Committee on Finance. - Vote 42: Posts and Telegraphs. – Dáil Éireann (20th Dáil) – Thursday, 10 May 1973

Committee on Finance. - Vote 42: Posts and Telegraphs.

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Dr. Cruise-O'Brien)

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £54,086,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st day of March, 1974, 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 certain grants-in-aid.

This Estimate was prepared under my predecessor. In my remarks on the main part of the Estimate I shall confine myself, this year, to the necessary explanatory comments. In the second part of my remarks, dealing with broadcasting, I shall also discuss the present stage in policy-formation, and some proposals for the future.

I have followed the practice in recent years of having notes in relation to the Estimate circulated to Deputies. As these notes contain a good deal of valuable information in well-presented form, I have arranged for them this year to be circulated also to the press. I hope Deputies will find the statistical and other information in the notes useful in their consideration of the Estimate for my Department.

The net Estimate of £54,086,000 shown in this year's Estimates volume represents an increase of £6,581,000 on the corresponding figure for 1972/73, including a Supplementary Estimate and an amount transferred from the Vote for Increases in Pensions and Allowances. The increase is made up of extra provisions totalling £9,180,000 under nine subheads, offset by reductions totalling £486,000 under three subheads, and higher receipts amounting to £2,113,000 under Appropriations in Aid.

The biggest increase is in subhead A where an extra £6,004,000 is needed. About £4,800,000 of this amount is for the extra cost of pay increases under the second phase of the 13th round and the first phase of the 14th round. I should, perhaps, explain that the second phase of the 13th round came into operation on 1st January, 1973, and it is, therefore, necessary to provide for these extra costs for 12 months in 1973-74 as against three months in 1972-73.

The first phase of the 14th round is due to take effect from 1st June, 1973, and provision has, therefore. been made for these further increases for a period of ten months. Additional staff for the telephone and postal services is responsible for most of the balance of the increase, £1,204,000 in this subhead.

The following comments are offered on the other subheads which show substantial variations from last year's provisions: Under subhead C an additional £500,000 is required mainly to meet higher expenditure on new sites and buildings, the cost of additional leased accommodation and higher charges for maintenance, electricity and fuel.

The decrease of £116,000 under subhead D is mainly due to the incidence of presentation and clearance of accounts for air mail conveyance.

The decrease of £246,000 under subhead E arises mainly because of a reduced provision for purchase of postal and general stores.

Under subhead F £327,000 more is provided to cover the cost of engineering stores and equipment and contract works, arising from expansion of the telephone service.

Subhead G provides for telephone capital repayments and it increases each year because of the continuing investment of capital in the telephone service. The extra amount required in the current year is £1,500,000.

The increase of £512,000 under subhead J is needed mainly to meet the cost of higher pensions and gratuities following increased rates of pay.

Subhead L.1 provides for an increase of £162,000 in the ordinary grant to Radio Telefís Éireann because net receipts from licence fees are expected to go up by this amount as a result of an increase in the number of television licences.

There is a decrease of £124,000 under subhead L.2 in respect of the grant for capital expenditure on Radio na Gaeltachta.

Provision is being made under a new subhead L.3 for a grant-in-aid of £155,000 to Radio Telefís Éireann as a contribution towards the capital expenditure on a new high-powered radio transmitter.

On the receipts side, the increase of £2,113,000 shown under subhead T arises mainly because an extra £1,770,000 making £19 million in all, is being provided this year for telephone development. Expenditure on telephone development is first charged to the ordinary subheads—principally subheads F and A and to a lesser extent subheads C and B—but the cost is subsequently recouped from telephone capital funds and brought in as an Appropriation in Aid.

In 1972 letter traffic was at virtually the same level as in the previous year but parcel traffic increased by nearly 7 per cent.

Sixty-four new motorised rural delivery services were introduced during the year and there are now 580 motorised services in operation, covering nearly 40 per cent of the total mileage travelled on postal delivery. The motorisation programme is helping to keep down delivery costs without adversely affecting the standard of service.

Last December, the 50th anniversary of the first Irish postage stamp was commemorated. The 1973 programme provides for the issue of six special and commemorative stamps. The first of these was issued on the 1st January, to mark Ireland's entry into the European Communities. The programme also includes the Europa stamp, a stamp in the Contemporary Irish Art series, stamps to mark the centenary of the World Meteorological Organisation and the holding of the World Ploughing Championships in County Wexford and, finally, the Christmas stamp. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the work of the committee, under the chairmanship of Father Donal O'Sullivan, who advise on stamp design.

The savings services had a successful year in 1972. Details regarding new investments, repayments and totals remaining invested for the savings media with which my Department are directly concerned are contained in the notes circulated to Deputies. The notes also give particulars of the growth of trustee savings bank business.

I should like to express my appreciation of the excellent work done by the National Savings Committee in the cultivation of the savings habit particularly through their promotion of group savings schemes.

The value of money orders issued in 1972 was £55.2 million or about the same as in the previous year. The value of postal orders issued in 1972 was £14.4 million which was about 9 per cent higher than in 1971.

Agency service payments made by the Post Office, mainly on behalf of the Department of Social Welfare, increased from £92.7 million in 1971 to £103 million in 1972. Post offices took part as usual in the sales of prize bonds, handling about 27 per cent of the total collected in 1972.

The Department are going ahead with the provision of new post office buildings and the extension and improvement of existing buildings. A new district sorting office has recently been completed at Glenageary, County Dublin, and improvements have been carried out to the post offices at Roscommon and Bandon. Works in progress or contracted for include new post offices at Nenagh, Dungarvan and Listowel and improvements to Blackrock, County Dublin post office. Plans are well advanced for the erection of new post offices at Donegal, Shannon, Longford and Mullingar and for improvements to the post offices at Ballyhaunis, Castlebar, Kilmallock and Boyle. Since the last debate on the Estimate new automatic telephone exchange buildings were completed at Shelbourne Road and Tallaght in Dublin; extensions were also completed to the telephone buildings at Roscommon, Malahide and Merrion Street, Dublin. Work on 24 new exchange buildings or extensions to existing exchanges is at present in progress.

Demand for telephones rose by an unprecedented one-third over the figures for the previous year. Some 27,000 new lines were connected as compared with 21,000 in 1971-72 but the increased connection rate was not sufficient to meet the higher demand and the waiting list grew by 9,500 to 32,000. This figure is a cause of concern to me. As the telephone is no longer a luxury, but an essential for many purposes, including business and economic development, a major expansion is required to meet the projected demands.

The telephone service makes an extremely heavy demand on capital. In the current year the approved allocation is £19 million. It is certain that massive further investment will be required in the coming years. For this purpose I shall be coming to the House later in the year with a new Telephone Capital Bill that will provide an appropriate opportunity for a full debate on the telephone service.

Particulars of additional trunk lines, new exchanges, exchange extensions, et cetera, provided during the year are shown in the notes circulated to Deputies and I do not propose, therefore, to repeat them here. Altogether 1,600 extra trunk lines giving about 80,000 miles of additional circuits were brought into service and 199 telephone kiosks were erected, mostly in rural areas.

Major works at present in progress include the conversion of Clonmel, Cavan, Dungarvan and Fermoy exchanges to automatic working; new Dublin exchanges at Rathmines, Beggars' Bush (Ballsbridge) and Tallaght and the International Exchange at Marlborough Street; extensions of existing exchanges at Phibsboro, Ship Street, Merrion and Dundrum; and at numerous provincial exchanges. Installation work at new exchanges in the central city and Santry is due to begin shortly.

An extensive programme of local underground cabling works and of new coaxial cable and microwave trunk schemes is under way. The acquisition of sites for new exchanges and planning and erection of telephone buildings throughout the country is being pressed ahead with all possible speed.

In the past few years special attention has been given to improving the services with the Continent and abroad. There is however quite legitimate criticism of the inadequacy of the service to some EEC countries. This matter is receiving attention.

Direct routes have been established between Dublin and a number of the largest Continental cities. A route to Amsterdam was opened recently and arrangements are being made for a direct route to Switzerland. Early next year the new international exchange, at present being installed, is expected to be brought into operation with numerous extra circuits. We have recently got extra submarine and cable circuits to America and we have signed an agreement a week ago with 15 other European administrations and the major USA telecommunication carrier companies to secure circuits in a new 4,000 circuit transatlantic cable which is due to be completed in 1976.

Our immediate problems, however, are the difficulties affecting the telephone service at home and the mounting demand for connections to a system which is in many areas overloaded. Lack of sufficient capacity in the Dublin exchanges is a major cause of the difficulties generally. Because so much of provincially originated call traffic is for Dublin numbers or is switched at Dublin, trouble there affects the service in provincial centres also. Many Deputies are very familiar with this problem and have frequently addressed and are frequently addressing representations to me, representations I consider as rapidly as I can and on which I get as much action as I can, but there are certain technical limitations here.

This situation did not, of course, develop recently but it will have to be remedied without avoidable delay. As the considerable quantities of plant and equipment at present being installed and on order are brought into operation the situation should gradually improve. I am afraid there has to be a certain emphasis on "gradually". The cost of such orders at a recent date amounted to over £20 million.

The telex service continued its rapid growth and the number of subscribers increased by over 24 per cent to 1,756 on 31st March last. A new telex exchange of the most modern kind costing close on £1 million is expected to be brought into service early next year. It will provide welcome relief for the existing exchange which is carrying an increasingly heavy load.

As Deputies are aware, the Department publish commercial accounts which present their position as a trading concern. It is largely on the basis of these accounts that financial policy, including the fixing of charges, has been determined.

Appendix C to the Estimate provides a summary of the commercial account results for the four years 1967-68 to 1970-71 and provisional figures for 1971-72. It will be seen that there was an overall deficit of £1,707,000 approximately in 1970-71. The provisional accounts for 1971-72 show an overall deficit of £1,447,000 made up of deficits of £86,000 on the postal service, £367,000 on the telegraph service and £994,000 on the telephone service.

Reliable figures for the different services for 1972-73 will not be available for some considerable time, but present indications are that there will be an overall deficit of the order of £3½ million in that year. A further deterioration is expected in 1973-74.

These figures have been determined after charging interest on the entire net capital investment in the Post Office and after charging depreciation on a replacement basis. Many uneconomic services are provided by the Department on social grounds, and a case can be made for the payment of a subsidy from the Exchequer in respect of such services. There must, however, be some limit to the extent to which certain Post Office services are subsidised by the taxpayers and an adjustment of Post Office charges cannot be indefinitely postponed.

Turning to staff matters, I would like first to express my appreciation to the staff of the Department for the manner in which they are serving the public. There is a traditionally high spirit of service in the Department and it will be my aim to see that this spirit is fostered and developed.

The Estimate provides for 22,621 posts for the current financial year, an increase of 841 over the corresponding provision for last year. The vast majority of the additional posts are required for the telecommunications services. About 100 extra postman posts are, however, included for deliveries to new housing estates, et cetera, in urban areas, particularly in Dublin.

Staff training and development are obviously very important in a staff organisation of the size of the Post Office. The Department's training schemes are kept under review to ensure that they meet present-day requirements, and to take advantage of developments in training methods in recent years. One innovation this year will be the introduction on a pilot basis, of programmed-learning in the training of telephone operating staff.

The staff in the various grades in the Department have benefited from the various rounds of national pay increases. The second phase of the 13th round which came into operation on the 1st January, 1973, provided for a 4 per cent increase in pay plus a cost of living supplement of 63p per week. This added a total of approximately £2.36 million a year to the Department's wages bill. The first phase of the 14th round will become due for payment on 1st June next, and this will add a further £3.66 million a year to the wages bill.

Increases in expenditure of this order cannot, of course, be met by growth of business or increased efficiency. These pay increases are largely responsible for the Department's deteriorating financial position to which I have already referred.

The computer which my predecessor mentioned last year is being installed at present and it is expected that it will be in operation quite soon. Some work is at present being processed for the Department on other computers. This work will be taken on by the Department when their own computer is ready. Preparatory work necessary for the processing of a number of other activities in the Department is in hands and it is expected that over the next few years much of the main blocks of clerical work in the Department will be done by computer.

In connection with broadcasting I wish to refer first to certain developments which have already taken place. I shall then go on to consider the present stage of policy-making, and some ideas of future policy.

The Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1973, which was passed before the Easter recess provides statutory authority for continuing to pay RTE a grant equivalent to the net receipts from licence fees for a further two years ending on 31st March, 1974. Accordingly, the grant of £3,625,000 provided under subhead L.1 of this Estimate has been calculated in the usual way.

Deputies will have seen the RTE Report and Annual Accounts for 1971-72 which was published a few months ago. There was a small surplus of £9,231 in that year. Present indications are that there will be a surplus of over £200,000 in 1972-73. I am advised that the improvement in RTE's financial position is attributable primarily to the buoyancy of advertising revenue in the latter half of the year. However, RTE have claimed that a significant increase in licence fee revenue will be needed in 1973-74 because of higher current expenses and so that a reasonable proportion of development works can be financed from internal sources instead of by loans which involve heavy interest payments. This matter is being examined at present.

Efforts to maximise receipts from licence fees are being continued. The provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1972, which concern television dealers are being implemented with effect from 1st March, 1973, and it is expected that this will make a major contribution in combating evasion of payment of licence fees.

On the capital side, it is estimated that in 1972-73 RTE spent a total of £820,000 which was financed mainly by the Exchequer. A grant of £180,000 was made for Radio na Gaeltachta, and £500,000 was made available by way of repayable advances for general broadcasting works, including the new Radio Centre at Donnybrook. Details of RTE's capital programme for 1973-74 have not been finally settled yet but it is certain that further advances from the Exchequer will be necessary.

Work on extending the Radio na Gaeltachta service to the eastern portion of the country by a link-up with two new VHF transmitters at Kippure and Mount Leinster is nearly completed. Radio na Gaeltachta will then have country wide coverage on VHF. I shall be opening that service on 18th May. Capital expenditure on Radio na Gaeltachta is being borne entirely by the Exchequer. The special grant of £56,000 under subhead L.2 of the Estimate represents the balance of the capital cost of this project.

Maidir le Radio na Gaeltachta, tá bliain slánaithe ag an tseirbhís sin agus ní fada go mbeidh deis ag lucht éisteachta na tíre ar fad éisteacht leis nuair a leathanófar ar an gcóras craolta. Seirbhís réigiúnach é atá ann d'aon ghnó chun freastal ar phobal limistéir gurb í a ngnáth-theanga labhartha an Ghaeilge. Pobal cúng go maith iad, agus nílim go iomlán sásta gur féidir leo maireachtaint ar a bhfuil acu féin amháin. Tuigim dóibh, áfach, nuair a deirid ná fuil cabhair "Ghaeil Bhleá Cliath" ag teastáil uathu, ach caithfear aghaidh a thabhairt ar an bhfadhb so luath nó mall.

Tá sé i gceist agam éisteacht le craolta Radio na Gaeltachta nuair a bheidh an deis sin againn. Tá leis i gceist agam labhairt le muintir na Gaeltachta agus gan amhras lena n-ionadaithe san Dáil, ach go háirithe an tAire Gaeltachta Tomás Ó Dómhnaill.

Plans for the new high powered transmitter to replace the Athlone radio transmitter are also proceeding satisfactorily. A site has been obtained by RTE and the equipment is on order. It is expected that the new transmitter will be in service by the end of the next financial year. It has been agreed that RTE will bear the cost of the new transmitter site and one-third of the other costs and that the balance will be provided by way of a non-repayable Exchequer grant. The total cost is expected to amount to close to £700,000. The provision of £155,000 under subhead L.3 of the Estimate represents that part of the expenditure likely to arise in 1973-74 which is proper to be met by the Exchequer.

In recent years television has tended to become synonymous in some cases with broadcasting and, indeed, much of what Deputies have had to say about broadcasting has concerned television only.

It is, however, worth pointing out that the expenditures to which I have referred above, on the new Radio Centre, on the nationwide availability of the Radio na Gaeltachta network, and on the new high-powered medium wave transmitter, offer the opportunity for important new developments in the radio field. I am sure that the Broadcasting Review Committee will have much to say on these matters. At this moment, I would merely say that I intend to review the present limits on transmission hours, to see if greater choice can be offered to the listener without excessive cost to the licence holder.

In the history of broadcasting in this country, the present is a transitional period. The term of office of the existing authority ends on 31st May. I have thanked the chairman of the existing authority and all its members for the valuable services which they rendered to RTE in a difficult period. I have notified them of my intention in present circumstances to nominate an entirely new authority.

In the Press this morning it is reported that I have dismissed the existing authority. This is not the case. The existing authority remains in office for its period of office which concludes on 31st of this month. What I have done is to thank them for their services and to notify them that I am nominating a new authority. That is quite a different matter, as Deputies will appreciate, from dismissing an authority and in fairness to the people concerned, and to myself also. I wish the distinction to be made.

I am glad to have this opportunity of making the first announcement to the Dáil itself of the names of the new authority. Their names are:

Chairman: Mr. Donal Ó Moráin

The remaining members in alphabetical order are:

Mrs. Sheila Conroy

Mr. William Finlay

Hilary Heron

Mr. Charles McCarthy

Mr. Seán Mac Réamoinn

Mr. James McGuire

Mr. Patrick O'Keeffe

Mr. John Robb.

These names will be familiar to many Members of the House. Without going into detail here I want to say a brief word about each. Mr. Donal Ó Moráin was, of course, the chairman of the authority which was removed on 24th November, 1972. In renominating him I should like to pay a tribute to the members of the authority which he led. In difficult circumstances and confronted with delicate choices, he and they may have made some mistakes, as all of us must do, but they showed a consistent sense of their responsibilities and an integrity beyond praise.

Dr. FitzGerald

Hear, hear.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Mr. Ó Moráin's experience and high capacities are well known to the public and it gives me great pleasure to renominate him as chairman of the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority dating from 1st June, 1973.

Mrs. Sheila Conroy is well-known among all those concerned with the struggle for women's rights, as well as in the trade union movement. She was a member of the Commission on the Status of Women, whose report has just been received and which the Government are acting on, and is a member of many voluntary bodies. She is an active member of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, of which her late husband, Mr. John Conroy, was general president.

Mr. William Finlay, S.C., is Deputy Governor of the Bank of Ireland and actively interested in social problems.

Hilary Heron (Mrs. D.W. Greene) is internationally known as a sculptor. Her works are in public and private collections in many countries.

Mr. Charles McCarthy was general secretary of the Vocational Teachers' Organisation, a past president of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and chairman of the Human Sciences Committee.

Mr. Seán Mac Réamoinn is well-known as a professional broadcaster and for his cultural activities in many fields. He is a member of the Workers' Union of Ireland.

The nomination of a member of the staff of RTE to the authority is an innovation which will, I believe, help to inform and enrich the deliberations of the authority.

Mr. James McGuire is managing editor of the Western People and has been president of the West of Ireland Branch of the National Union of Journalists.

Mr. Patrick O'Keeffe is editor of the Irish Farmers' Journal, chairman of the Farm Business Development CoOperative and a member of the Irish Council of the European Movement.

Mr. John Robb is the well-known surgeon, formerly of Belfast, and now of Ballymoney, County Antrim. He is well-known for his humanitarian actions and interventions in the Northern Ireland crisis and for his concern for reconciliation between the two communities in this island.

One main reason why I wished to take this Estimate early was to end speculation about this matter. I think speculation inevitably occurs when changes of this kind are known to be about to take place and the speculations may be, to some small extent, damaging, above all in that the names of individuals are mentioned, individuals who may or may not turn out to be on the list of the authority. I should like to say here that there are a number of individuals whom I would have liked to have on this authority but who were not available for one reason or another, either because they were not themselves willing to serve or because the need to produce a balanced authority, balancing competences in various fields, different types of people, made it impossible to select certain individuals whose high qualities would have made a valuable contribution to the authority. The maximum membership of the authority is nine. To that I was confined and within that I had to produce both a balance and a certain diversity.

In choosing the authority the main criterion I had in mind was that of competence: that is to say, that the group selected should possess the ability to handle with good judgment, firmness and delicacy a very varied complex and sensitive field. I also had in mind the criterion of confidence, that is to say, that the members of the authority, collectively and individually, should command the confidence of the public generally, and also be sufficiently diverse in interests and background to command the confidence of important groups and interests within the community. In an authority made up of a limited number of people this last criterion can never be fully met and there will always be interests and regions which feel they are not adequately represented and which may have some grounds for that feeling. For example, I am very conscious that one gap in this authority is that I have nobody who can be regarded as representative of music. I would have liked to fill that but with the other concerns that had to be met it was not possible within the nine member authority. I know, however, that the interests of music are not by any means likely to be left out of the count in RTE.

The authority is selected, not primarily for the purpose of representing regions and interests, but in order to be a body capable of adequately discharging certain important responsibilities. I believe that those I have named, working together and possessing a considerable range of capacities and experience which complement one another, is a body in which the House and the country and those professionally concerned in this matter can have full confidence. I should like here to thank the men and women who have agreed to undertake this service, and to wish them a successful tenure, productive of valuable developments in broadcasting in this country.

There are a few people whom I should have liked to nominate but who for one reason or another were not available. One of these was Professor T.W. Moody of Trinity College, a member of the former RTE Authority and a man who has rendered long and distinguished service to this country, as a scholar, as a teacher, and as a citizen. Professor Moody, because of his commitments to the completion of some very important historical projects, felt unable to accept my offer to nominate him to the new authority. I respect the reasons for his refusal, but, in view of past events, I think it right to record here that the offer was made. Naturally I shall wish to have the views of the new authority before taking any fundamental decisions in the area of broadcasting and television.

I am also awaiting the final report of the Broadcasting Review Committee. The chairman of the committee, Mr. Justice Murnaghan, has told me that the report is not to be expected before the end of the present year. I appreciate that this delay is due to the very painstaking way in which that committee has been setting about its duties, and I want to record here publicly the thanks which I have already expressed to them for their devotion to their task.

The interim report of the committee, which was submitted to my predecessor just before the change of Government, recommends that no action be taken about the present restriction of 500 homes per masthead for wired television systems until the final report of the committee is received. I felt some concern about this because of the dissatisfaction about this situation which I am aware exists not only in the present single channel area—notably Limerick, Cork and Waterford—but also in parts of the multi-channel area, including central Dublin. I also felt that to accept so prolonged a deferment of the examination of the question would be a violation of the relevant part of the joint Statement of Intent of the Coalition Parties which reads as follows:

The review of the television and broadcasting services will be speeded up and a special examination made as a matter of urgency of such matters as a second TV channel, local radio and the provision of piped television and the relationship of the RTE Authority with the Government.

It is a matter of principle with this Government to keep the promises in the joint Statement of Intent and the implementation of this particular promise falls on me. I, therefore, asked the chairman of the Broadcasting Review Committee to let me have a further interim report at an early date on the development of cable television. The committee is kindly complying with this request and I expect to have its second interim report shortly.

In view of the situation I have outlined as regards the Broadcasting Review Committee and the RTE Authority large areas remain open as regards future developments in broadcasting and television. I should say that while I and, I am sure, the new authority will study the future reports of the Broadcasting Review Committee with the care that is due to the thought and study that will have gone into them, I cannot, of course, commit myself, and still less the authority, in advance to acceptance of the proposals of the Committee. I think it right however, to give the House some indications, even if necessarily, for the reasons I have explained, somewhat tentative at the present time, of my general approach to this question.

I would hope in doing so to stimulate a debate which would serve a constructive purpose, especially at this fluid stage in the decision-making process. In a democracy, after all, one of the most vital questions about radio and television is "what do the people actually want?" There is no body in the country which has better authority, or, indeed, a stronger incentive, to try to express what the people want, than this House has. That aspect of this House, its broadly representative character, is, of course, often obscured by the factor of party competition, which is also an unescapable and essential part of democracy, but I am encouraged to hope, having sat through previous Estimate debates on this subject, that in this debate also the broadly representative aspect of the House will be uppermost and that we will be hearing from many Deputies, both in multi-channel and single channel areas, expressions of what they believe their constituents want.

This is not an empty matter because decisions are now being shaped and I would like to see free and open discussion in this House helping to shape these decisions as part of the democratic process. I assure the House that I will pay equal attention to what is being said by Deputies on all sides of the House because it is through Deputies that the wishes of the people in this matter should be finding expression. I hope this aspect of the discussion on the Estimate will transcend what might be called the adversary side of our proceedings though that, no doubt, will also be in evidence from time to time. It is healthy that it should.

It is never, of course, only a question of what the people want. It would also be helpful to have some indication of what they might be prepared to pay and whether, for example, people would be prepared to pay higher licence fees to ensure conditions of better reception, better programming and an extra channel or channels. Some very difficult choices are involved here. There is always an attraction in pushing ahead in development and applying new technical possibilities. The cost, however, has also to be reckoned, no less in the area of broadcasting than in other fields.

In cable television, for instance, development means a fall in viewing to RTE with consequent implications for advertising revenue. That in its turn implies either a deterioration in programmes or a rise in licence fees for those without cable television, as well as those with it.

Colour television is another example where unrestricted development could not only lead to the high cost of colour programme-making being borne by viewers with black and white sets, but also an upsurge in the purchase of colour receivers could have implications perhaps for the balance of Ireland's international payments which could be held to jeopardise general economic policy. I think the latter consideration is of somewhat less weight in the circumstances than the first.

Extended broadcasting hours would serve relatively small audiences but the cost of making programmes to fill them could raise the licence fee for everybody.

Up to now the approach in dealing with these problems has seemed to be somewhat restrictive. It might perhaps be desirable to think about a shift in emphasis towards charging new developments with the costs they create, rather than imposing restrictions which in some cases are not wholly effective.

I am at present considering various ideas in this connection and I should be grateful for any suggestions members of both sides of the House may care to offer in this area.

In principle, I favour providing the public with the widest variety of choice that is practicable, both in relation to domestic and foreign programmes. In that context, I have read with interest the Broadcasting Review Committee's proposal for a second channel which is at present under study in my Department. I also have some sympathy, however, with those who say the second channel does not meet the needs of those in the single channel area and who would like to enjoy the same variety of choice as is now available, accidentally, to people in the multi-channel area. Ideally I would like to see a much more widely effective freedom of the airwaves over this island. I would like, for example, not only to have RTE programmes fully available in Northern Ireland, but also to have programmes broadcast in Northern Ireland fully available throughout the Republic. I have discussed this with my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who believes as I do, that such a development would serve to promote better mutual comprehension and thereby serve the cause of peace and reconciliation. The question is a highly complex one however—and one which would require the co-operation of a number of authorities and the overcoming of various technical, legal, financial and commercial difficulties.

I would like to apologise at this stage to Deputies and to others who have received copies of this brief because certain elements are transposed here in the mineographed copy of my speech and, subsequently, the order will be somewhat different from that which they have been given although it will not be different in substance.

There has been a certain feeling that the exposure of a part of our public to television originating outside the State boundaries is in some way a bad thing and that it would be wrong to permit it to reach areas which it does not now reach. That is not, I believe, the feeling of most people in this country—though Members in this House can correct me, in relation to those whom they represent, if I am wrong. In any case, I believe that to open windows rather than to close them is the more natural function of broadcasting and television and also the one of which our national culture, generously interpreted, stands the more in need.

As national culture is an element which comes into this not only by the nature of things but by Statute, I should like to refer here to section 17 of the Broadcasting Act of 1960 which declares:

In performing its functions, the authority shall bear constantly in mind the national aims of restoring the Irish language and preserving and developing the national culture and shall endeavour to promote the attainment of those aims.

Here, as in some other areas, the responsibilities placed on the authority are too vague to be satisfactory. What exactly is our "national culture". Does it include the diversity of traditions which exist in this island, including the Orange and Unionist tradition ditions of a majority in Northern Ireland, or are there—in the mimeographed copy of the speech the spelling is "there"; it is rather important that here it is "their"—distinct political allegiances and other characteristics to be thought of as setting them outside the national culture? Does the national culture consist mainly of Gaelic heritage and does it centre on the Irish language, as the language of the section seems to imply, without actually saying so, or does it include also the forms of the language which most of us speak most of the time and that literature in the English language to which so many of our writers have imparted a touch of our accent? Does our national culture consist only of those elements which are exclusively and idiosyncratically our own, or should it be taken as including also those numerous and important characteristics which our culture shares with so many of our neighbours in this archipelago and, in a more diffused sense, in Europe and North America.

I put these questions but no one, I think can answer them decisively. I suspect more Irish people today would lean on the whole, to the various broad rather than to the various narrow interpretations of these words than would have been the case when the Broadcasting Authority Act was framed 13 years ago but I suspect that the intention of the framers was fairly narrow on this. I think the wording of the section, and in particular the use of the word "preserve" have tended understandably to produce a rather defensive psychology in connection with the discharge of broadcasting responsibilities under the Act.

The question of making all Ireland an open broadcasting area is, of course, pre-eminently one of which a Council of Ireland, ought to be seized. If, as we all hope will happen, the Council of Ireland comes into effective being, we may find that certain major decisions affecting broadcasting which might fall within the council's purview should be deferred until the council have the opportunity to consider the issues, that is if it looks likely that the council are about to come into being and about to get down to business. As the British authorities are necessarily involved in decisions affecting the mutual availability of broadcasting services for both parts of Ireland, with the agreement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs I have arranged to meet the British Minister for Posts and Telecommunications at an early date for a discussion of these matters.

Now that the British authorities have recognised the "Irish dimension"—as they did in the Green Paper—and that the Taoiseach has spoken of the "British dimension" to the problem, the climate would appear to be suitable for moving as fast as cost, technical and other considerations may permit in the direction of a two-dimensional open broadcasting area.

The question of the relationship between the Government and the broadcasting authority is one which has given concern in many countries besides our own. Most people, and almost everyone who works for the media, would agree that the position in, say, Britain, where the autonomy of public service broadcasting is respected is preferable to, say, the position that prevailed in France under General de Gaulle, where the Government could exercise whenever they wished a decisive influence over the control of programmes.

In theory, in Britain too, the Government can invoke very drastic powers over the BBC and ITA. In practice no British Government as far as we can foresee appear likely to exercise such powers; the position of the governors of the BBC is protected in effect by unwritten conventions and if reports of certain conversations between the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the former Taoiseach are true, while the Government there might be tempted to move in that direction they feel they cannot. The reason they feel they cannot is not because of positive legislation but because of conventions and public opinion.

Such conventions have proved less stable here. Without at this point entering into recriminations over past dramatic events, what is necessary now is to rebuild confidence in the integrity and autonomy of public service broadcasting in this country. Given the proven fragility of unwritten convention in our conditions, it is important that our legislation should give the greatest possible protection to these values. I am afraid legislation is an inadequate substitute for convention, but we have to use what means we can and perhaps in moving towards such legislation and in the discussion for the need for it we may be helping to build up the kind of convention, the kind of public opinion which is needed for the full protection of the integrity and autonomy of public service broadcasting.

I shall, therefore, bring before the Oireachtas at an appropriate time certain amendments to the Broadcasting Acts. As the final report of the Broadcasting Review Committee and my decisions on it may point the way to other legislative changes, I have decided to defer the introduction of legislation until next year. In order to dispel any doubts there may be in the public mind—this matter has been rather widely, understandably and rightly debated in the press and the media—I think it is proper for me to say even at this early stage what I have in mind in general terms.

Generally speaking, I should like to see the responsibilities of the authority more explicitly defined by law and the authority then left to discharge their responsibilities without any interference—or, indeed, potential interference —of any kind by the Government in programming. This would mean, of course, that section 31 subsection (1) of the Broadcasting Act, 1960, would go. Section 6 of the same Act would also be amended—that is the section which gives the Government power to remove the authority at any time. Similar but not identical powers exist in relation to other bodies but it is necessary to give some special protection to the body responsible for broadcasting because of the extreme sensitivity of this area, because of the constant temptation to Government to step across certain lines, and because of the dangers inherent therein.

I should like to meet that by rather strong changes. One way of doing it might be to provide that the authority, during a given period of office, could only be removed by decision of both Houses of the Oireachtas when the Government had shown that the authority had gravely derogated from the responsibilities assigned to them by statute.

The autonomy I have in mind for the authority is not anything anarchic or arbitrary but a freedom defined and limited by clearly specified law. Instead of the incalculable and unpredictable varieties of possible responsibility placed on an authority by the existing section 31 subsection (1), the new legislation would provide explicit definition of the responsibilities of the authority. I am in consultation with the Attorney General as to how best the responsibilities of the authority can be defined in relation to, for example, the activities of illegal organisations, in such a way as to protect the legitimate functions of RTE in relation to news gathering, analysis and discussion—all very important functions—while protecting the paramount interest of the community in peace and the observation of law.

I am aware that journalistic staffs working for RTE, as well as for comparable broadcasting organisations in other countries, sometimes complain that more restrictions are placed on their activities than are placed on the activities of their colleagues working for newspapers. This is an understandable complaint, and up to a point a healthy one since it reflects a professional eagerness for untrammeled investigation and publication.

People in broadcasting who feel they want more of a free hand may well dislike the setting of explicit statutory limits almost as much as they dislike the potential arbitrary intervention which lurks in, and on at least one occasion has leaped out from the present section 31. They would like no restrictions at all. Yet some restrictions are inevitable, and some are salutary, even under the greatest possible freedom of expression available in any civilised country. The freedom of RTE should not be less than that of any good newspaper. It should not be less but it has to be different, differently formulated, differently limited and differently safeguarded. The freedom of the press is expressed in diversity. Any newspaper has the right to advocate the most extreme opinions, and to select its news accordingly. It should be noted, however, that as happens in other areas of life also, this freedom-in-diversity which exists in the press has its own coercive side. Many journalists in all countries have to work for papers whose editorial policies they do not like and they may well find their professional activities restricted in ways which are more drastic than any restrictions they may find in public service broadcasting in a democratic country.

In some countries, and most notably in the United States, broadcasting has been given an economic base similar to that of the press and resulting—in theory at least—in a similar freedom-in-diversity. Unfortunately that freedom has expressed itself in unbridled commercialisation —unbridled, debased and debasing commercialisation. I do not think anyone who knows what American television is like—and I have watched it off and on for four years—would wish to see that particular kind of freedom introduced here. In this country we have chosen, and I believe rightly chosen, an alternative model, that of public service broadcasting. RTE were set up by the State and hold a monopoly of the broadcasting channels to which the State is entitled. In these conditions they cannot enjoy the full range of freedom open, in principle, to an individual newspaper. They cannot throw their weight—which in these circumstances is a tremendous weight—in favour of any party or set of policies.

Above all, it must be more careful than any single newspaper is required to be in its treatment of activities designed to overthrow the State which set it up and all activities which are contrary to the laws of that State. These restrictions must remain at least as long as RTE retains a monopoly of broadcasting. Nor would I favour a substitution for that monopoly of the kind of freedom-in-diversity based on commercialisation of the airwaves. Certain restrictions on RTE's activities are, therefore, inevitable. What is important is that they should be honestly and explicitly set out in our laws, and not left open to the possibility of arbitrary intervention by individuals in power.

I regret that, for reasons which I have sufficiently indicated, it is not possible to provide such a legislative framework at an early date, and the new authority will have to function, for at least the remainder of this year under the existing law including section 31 subsection (1).

I considered whether to rescind the directive issued by my predecessor under section 31 subsection (1) in October, 1971. I decided to leave it operative until the new legislation to which I have referred will end both it and the Minister's power to make any further such directives. The objections which I and the other members of the Opposition voiced in relation to that directive concerned not its declared objective, which was essentially preventing the glamorisation of the IRA, buts its vagueness, and the then Minister's failure, as it appeared to us to be—he is here in the House—either to clarify it or to indicate whether or not he approved of the interpretations which the then authority, which he later dismissed, placed on the directive. These particular objections do not apply to the present situation. I have seen the internal guidelines which RTE are using in implementation of the directive and I regard the operation of these guidelines as constituting compliance with the legitimate purposes of the directive as above described. Such guidelines were set up under the former authority and modified under the present one.

There is, therefore, no longer any vagueness about what the directive now means, nor does the dangerous possibility any longer exist that the Minister and RTE may be interpreting the directive in different ways. I am, therefore, satisfied to leave that situation as it is until new legislation can establish a sounder foundation for the operations of RTE.

I am anxious to see that new legislation introduced as soon as may be appropriate and as soon as the report of the Broadcasting Review Committee has been received and studied both by my Department and RTE and the necessary decisions made. I shall then move for the introduction of the legislation I regard as necessary.

There is one other matter to which I should refer although it is not part of my statutory responsibility as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. It is relevant to this Estimate, only so far as the Minister's salary is paid out of this Estimate and therefore it is appropriate that the Minister should report here on any special duties assigned to him. The Government have asked me to assume certain responsibilities in relation to the Government Information Bureau. It is the wish of the Government that the public should be more fully informed, and in greater depth, about Government policy and activities than has generally been the case in the past. We believe that it is very important to the effective working of a democracy that the public should have adequate information about what is going on.

The object is not to protect the Government from criticism but to ensure that the criticism is as well informed as possible, and thereby helpful not only to the public interest, but also to a Government which are prepared to take informed criticism into account. With these ends in view the Government, being aware of the high professional capability of Mr. Muiris Mac Conghail, appointed him head of information services.

The Government also recognise that, for the fully effective discharge of his duties the head of information services would need to be in close contact with a member of the Cabinet to whom he could have access at all times. The Government Information Bureau is attached to the Department of the Taoiseach but it is obvious that the manifold duties of that high office preclude the Taoiseach personally from giving much day-to-day attention to the bureau. In these conditions the Government, on the instance of the Taoiseach, assigned this particular responsibility to me, and I am accordingly involved at present in discussions on the reorganisation of Government information services generally.

Finally, there is one other matter which on a strictly technical view hardly comes at present within the ambit of this Estimate but which nonetheless it may be useful to refer to here. This is the question of whether to broadcast Oireachtas proceedings and if so how this should be arranged. These, of course, are matters for the Oireachtas itself to decide. For that very reason, however, it is appropriate that Deputies should have an opportunity to discuss the matter and the consideration of the present Estimate, under which traditionally we discuss, among other things, the wider aspects of radio and television, seems to offer an appropriate opportunity for Deputies to express their views on this matter also.

If I may offer my own view by way of opening a discussion on the matter, it is that the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings is a logical application of democratic principle in the particular technological conditions in which we live today. Indeed, the fact that parliamentary proceedings can be published in full through the printed word but cannot be broadcast direct at all would be hard to defend in principle, and is, I think something of an anachronism. That, at least, is my personal opinion. I am not, in this part of my remarks speaking for the Government at this stage. The legal aspects of this question are under study by the Attorney General who is looking into law and practices in other comparable democratic countries in relation to this matter.

The acquisition of the right to report parliamentary proceedings is an important part of the history not only of the press, but of democratic institutions generally. In the 18th century the Westminster Parliament treated any attempt at reporting parliamentary proceedings as a most serious offence, and a number of persons were, in fact, convicted and imprisoned for this. If all these laws were still in force all these gentlemen in the Press Gallery would be removed by the police. I do not wish to be reported as advocating this.

This may seem to us in retrospect absurd, but it was at least defensible on the assumptions current under the oligarchical arrangements of that time. There was nothing democratic about an 18th-century parliament. They would scoff at such ideas. It is possible that our own contemporary prohibition of direct broadcasting of parliament may seem no less absurd to later generations, and it can be argued that we, as a democratic assembly, who recognise the full right of the people to scrutinise our proceedings, have less right to prevent those proceedings from being broadcast than that parliament of long ago had to prevent the publication of its proceedings through the written word.

I am aware, of course, that there are limitations and that if the Oireachtas should, in their wisdom, decide to move in that direction, they may well not wish to move very far all at once. Certainly, I do not think anyone will seriously suggest that all the proceedings of the Dáil should be televised. Taken in its present stage of development, television is distracting with lights and cameras, and so on, and possibly some of us might be upset or otherwise over-stimulated by the presence of those devices.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

It is the overstimulation I am afraid of.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Certainly, the benches would be rather fuller.

Dr. FitzGerald

Indeed.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The introduction of sound broadcasting, which can be done very unobtrusively, would not have that effect and I would think we could move a good way in that direction. I should be very interested to hear the views of Deputies on this matter. I am sure that, if there is a consensus in the House generally favouring a move in this direction, a suitable framework for its operation could be established and that RTE would co-operate to the full with the House in this matter.

Before I sit down I should like to mention one other matter with regret. My predecessor, Deputy G. Collins, asked to have this debate put off to a later time. I was able to meet his wishes only to the extent that I had intended to open this debate yesterday and I am now opening it today for reasons which I felt to be strong and particularly in view of the need to end speculation about the new RTE Authority. I genuinely regret this because I know that Deputy Collins, when Minister, was in the habit of extending a similar courtesy to Opposition spokesmen. In normal circumstances I should like to be able to extend a similar courtesy.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 10 May 1973

Committee on Finance. - Vote 42: Posts and Telegraphs.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 May 1973