I would like, at the outset, to join with the previous speaker in wishing the Minister, who is a colleague in my own constituency, every success in his high office as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. I assure him at this stage that any criticism which I would feel compelled to levy at his policies or activities in the Department will be inspired with the wish to be as constructive as possible and to endeavour to ensure that under his guidance the Department continues to serve the Irish people as satisfactorily in the future as it has always done in the past.
The principal feature of the Minister's opening statement was the amount of time which it devoted to broadcasting in proportion to that devoted to all the other activities of the Department put together. Of the 30 pages which made up his statement, 15, or exactly one half, were given over to an outline of the situation in regard to broadcasting. I look on that as being out of all proportion, and I hope it does not indicate a particular outlook or an attitude of mind by the Minister to the work of his new Department. Broadcasting is of course the side of the Department's work that attracts most public interest and attention. With the Minister's own particular background it would be only natural that it would be the side that would personally interest and attract him most. However, I would strongly urge that he should resist the temptation, if such exists, to pre-occupy himself with the broadcasting aspect to the detriment or neglect of the other vitally important, though perhaps much more prosaic, services his Department provides throughout the country.
I say that particularly in view of the fact that we have just had pretty severe increases imposed by the budget in respect of a number of these services. I am a bit disturbed to see in the Estimate statement, as I say, 15 pages devoted to broadcasting while the postal service was dismissed with a few lines. I accept that this Estimate was, to a large extent, awaiting the Minister when he arrived at his desk. Even allowing for that I would have liked to have seen greater evidence that he had directed his mind to these other sectors.
Whatever disadvantages there may be in a change of Governments, one advantage is that it does, or should, bring new minds into Departments, the asking of questions and the possibility of new thinking. Broadcasting apart, there is nothing very much in the Minister's statement to encourage us to expect any great new advances in the particular Department for which he is responsible.
The Department of Posts and Telegraphs, while it may not be the most glamorous of Government Departments, is certainly one of the most important constituents of the infrastructure of our community. The services it provides are availed of more extensively throughout the land than that of any other Department and the manner in which it provides these services can affect the entire economic and social life of our community for better or worse. In particular the infrastructural services provided by the Department can, at the present time, be of great significance in promoting or impeding our economic progress. Like other Deputies one hears stories of enterprises not commencing here because of the inadequacy of the telephone services.
This debate provides Deputies with the best opportunity available to see how this Department is fulfilling its role and contributing to our progress. It should be an occasion for a down-to-earth, working discussion of practical realities, facts and figures, plans and programmes. In this respect the Minister's statement disappoints.
As I have stated, the postal service was dismissed with a few lines. The Irish postal service has a great history and a great tradition behind it, but what are the plans for the future? It is true, regrettably, that in some respects the Irish postal service was providing a better, more efficient and faster service 50 years ago than it is today. Admittedly changing circumstances may have made this inevitable, but even if this is so are there, on the other hand, any improvements or any new services under examination or contemplated? Is there, for instance, a development unit in the administration of the postal service? Those same questions can be asked of the remittance service to which the last Deputy referred.
On the staff side one welcomes very warmly, the Minister's statement when he says:
There is a traditionally high spirit of service in the Department and it would be my aim to see that this spirit is fostered and developed.
I regard that as very important. This Department is a very big employer. I believe it may be the largest single employer in the country. Staff relations, morale and the esprit de corps are of paramount importance to such a Department. There are suggestions that these are not all that they might be and I hope the Minister will direct his attention to this particularly important area.
I am told that the incremental system is generally regarded as being iniquitous and is in urgent need of revision and rationalisation. There is also, I am told, a certain amount of discontent with the system of promotion. I believe also that, in an organisation of the size of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, there is a need for a full scale, properly equipped and adequately staffed welfare section. It is essential that matters of this sort receive continuing attention because the efficiency of the institution itself and the welfare of those who work in it are involved in these matters.
At this point I should like to quote from the Fourth Annual Report of AnCO:
For training to be fully effective in a company there must be a commitment on the part of top management. The training must be organised in a systematic way and most of the training must be undertaken within the enterprise supplemented, where necessary, by external courses.
One would like to think that there is such a commitment by top management in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, that new training techniques and programmes are being availed of. Regrettably, however, the Minister's statement merely refers to schemes being kept under review. Admittedly there is reference to an innovation but one which is, I am afraid, of minor importance.
Two of the matters in the Minister's statement which undoubtedly caused the greatest stir and will give rise to a great amount of controversy in the months ahead are his dramatic references to:
a much more widely effective freedom of the airwaves over this island...
and:
the question of making all Ireland an open broadcasting area...
In this area I must confess that I find it difficult to find coherence in the Minister's words, thoughts and actions. When he comes to reply I think we are entitled to a great deal of elucidation and explanation of precisely and comprehensively what he has in mind. At the outset I wish to say that I thought it regrettable that the Minister should have—there may however have been some very good reason for it—taken off to London to discuss these very important proposals with the British Minister concerned before he had an opportunity of hearing our views in this House in regard to them, whatever those views may be worth. I say that particularly in view of what the Minister says on page 19 of his statement:
There is no body in the country which has better authority, or 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 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.
I believe that, in view of that approach by the Minister, which is entirely commendable, he might have waited until we had concluded the debate on this Estimate. He would then have had the benefit of all our views before embarking on this discussion with the British Minister on the fundamentally important matters. I believe that in other circumstances he would have been the first to criticise such action.
I am puzzled by the dimensional aspect of the Minister's proposals. If we are going to throw the Republic open to British television, surely there should be full reciprocity and we should have the corresponding opportunities over not just Northern Ireland but Britain as well. I admit that the prospects of our availing of them on any comprehensive scale are remote but should we not, nonetheless, establish them if only for some unique occasion or in regard to some special area? Perhaps I do not fully comprehend the Minister's mind but it seems to me that we were thinking only in terms of Northern Ireland and the Republic and not, as we should, on the basis of full reciprocity of both islands together as the area involved.
When replying to the debate I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but he seems to be adopting contradictory stands on the functions of a future Council of Ireland and this matter of an open broadcasting area. I am not clear whether he will wait for the Council to come into being and take on functions or whether he intends to press ahead in the meantime with specific proposals. What does the Minister mean by "freedom of the airwaves"? Does that really mean freedom of the pipelines? Does he mean he would like to bring an end to present restrictions in the Dublin area on the number of households that may connect to community aerials? Does he mean that the facilities now available in Dublin, even on this limited scale, should be extended to the people of Cork, Limerick and Waterford? What about the rural areas where piped television will not be possible? I believe that the Minister should spell out all these things to us when replying.
If he means that we here should take an active part in retransmitting products of British television throughout the country, he should say so. It seems to me it is a question of rediffusion: there is no iron curtain around this country preventing reception. Are we to undertake an active responsibility for this rediffusion? If so, will whatever comes over British television be automatically disseminated by us through some State machinery? These are questions I hope the Minister will answer fully when replying.
We know most people desire to be able to receive or to be allowed to receive BBC and ITV programmes. It is true that RTE fought a rearguard action against this possibility. It feared, with some justification, loss of viewers and revenue and as a last resort it sought to get control of the method of rediffusion or community reception. There is a widespread suspicion that it has availed of that control to delay making these services available in areas where it was possible to make them available. Certainly, that suspicion exists in the constituency which the Minister and I represent. The Minister has also spoken of the dissatisfaction with the present restriction to 500 homes per masthead which exists in the Dublin area.
The Minister now has beside him a special adviser on broadcasting and I believe this adviser comes from the audience research side of television and can therefore be presumed to know the real picture and the dissatisfaction felt by many with RTE services. The Minister himself has spoken of the certainty that an extension of cable television would mean a fall in viewing of RTE, with consequent implications for advertising revenue which, in the Minister's words, implies a deterioration in programmes or a rise in licence fees. The Minister, therefore, must be presumed to know pretty clearly that, if he proceeds and succeeds in overcoming the difficulties involved in what he proposes, he will be largely presiding over the obsequies of RTE as it operates at present and that, if he opens up the whole field and makes this a free broadcasting area, as he calls it, that, in effect, will be the end of RTE at least with its present programme policies. Does the Minister really want to leave us open to the full impact of British television while having little or no television of our own? If not—and I do not believe he does—what is the answer? I suggest there is only one answer, to which I hope to advert later on.
Whatever the report of the Broadcasting Review Committee may say, it is legitimate for us to make up our minds at this point that, if the Minister proceeds with these proposals, we can then say goodbye to a second channel, and unless something positive happens we may also say goodbye to RTE television at least, because people will only stand for a certain amount of licencing and taxing in respect of a service which they have largely ceased to use. Yet, since we do not seek to prevent people reading British newspapers, we have no right actively to prevent them watching British television, although actively participating in the rebroadcasting of that television is clearly a different matter. Very widespread dissatisfaction exists among single-channel viewers with the present service and among many who are dependent for solace, comfort and entertainment on our television and radio services. If they have only one channel and something is broadcast on that channel which either they cannot understand or is of such ineptitude that nobody would want to watch it, for that period of time they are deprived of that solace and comfort which are so much part of modern living.
By the logic of public demand, therefore, if not by the Minister's eagerness to bring it about, the British channels will sooner or later have to be made available to those who want them; but I am concerned about what looks like—I may be wrong but it seems to be so at this stage—the indifference of the Minister to the fate of RTE in those circumstances. I am also concerned with the readiness of RTE itself to face this new situation and challenge: for there is little doubt that, if the present programme policies of RTE are continued, in the new situation it will become either a heavily subsidised white elephant or another defunct symbol of an unachieved national ambition. On a competitive level and as a mere carbon copy of other kinds of television, a television service of our own would be pointless. If, however, one could be satisfied that under the spur of competition RTE could and would change its role in a fruitful and creative way, then the new development might turn out to be that not uncommon thing in public and in other aspects of life, a blessing in disguise.
It seems to be mostly for budgetary reasons that so much canned foreign material is used. From personal observation, I am convinced it is not because the people want it. In fact, there is a marked general desire for more specifically Irish television. Nothing else can explain the continued popularity of programmes such as "The Riordans". To say that television has to put on so much American crime films or cowboy rubbish because the audience demands it is to libel the audience.
If RTE in order to survive were forced by the new development to become a vital reflection of Irish life in all its aspects, we could well have a situation that would be much better than what we have at present. However, the vital question is if RTE can do that. I am not certain that budgetary reasons stand in the way of such a development. There is a pool of creative people in Ireland which is not being used by the television services and when they are used the writer or creator is the last person to be accounted for in the budget. In fact, he is expected to be glad just to get the job.
It is possible to find originally creative people here who can devise and make pleasing dramatic or culturally exciting television, however limited the budget. It should be possible to devise forms of dramatic television that could work on a small budget rather than looking like poor, patchwork attempts to do a bigger job. At a certain period in its history the French cinema did marvellous things precisely because the film makers had to operate on tiny budgets. I am not as cognisant of this area as the Minister but I believe there have been times when Irish genius and creativity were paramount in the output of the BBC.
There should be more programmes that are direct, living and spontaneous reflections of Irish life. We are supposed to be a nation of talkers—people who have lots of topics to discuss and who are prepared to discuss them but, with the possible exception of the "Late Late Show" and specific interview programmes, the only topics discussed on television are politics and the more overtly social aspects of religion. There should be at least one, if not more, non-political talk show. By that, I do not mean a mere interview that is hung on a news item or a public event; there should be some way of getting the people on television other than as mere subjects for interviews or as curiosities.
There is a definite feeling among ordinary people that the world is divided among two classes—those on one side of the screen and the people on the other side. There is also a feeling among the general public that RTE are run by executives and programme planners who are not aware of the needs and wishes of the ordinary person. There are grounds for believing RTE have failed to do the job of enriching and deepening our national consciousness that many people envisaged when it was established.
The Minister treated us to a disquisition on whether the provisions in the Broadcasting Act, which enjoined on RTE the duty of developing the national culture, referred mainly to the Gaelic language or whether the phrase "the national culture" also included forms of the English language which, as he said, most of us speak most of the time, and the literature in the English language created by our writers.
In that regard I think the Minister was tilting at an intellectual windmill and that if he re-examines the situation, he might be inclined to agree with me. I should have thought, from a liberal point of view, that it would be better to leave the phrase "national culture" in an Act of Parliament in that general way. It would be difficult and perhaps even dangerous to try to spell out what exactly was meant by it in the sections and subsections of the act. I should prefer to leave it as a phrase, as an object or goal to be interpreted in a generous and creative way by people given the responsibility of interpreting it. I hope when the Minister brings in the legislation he referred to he will keep this aspect in mind and that he will appreciate it is not always a good thing, particularly in this area, to try to de-limit too rigidly one's objectives and goals in an Act of Parliament.
I suggest also, if we had more than the very limited hours of native Irish television we have that question, like many others, would have taken care of itself by now. If there are very few hours of native television, some people will see an imbalance when some of those limited hours are devoted to Irish language programmes.
Whether the Minister's proposals are pressed rapidly or more slowly, I suggest RTE may be entering a sink-or-swim situation and the only possible way to survival will be more native television, not less.
If we wish to seek guidance by way of a corollary in this situation, it can be found in the history of Irish newspapers. They face, and have always faced, uncontrolled and uninhibited competition from a strong, powerful British press. However, because they did not seek merely to copy the features and format of that British press, because they devoted most of their space to exploring, defining and reflecting aspects of Irish life beyond the ken of their English competitors, they have survived robustly in the face of such competition. There are English newspapers which many people here are pleased to buy but they buy their Irish newspapers as well and even first and RTE might have regard to this fact.
With limited resources, sound radio has been operating to some extent in a free broadcasting situation. Because it has been facing that competitive situation, perhaps it has given better results for the resources devoted to it than has television. Everyone complains about the national broadcasting services and when this Estimate comes before us each year we turn ourselves into television critics. However, this year there are matters of fundamental policy involved above and beyond criticising the quality of particular programmes and which point to RTE having to rethink their role in what may be for that body a survival situation.
There are, and will be, budgetary difficulties but at present there is a fairly general suspicion that a greater or lesser amount or RTE's money is wasted internally, that there is over-staffing in some departments and that too little of revenue is given to programmes as such. There has also been a lack of energy and imagination in the devising and the making of programmes.
In general, my prescription for the new situation which I have described would be more Irish life on to our screens, put a much greater proportion of available budgets into creativity and less into the bureaucratic machine which has been built up. If RTE are content to go into the future providing a service which is nothing more or less than a pale replica of the other two channels, then to my mind their future will be very dim indeed.
I am not a filmgoer but I am told there is now a new era in films, an entirely new situation prevailing, that the film maker today is not content to accept that the last word was said by the great giants of the thirties. The result is that there is a great new vitality in film making and in film viewing. If that is possible in regard to films might it not also be possible in television? Might there possibly be a new era for television and could we in Ireland not be the ones to bring in that new era?
In his Estimate speech, the Minister stated he had been asked to assume certain responsibilities in relation to the GIB. He said there were discussions on the reorganisation of the Government information services generally. This is a very important area and also a very complex one on which we are entitled to expect more information. I hope the Minister will be much more specific on what exactly his role and functions will be and how the system will work in the future. The transfer of responsibility for the Government information services from the Department of the Taoiseach undoubtedly raises a number of questions and to my mind it may well give rise to difficulties. I hope it will not. The question arises as to the functions and the extent of the authority of the new head of the information services. I should like personally to wish him well in his new appointment. Is he now the new director of the GIB or will there be a new director who will be responsible to him? Will his authority and responsibility extend over the whole spectrum of the Government information services, including foreign affairs? If so, does this mean the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs will have a similar authority and responsibility?
It is very important that there be clear lines of authority and demarkation in this area, and I hope the Minister will elucidate these fully for us. If the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and, under him, the head of the information services, are to have responsibility over the whole spectrum of Government information, one can foresee problems arising. They will arise because of the complexity of the situation itself, and indeed with this Government if I may take the liberty of saying so, the situation may be aggravated by the penchant which Ministers have for doing what I might call their own publicity thing.
The Department of Foreign Affairs, apart from any particular characteristics of the incumbent of the moment, have their own special information role to play and it is difficult to see that Department willing to be overlorded—I am speaking at departmental level—by the head of the information service who is responsible to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and not to the Taoiseach. The more one considers the departmental attitudes which are inbuilt into our system, the more difficult it is to visualise this new system working smoothly. Apart from the personalities of the different Ministers, and simply at departmental level, any Department other than that of the Taoiseach will have difficulty commanding the necessary authority effectively to co-ordinate the activities of all the others. I should like if the Minister would give us his views on the difficulties even at departmental level, which I can see arising.
As I see it, there are three different aspects of Government information. First of all, we have the technical routine type which is supplied by the Departments as a public service. There are the leaflets and booklets put out by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, for instance, and by the Department of Social Welfare— all this factual, technical, departmental type of information. Then there is information on Government policy, plans and activities, for the information of the general public. Thirdly, and perhaps as important as any of the others, there is the projection of our situation and our image, in other countries.
In regard to the first type of information, the dissemination of departmental technical information, that beyond any doubt is best left to each Department, to look after themselves in conjunction with the Stationery Office. Such information is very often of a detailed technical character and only capable of being looked after by the Department concerned. Of course, there is room for improvement in the matter of keeping the information updated and keeping supplies of the various publications available. There is nothing more exasperating for a member of the public than to be looking for a Government leaflet or pamphlet which is out of print.
While leaving the information service in the hands of the Departments concerned, there may be a case for giving somebody the central responsibility of seeing that the Departments fulfil their functions in that respect, of seeing to it that their publications are updated and readily available.
With regard to the other two aspects, the need to inform the media at home and through them the general public, and also to promote our general image abroad, while there are many difficulties and complexities involved I personally believe it desirable to establish a central information office adequately staffed and equipped on the most up-to-date lines. This matter should be examined by the Minister as a matter of urgency in the light of his new responsibility, and by the Government as a whole. I have seen what damage can be done, what public confusion caused by something coming out from the Government not fully explained or correctly interpreted. In recent years also we have seen the vital need there is for a valid picture being transmitted abroad of us and of our situation. The need for such an office is compelling. As I have said, such an office would have to be properly staffed by experienced personnel and equipped with all the necessary machinery and facilities.
On the question of personnel, I would very strongly favour recruitment to the Government Information Service from the journalistic profession rather than from the public service. It is much easier to take a trained journalist and turn him into a reasonably competent public servant in this area than to transform a civil servant into a journalist.
