I gave you notice, Sir, and I think the Minister has had notice, that I would raise the question of the treatment by Radio Eireann of Parliamentary debates. I think this is the first time we have seen the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs as a Minister in this House, and I think he ought to be welcomed, although it is rather belated and we have kept him rather late. It is not my first meeting with the Minister. I met him first in, I think, 1906, and we were then also on different sides in a debate. However, I raise this matter not for the purpose of airing a grievance but of ascertaining the principles upon which our national broadcasting station deals with debates in the Dáil and Seanad. The station, like the Dáil and Seanad, is a State institution, and we should all be interested in the maintenance of the status of all our institutions, whether the Parliament or the broadcasting station. I can understand that the broadcasting station should be used for Government announcements and by Ministers for particular pronouncements of their own, although I think it would be more appropriate in general, and better for our institutions, if important announcements were as far as possible made either through the Dáil or Seanad, but surely the broadcasts of Dáil and Seanad debates should be given in such a way as to indicate that there actually has been a debate.
What seems to me to be the most objectionable feature of what happened in respect of the two-day debate in the Dáil last week and its broadcasting is that the listener in the country would get the impression that the Dáil met to hear a lecture on Thursday by the Minister for Supplies and, on Friday, by the Taoiseach. The Dáil is a place where debate takes place and any broadcast of its proceedings should not fail to make that clear. The Government Party has a majority in the Dáil and the Seanad, and represents a little more than 50 per cent. of the people, and if, in broadcasting, the Government got half, or a little more than half, of the time and other members of the House, whether of a particular Party or of no particular Party, got the remainder, it would, I think, be fair. I am anxious to give the Minister an opportunity of saying whether, in fact, any such rule is observed, from whom the instructions go, or upon whose authority it is decided what particular things will be broadcast, and for how long.
I have listened to debates of the Seanad being broadcast and they nearly always consist of a pretty full account of what the Minister said, but it was impossible for a listener to decide what the Minister was replying to because only in very rare instances was that given, and when it was given, it was given in a very slight and skimpy manner. Apart altogether from the consideration that that is a partisan use of the broadcasting station, it is also a use which is not going to help us on the road to preserving our parliamentary institutions. For example, on Thursday last, the B.B.C., at 6 o'clock, gave, I understand, a short résumé of Mr. Cosgrave and the Minister for Supplies. At 6.45 p.m., the Dublin station gave a résumé of Mr. Cosgrave. I did not listen to that.
I think it is fair to say that, for most people, the principal news is that given at 10.10 p.m. and not that given at 6.45 p.m. At 10.10 p.m., only the Minister for Supplies was given. I did not listen to the news, and I have not found anybody who did, at 6.45 p.m. on Friday, and I do not know what was given then, but, in the last news, which is the most popular and most widely listened to, no report of anybody except the Taoiseach was given. As a matter of fact, in the interval, statements made by the Minister for Supplies had been contradicted and controverted by speakers in the Dáil, including Deputy McGilligan, but in the news on Friday night, no whisper of any kind was given that, from 10.30 in the morning until 10 o'clock at night, anybody had spoken in the debate which took place but the Taoiseach.
I suggest that that is not only a very unfair procedure, but, from the point of view of the Minister, the Parliament and the Government, a very unwise procedure. On Sunday evening, I happened to be listening to what is, I think, nearly always the best part of the Dublin station's programme — the gramophone recital. It was followed by "Nuacht" at 7.20 p.m. which turned out to be a review of the news of the week. It was given in very pleasant Irish and consisted entirely, for the best part of 20 minutes, of a very naive, simple and straightforward piece of Fianna Fáil propaganda. The speaker began by saying that the most important event of the week had been the two days' meeting of the Dáil, and, having said that, he went on to say that for 18 months— perhaps the Minister would favour me with the script of it as I have not got it with me; I took it down as it went along—the Taoiseach and Ministers had been warning the people of a certain scarcity, but unfortunately "Níor tugadh aon áird ortha"—they had not been hearkened to — but that now the situation had been properly placed before the people.
He then went on to say that there were two good things gained from the meeting of the Dáil, firstly, we had been warned of a certain scarcity and, secondly, we had been re-assured that certain things were available in plenty. These things were the list the Minister for Supplies mentioned, and they included tea and sugar — thanks to the foresight of the Government — and bread — thanks also to the foresight of the Government. I rather liked it. The man seemed to be enjoying it so much, the Irish was so good, and he seemed to be so pleasant about it, that one could almost enjoy it, but I was not convinced. He wound up by saying that now, after this two days meeting of the Dáil, and giving no indication that there was any debate in the Dáil, the people would harken to the voice of the Taoiseach and his Ministers, and would economise. He did not indicate, for example, how Ministers were economising. I should like to know from the Minister whether or not he is a civil servant; I am sure he is not. I should like to be told who decides in what way these Dáil and Seanad proceedings shall be broadcast. Does the Post Office Department determine in what way this will be done, or does the Government Information Bureau do so? Is the control political and may we hope that, in future, there will be an improvement, because it seems to me that either the Parliamentary debates should not be broadcast at all, or they should be broadcast in such a way as to make clear that debates did take place — that there were two sides to the discussion?
The broadcasting station does not belong to Mr. P.J. Little, of the Fianna Fáil Party. It is run by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, as an officer of the State, with responsibility not only to one section, but to all sections, and I am sure that it would be the Minister's desire that it should be run in that particular way. The manner in which these broadcasts are made from 2RN gives the impression that the Dáil meets to receive lectures from Ministers. That is a very bad impression to get abroad. I wonder whether the instructions given, and the name of the person by whom they are given, could be laid on the Table of both Houses.
May I put another point, which is not quite relevant to the present discussion; it is a linguistic point. The Minister and I engaged at one time in the study of modern languages. I do not know whether or not the Minister made much progress in the study of Irish. On the night of the fall of Bardia, there was a broadcast in which it was stated that Bardia was "i seilbh na nGall". That is to say that it was in the hands of the "base, brutal and bloody Saxon". Some more attention might be given to broadcasts in Irish so that terms would not be used which would be calculated to violate our neutrality. That is only a small point. The question in which I am really interested is whether or not there are any principles or instructions regarding the broadcasting of Dáil or Seanad debates, and whether, in the future, there will be such a presentation of the news as will make quite clear that a debate took place, that certain points were made, and that these points were answered.
