There were one or two points raised by a number of Senators on the Second Stage of the Bill, and I promised if I could to have some information to give them on the concluding stages of the Bill. The first of them was, I think, raised by Senator MacLoughlin as to the present position of the Foyle fisheries as to which he said, amongst other things, that the Government were doing nothing in the matter. The Minister for External Affairs is not able to be here, but he has instructed me to say that there is no foundation for the statements; that the Government, on the contrary, have had this matter of the protection of the Foyle fishermen under consideration, particularly within the last 12 months, and that the point of view of the Saorstát in regard to it is being pressed as strongly as possible. Senator MacLoughlin also referred to the question of a flour licence. I have consulted with the Minister for Industry and Commerce on that matter, and he asked me to assure the Seanad that there was no foundation for the allegations of the Senator in regard to it.
Senator O'Farrell raised a considerable number of points in connection with the broadcasting service in which he asked whether the sum of £43,350, which is the amount of the estimate for wireless broadcasting for 1933-4, covers the salaries and operation of the stations and programmes, and whether, in addition to the revenue from the wireless licences and the tax on wireless apparatus, there was any other revenue. The position in regard to that is that the total cost of the service is the £43,350 which appears on the Estimate, and that, as against that, we have estimated receipts from wireless licences of about £20,000; from advertising programmes about £18,000; and from customs tax on apparatus, £50,000, I should like to say in that connection that the tax on wireless apparatus is a customs tax imposed for the needs of the general revenue and it is not appropriated in full for broadcasting. In fact, it has been quite clearly pointed out to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs that the Minister for Finance anticipates that the wireless broadcasting service will become a self-supporting one, and that, in time, it will derive its maintenance entirely from the receipts from wireless licences and from advertising programmes, and that more and more of the receipts from the import duties will be allocated to the general purposes of the revenue. The Senator also asked whether the Broadcasting Advisory Committee had been abolished. It has not been abolished. But the statutory term of the membership of the committee is, I think, two years. That term has just run out and the Minister has deferred making further appointments until he has time to consider the general constitution of the committee. It is anticipated that that constitution will be amended and that a new committee will shortly be formed.
Some adverse criticism was made also, I think, by Senator O'Farrell with regard to the broadcasting station orchestra. The station has an orchestra of nineteen members, which costs approximately £5,000 per annum. I do not ask the Seanad to take my judgment as being worth anything in the matter, but I am informed that it is a first-class combination and that it is adequate for the general requirements of the programmes, particularly as it is from time to time augmented to symphony orchestral strength for special programmes. However, considering, as I have said, that the revenue which is derived from the broadcasting service this year under the normal categories is estimated not to exceed £38,000, I think that the amount which we are spending at present on the orchestra represents practically our limit under existing circumstances. If the revenue from wireless licences increases, or if the advertising programmes are continued and are developed, it may be possible to increase the orchestra. But at present it is felt that the expenditure of about £5,000 is all that is warranted. The question of adding an organ in addition to the orchestra is under consideration.
As to the sponsored programmes, these have been introduced in order to derive additional revenue for broadcasting, particularly in view of providing more money for general programmes. As I have already pointed out, we feel in the Department of Finance that this service should be a self-supporting one; that its revenue should be mainly derived from wireless licences or, if that be inadequate, it has to be made up in some other form; that we cannot continue to subsidise it, as we have up to the present, out of the public funds; that it must justify itself, and that, so far as there is any customs revenue derived from the import duty upon wireless apparatus, that has got to be reserved for the general purposes of the Exchequer and for the benefit of the taxpayer generally and not particularly for the small section who may be interested in wireless reception. On the question of the sponsored programmes, out of a six-hour programme daily only one hour is given to the sponsored programme, so that the station programme occupies five hours per day. Except for the Hospitals' Trust programmes, for which foreign bands and artistes are occasionally engaged, in all other sponsored programmes local bands, orchestras and artistes are almost exclusively retained. The artistes in these programmes, moreover, are for the most part artistes who would at other times be employed on the official programmes and, therefore, to that extent their employment on sponsored programmes represents a certain saving on the general expenditure of the station.
I know that there is a fairly general complaint that there is a certain sameness and monotony about the programmes which are broadcast, due primarily, I think, to the repeated appearance of the same artistes. That, however, is due entirely to the relative scarcity of local talent with satisfactory qualifications for broadcasting. We are a comparatively small community, and it is difficult to find a sufficient number of artistes to give a great variety of programmes within it. This is particularly true in regard to the Irish items in the programmes, owing to the comparatively small quantity of Irish music which has been published for orchestral performance, so that the Irish side of the musical programmes is largely confined to violin and pipe music and, even on these particular instruments, the number of artistes who would be competent to perform and who are procurable is extremely limited.
As to the question of the news service, it is largely governed by the same considerations as affect the question of the orchestral side of the programme. The cost of providing an extensive news service would be a prohibitive one and the position is complicated by the difficulty of the organisation and publication of news matters. I understand, however, from the Minister that the question of the news supply has been under consideration for some time and that everything possible has been done to improve it. On the question of the nature and scope of the news broadcast, it will be understood, I think, by most Senators that the officials responsible for this side of the programme are placed in a position of difficulty and some delicacy as they must use a careful discretion with regard to the items included and the manner in which they are presented. Very stringent instructions have been issued to these particular officials to avoid discrimination of any kind in favour of any interest or any party in the drafting of the news bulletin. It will be understood that broadcast news must be presented in a very summarised form and that only the essential points and matters of fact, without qualification or comment of any kind, can be included. But the correspondents who supply this news to the station and those who are responsible for its editing there find themselves faced with the great difficulty of selection. I think Senators will agree with me that it is impossible, for instance, to present all the aspects and details of general news or of a Parliamentary debate in such a way as would give to the general public a fair representation of everything that took place. But, notwithstanding that, every possible care and precaution are taken to ensure against giving any implication of bias or favour or discrimination in the selection of news. I am asked by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to say that there is no foundation whatsoever for any suggestion that the broadcast news is used in any way for propaganda or Party purposes. I should like to repeat again that officials who are responsible for this service are in a very difficult and delicate position.
I am not at all questioning criticism of the kind which Senator O'Farrell made himself responsible for, and quite fairly—I am glad he has given me this opportunity to make a statement—but, it seems to me, the only way in which we could avoid any possibility of criticism of that kind, ascribing bias to the News Bulletin, and the news service generally, would be to do away with it. We are compelled to take general news and to put it before the public, I am quite certain, without many important points. Arguments in favour of one side or another of a question must be lost sight of or suppressed. It is not possible, as the time will not permit, to give a full disquisition on matters under consideration in the Seanad or by the Oireachtas, or when treating, say, a speech in the country by a Minister or by any other person who might not be a Minister. It would be quite impossible in the three or four minutes at the disposal of the broadcasting people to give either the arguments for or against, and the attitude taken up by one of the parties to a controversy. I do not think there are any other points calling for comment. These were the main criticisms of the Appropriation Bill.
