the resources of this small country and it is much easier there to get first-class teachers to work on television. Therefore, we should take full advantage of this and make the most of it. I would not stop there. I would look at what is happening in America in relation to these courses. Possibly, a British degree obtained in this manner would have more in common among the peoples of our two islands.
I understand that the Minister intends to introduce legislation to make it necessary for a TV rental company to issue television licences before issuing sets. That would be a very good method and it would save a lot of advertising expense. I am only guessing, but I feel sure that at least 50 per cent of the television sets in this country are rented because of the tremendous advantages in service, et cetera.
Many of us may have skipped a statement in the Minister's speech, and that being the case I should like to read it. Reported at column 1882 of volume 238 of the Official Report, the Minister stated:
On occasion I have passed on my views — favourable or unfavourable — to the Authority for consideration. I would recommend Deputies and others to do likewise.
"Others" means the public. I have done it on occasion. However, people feel that because one is a public representative he has no right to complain or to praise. Of course, on one ever hears of a person being criticised for praising. People rightly complain sometimes of being misrepresented. For instance, if the Party of which Deputy L'Estrange is a member became the Government and if Deputy L'Estrange were appointed a Minister in that Government, he might have to come to live in Dublin. On his arrival in Dublin he would be interviewed and he might be asked what he thinks of the night clubs in Dublin. Being the nice gentleman that he is, the Deputy might ask: "Do you have night clubs in Dublin?" This might appear later in this form: "Deputy L'Estrange, interviewed in Dublin, asked: "Do you have night clubs in Dublin?" He would be quite justified in ringing up to say he had been misrepresented.
On Saturday night last I watched that controversial "Late Late Show", which I have learned to live with like many other people. Some times I enjoy it; sometimes I get mad at it. That is its purpose. A lady accused the Minister of trying to take away people's freedom because he had passed on some criticism of Telefís Éireann interviewing. I rang up and said: "Will somebody tell this lady that the Minister was referring to rudeness by interviewers?" Politeness costs nothing and the suggestion that everyone is afraid of a tough interviewer is ridiculous. All anybody expects is a certain amount of courtesy.
If an interviewee finds he is being cut off before being given the opportunity to answer a question put to him, he should interrupt the interviewer. The reverse can also happen. There are some fine interviewers on the TE staff of whom we can be proud, but there are others who ask questions in such a way that they want the public to know how much they know. They ask questions like "Is it not true, blah, blah?" We appreciate that behind the scenes there is the little man who is pushing them, telling them they need to put some life into the programme, that they want blood.
I have said that I rang up Telefís Éireann to criticise the remark about the Minister's statement. I appreciate it was not the fault of the compere. We are a polite people, proud of our good manners as well as our hospitality, and it is a pity that young people growing up should witness this lack of respect for authority — that is the wrong word in this context — for the institutions which are supposed to represent authority. We hear derogatory criticism of our public representatives. If we bring our public institutions into disrepute, if we allow, for instance, members of the Opposition to degrade the purpose of government until such time as they achieve office, people will lose respect for politicians and for Parliament and eventually there will be anarchy.
I should like to praise a couple of programmes. The morning magazine programmes are tremendous. I listen to quite a few of them while driving my car. They are constructive and we learn about some facets of life. We learn about people who are engaged in various activities about which we know very little. I have nothing but praise for such programmes. The afternoon programmes also are very good, although I do not hear them as often as the morning programmes.
There is an evening programme, for which I have great praise, but which is seen too infrequently, and that is "Right of Reply". If Mr. Hardiman has time to read what I am saying he might consider having that programme on once a week. It is on once a fortnight, which is not often enough, but due to St. Patrick's Day it has now been postponed for a month. Mr. Bowman is really good and is a balanced chairman. I consider that programmes generally on Telefís Éireann are well balanced.
There is one thing I would like to say, which has been adverted to by other speakers, and that is that the outside broadcasts are excellent but we do not get enough of them. Some of the home produced programmes are far superior to some of the other programmes. There was one weirdy on recently. It was one of the pseudointellectual programmes with some character dreaming and advertisements flashing across the screen. I do not know what that programme cost but if the money had been put aside and used for the purpose of a new outside broadcast unit it would have been money well spent. If Telefís Éireann could purchase another outside unit and give us more of those outside broadcasts they would be doing a very good job. I have heard no criticism of outside broadcasts. The only criticism made is that we are not getting enough of them. I believe there are only two units but they have been so successful that we should try to get another.
A programme which I enjoy very much is "Féach". Another which gives us all pleasure is "Amuigh Faoin Spéir". I dealt with the "Late, Late Show" already but let me return to it briefly. If I like the panel I listen to it but if I do not I switch it off, a procedure which is open to all viewers. If is becoming more fashionable to stand up and criticise sincerely but very often you get some abuse. I regard as more dangerous those people, who talk about taking away freedom, but will themselves not allow you freedom to comment. This is something we have to watch very carefully. It is a very delicate thing. I have often said that democracy in this country is bleeding to death. By its very nature it is impossible to defend it because when you introduce measures to defend it it is no longer democracy.
There is another excellent programme which was produced some time last year, after which I sent a telegram to the young man who put it on, Jim Sherwin. This was a programme on alcoholism and it was very impressive. I think it was shown in the early part of last year. I was so impressed by it that I sent a telegram of congratulation to this man. I do not know if he ever got it. This is the type of programme which should be produced more often. This in my opinion is modern art. Art should be something which brings out the finer feelings in people and encourages a better community spirit. This is constructive television. As the Minister said in his speech: "It is so easy to dwell on things which are wrong in our society."
Some people ask what is wrong with Ireland and others ask what is right with Ireland. There are many things right with Ireland. The best thing about any country is its people. When we see people at their best in any country we are always impressed. Our television service provides us with a wonderful opportunity to construct and should not be used to destroy.
I am delighted to see the number of old age pensioners who have free television licences. There are now about 19,000 who have either sound or combined licences. This is excellent. I think I have spoken long enough. I know there are other people who have something to say about this. I was pleased that both Deputy Maurice Dockrell and Deputy James Tully had the courage to back up the Minister in what he had to say about bad manners. I seem to have dwelt very much on that but it is something I feel very deeply about. I do not like to see somebody being spoken to in an unmannerly way. I was glad that a number of other speakers are also in accord with this view. I should like to emphasise once more that the Minister did not interfere with the freedom of Telefís Éireann in making the comment he did. He simply spoke about the manner of interviewing certain people, which we from all Parties have agreed has been wanting and is in need of a little improvement.
I should like to begin by expressing my appreciation of the service and courtesy extended to me by the staff of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs over the years I have contacted them or interviewed them on any subject. I also want to express my appreciation of the courtesy shown to me by the officials of Telefís Éireann in the many dealings I have had with them as Whip of this Party over the past few years. I should like also to give credit where credit is due and to pay tribute to all concerned in Radio-Telefís Éireann because in a very short number of years they have managed to provide a television service which can compare favourably with that to be found in many small countries. It has certainly grown up very quickly, perhaps rather too quickly for some people's liking but I will deal with that later.
I should like just to refer to the delay in the installation of telephones. As the Minister knows, and as everybody in this country know, in the year 1969 the telephone is no longer a luxury. Indeed, it is an essential. It is essential to business people be they large or small and it is essential to farmers, especially farmers in remote parts of this country. It is essential to the vast majority of our people and I think, if at all possible, we should not have the delays in installation of telephones we have at the present moment because the telephone has become such a necessity in modern business.
The demand in some cases for the payment in advance of six or seven year's rent is something that is difficult to understand and which, indeed, is difficult to defend when, at the same time, there is a Telephone Capital Bill before us. I should like to ask the Minister what happens in the case of a person who, shortly after having a telephone installed, has to give up his house for one reason or another? Will he be recouped? I know of people who have been asked to pay as much as £150 and because of this they have refused to have the telephone installed.
I should like to mention the everincreasing number of bogus 999 calls. All citizens of the State should help in every way possible to apprehend the offenders. It might help if it were possible to install some sort of device in the kiosk that would draw the attention of people in the vicinity to such calls. At any rate, an appeal should be made to the public to help in apprehending those who seem to take pleasure in this malpractice.
In my opinion, Radio Telefís Éireann is doing a fair and a reasonable job. I know that the medium has been criticised from time to time but no organisation can be perfect in this imperfect world. There are many people who claim that we get far too many of these so-called "canned" American films, too much of the gunmen type of film that breeds violence. I do not claim to be an expert on this because I do not view television very often.
I do not think we are in the right age group to criticise these type of films.
As I have said, I do not know much about them, but I am only passing on what has been said to me by many parents. I should like to pay a tribute to the fine Irish actors and actresses who appear in programmes like, for instance, "The Riordans" and "Tolka Row". Indeed, it might be a good idea if we had more programmes of this particular type from RTE.
As far as the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority is concerned I should like to say that there is, thank God, a distinct difference between partisan appointees by Fianna Fáil to the Authority, on the one hand, and the staff of the station, on the other hand. We, in Fine Gael, feel so strongly about the authority that we have expressed our dissatisfaction on numerous occasions with its personnel. We have also declared that, as a matter of policy, we would establish an Authority which would command the respect which, I believe, any Authority of this kind should command—the respect of all political Parties in this State and the respect of all sections of our people. There is no doubt but that the appointments to the Authority were political. With the exception of one, all are well-known Fianna Fáil people. I do not know what the policies of the one exception are.
The Deputy could be wrong about him, too.
We know that they were political appointments and were made because of political affiliations and that type of appointment is wrong. We know, for instance, that Mr. Andrews served Fianna Fáil well——
The Deputy should refrain from mentioning the names of people who are not here to defend themselves.
I will defend Fintan Kennedy, who is not a Fianna Fáil man. Is he the one exception to whom Deputy L'Estrange is referring?
I am not saying who is the one but the particular gentleman I have mentioned served Fianna Fáil very well down through the years. I know, also, that one particular official of Telefís Éireann was told to buy a copy of the Irish Press on Mondays and to keep it in his pocket throughout the week, whether or not he was that way inclined. We hear so much about cherishing all the children of the nation equally, but is it not very wrong that we should have people appointed to such an important Authority on a political basis.
If the Minister is the fair and just man that he is put up to be I should like to hear from him regarding the appointment of postmen. I know of cases in my own county where married men who had been acting as postmen for three or four months in a temporary capacity were let off when the permanent appointments were being made and these appointments were left in the hands of the local Fianna Fáil Cumann who instructed certain people already in good jobs to leave their employment and sign on at the labour exchange for a week or two and these were the people who were given the permanent appointments. The Minister should not stand for this.
The same happens as regards the appointment of postmasters. The Minister should stop sulking behind his so-called selection board as everybody knows that the real selection lies with the local Fianna Fáil Cumann. I have heard the Minister tell his Parliamentary Secretary to deal with that. The Parliamentary Secretary is entitled to deal with it——
It is my responsibility.
——but there is only the one way of dealing with it and that is to do away with this kind of thing. I have seen this sort of thing happen in my own county, for instance, in Collinstown and in Castlepollard, where married men had done the job for three or four months on a temporary basis, but when the permanent appointments were taking place, members of the local Fianna Fáil club got the wink to leave their jobs, sign on for a week at the exchange and these were the people who got the permanent appointments. It is time that this type of corruption was wiped out of this country.
I should like now to deal with what the Minister stated in his opening remarks, as recorded at column 1884 of Volume 238, of the Official Report of 27th February, 1969, when he spoke about 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 agree with the Minister in his remarks and in his castigation of Radio Telefís Éireann in that regard because I believe there is much good in our people. A large section of our people are engaged in voluntary organisations such as the Cancer Fund, taking care of the old folk, the Rehabilitation Institute, housing for old people, tourist organisations, Muintir na Tíre and numerous other organisations. It would be a good idea if we had more programmes in this country about the excellent voluntary work being done by these organisations.
We are told that our people are becoming cynical. Perhaps a section of them are, and there is a certain attitude of "I'm all right, Jack"; but there is a section of our community who are good Christians and do excellent work. I do not think they get the amount of publicity they should on RTE. The agitators and such like get much more publicity than they are entitled to. I agree with the Minister in that regard. The Minister continued and stated:
I understand also 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.
Deputy Briscoe referred to this interview a few minutes ago and stated that the Minister was talking about rudeness in interviewing. There is not a word there about rudeness. The Minister mentions the word "trend" in interviewing people of all political and social opinions and states that the Authority has taken steps to modify the recent trend. If there was occasion for having to do this—and I do not believe there is—I feel it is wrong that the Minister should broadcast this to the whole world. I should like to know from whom has come the strongest criticism. I should like to know what political Party or what people have objected. So far as we are concerned, I do not think anybody in our Party has objected. Many of them have been on television. We have been questioned and put through the mill. That is part of the work of those professional people. It is their duty and we do not condemn them for it. Deputy Andrews at column 2385, Volume 238 said:
These people should be allowed to continue but should be requested to engage in unprejudiced and unbiased interviewing, if at all possible and, if they do not do it, then the answer is to tell them to bring their contracts to an end.
That is very harsh language from Deputy Andrews. These people should be allowed to continue. Why should they not be allowed to continue? I think that is a very dangerous trend which should and must be resisted by the Deputies in this House and by the people in this country. I want to say here that anybody as deeply seated in politics as the present Authority are not interested in persons, to quote the Minister, "of all political and social opinions". There is too much at stake for them and their friends. They are there because of Fianna Fáil and their main interest in life is to keep Fianna Fáil in office and not let the Irish people know the truth of the arrogance, the dictatorial methods and the corruption of the present Government. Their motives and the motives of the Minister are suspect, especially as this is an election year, when Fianna Fáil again want to try and brainwash the Irish people as they have tried to do for so long. I know, and those of us in politics who know Fianna Fáil well enough know, that that is what they want to do. I know their methods. I know that there are certain members of this Authority, if not the majority of them, who would stoop to anything to keep Fianna Fáil, their friends, in power.
I would draw the Deputy's attention again to the fact that the people the Deputy is mentioning are not in the House and have not an opportunity of defending themselves.
I have not mentioned anybody's name. I understand that in Parliament one is entitled to attack the Authority that has been set up by the Minister. I do not think there is anything wrong in attacking the Authority or in attacking members of the Authority.
Has the Deputy nothing constructive to say?
I say what I believe to be true.
We want constructive suggestions.
I remember Deputy Donogh O'Malley telling me that people have very short memories. He said only the last three to six months before a general election counted.
A Deputy
He cannot defend himself anyway.
I would not say a derogatory word against Deputy Donogh O'Malley, the late Minister. He was an excellent man, God rest his soul. He believed that the last three months before an election was the time that counted. It is the last three to four months that the people remember. That is why Fianna Fáil are trying to make certain now that no adverse publicity will be put across on RTE.
The last furlong.
The Estimate for Posts and Telegraphs is before the House and the Telephone Capital Bill.
Fianna Fáil should have no complaint to make against RTE. On average, if you look at the news any evening at 9.30 p.m., there will be shots of at least three to seven Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries appearing in different parts of the country. The Government are certainly getting their share of publicity on RTE. The people should have a chance of viewing and hearing the public representatives and should see them and hear them as they really are.
I have spoken to many people and I have not heard that the interviewing that has taken place has, to use the Minister's words, "aroused the strongest criticism". It may have aroused criticism from certain Fianna Fáil people, but not from the ordinary people who view television. I have been interviewed, and interviewed vigorously, on television. I was put through the mill on television on two or three occasions. I was interviewed on one occasion when I was put out of this House and the questions were thrown at me as quickly as they could be. They were awkward questions. That is the duty of the professional people. I did not object and I do not see why I should.
I have seen the late President Kennedy; I have seen Governor Nixon when he was Governor and going for the office of President of the United States and I have seen him as President; we have seen the Prime Minister of Britain, Mr. Wilson; we have seen Mr. Heath and we have seen many others interviewed on television. They have been vigorously interviewed. I think that is only right and I do not think any of them have objected or should object.
I think, too, that indeed the public are entitled to see each and every one of us as we are, with all our faults, our peculiarities, our idiosyncrasies, with all our warts, if you like. We are human beings, every one of us, with all the faults of humans and the majority of us are trying to do our best. Fianna Fáil people have mentioned a "trend" here. The Minister never used the word "rudeness" of interviewers: he talked about the "trend", which is a completely different thing. Does the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs only want Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, politicians, to appear on television with their speeches already made out for them and prepared for them by civil servants? Does he want them to come on, then, and to deliver their little Party bit, to smile and then to leave the scene? If he does, I do not think that that is the type of television the Irish people want and that the Irish people are interested in.
That would be ridiculous.
It would. However, we are entitled to be told what we shall get. That went on for years. It is only for the past two or three years that we have had what might be called, if you like, vigorous questioning of politicians. If the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, or any of us, enters public life, then, as well as having our duties and responsibilities, I believe we must take the risk of having to answer awkward questions.
Hear, hear.
If a politician or a political Party is honest with the people and has nothing to hide and to cover up, they should never be afraid of the most probing questions. I am a hard-hitter. If we are hard-hitters, we should be able to take it on the chin and come back smiling. A few moments ago, speaking about the lack of respect for authority, we were treated to talk about rudeness and ignorance. There is nobody ruder nor more ignorant than a few of the Minister's own colleagues. We see it reflected here in this House, in the Parliament of our land, in rude and ignorant answers—and those are the servants of the people. Those people are paid to give at all times good example. They do not give it here in this House. The Minister should put his own house in order and ask his own colleagues who are Ministers not to be as rude and as arrogant as they are and as they have been in this House for a long number of years in their answering of questions and in their approach, also, to the Irish people.
This is not relevant to the debate before the House at the moment.
If there is this trend in questioning politicians on Radio Telefís Éireann that the Minister is talking about and as we have been told by other speakers, I think we should remember that politicians are not tin gods and that we should not expect to be treated as such. We had Deputy Blaney, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, leaving Radio Telefís Éireann at Montrose in a huff recently because he was messed about. Imagine anybody messing about the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. He was not allowed to read a transcript of what Mr. Maher intended to say. Think of a man being messed about because he was waiting for ten minutes—a servant of the people, a man who kept the farmers of this country waiting for 21 days on the steps of his Department and was not even polite enough to meet those particular people.
What is the use in talking about rudeness and politeness if our Ministers of State, who are the servants of the people, give such bad example? I am paid by the people of this country. I am a servant of the people. It is my duty to be polite with the people and to meet them. Here was a man who refused to do that and then, because he is supposed to have been kept waiting at Montrose for ten minutes, he was messed about and he left in a huff. Good God, we are not tin gods and the Minister, like anybody else, should be able to take anything like that on the chin and then forget all about it.
I want to say that the staff of Radio Telefís Éireann—as far as I know and from what I hear in my talks with independent people—have done a fine job within the confines, I suppose, of the money available. As far as I am concerned, I believe that the skill and the impartiality of the staff of Radio Telefís Éireann is beyond reproach and I think it is deserving of the highest praise. Those people are becoming more professional at their jobs than they were in the past and it is my belief that they are as competent a staff as is to be found in any television station in the world. I want to say that it is because I have the utmost respect for their professional ability and integrity that I consider it most important that they be free from any intimidation, direct or implied, by the Minister, Deputy Childers, or by Deputy Andrews or by any other little wouldbe dictators in this country. I strongly protest against the continuous efforts of this Government, over a long number of years, to control the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority and to use it as an instrument of Fianna Fáil propaganda. This Parliament, and the Members of Parliament, should be jealous to guard the freedom of the press, of Radio Telefís Éireann and of the whole mass media of communication in this country because I believe freedom cannot exist in this country if Radio Telefís Éireann is to become the plaything of Government Ministers or of Government Deputies.
On a television programme last Sunday night—"The Riordans"—one of the characters, Batty, I think, said that, if there was a change of Government, subsidies might not be paid on milk and——
Get rid of Batty.
No. That is not true. I do not agree with what he said but I do agree with his right to say it and I would defend to the last his right to make those remarks in a play or in any of those things on Radio Telefís Éireann. I do not believe what he said: I do not believe it is true but I believe in his right to say that on Radio Telefís Éireann.
Do not blame poor Batty. It is the scriptwriters.
Wait until Minnie gets at you.
I know. I am saying that I agree entirely with his right——
(Interruptions.)
It is something at which we could take umbrage if we liked but we do not.
The Deputy is getting in his plug all the same.
The scriptwriter got his little plug in, too.
I am old enough to remember when there was little freedom of speech in this country and when meetings were broken up and the people who did that were aided and abetted by others who should have been preaching charity and neighbourly relations. I remember the Taoiseach at that time said that it was no part of his duty to make men or causes popular.
Reference please.
I want to throw those words back into his teeth tonight if he is listening. I say that it is no part of Telefís Éireann's job to make erroneous policies appear attractive or to present favourable images of Ministers who by their deliberate and shady actions have brought odium on themselves and on the Government. If the Fianna Fáil Party wish to be associated with the activities of self-seeking groups in their fund-raising campaign——
What has this to do with the Estimate and the Bill?
——I will relate this to the Estimate—they must be prepared to take the consequences and to remember that Shakespeare said, "bloody instructions which being taught return to plague the inventor." Each and every one of us in public life should be jealous of the right of free speech which we have so dearly won through the blood and sweat and toil——
And tears.
Yes, and tears too, of past generations. We should certainly do our part to hold on to that. If Fianna Fáil want a private television service let their wealthy backers in Taca and other elements finance it but in the meantime the headquarters of Radio Telefís Éireann will remain at Montrose and not at Mount Street or Oakley Grove in Blackrock either. I want to say to the Minister and to the Government that there should be "hands off" Radio Telefís Éireann. Telefís Éireann is paid for by the taxpayers and not by the Tacateers. During the recent Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis slanderous statements were made by a lady delegate concerning some members of the RTE staff.
The Minister would have little responsibility for such statements.
You could not control that woman.
In any case——
You cannot control any delegate who wants to speak.
——she made slanderous statements that morning in the presence of witnesses and the same evening the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, displaying a Paisley-like zeal, was on Telefís Éireann defending the worst influence ever experienced in public life in this country, namely, Taca. He may have had second thoughts about the wisdom——
This has nothing to do with the Estimate. The Minister is not responsible for every speech or statement made over Radio Telefís Éireann.
This is the reason, because of the grilling that Deputy Blaney, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, got on Radio Telefís Éireann that evening when he was trying to defend this organisation, why the Authority is supposed to have warned those people. It is because of that grilling that he was supposed to have got that Deputy Andrews comes in here and tells us that their contracts should be brought to an end. Remember, Sir, this is an important question. It affects the livelihood of those people but it goes beyond that because it affects freedom of speech and there are those of us who remember when meetings were being broken up and we do not want to return to that. As long as the professional staff of Radio Telefís Éireann maintain the high standard they have displayed for the past two years they will get the complete support of this Party and of everyone who respects the right of our people to have minds of their own. I will never forget the Presidential election of June, 1966, when one of the candidates was holding successful meetings throughout the country, making excellent speeches, and yet his name was never mentioned on Telefís Éireann. The other candidate, however, was appearing every night and he had a programme laid on for him deliberately for three weeks, with the connivance of Radio Telefís Éireann——
Disgraceful.
For three weeks or a month he appeared in all newscasts and there were pictures of him here, there and everywhere throughout the country. He has not had such a busy time since nor had he for years before.
Neither has Deputy O'Higgins. He has not been seen in his constituency since.
(Interruptions.)
Will the Deputy keep to the Estimate?
We are entitled to compare the good work——
——and the independence of Telefís Éireann today with two years ago.
The Deputy is not entitled to go back two years. The Vote is not referred back and we are committed to the past 12 months administration in the Department. Anything beyond that does not arise.
I believe that the day Radio Telefís Éireann becomes the mouthpiece of any political Party it becomes the tyrant of the people and the people will become the slaves of biased opinions. My eyes were opened on Saturday night last by a lady who appeared on the "Late, Late Show". She had lived in Germany before and during the 1939-1945 war and she said she was a supporter and a great admirer of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Deputy Childers. She stated that she was, indeed, as many people were, shocked to the core by the Minister for whom she had the greatest admiration. She referred to television as the defender of the people's liberty and she said that any effort to interfere with it was very dangerous and that we were starting on a very slippery slope. Indeed, it is only right to say that the Minister's speech has caused much alarm because it seems that the Government are bent on muzzling any and every medium that is not prepared to toe the Party line in a blind and unquestioning manner.
Nonsense.
The people should take heed. They should be warned by this particular lady who appeared on the panel of the "Late, Late Show" because what occurred in Germany had its origin in the suppression of free speech and free commentary on current affairs. Let there be no denying that if it happened in this country and if it were to succeed there is no doubt that the next thing Fianna Fáil would turn their attention to is the political commentators of our national newspapers.
That would be something, would it not? They would be run out of political life in about three weeks.
I remember the 1933 general election and I know there was very little freedom or free speech in this country at that time. I remember the intimidation——
It does not arise in the Estimate before the House at the moment.
We all know that Telefís Éireann was used in the past, and shamelessly used, as a medium for the spreading of Fianna Fáil propaganda. If I have any little fault to find it is this and I had better say it. Even at the recent 50th anniversary meeting of the Dáil the cameras were skilfully trained on the Fianna Fáil benches to the total exclusion of the Fine Gael Party. That is quite true. When Deputy Cosgrave was speaking Senator Thomas Mullins was to be seen in all his glory and the whole Fianna Fáil Party was shown at least six times.
I do not see how the Minister has any responsibility for the manner in which cameras were used.
If the Deputy thinks I ordered that he is talking nonsense.
I do not know who ordered it. I am only mentioning it as one small criticism of what has happened.
It does not arise.
It has been shamelessly used and abused by the Fianna Fáil Party for propaganda and for propaganda effects. We all know what happened in the past in Germany. We know that when Dr. Goebbels was in complete control of the mass-medium of radio the people became brainwashed from listening to what Hitler and the Nazis wanted them to hear. The people believed what they wanted them to believe. They became completely brainwashed and they blindly marched to their doom. Six million Jews were annihilated at that time.
This has nothing to do with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.
I am not sure and I am not saying it has.
The Deputy is just joking.
I am saying that interference with television or radio can have this effect. The people were brainwashed by Hitler and the Nazis. Six million Jews were annihilated and 90 per cent of the German people knew nothing about it and cared less.
Could we come to the Estimate now?
We do not want a similar brainwashing in this country.
The Deputy has a very poor view of the Irish people if he thinks that any attempt to do that would meet with the slightest success. He has the lowest estimate of the Irish people if he thinks that any attempt to do that would suceed.
Fianna Fáil have fooled the Irish people for a long number of years.
Any attempt to muzzle RTE would certainly lose us this or any other general election.
What is wrong with the trend at RTE at the present time that you want to try to muzzle them?
Your are the fellows who used the gag.
If I wanted to muzzle them I would be going in the direction of certainly losing the general election for my Party so why would I do it?
Sure you are going to lose it anyway.
You will talk us out of it
The Minister talked about trends in his speech. I do not agree with what Deputy Briscoe stated tonight about aggressive and bullying methods having been adopted by interviewers on Telefís Éireann. I also disagree with an article which appeared in a Sunday paper of March 2nd but that does not arise on this so, therefore, I will not mention it.
What paper was it? Tell us?
On "Panorama" deep and searching questions are asked of Ministers of State. They are asked questions on policy, on their programmes, on the promises that have been made and broken or have not been fulfilled. We do not see any objection from the Government to this type of television questioning in England.
I want to condemn, as far as I am concerned, in the strongest possible manner the intimidation which has not only been expressed but has been implied in this debate by the Minister, by Deputy Andrews and by at least two or three other Fianna Fáil Deputies. I believe that if an end is not put to this type of intimidation at once the welfare of the Irish people will be at stake no matter what may be said here because no Party or group in this country has a monopoly of wisdom. It is only by a process of discussion and of dialogue that we can arrive at the truth in our time and if there is any attempt by Fianna Fáil or any other political Party to channel discussions along one particular course we are doomed to failure.
In my opinion the Minister's speech and especially the speech of Deputy Andrews are veiled threats to all organs of public opinion. They are an effort to intimidate them from exposing the arrogance, the faults and the weaknesses of Fianna Fáil Ministers on the eve of a general election. It is clear beyond any shadow of doubt, no matter what the Minister may say, that the Government are anxious to curb the lawful activities of RTE and that they are starting by trying to muzzle the interviewers on television. The reason for that is quite clear. In recent weeks Fianna Fáil Ministers have wilted under questioning from those interviewers. One example is the questioning Fianna Fáil got about Taca and other activities on the night of the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis.
We are concerned with only one Minister, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.
The Deputy is repeating statements over and over again.
The Deputy must address himself to the Estimate before the House. What Ministers said or did not say does not arise on this Estimate.
It is a well-known fact that certain professionals in RTE will never be forgiven by the Fianna Fáil Government for their performance throughout the referendum and this is plain to be seen from the attacks that have been made on them by delegates to the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis and now by the Minister and Deputy Andrews. If the Minister and Deputy Andrews and some other Fianna Fáil Deputies had their way they would give the nation piped television from Fianna Fáil headquarters at Mount Street.
I intend to intervene very briefly on this. I have a few other things which I might want to mention but I should like to give my own personal views on what seems to be the main topic in this debate and in the newspaper reports and television and radio reports, that of interviewing by interviewers on Telefís Éireann.
Before I go on to that I should like to mention a few other things. At a time when civil servants particularly are being criticised and when Ministers are being held responsible for things for which they have no responsibility, I want frankly to pay my tribute to the Minister as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and to his excellent staff. It should be said, and I want to say it, that as far as competency in his Department is concerned Deputy Childers is one of the best. Might I qualify that by saying that when he goes away from his Department and delves into economics, social affairs and health, I do not agree with him. As far as his Ministry is concerned he should be paid the tribute that I have paid him because in my dealings with the Department I receive prompt replies, copies of all letters and get general satisfaction. I do not mean to say that I get every telephone that I look for or every postman appointed that I would recommend. No. I do not think we expect all these miracles. We do expect and do not get from other Departments, I am sorry to say, what we get from the Minister's Department, namely, promptness and courtesy. That tribute should be paid not alone to the Minister, who is the political head of the Department, but to his officials and to all the officials down the country whether they be postmasters or postmistresses, postmen or those who work in the telephone exchange. I have no real fault with them. There may be some instances where I might make criticism but this would be exaggerating any type of criticism that might be made against the Minister and his Department.
Before I talk about the subject I mentioned, I should like to raise a few matters, local if you like, that seem to be neglected. Deputy Allen could not understand when I was talking on health and said that Wexford town and county were being run down. I do not think it is quite good enough that we should be left absolutely last in the provision of an automatic telephone service. The Minister did not mention this in his speech. I do not expect him to mention every area. We are still very primitive.
I called to the local telephone exchange recently and was amazed to discover, in a room as big as the room the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary may have in Leinster House, about 16 girls working. I am quite sure that there was a contravention of the Offices Act which defines the amount of space there should be and the facilities that should be provided. There is some work going on for the provision of the automatic exchange. I would ask that it be expedited and that we would have the automatic exchange as quickly as possible, not only for the convenience of subscribers but, more importantly, for the convenience of the girls who work in the exchange.
In this debate the usual matters that are raised seem to have been forgotten or at least as much emphasis has not been placed on them, for instance, the question of auxiliary postmen, the conditions of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, the giving out of the jobs, the appointments, and all that sort of thing. Practically every speaker asked that some degree of justice be given to auxiliary postmen. Of all workers in the community these are in almost the worst category. They are expected to take on a job, particularly when they are nominated by the exchange, that entails about 20 hours work, for which they get a very small wage amounting, perhaps, to half the normal week's wage in a rural district. When the matter is raised, the inevitable reply is that they should be able to take on other employment. It is not so easy to get other part-time employment to supplement the wages given to auxiliary postmen. There should be some real effort made not alone to provide auxiliary postmen with decent wages but to compensate them by way of pension on retirement. There is no use in talking about the Rowland Hill Fund or about the old age pension or sickness benefit or unemployment benefit. As civil servants, even though not full-time or established, auxiliary postmen are entitled to some consideration in view of the very difficult work they have to do, travelling miles up and down hills and mountains in all weathers, either walking or cycling.
The Minister should also consider the question of congestion in the post offices on certain days, for instance, when the old age pension or widows' and orphans' pensions are being paid. This rush of business on one day in the week or the month does not make for expedition or progress in the post office. There should be a special arrangement for the payment of children's allowances. Accommodation adjacent to the post office should be acquired where children's allowances could be paid.
I should like to comment on Radio Éireann and to congratulate the Authority not only on the extension of programmes but on the type of programmes now broadcast from early in the morning until late at night. When we criticise Radio Éireann or Telefís Éireann we should remind ourselves that we are very limited in that we have only one station. There are some of us who want pop music while others want chamber music, opera, discussion or sport. Radio Éireann has been in a very difficult position because of the fact that we have only one radio station and therefore cannot cater exclusively for one particular taste or choice. In Radio Éireann we have a station that is trying to do what the BBC could be regarded as doing successfully in Great Britain where they have four radio stations and perhaps a few subsidiaries. We can receive classical music and serious discussion from Radio 3. We can get pop music for 18 hours per day on BBC 1, a station that has deteriorated somewhat in my view in that it is devoted almost exclusively to very light entertainment. I listen to Radio Éireann in the car while going around the country. The programmes are good. They broadcast good music and pop music, Irish music, Irish language programmes and sport programmes, particularly on Saturday afternoons. In my view, the programmes broadcast by Radio Éireann are very varied and the station is doing a magnificent job having regard to the fact that we have only one radio station. It is true, of course, that we can receive programmes from the Continent and Britain. Having regard to the resources and the small number of people expected to finance Radio Éireann, the station is giving good value for the money we have to pay in licence fees.
The same could be said for Telefís Éireann. Of course, it is impossible to please everybody. I was amused to hear a very responsible and a very intelligent Deputy of the Fine Gael Party saving that he liked cowboy films. This demonstrates the variety in taste. If I can get a football match or horserace meeting on television, that is my cup of tea because I am interested in these sports. I do not think any of us is in a position to criticise. I am of a certain age group. Deputy Kyne is of a certain age group. I have a fair idea — not of his age — but of what the Minister's taste is in the arts and music. I must have regard to the views of my ten-year-old son. He loves Tarzan films and cartoons. My wife may like something else. Other members of my family may want cowboy films or thrillers. We cannot be dogmatic in our criticism of either Radio Éireann or Telefís Éireann. It is impossible to please everybody and regard must be had to the varying ages of viewers. In my view it is abominable that Telefís Éireann should broadcast pop music even for half an hour in the week but my view is not the one that should necessarily overrule others. There are many people in this country, teenagers and those in their early twenties, who want more and more pop music. However, when the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was in his late teens and in his twenties and thirties I am sure he was a jazz fiend. He would not be natural if he were not. We have all gone through these different stages. There are people of 70 and 80 who love to hear, for example, "The Archers" or "The Dales" programme. What I am trying to say is that we have only one television station. Some of us are very fortunate in that, particularly on the east coast, we have a choice. I can get Welsh Independent or Welsh BBC television, and I can switch to those if I like. However, people in other parts of the country must put up — let me say for want of a better expression — with RTE and they may be annoyed at times.
I do not know whether or not it would be a good thing to encourage the establishment of another television station. I do not know whether it would do any harm. Our responsibility is to the station which was established by the State and for which we as taxpayers and contributors by way of licence fees are responsible. Therefore, as I say, none of us can afford to be dogmatic in our criticisms, to say it is slovenly, that there is a preponderance of cowboys, of pop music, operatic or classical music. As long as we are satisfied that there is a balance catering for all ages from two or three up to 85, then we should be reasonably content.
We could criticise the various shows, particularly the live shows, but it is entering on very dangerous ground because inevitably we must mention names. I remember mentioning in this House the name of an announcer of whom I was being very critical — I forget what his name was but it was a sincere criticism — and the next day, not because of any criticism I made, the man was sacked. I was blamed by my friends and supporters for getting the man sacked, so for that reason I shall not mention people by name except perhaps to praise them, but certainly not to criticise them.
The emphasis here has been on the interviews and politics generally on television. There was a silly suggestion in some of the newspapers that politicians and their wives were invited to go on the "Late, Late Show" and they refused. There was no such invitation. In any case, if I were invited on the "Late, Late Show" by myself I would refuse to go on it if the subject were to be politics. I was asked on one occasion in what circumstances I would go on the "Late, Late Show" and I said if there was no discussion about politics: may be to tell yarns, to talk about football, horses or other subjects of conversation. I do not think the "Late, Late Show," with all due respect to it — it is an excellent programme — is the proper sort of programme for a serious discussion on politics.
It would not be fair to subject any of us in this House to a political discussion, whether it be on the Criminal Justice Bill, the Third Programme for Economic and Social Development, or anything else, with some fellow who was "way out" sitting alongside you, somebody who was trying to be funny. This has happened on the "Late, Late Show." Any of us could try to be honest and direct but the whole thing could be made a laugh of. Public representatives could be brought into disrepute because politics were being discussed in a wrong atmosphere and with the wrong type of people for that subject.
There is one thing which irritates me, and I do not know whether or not the Minister has mentioned this matter. It is not, I suppose, a very serious criticism, but some of our announcers appear to have become somewhat careless in broadcasting the news. Some of them slur their words, and one of the biggest faults I find is that they appear to have no regard for commas or full stops. They simply run one sentence into another. There is no pause at all between the end of one sentence and the beginning of another or between a headline and the first sentence after that. However, that is not a very serious sort of criticism.
On this business of interviewers and being interviewed on television I want to talk about my own experience; I cannot speak for Deputy Tom Kyne or anybody else. Let me say that any time I go on television, for hours beforehand I am terrified. However, that is my own fault. It has been suggested here that the Minister or some other member of the Government might direct Telefís Éireann as to how their interviewers should interview. Under the Act of Parliament we passed to set up RTE, no Minister has the power to tell RTE what they should do. If they attempted it that is one thing but if they succeed it is the fault of the Authority. If RTE take directions from the Taoiseach or any Minister of State or if they are influenced by us it is their own fault. They are operating under a particular Act of Parliament and if they do not adhere to that they should be sacked. However, I do not think they are that weak that they would even be influenced by the comments the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs made here last week.
I do not know how the Minister voices his criticisms in RTE. He should only give advice or, if he veers to within the terms of the Act, give a direction to RTE. However, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs should have the same right as any Deputy in this House to make his views known. If they give extra weight to what the Minister says it is shame on them. He is entitled to talk about the "Late, Late Show" or any other programme on RTE, but the RTE Authority are weak if they listen to every murmur of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs or any other member of the Government.
The one criticism I would make particularly about the Fianna Fáil Ministers is that they do not appear often enough on television. There are notable exceptions there who, I am sure, must have been invited to appear on television but have refused because they are afraid they would be exposed. There are some Ministers who acquitted themselves pretty well, but there are others who have not appeared and who, particularly when measures affecting their Departments are going through the House, should be prepared to appear and make their views known to the general public. As I say, there are some notable exceptions who appear to me to be afraid of these interviews about which I will talk in a few moments. There may be some exaggerations as to what might happen in RTE, but my message and that of my Party to RTE is that they should be independent of any influence. It may be I would ring them up and say: "That was a bloody awful thing you did last night." I am entitled to do that, but they should not be unduly influenced by my saying that.
In regard to the visit of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Blaney, to RTE I do not know what happened nor is it any concern of mine, but from the very first time I entered Montrose — I was in the company of Deputy Dillon the first time — I have received the utmost courtesy and help from every single member of the staff in Montrose. I got advice when I asked for it. I was advised in respect of everything important as regards television. We did our best. We certainly were not television personalities, nor are we now, but that is not the fault of RTE because, as far as the politicians are concerned——
It is a wonder you would not learn to smile.
If I had such lovely teeth as Deputy Dillon has I should be smiling all the time. However, we all have different upper lips and some are stiffer than others. Now the Deputy has put me off——
We want you to smile the next time you are on Telefís Éireann.
It does not necessarily mean that I am happy or pleased when I am smiling. My expression is in my eyes. I was speaking about the courtesy and help I always receive in RTE. I have had rough interviews. There was one particular interview in which I was slaughtered. It was not because the interviewer was rude; he was incisive; he knew his job. But he was interviewing me on a subject that was very wide-ranging and I was not conversant with every side of that subject. He took advantage of that and was right to do so. He cut me to ribbons. It was not his fault; it was my fault. I learned a little more from that interview than I knew when I was being interviewed by him. I think there was a slight improvement afterwards. Possibly, I could be accused on occasions also of being rude to the interviewer, perhaps not deliberately. I do not think all the fault is on one side.
If we are to give the impression to the people that we are afraid of Ted Nealon, David Thornley, Pádraig Gallagher or Joe Fahy or any of these, we are showing a weakness that the public in present circumstances will jump on because they will assume we have something to hide.
At present, despite all our efforts, the reputation of politicians is not very high. I do not mean Fianna Fáil Deputies or Ministers; I mean that there is a trend of thought in the country that is not so good for politicians. Perhaps it is not peculiar to this country. If we appear to want to dodge these people or ask them to be easier on us, the public will put a different interpretation on it. It is up to oneself; one does not have to go on television. I must at times: I am the Leader of the Labour Party for the present. The Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch, must be subject to this interviewing and so must Deputy Cosgrave and various other Members of the House. I do not think there is any real complaint against the interviewers. Perhaps they have something to learn also. If I had any complaint against Telefís Éireann interviewers it is that they do not leave enough time to the interviewee to talk, as compared, say, with the BBC or Independent Television.
That is a very formidable indictment.
What is?
That the interviewer does not leave the person being interviewed sufficient time to talk.
I think if the Deputy looks at the BBC or Independent Television he will find the interviewer asks his question and the interviewee is given sufficient time to talk out; he is not interrupted. I have not the slightest complaint against our interviewers. If we come badly out of the interviews it is our own fault. The public image of the person is damaged and, worse still, the image of the Party he represents.
There has been a discussion here about the coverage of the annual conferences. I do not know how one can measure that or if anybody has ever attempted to measure it in seconds and minutes. I can only speak for my own Party — the Fine Gael Ard Fheis has not been held yet. I have seen all the interviews and the coverage of the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis. I could not complain about the time that was given to the Labour Party. We were extremely pleased. There are risks that one must take. Some member of the Minister's Party may say something outlandish, some well-meaning man. That does a little damage to the Fianna Fáil Party. One cannot help that; he said it; he is entitled to say it. Probably he does not know what he is talking about, but he says it. There were some such things; there always will be. It will probably happen in the Fine Gael Ard Fheis also, that somebody will say something and be in a very small minority as regards what he says, but you cannot avoid that. We have been a little unfortunate in our conference that some few things were taken out of it also; I do not object to that. I think it was a bad thing for us that what was said was attributed to the whole Party but Fianna Fáil suffered in the same respect, I think, as far as birth control and the pill were concerned. As regards coverage, I have no complaint to make of Radio Telefís Éireann.
Deputy L'Estrange mentioned the coverage, I think, of the Mansion House. I did not see it. I was there with the other Members of the Dáil and Seanad. I did not hear many complain. I think RTE would be very conscious of the risk they were running if they gave undue coverage by picture or words to any Party. I know the criticism has been made to RTE — perhaps by the Fianna Fáil Party; it was certainly mentioned to me — that the Labour Party were getting an undue amount of time on Telefís Éireann. I do not think this is so.
Neither do I complain about the referendum. All I ask is that RTE should behave as the BBC and Independent Television behave at particular times. In a general election the Tory Party, the Socialist Party, or if you like the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Party get equal time. I think the Liberal Party at present consist of about nine or ten members while the Government Party have well over 300. It is believed there that at election time there should be equal advantage for all Parties. Nobody can foretell the result of the election. If any yardstick should be used it should be the number of candidates put forward. We find that of about nine political telecasts we get one, leaving the balance for Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael and, of course, Fine Gael get fewer. Telefís Éireann should seriously consider giving equal time to all recognised Parties in the House. This they do in Britain, even apart from election time. They have what are called political broadcasts and all take their turn and have equal time, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. I can see no reason why, because they happen to be the biggest Party now, Fianna Fáil should get, say, four times what the Labour Party get or four times what the Fine Gael Party get.
Perhaps the Minister would refer to this matter when replying. It is the influence that is used by advertisers in Telefís Éireann or Radio Éireann. I cannot say that I have any concrete evidence that there is influence, but it has been said to me — do not say: give us the evidence and we will talk about it — that the advertisers have an influence on the type of programme put on. I should like to know that was not so. I know they have an interest in the matter; they pay money for advertisements. They believe that Telefís Éireann is a good medium for the display or advertising of their products. There should be no element whatever of influence used by any advertiser or group of advertisers in regard to RTE programmes, which should be put on for the benefit of the public and not for the advertisers.
Mr. O'Malley
First of all, I want to refer to something that affects my own constituency. It was mentioned by Deputy Corish. It is the fact that those of us who live in the south and west have no choice of television channel. That is felt very deeply by Limerick people and by others in the south and west of Ireland. The attitude they take — quite reasonably, I think — is that they pay a £5 licence fee the same as those in the other half of the country but the latter have a choice of three and sometimes four channels. Almost the whole of Leinster and the three free counties of Ulster, which together comprise half the population of the country, have a choice of channels. This is understandably a cause of great annoyance to those in the south and west who have to pay just as much by way of licence fee to receive only one channel.
There are two possible ways in which the difficulty could be overcome. The Minister could make some arrangement to provide booster stations which would enable the BBC and ITV to be picked up by those who live in the south and west of the country or the Minister could give permission for a communal aerial which would enable BBC and ITV to be picked up in the south and west. The Minister has ruled against these aerials. I could not quite understand the Minister's reasoning for not allowing them. They are allowed in every other country. They are an aesthetic asset in any group of houses at all and I cannot understand why they should be disallowed here. One tends to think that it may possibly be to try to preserve something of a monopoly for RTE. That would be quite wrong because RTE does not have a monopoly in half the country and it is, therefore, wrong to inflict a monopoly on the other half who, because of their geographical location, find themselves in this difficulty. The argument may be put forward that it is better to have a national station only available but it must be borne in mind that anyone living in the south or west of Ireland can receive the majority of radio stations broadcasting in Europe. They can certainly receive every British radio station. Likewise, they can buy every British newspaper or, indeed, European newspaper if they are sufficiently interested. Television is simply another form of the dissemination of news and views and the people in the south and west are annoyed at being deprived of a choice.
I do not think the Department pays sufficient attention to philately. In recent years, fortunately, increasing attention has been given to it. A great deal of money could be made by the Department, money which would be almost exclusively earned from abroad and which would beneficially affect exports. If we concentrated, as many countries throughout the world do, on pushing our stamps abroad we could achieve very, very high sales indeed. The money received for stamps sold to philatelists is almost entirely clear profit and it is almost entirely an export profit as well. Many countries make hundreds of thousands of pounds every year from philately.
I am glad that the old definitive issue which survived here for upwards of 40 years has at last been got rid of because the design was very unsatisfactory. I think those stamps were designed in a hurry. There are a great many people, however, who are not at all happy with what has replaced them because some of the designs are extremely esoteric and I am not at all sure that they convey the image of the country here or abroad which they may have been intended to convey. The Minister will have to redesign these or issue a further definitive set of stamps in 1971 when decimal currency comes into operation. I would urge him to consider redesigning some of the more obscure of the present issue because the value from a national point of view of an ordinary definitive issue of stamps is immense. For 40 years we lost a great deal of goodwill and a great deal of advertising in our stamps. I should like to see the opportunities that are available to us being used to the full as soon as possible.
A great deal of this debate has been directed towards Radio Telefís Éireann. I do not want to go into details about particular programmes, though I may have views on some of them. I merely want to make a few general comments. One of the things that struck me in the Minister's speech and in the RTE report was that there seemed to be an effort to soften up the public so that the public would accept without protest an increase in the licence fee. I would oppose any such increase very strongly. It can hardly be justified when one remembers that Telefís Éireann made a surplus last year of £660,000. Part of that was offset by the loss on radio but, at the same time, Telefís Éireann is in what must be an almost unique position in that it has an income from licence fees and an income from advertising. Its income from advertising is very, very substantial. It has a monopoly of advertising on television. Its charges are understandably high. Its profits are equally high. I know it needs a great deal of money for capital investment but most of its capital investment must now be completed. It would impose a considerable hardship if the licence fee were to be increased above the existing figure of £5, which is, in my view, rather high. An increase is not justified in the case of people who are confined to one rather than three television channels.
I cannot see any possibility of a second Irish television channel being established. The cost would be utterly prohibitive. I do not see any immense problems in the way of a second radio channel, and I hope the Minister will be able to bring that about quite shortly because the cost of radio transmission must be quite limited in view of the large number of local stations that are being set up, or are about to be set up, in Britain and the enormous number of local stations which seem to be able to operate satisfactorily on advertising alone in the United States.
One aspect of the RTE programmes in general that has disturbed me is that they have tended to show, to a great extent perhaps through economic necessity, an enormous proportion of foreign programmes. I agree that through economic necessity only 25 or 35 per cent of the programmes shown can be home produced. At the same time, they might be more selective in what they buy from abroad. What they buy and show to viewers here is, over a period of years, in danger of undermining the whole national outlook and national culture of our people and replacing the old traditional values that our people have always had with a completely foreign and alien set of values, which would horrify those of a previous generation.
Over 50 per cent is home produced.
Mr. O'Malley
I am glad to hear that. At the same time, the proportion of foreign produced programmes is so high that RTE should make every effort to try to improve the quality of what they buy. One can notice in recent years in this country a different attitude to money and a more material view of life than existed hitherto. In some measure at least RTE must share the blame for bringing about that regrettable change in the situation. I appreciate that the economics of the thing make is quite impossible for them to have 100 per cent home produced programmes but I renew my plea to them to try to be more selective in what they import.
One noticeable example in recent months was that RTE insisted, on several occasions, on presenting at length a gentleman from Northern Ireland who is probably the very antithesis of everything we in this part of the country stand for. It is noticeable that RTE produced that man on several occasions, although apparently he finds difficulty in being allowed to appear on television stations in his own part of the country.
There are two ways of looking at that perhaps. One is that it is a good thing to see such freedom of speech in this part of the country and on RTE, but that is something that could be overdone in regard to this individual and his various side-kicks who appear with him. It would be very regrettable if this violently anti-national attitude portrayed by him continued to be given excessive coverage by RTE. The intention of RTE in presenting him may not have been so much to present him on a political level as on an entertainment level. I do not deny that he has a great deal of entertainment value. At the same time, he has made himself very clear on many occasions as being utterly opposed to the basic political and religious tenets of practically everyone in this part of the country. Therefore, it is extraordinary that he should be presented on RTE so frequently.
Is the Deputy referring to poor Mr. Paisley?
Mr. O'Malley
I am, yes.
God help him.
Mr. O'Malley
On this Estimate, as I suppose on practically every Estimate, one tends to pick out the things one feels could possibly be improved upon. It is perhaps a bit unfair to this Minister, or any other Minister, to do this. It is particularly unfair to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs because his opening statement on the Estimate, and on the Bill which we are considering, is perhaps one of the most comprehensive and most helpful and in many ways most cheerful that can have been presented to the House for many a long day. It is a very extensive and thorough record of the tremendous progress which has been made in the Minister's Department in recent years.
I should like to add my very sincere personal congratulations to those which the Minister has received from every side of the House. I am very glad to see that his good work and the good work of his Department have been acknowledged on every side of the House.
I have been greatly derided in certain quarters for recalling the mind of the Dáil to the fact that television has inherent in it greater dangers for society than the atomic bomb. However, fundamental truths remain true even when stupid men do not understand them. It is fundamentally true that, while the atomic bomb can destroy our bodies, television is capable of destroying not only our minds but our children's minds. Therefore, the responsibility for its wise user is a very heavy one.
It should never be absent from the minds of any of us here in the Oireachtas, or anyone in Montrose responsible for the day to day administration of RTE, that the programmes enter the domestic hearth of very nearly every family in Ireland now. Inasmuch as the family means so much in our society, that which is spoken and seen in the family circle carries far greater weight than anything that can be communicated by the written word, or by the words spoken in any other medium.
Taken by and large, I think RTE do a good job. You have to ask yourself the fundamental question: what is the prime purpose of television from the point of view of the director of a television station? To that we must answer "to entertain" for the simple reason that if he does not entertain his audience will cut themselves off. It is no use broadcasting to television screens which have been turned off or switched to another channel. Therefore, to retain his audience the director of television must entertain. I will return to that topic in a moment because I think it is necessary to say some things in its regard.
We ought to bear in mind when we are discussing the Estimates for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, that they make provision for things other than television and radio. Something we have reason to be proud of in this country is the record of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs for uniform courtesy to the community they serve. If anything goes wrong, if anybody's feathers get ruffled, people are very given to rushing in here to proclaim their woes; but if the Department perennially serve the public courteously and well, only too often we take it for granted. Therefore, it is well from time to time to remind the Dáil that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs get their work done with comparatively little mandatory power, and I often compare them with the ESB.
The ESB have all sorts of strange powers under the Acts enacted by this House. They have power to put a pole in your front garden, or, indeed, in your drawing-room if they think it necessary — a power sometimes ruthlessly used by them. The Post Office cannot put a pole anywhere or cannot stay a pole to any adjoining fixture without the prior permission of the owner. Yet they get them erected and get them stayed to buildings. I had the extraordinary experience of being notified that they entertained the idea of planting a pole right in the middle of my yard in Ballaghaderreen. I remember going out in a towering rage and meeting a most reasonable official who said they would not dream of putting a pole anywhere on my property without my consent. They ended up by putting the pole precisely where they wanted to put it — in the centre of my premises — but they arranged things without any inconvenience to anybody.
I have seen that going on for years. It is something we should be proud of. It is an expertise only too rare in this modern world. They transact their difficult business with the public courteously, patiently and they secure effectively what is necessary without unduly ruffling the feelings of the people of whom, I am happy to think, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs are proud to be the servants.
There is one problem which is perennial in regard to the Post Office and it is the trunk telephone service. I must say that in the last 12 months there has been considerable improvement in the ability of the trunk telephone service to answer "10". I have noticed, however, that in the last month or so the delays have been becoming longer again. I wonder is that associated with very large main operations in the centre of the city. The delay is without doubt beginning to manifest itself again.
Secondly, there has been in the last month a marked difficulty — with which the Minister may find himself in sympathy — in getting a line to the County Monaghan. Having got ten, and indicated the number, the number of times we are told the lines are engaged is more than it should be, particularly in the off-tourist season. I should be interested to hear from the Minister how he finds himself in relation to the trunk dialling service — if he has had complaints recently that lines are not available as readily as they should be, particularly if we hope to cope with any kind of adequacy with the additional burden that must fall on us at the height of the tourist season. It strikes me as peculiar that this should have emerged particularly now with so many exchanges on automatic operation. I should have thought that this would have relieved trunk lines to which one might get access by dialling "10". It does not seem to be so and it is a matter which the Minister should look into.
Now I return to the more popular topic of Telefís Éireann. First of all, though, I wish to say that I think Deputy O'Malley was right in expressing his interest in philately. The trouble is that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is interested in philately but the Minister for Finance is not. When I was a member of the Government there was always a running war against the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs who was trying to get good stamps printed by the Minister for Finance who did not want any stamps printed. I could never make out why because it seems to me the Minister for Finance always made money out of the stamps. However, there seems to have been a general feeling in the Department of Finance: "To blazes with those artists. Give them some kind of a stamp to stick on an envelope". The result was that the standard of the stamps issued by the Post Office did not even approximate to the standard that should obtain.
I have complained on several occasions about the great blankets produced. You would be poisoned licking them and when you had stuck them on the envelope there would be no room for the address. To my horror that has now been changed to the other extreme in our recent issue. You now try to find the stamp, which is like a scrap of paper, and when you look at your sixpenny worth with the bird on it you can barely see it. It is liable to fall from your fingers before you get it to your tongue. I should like to see some moderation in this matter — some excellent philately which will neither poison you with excess of gum or slip from your fingers and become invisible on the floor due to its diminutive size and its odd coloration.
There has been reference to the people who interview on television. Every Deputy is obliged to state what he knows. I have never received anything but courtesy on any occasion I went to Montrose. I have never been conscious of receiving anything but all the help it was possible for the technicians in charge to give. I was interviewed many times when I was the Leader of the Party to which I now belong. Once I was interviewed for an hour after I had ceased to be Leader of the Party and my strong feeling was that every technical device was employed to facilitate me in any way the staff at controls could do it. They make you up if you want to be made up. I never considered anything except a little powder in order to keep my head from shining. I would not come in a blue shirt, I should not wear a blue tie and I would not engage in any of the other frills and furbelows. It was there if you wanted it. I would not talk to the camera and I would not talk to the boom. I told them I was not prepared to talk to the camera and the boom, that I would do the talking and it was their job to pick it up. My experience has been that they did it with the maximum efficiency. I think some of the people who are very much obsessed by the delicacy of their treatment are often proved to be their worst enemies and present themselves on a television screen looking like mesmerised rabbits in the presence of the ferret. They should conduct themselves as they would in their own drawing-room or sittingroom and leave to the television people the job of televising the image of their interviewees.
I consider those people do a very excellent job. Perhaps, there is some over-anxiety on the part of the interviewees. It is true to say that the technical staff at Montrose are well aware of the fact that the whole atmosphere of a television studio with all its appurtenances can be very intimidating to certain people but I think they do all in their power to relieve the person who is nervous of the exotic atmosphere of a television studio and who finds it strange. There are some people born into this world who find things unendurable and there is nothing you can do about it. There are some extremely able men who cannot talk and there is nothing you can do about it. Put them on a public platform and they make damn fools of themselves. They gurgle and cough and they are not able to talk in public. That does not mean they are not able men. When you come across such people you simply say that they cannot talk. You say that they are better in counsel than they are on the hustings.
I remember talking to a young person who was remotely related to me and at the end of a television performance in which I took part he said: "Uncle James, you never said `er', `irk' ". I told him I could not say "er" or "irk" and there was nothing in the Montrose television studio which could persuade me to say "er" or "irk" if I was not disposed to say it. It is a disarming experience to see yourself or to hear yourself on television or on radio for the first time. This is not to say that it cannot and has not happened that there is not a charged atmosphere at Montrose. That is not to say that the interviewers have never been rude. There have been occasions on which what seemed to me to be rudeness took place on the part of the interviewer but I want to draw the attention of Dáil Éireann to this unusual fact. So unusual is that that I can recall quite distinctly the two incidents on which it happened in my experience. I must have seen hundreds of interviews on RTE. I think, perhaps, what was the most dramatic aspect of it was the fact that on those two occasions when I heard two interviews on RTE fall below the standards which I have grown accustomed to, I took notice of them. I do not think I could pay the staff of RTE a higher compliment.
We cannot assume because a man works on RTE he never gets out of the wrong side of the bed. We cannot assume because a man works on RTE that he never gets ruffled during an interview. We cannot assume that because a man works on RTE that he does not sometimes annoy his interviewee. I have heard people who belong to various political Parties state that so-and-so is a rosy or a scarlet Communist. I have heard a lady at a public meeting say this. During the immediate period following this observation some lack of courtesy occurred because of the old lady's censure and of the language she used.
I doubt, looking about us here, if any one of us could claim we have been immune to such imperfection throughout our whole professional life. However, I think we are entitled to demand — and I speak as a seasoned and experienced Deputy of this House — that we should not be treated with rudeness. I think I have as much experience as any Deputy of this House. I have been engaged in active politics for close on half a century. I say that people should not be rude deliberately. If they are, they should try to repair it as quickly as they can. In this House, which I have now served for 38 years, it is a very interesting fact that you can divide Ministers of the Government benches and members of the front Opposition benches into two perfectly clear categories, the men who are rude and those who are not. In the rough and tumble and the give and take of politics in my long experience there is no hard feeling as a result of trenchant language but if people are decidedly rude and wounding, then there can arise personal animosity which should not exist in public life at all.
It is the rare occasion on which an interviewer falls into that trap when he goes beyond the limits of common civility that something should be done. I find that, generally, people who conduct interviews do them without rudeness. This is not peculiar to RTE. The same occurred on the BBC but it was corrected. The only stipulation I would make is that people should not be rude but it must be borne in mind that if interviewees have to be treated with courtesy, then they should be prepared to try to be correspondingly courteous with the people who are interviewing them. It would be foolish to pretend that on occasions there have not been lapses. This can occur if they are angels, never mind archangels.
There is another matter with regard to television which is much more difficult to deal with but to which I must refer. I have spoken of the atomic force of television on the minds not only of men and women but, in particular, on the minds of the young. Therefore, one has to consider very carefully the propriety of introducing certain topics for discussion on that medium and, if it is determined to undertake this discussion, the format and the participation in the discussion. If one is going to discuss intimate questions of moral theology and family sociology in every home in Ireland, one will have to be extremely careful if you provide an opportunity for people to put forward a revolutionary view to ensure that what for most of us is orthodox will also respectfully be heard.
Hear, hear.
The trouble is that you or I going about our daily business are not news but if you or I throw handsprings down Grafton Street or if we roll drunk down Molesworth Street and break a window, we become news. Therefore, the orthodox view in a matter of acute public interest is very often not news but somebody who advocates the anarchical uprooting of all accepted values is news more especially if he we wears the uniform of a priest, a friar or, most dangerous of all, a theologian — and I leave on one side the psychologists, the sociologists and the si sic omnes who are giving themselves a polysyllabic title to acquire for themselves a degree of public veneration which is conceded by no sophisticated listener. But, whatever the title or whatever the claim to insult or affront the precious convictions of our people, if it is deemed expedient to give them an opportunity of ventilating these views, then the vast bulk of the people have a right to hear the orthodox view as accepted by the vast majority expounded contemporaneously so that truth may have as wide a dissemination as error and that error and truth fall equally upon the same ground whether it be stony or dry or fertile and let them compete on equal terms.
As I have said, if you or I misconducted ourselves in the public streets, we would automatically become news but if we go about our lawful occasions we are not news. This applies to a wider range of population than the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and myself. I remember witnessing a riot, I think in Grosvenor Square in London, when a particularly unattractive looking rioter was interviewed by a servant of the BBC who asked him the pertinent question: "What is the purpose of conducting yourself in this way, in this place, at this time?" and this particularly undesirable-looking specimen turned upon him and said: "Well, we brought you here in any case".
If the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Prime Minister of England or any responsible citizen in Great Britain had gone to that street corner to deliver a homily, you would not have seen hair or hide of the BBC but because someone throws a brick, a gas bomb or kicks a policeman and then hurries to hold a demonstration to protest against police brutality, the whole resources of television and radio appear automatically to be at his disposal.
I do not think that we should suppress views. If somebody voices an unpopular view, let that view be recorded but if someone deliberately goes out for the purpose of stirring up riots and disturbances, does that entitle him to have concentrated upon his person and upon his activities all the resources of television? Does it entitle him to have his picture and his conduct carried into every home in Ireland? Are we to turn the kitchen and every sittingroom in Ireland into a rioters' pandemonium because a gang of thugs go out for no reason other than to create riots for ulterior motives — to upset the foundations not of this State but of any democratic free Constitution under which they happen to live? Are we to collaborate with them by carrying their active riots off the street, where they can be contained, into every home in Ireland?
Hear, hear.
This is a mistake which is being made not only here but in Great Britain, in the United States of America and in every other free country in the world. You and I, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, could go to Red Square in Moscow in the morning and riot there and somebody might hear that we had disappeared to Siberia or that we had been shot but nobody would see our pictures on the Russian television. That glorious champion of individual liberty, Mao Tse Tung, would not record our activities in Nanking or Peking if we went there to protest. Certainly, our pictures would not be carried into the kitchen of every home in China.
I do not think that a person concerned to precipitate a riot should have his picture carried into anybody's home. If a person has a worthwhile contribution to make to public controversy, let it be noted and commented on. Let it be stated that Mr. So-and-So said so-and-so if it is part of the general news of the day. But let it not be bruited abroad that anyone who riots in a public place is guaranteed unlimited exposure on Irish television or on the television of many nations of the world. Tomorrow morning there will be yelling from all the Liberals, and the Pinks, and the fellow travellers and the pseudo-revolutionaries that here is the voice of reaction echoing through the land. There will be a procession shouting: "Long live Mao" and: "Glory to the memory of Che Guevara", all in the sacred cause of free speech. You know the tragedy is that a number of young people will associate the names of Che Guevara, Mao, Kosygin with free speech wholly unaware of how little they really belong to the freedom into which our young people have the extraordinarily good fortune to be born. Freedom demands that the voice of argument on any cause be heard within the law but freedom does not demand that those who seek to reciprocate with civil disorder should be guaranteed an audience in every home in Ireland.
It is time that that problem was faced and that in future the situation will not occur in which the disciples, conscious and unconscious, of anarchy will be heard to say: "If it served no other useful purpose it brought the television cameras and our pictures into every home in Ireland where we would never dare to get but for the fact that we make news". The vast majority of law-abiding people do not make news any more. That whole atmosphere is giving everybody a sense of insecurity and malaise because of the impact of the imbalance between the portrayal of what is not news and what is news in the modern sense and it creates in the general mind an impression of civil disturbance and upheaval out of all proportion to its true dimensions and true significance in the society to which we belong.
Some of the things I have felt constranied to say will not be very popular. I am not very much concerned whether they are or not. They need to be said. They need to be acted upon. We in Oireachtas Éireann should send a message to Montrose that so long as they do their duty faithfully they will find many champions in this House who honestly believe in free speech. There are still sufficient old-fashioned politicians here who are liberal politicians who believe in letting everybody be heard and letting the public at large judge between them when they have all been heard. Rough as our proceedings in this House from time to time may seem to be looking in from the outside, there is a pretty general consensus here that you should not try to say hurtful things, but that does not mean that one should be mealy-mouthed, but we understand the difference between strong, acrimonious dissent and the desire to be rude. Those charged with the responsible task of interviewing public men in Montrose will find that if they are not rude, no matter now searching their inquiries will be, they will find few critics in Dáil Éireann.
Lastly I want to re-emphasise that grave topics if they are to be discussed in the sittingroom of every home in Ireland should be discussed in a balanced way. That is a very responsible assignment. It is one which must throw a heavy burden on those who bear the ultimate responsibility of seeing it is carried out correctly. I do not see any reason to apprehend that it will be misjudged by anyone who wants to make an honest effort to do the job assigned to him objectively and fairly. These are the standards by which to be judged. I could talk almost indefinitely on these topics but I think I have now made the essential points I wanted to underline. I wish Montrose well. On the whole, the service is good and on the whole reasonable men have every reason to be satisfied with it. I would say to Montrose: "Do not be unduly dismayed by criticism. It is a useful thing even sometimes when it is not just. It may give you a point of view which you may not have thought of." I believe in the sovereign rule which rational men and women in this House will ruthlessly enforce and which in the long run is a very simple one: "Do not be rude and do not let anyone be rude to you."
I propose to intervene at this stage in the debate which has now gone on for a number of days to deal specifically with a number of matters that have been discussed here in relation to the postal side of the Department. I will not refer to the debate as it dealt with RTE or with the telephone development side. I think at this stage, following immediately after Deputy Dillon, I would be wrong not to refer to the contribution he made in this regard. The comments made by Deputy Dillon were very well chosen and, personally, I would like to compliment him very sincerely. It was wonderful. As he said himself, the things he said needed to be said——
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.
——and certainly have been said far more adequately by him than I could possibly say it, in any case. But let me say, in relation to the debate as it has concerned the Department, that it is quite obvious that most Deputies in their contributions here in the House have spent, I suppose, 75 per cent of the time dealing with RTE, with the result that the general administration of the Post Office, in itself, got what one might describe as reasonably scant attention except in so far as a number of Deputies, in their overall remarks in relation to the general working of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, were most complimentary.
I think it is only right and fitting that I, while not being in a position to take credit on behalf of the huge staff of the Post Office, should, nevertheless, on their behalf, acknowledge the compliments so genuinely paid to them and so merited by them. As everybody is so well aware, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is the biggest employer in the State. As was mentioned by the Minister in introducing the Estimate, we have somewhat in the region of 19,000 employees in the Post Office. Therefore, it is certainly only right and proper that I should acknowledge the compliments paid to that staff by the various Deputies. As usual, Deputy M. E. Dockrell was quite generous in his compliments. He was followed by pretty genuine and generous compliments from Deputy Corish and Deputy Dillon. As a matter of fact, Deputy Lindsay, before he side-channelled into a pretty serious attack on the RTE side of the business, did say there was very little to complain about from the Post Office side and went on to say that the staff gave a very good display of efficiency in their work. This was echoed and re-echoed by a number of Deputies.
I suppose a debate on the Estimate for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs could not be considered complete without some derogatory remarks being flung about political appointments at the political head, or the political sub-head as the case may be, of the Department. However, quite honestly, for a debate that has continued for so long, and is not yet over, let me say that we did have the minimum of abuse-flinging.
The Parliamentary Secretary was expecting much more of it.
It is kind of expected now.
In fact, Deputy Lindsay accepted it in a peculiar sort of way. He accepted it in so far as he said that, if he had the opportunity, he would become involved in it. Apart altogether from the fact that it can be suggested as being accepted, I think that the incidence of complaints of this nature is becoming far less. I am glad Deputy L'Estrange is here so that I can get an opportunity of saying to him that he was bound to criticise various appointments and, generally, to make wild accusations about messing about with postmen who had been appointed for six or 12 months and who then, according to him, found themselves, after a local cumann meeting, out of a job.
That is quite true. Certainly it is.
That kind of accusation should have gone out by this time. Certainly, the question of trying to pinpoint cases of that nature should not arise in this day and age.
It is happening.
The only specific case where any straightforward accusation was flung at the Parliamentary Secretary today — whose responsibility it is — was when Deputy Dr. O'Connell and, in a much milder way, Deputy Seán Dunne, spoke about the appointment of a sub-postmaster, or the non-appointment of a sub-postmistress, in Lissadell Avenue here in the city.
I am sure they were appointed on merit.
Some Deputy pointed out today that, arising from previous difficulties of this nature, a former Minister had appointed a selection board. I repeat that a former Minister had appointed a selection board.
We know what happens when a cumann dictates.
It is unfortunate that we have not a Labour Deputy in the House at the moment but let me here and now say that the only thing that was wrong with the Lissadell Avenue appointment was that it was a non-political appointment. I do not want to fling it at anybody else. I have discussed this appointment with a number of Labour Deputies who — maybe I am wrong — accepted the position. The allegation flung at me was that I accepted the person recommended to me by the selection board but apparently did not accept the person who might have been recommended to me by the Labour Party.
Does that mean that the Parliamentary Secretary does not always accept the recommendation of the selection board? Is that what he means?
Let me be quite straight and frank about this. If more than three people are nominated, the selection board comes up before the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary with the possibility of three names for selection.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary not think it is time that that was changed?
I do not think so. While we all know and accept that maybe the Minister might not be infallible, neither is the selection board infallible — maybe yes, maybe no.
Then it is serving no purpose. It is giving the Parliamentary Secretary three out of five names.
It is. On a number of occasions, we may have nine or ten applicants and they will be short-listed down to three. This is only proper. I do not think there is any necessity to make mischief out of it because, in fact, there is very little mischief in it.
But it is quite. open to the making of mischief out of it. The Parliamentary Secretary can solve it now by accepting one name from the board.
This I invariably do.
A few moments ago, the Parliamentary Secretary said he got three names.
He selects one——
——out of three, but it could be No. 3.
I very often have only two or one presented to me.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 12th March, 1969.