Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Nov 1949

Vol. 37 No. 3

Irish News Agency Bill, 1949—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for External Affairs (Mr. MacBride)

I am afraid that when this Bill was discussed in the other House of the Oireachtas, it was not, possibly, discussed as objectively as it should have been. It was my hope that this proposal might have been accepted by the House unanimously. I feel that the stage has come when we should be able to examine questions of this kind objectively, irrespective of Party issues, and that this is eminently a measure which is capable of such an objective approach. I hope that gradually we will be able to evolve towards a political development that will enable a constructive approach to the various questions that arise.

As there was a good deal of criticism, not always of an objective nature, it may be well if, in addressing the House, I indicate at the outset a number of things which the proposed news agency is not intended to do. In the first place, it is not intended to be used for propaganda. I mean by that, for propaganda in a Party or a political sense. It will, of course, inevitably— and it is intended to do so—act as a medium of propaganda for the country as a whole because its main function will be to give news about Ireland and to place Ireland on the map from the political, cultural, economic and tourist point of view. In the second place, the news agency is not intended to enter the field of what I described in the Dáil as hot news competition. There was a good deal of play made in the Dáil as to what I meant by hot news. The term is understood in newspaper circles in America. It is not intended to cover such things as accidents, crimes, court trials, racing, stock exchange reports or even debates in the Oireachtas.

Mr. Anthony

They are usually very hot.

Mr. MacBride

They are sometimes, unfortunately.

Mr. Douglas

Senators will come off badly.

Mr. MacBride

Thirdly, it is not intended that the news agency should be the official mouthpiece of the Government. That is the function of the Government Information Bureau, and that function is very ably discharged by the Government Information Bureau. The Government Information Bureau has to issue official statements on behalf of the Government fairly frequently. Some of these statements may be of news value outside the country. Some of them may not be. The news agency will have to determine what particular statements are of news value and not present them to the world as bare official announcements that may be of no value at all.

A fourth misconception that I would like to correct—it is not intended that there should be a vast organisation. However much we might find it necessary or advisable, we are certainly not able to afford any kind of vast organisation and we have, therefore, to organise it on a modest scale.

Having got out of the way a number of things that it is not intended to be, I think it might be well if I stated very briefly what its purpose is. In the first place, its function would be to give accurate information and news concerning Ireland, concerning matters of a cultural interest, of a trade interest or of general interest which are calculated to promote goodwill towards Ireland, to promote tourism, to encourage the development of trade and cultural relations between Ireland and the particular country where the news is circulated.

Secondly, its function will be to give, where necessary, Ireland's viewpoint on political matters. If I may elaborate that somewhat: The House will remember that this country sent a delegation to the Council of Europe. The reports of what took place at the Council of Europe, of what the Irish delegates said and did, were circulated by foreign news agencies. We had no representatives there and, even if we had representatives there, these representatives would have been sending news only back to their own home papers here. But, as far as the rest of the world was concerned, the statements and actions of the members of the Oireachtas who represented Ireland at the Council of Europe were disseminated to the world through foreign spectacles, often of an unfriendly nature and often an unfriendly slant was given to what was said and done by members of the Oireachtas at the Council of Europe. That was largely due to the fact that we had nobody there to look after our news and to disseminate our news to the world afterwards.

Its third main function will be to negative hostile propaganda. We are subject to hostile propaganda from two different angles. In the first place, we suffer a good deal from complete distortion of news, some of which is intentional and some probably unintentional. It arises mainly from the fact that news from Ireland is in the main channelled through London and there it is sub-edited, read and sorted out by journalists, who may be very competent and often very impartial, but who do not know Ireland, who do not understand the various political issues here and who examine the position through the spectacles of a British journalist. The views of a British journalist and an Irish journalist on Ireland are two very different views.

Apart from that, I think we suffer also from deliberate distortion. One instance I mentioned in the Dáil the other day arose during the course of the elections in the Six Counties last year. Reports were circulated throughout the world describing how a number of meetings were broken up in Belfast. These meetings, as we all know, were Labour meetings and Nationalist meetings which were broken up by the Unionists, and, in particular, the House will remember that Mr. Beattie, who was one of the Labour candidates, was attacked at one of these meetings and that razor blades embedded in oranges were thrown at him. That particular piece of news was represented to the world as an instance of Unionist meetings being broken up by wild republican hooligans. Reports of that kind would not affect us here, because we know the facts only too well, but so far as people in America, Canada and Australia are concerned, they had no reason to doubt them. We tried to take steps to have the matter rectified and we got a very fulsome apology from the news agency concerned afterwards. They circulated a denial, but I did not see the denial published by any paper, although the original report was published probably by several thousand papers. In any case, as the House knows, a denial of that kind published a few days after never undoes the harm created by the original report.

That, very breifly, is the main purpose of the creation of this news agency. It is not really a new project. I referred in the Dáil to the fact that as far back, I think, as the beginning of this century, the late Professor Donovan received a letter from Roger Casement containing proposals for the creation of a news agency and suggesting—I have not got the letter here —that there was a young man who, he thought, would be very suitable for the post of running this news agency, which incidentally was to be run from Belfast. That young man was Bulmer Hobson. There have been a number of proposals from time to time for the creation of such a news agency. I think the editor of the Irish Times and a number of other journalists some years ago toyed with the idea but abandoned it because they felt that the expenditure involved would be too high and that it would take some time before it would become a paying proposition, if it ever did so.

I myself was involved also in a similar project and discussed it with the previous Taoiseach on a number of occasions. I found then that the previous Government were in favour of it and felt that it was necessary. The only difficulty that arose then was that they felt that there would be so much criticism from the then Opposition in the Dáil that it would probably nullify the good purposes which the news agency would achieve, if it were presented to Parliament in normal circumstances. These are some of the reasons which made me hope that it would have been possible to get agreement on this measure. I hope that in this House it may be possible to get agreement on it and it would be useful if at this stage, however late it is, a measure of this kind were passed unanimously by the Seanad.

The views of the previous Government on the project were conveyed to me in a letter written in November, 1945, in which the following passage occurs:

"The agencies abroad to which you refer were helped either without public debate or at the time when the state of politics in the particular countries left the Government free to do a good national act without it being made into a crime."

We feel that this is a good national act and we believe that, if the situation is examined objectively, it should be recognised by all Parties that the creation of such a news agency is nationally essential, and I would appeal again for the co-operation of all Parties in this measure.

Approaching the question of news agencies in a more general fashion, I should like to point out to the House that news agencies are of comparatively modern growth. In the past, international affairs, and indeed national affairs, were largely determined by Governments without consulting the people. International affairs were dealt with on the basis of diplomacy between States, between kings and their Ministers. It is really with the growth, first of all, of literacy that papers began to wield a considerable amount of influence.

Papers, at first, were small sheets which did not carry very much news from distant parts. We then had bigger papers, until we reached the stage where we had big national papers. At first, too, most of the papers had their own correspondents and they relied on sending out a special correspondent to another country to write up his impressions and to report them in very long detailed and usually very well-written articles; but gradually, with the increase in the interest displayed in news, some correspondents began to act for two or three papers, and news agencies began to grow.

The first news agency created in these parts was Reuters, which was started by a young man called Julius Reuter in 1851. He was a clerk in a shipping firm in London and he started by supplying commercial intelligence and information to other firms on a very restricted basis, sending out ten or 12 circular letters and getting payment for the information he supplied. That grew into the present organisation known as Reuters, but it was not until, I think, 1865 that it entered into the field of general news and a company was formed. It remained a private company until 1926, when the Press Association acquired a majority of its shares, and then a trust was formed in 1941. There is no doubt about it, that with the growth of democracy the need and the demand for accurate information grows in importance. If the people of a country, the public, are to determine questions of politics, questions of foreign relations, they must be supplied with information upon which to base their judgment. Countries were not slow in realising the importance of this and, therefore, began to build agencies from which news would emanate to the rest of the world and in that way be able to make the best impression they could concerning their own country. You get to the stage where practically every country in the world, certainly every country in Europe, has one or more national news agencies.

The method of contact between these news agencies and the Government of the country in which they operate varies greatly. Some are controlled and directed entirely by the Government, practically part of a Government Department; others are subsidised, and others are indirectly supported by the Government by getting various concessions, such as special facilities for official news releases, and so on, so as to give them a priority which enables them to have an advantage in competition with the rest of the world. We here, so far, have been an exception. We have not had a news agency of our own yet. We have a number of very able correspondents here who write for papers in other countries and for other news agencies but, nevertheless, the bulk of the news emanating from Ireland has to travel through foreign media and suffer as a consequence. In the Dáil I referred to some passages and adopted some passages from a number of articles dealing with the importance of news agencies in the modern world, and with the permission of the House, I should like to refer to some of these. There was an article published in The Round Table of June, 1937, at page 543 which deals with the importance attached to the distribution of news throughout the world.

It says:

"The problem of British publicity in the Far East does not stand alone. It has its counterpart in South America, and it is repeated in some form or another in North Africa, in the Middle East and on the Continent of Europe. The corollary of the open door in China was the open door in South America. But transmission costs and other conditions were adverse there to anything more than a very limited British service. Here is an extract from the speech delivered by the Prince of Wales after returning from his tour in 1931: ‘I would like to say a word about the position of the British news services to foreign countries, and I will, for example, take South America which was the last of the great continents I visited this year. There is no actual shortage of news in South America dealing with events in Great Britain and Ireland, and this country gets a very fair share of the space in the important newspapers, but, with the exception of a limited service of news sent to Argentina by Reuters, and except for a few special messages by their own representatives to a few papers, all news sent from England to Latin America is transmitted by non-British agencies. What is the result of this? The result is that by the time this news reaches the Latin American reader he sees us and our affairs through spectacles which are neither ours nor those of his own country. I most sincerely hope that some means can be found to increase the volume of purely British news to South America and I commend this particular matter to the attention of this association.'"

That is the end of the quotation from the speech made by the then Prince of Wales. In consequence of the Prince of Wales' intervention, a sustained effort was made to remedy the deficiency to which he drew attention, and some time later in another public speech His Royal Highness was able to say:

"‘I took the opportunity on my return last May to express my views to this country, and I emphasised the importance of supplying the great South American Continent with fuller and more accurate reports of what is going on here. Reuters have now established a daily news service to South America and, as regards Argentina, I am grateful to my friend, Jorge Mitre, of La Nation, and to the Buenos Aires Herald for co-operating most heartily in this scheme.’”

The article goes on to point out that despite various efforts made in 1931 by British news agencies the distribution of news, generally, still remained in the hands of a French news agency, the Havas News Agency, as it was then called, and points out the drawbacks that resulted from it to Britain. The whole quotation is worth reading and I would refer members of the House to it in the Dáil Debates, Volume 117, number 6, at pages 751 to 755. I am not going to trouble the House by reading it in full, but I think that any Senator who is interested in the importance which is attached to the distribution of news should find it of value. The Bill itself contains nothing very new or startling in its provisions. There is one provision which is, possibly, slightly unusual, but which I felt was necessary in the circumstances. It provides for the creation of an advisory committee representative of different newspaper interests.

I felt that such a committee would be of value to the news agency, and would be also a certain safeguard, politically, in the country to ensure that the news agency would not become the medium of propaganda for one political Party. I feel that, as far as possible, the news agency should keep itself aloof from political issues and that it would be of benefit if, as far as possible, it represented the views of the different papers here. I felt, therefore, that it was advisable to provide in the Bill for the setting up of an advisory committee.

I do not think there is anything very much more that I should tell the House. The Bill follows the pattern of most of the statutes passed by the Oireachtas setting up State-sponsored corporations. One point I would ask the House to bear in mind is that, so far, we are the only country in Europe, I think, without a new agency of its own. This Bill is intended to remedy that position and I hope that all Parties in the House will extend their co-operation to the enactment of this Bill.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Dála a lán Seanadóirí eile, tá mise in amhras faoi chuspóirí an Bhille seo agus níl mé sásta gur gníomhaireacht nea-spleách a cuirfear ar bun. Ach thógfadh sé na blianta fada é sin a fháil amach.

Is trua liom nach bhfuil teideal na gníomhaireachta seo i nGaeilge mar chuirfheadh sé sin cúis na teangan ar aghaidh. I gcás na gcomhlucht a cuireadh ar bun sul ar tháinig an Rialtas seo i gcumhacht bhí ainmneacha Gaeilge acu agus is mór an trua tús a chur leis an nós nua seo. Tá clú i gcéin ar an "Press Association" agus tá aithne air imeasc na bpáipéirí nuachta mar P.A. agus dá mbaintí úsáid as an seift chéanna i gcas na gníomhaireachta seo bheadh aithne air mar G.N.E. Anois féin, d'iarrfainn ar an Aire deireadh a chur leis an nós seo agus teideal as Gaeilge a thabhairt don chomhlucht nua. Tá súil agam go bhfeicfear don Aire, sul a mbeidh an chéad chéim eile os ár gcomhair, gur cheart teideal Gaeilge a bhaisteadh ar an gníomhaireacht agus teideal Gaeilge amháin.

An chéad rud eile a thugaim faoi deara, gur comhlucht Rialtais a bheas againn, comhlucht Stáit. Ní féidir liom gan gáire a dhéanamh nuair a thugaim faoi deara chomh cíocrach is a bhí daoine áirithe, sa Dáil go mór mhór, i bhfábhar comhluchta Stáit tar éis chomh minic is a bhí orainn éisteacht leo ag cur i gcoinne a leithéid beag nó mór. Sinne sa tSeanad, bhí orainn suí síos agus éisteacht lá i ndiaidh lae le daoine ag cur i gcoinne an Stát a bheith ag bunú comhlucht nó baint nó páirt a bheith ag an Stát lena leithéid. Is mór an t-athrú atá tagaithe orthu maidir leis an bprionsabal sin—mar ba phrionsabal acu é. Go deimhin, ó d'admhaigh mé i gcónaí go mbeadh ar an Stát cur isteach ar chúrsaí mar sin, agus ó tharla go bhfhuil sé ráite sa mBunreacht gur cheart don Stát a leithéid a dhéanamh, is maith liom an t-athrú meoin atá tagaithe orthu.

Rinne an tAire iarracht míniú a thabhairt dúinn cad iad na gnótha nach ndéanfar faoin mBille. Ba mhaith linn an t-iarracht a rinne sé a insint dúinn céard nach ndéanfar, ach ní dóigh liom go sásóidh sé muid maidir leis an imní atá orainn i dtaobh imeachtaí agus cuspóirí an Bhille. Cuireadh ceist air cheana féin cén sórt gnótha a dhéanfas an gníomhaireacht seo, cén sórt nuaíochta a scaipfear faoi choimirce na gníomhaireachta. Deir sé nach mbeidh sé i mbun propaganda. Is féidir a lán a rá faoi phropaganda politiciúil. Cén áit a tarraingeofar an líne maidir le propaganda poiliticiúil? Éistim cuid mhaith leis an radio, le Radio Éireann, le radio Shasana, radio na Fraince agus eile agus níl aon duine a chuirfeas ina luí orm nach mbíonn aon phropaganda ar bun ag na gníomhaireachta úd. Níl aon duine a chuirfeas ina luí orm nach mbíonn sé ar bun ag Radio Éireann féin. Is féidir leis an Aire a rá, an fhaid a labharfas an Taoiseach nó an tAire Gnóthaí Eachtracha, go gcaithfear áird faoi leith agus éisteacht faoi leith a thabhairt dóibh. Sin mar is ceart, ach cé déarfas liom nach ceart go dtabharfaí áird réasúnta ar a laghad ar an méid a bheas le rá ag lucht an Fhreasúra? Ní déantar é ar Radio Éireann agus ní déanfar é faoin mBille seo, táim cinnte den méid sin.

D'innis an tAire dhúinn nach mbaileofar, nach scaipfear "hot news." Ach cuirfear síos, deir sé, ar Chomhdháil na hEorpa agus ar imeachtaí na Comhdhála sin. Nach bhfuil an Chomhdháil sin chomh tábhachtach le rud ar bith a bheas ar bun san Eoraip nó i mór-thír an bith eile? Tá rud ar bith a dhéanfas an Chomhdháil sin chomh tábhachtach, chomh práinneach, nach féidir a rá nach "hot news" é. Rinne sé iarracht líne a tharraingt idir an rud is "hot news" ann agus nach ea, agus tá cliste glan air muid a shásamh ina thaobh. An méid atá ráite sa mBille fhéin an rud is tábhachtaí:—

"The principal function of the newsagency shall be to ensure the collection, dissemination, distribution and publication of news and intelligence inside and outside the State."

Cén sórt nuaíochta a táthar ag braith a bhailiú agus a scaipeadh taobh amuigh den Stát agus taobh istigh de? An méid is mó a bhí le rá ag an Aire féin, go mbainfí feidhm as chun cuntais bréagacha faoi Éire a cheartú. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil mórán brí sa mhéid sin. Más eolas a bhailiú agus a scaipeadh taobh istigh agus taobh amuigh den Stát atá i gceist, an é an rud atá ar intinn go mbaileofar aistí ar seo agus siúd agus go gcuirfear ar fáil iad do réigiúin coigríche? An é atá ar intinn go bhfoilseófar ó mhí go mí, ó ráithe go ráithe, ó bhliain go bliain irisí ar nós na hirise a chuireas Rialtas na Portingéile amach i dtaobh cúrsaí poiliticiúla, géilleagair, airgeadais, tráchtála, agus sóisialacha sa tír sin? An é an rud atá ar intinn go mbaileofar aistí mar a dhéanas Rialtas na Danmhairge agus a foilsítear i riocht irise agus a scaiptear ar fud an réigiúin sin? Mas é sin an méid atá ar intinn ag an Aire ba cheart é a rá linn agus is dóigh liom gur bé an rud is fearr a dhéanamh an coimisiún nó an coiste atá bunaithe maidir le gníomhaireacht cultúir a mhéadú agus coiste cultúir geilleagair agus sóisiala a thabhairt air agus ligint dó an obair atá ar intinn anseo a dhéanamh. Níor thug an tAire aon mhíniú sásúil dúinn ar céard díreach atá ar intinn aige maidir le cuspóirí na gníomhaireachta. Tá súil agam go gcruthnóidh an aimsir go bhfuil dul amú orm, ach níl muinín agam, beag ná mór, go stiúrófar an ghníomhaireacht seo chomh nea-spleách sin go sásóidh sé 90 faoin gcéad de na daoine.

Micheál Ó hAodha

Sásóidh sé muintir an Rialtais féin.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Go sásóidh sé cuid den Rialtas féin, fiú dá sásódh sé gach duine atá ar thaoibh an Rialtais, má fhágann sé an chuid nach bhfuil sásta leis an Rialtas mí-shásta i dtaoibh an bhealaigh ina mbaileofar agus ina scaipfear an t-eolas, bheadh sé éagórach.

Béidir, nuair a bheas an tAire ag tabhairt freagra orm, go mbeidh sé ábalta cur leis an méid atá ráite aige i dtaoibh cuspóirí an Bhille. Ní baileofaí, adeir sé, agus ní craobhscaoilfí eolas i dtaoibh dúnmharú ná imeachtaí cúirte. Is deacair dom a thuiscint céard a dhéanfas an ghníomhaireacht mura ndéanann sé mar a luaigh mé i gcás na Portingéile agus na Danmhairge, gan trácht ar thíortha eile.

An chéad rud eile go mbeadh spéis agam ann maidir leis an mBille, ná cén chaoi a n-oibreofar é, ó thaobh airgeadais. Tá an tAire ag brath ar Choiste Gníomhaireachta a chur ar fáil. Níl aon locht agam air. Tá sé ráite go gcosnóidh an Ghníomhaireacht ó £5,000 go £20,000 sa bhliain. Is cuma é sin agus má dheineann sé obair mhaith is beag an t-airgead é. Ach nuair a léim alt san mBille ag déanamh réitigh faoi aisíoc na n-iasachtaí a gheobhfaidh siad, agus céard a déanfar le díbhínní, bónais agus eile, ní fhéadaim gan ceist a chur ar an Aire cén bealach a n-oibreofar an gníomhaireacht ar chuma ar bith. An mbaileofar eolas agus an ndíolfar an t-eolas san leis na nuachtáin? Bhfuil aon tuairim ag an Aire cé mhéid daoine atá sásta clárú leis an ngníomhaireacht, mar bhaill nó mar shíntiúsóirí? An dóigh leis go bhfaighfí ioncam ar an mbealach sin? Mura gcreideann sé gur féidir leis ioncam d'fháil, ba cheart dó bheith cneasta linn agus a rá: "Nílim ag súil go bhfaighfear aon rud ón ngníomhaireacht; tá mé sásta an méid míle púnt seo a chaitheamh ar bholscaireacht ar mhaithe leis an dtír," agus é fhágáil mar sin. Ó thaobh an Ailt san mBille, déarfainn go gcuireann sé dallamullóg ar dhaoine, agus muran féidir leis meastachán réasúnta a thabhairt dúinn ar an dóigh ina n-oibreoidh an chomhlucht agus ar an ioncaim a gheobhaidh sé, déarfainn go mb'fhearr an t-alt d'fhágaint as ar fad.

Cén gnó a bheas ag an gCoiste nó ag an mbord comhairleach seo? Deir an tAire gur seift é lena chur in áirde nach mbeidh an ghníomhaireacht claonta le dream poilitíochta seachas dream poilitíochta eile. An chaoi a bheas an scéal anseo, beidh comhlucht ann, beidh cathaoirleach agus beidh stiúrthóirí ar an mbord. Nach ar an gcathaoirleach agus ar na stiúrthoirí a bheas sé de dhualgas an bord seo a stiúradh? Cén chaoi a n-oibreoidh siad? An mbeidh siad ann go hainmniúil nó an mbeidh cúram cinnte orthu? An dtiocfaidh siad le chéile ar an dóigh a dtagann bord ar bith le chéile, chun polasaí a leagan amach, ionas go leanfaidh an ghníomhaireacht é? An bord comhairleach, céard a dheanfas sé, cén chumhacht a bheas aige? Mar shampla, má abrann an bord go bhfuil sé mí-shásta le himeachtaí na gníomhaireachta, céard a tharlós? Sa mhéid go ndeireann an tAire gur srian é ar na stiúrthóirí ina gcuid imeachtaí, ionas nach dtiocfaidh siad amach go cinnte ar thaobh aicme amháin poilitíochta seachas aicme eile poilitíochta, is maith ann é.

Chomh fada agus a bhaineann sé le héifeacht na gníomhaireachta, níl muinin an-mhór agam as. Cuirfimíd eolas ar fáil; cén bharántas atá againn go bhfoilseofar an t-eolas sin? Mar adúirt an tAire fhéin, anois beag nuair a mheabhraigh sé dhúinn cás inar foilsíodh tuairisc bréige i dtaobh imeachtaí a tharla sna Sé Contaethe, chuir sé an éagóir in iúl do chomhairle nuachtáin agus isé toradh a bhí air go bhfuair sé leith-scéal uathu ach nár foilsíodh an ceartú go forleathan, gur foilsíodh i bhfos é agus gurb shin é an méid.

An gcreideann an tAire, agus cumhacht ag daoine eile ar ghníomhartha nuachtáin i gcéin, go n-éisteofar le rud ar bith adeireann an ghníomhaireacht seo, nó rud ar bith eile a gceapaimid é bheith tábhachtach é fhoilsiú? Mar adúirt an Teachta Pádraig Ó Caoilte sa Dáil, bhfearr dúinne go dtiocfamis suas go díreach pearsanta le muintir an domhain agus an scéal a chur os a gcomhair. Déarfaidh an tAire nach bhfuil sé sin indéanta. Tá sé indéanta. Deireann an tAire— dúirt sé sa Dáil é—nach bhfuil aon mhuinín acu as an radio. Tá mé cinnte go bhfuil dul amú ar an Aire. Mura gceapann nó mura gcreideann sé go bhfuil éifeacht sa radio gearrthonnach, nó rud ar bith eile mar sin, níl aon tuiscint cheart aige ar céard tá ag tuitim amach.

Tá fhios againn an méid a éisteann daoine leis an radio. Nach bhfuilimid a rá gach aon lá, agus ag casaoid, faoi chomh mór agus atá tionchar ag an radio ar dhaoine, ar mhuintir na hÉireann agus ar mhuintir tíortha eile? Deireann sé nach n-éisteann lucht páipéar le radio. Níl an ceart aige. Meabhraíodh don Aire sa Dáil go n-éisteann lucht páipéar le tuairiscí ag teacht ar an radio agus féadfaidh mise a rá leis, daoine nach lucht nuachtáin iad, daoine a bhfuil cúrsaí léinn, cúrsaí eolaíochta agus eile mar chúram orthu, éisteann siad go h-aireach le rudaí á craobhscaoiltear ar an radio.

An rud atá i gceist againn, tuairiscí cearta a chur amach i dtaobh na tíre seo. B'fhéidir nach mbeidh gach duine d'ár muintir fhéin ag éisteacht leis, nó b'fhéidir nach n-éisteoidh gach duine i gcéin leis an radio ach éisteoidh an oiread sin gur fiú é, má bhíonn caint ar bith i dtaobh na tire seo á craobhscaoileadh díreach ón tir seo, inseacht do dhaoine céard a bhíonn inár n-aigne.

Ní hé sin an t-aon bhealach amháin a d'fhéadfaimis tabhairt faoin scéal. Níos mó ná uair amháin mhol mé go gcuirfimis amach scoth an lucht léinn le dul amach ar fud an domhain agus inseacht do mhuintir an domhain céard atá ar bun sa tír seo, céard é an luí atá ag an tír seo leis seo agus siúd, agus céard é an tuairim atá againn faoi rudaí.

Ní fheicim cad na thaobh nach bhféadfaimis príomh-scoláirí na tíre d'ainmniú agus iarraidh orthu dul amach go dtí na Stáit Aontaithe, dul go dtí an Astráil, an Aifric, agus léachtaí a thabhairt sna hAcadaimh agus sna hOllscoileanna móra ar chúrsaí léinn, ar chúrsaí de gach sórt a bhfuil siad cáilithe lena n-aghaidh.

Nach ndéanfadh sé maitheas mór d'Éirinn, ó thaobh an chultúir, ó thaobh an gheilleagair, ó thaobh na náisiúntachta, dá gcuirimis daoine cáilithe í Matamaitic go Meiriceá, don Fhrainc, agus don Astráil, le léachtaí a thabhairt ar chúrsaí matamaitice agus ar an obair atá ar bun san Institiúid Ard-Léinn anseo i mBaile Átha Cliath agus, ag an am gcéanna, go bhféadfaidis teangmháil ní lena muintir fhéin, ach le scoláirí, le lucht paipéar, le daoine de gach saghas. Nach mó a dhéanfadh sé sin ná an rud amhrasach atá beartaithe againn anseo?

Nach ndéanfadh sé maitheas mór dá n-ainmnítí daoine a bhfuil cáilíochta acu sa litríocht, litríocht na Gaeilge chomh maith le litríocht an Bhéarla, agus iad sin do dhul amach agus teangmháil thar cheann na tíre leis na hollscoileanna agus na hacadaimh agus na daoine a bhfuil tionchar acu ina dtíortha féin, agus inseacht dóibh cén sórt daoine muid, céard iad na rudaí a bhfuil spéis againn iontu? Is dóigh liom gur mó go mór d'fhéadfaí tabhairt faoin scéal ar an mbealach sin—léachtóirí cliúiteacha a chur amach le teangmháil le lucht léinn, le lucht páipéar, ar fud an domhain. Ní chosnóidh sé pingin níos mó sa bhliain ná mar a chosnós an tseift seo. Déanfaidh sé i bhfad níos mó chun sinne a chur ar an léarscáil ná mar a dhéanfas an beartas atá i gceist sa Bhille seo.

Má ritear an Bille, tá súil agam go mbeidh an toradh air a cheapann an tAire a bheidh. Impím air, ar mhaithe le cúrsaí poilitíochta, le cneastacht phoiblí, féachaint chuige go stiúrfar an ghníomhaireacht go nea-spleách. Thairis sin níl aon ní le rá agam ar an mBille.

Mr. Crosbie

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

Mr. Crosbie

I must say that I personally welcome the introduction of this Bill. I welcome it because I am in complete sympathy with the motivating object behind it. I confess that while welcoming the Bill, like many other members of this House, I realise that this agency, when it is set up, will have to face a great many difficulties, and that until it is actually in operation we, as casual onlookers, discussing here, more or less in theory, the future workings and prospects of the Irish News Agency, might, perhaps, find it difficult to visualise a time when that agency will become a successful disseminator of Irish news all over the world, and will achieve the objects with which I feel every member of this House has the deepest sympathy.

I must also confess that I have been reading reports of debates on this Bill in the other House, and I was surprised and disappointed that a Bill with such a worthy object in view should have been made the subject of such adverse, and from the reports of what happened, purely obstructive, not to say malicious, criticism. I had hoped when the Minister brought this Bill into this House that it would have received, at any rate, much more sympathetic consideration from the opposite benches than it received in the other Chamber.

Again, I find a sense of disappointment, and I must say, a puzzled feeling, at the attitude adopted, presumably on behalf of the Opposition in this House, by Senator O Buachalla. The Minister, when introducing the Bill, explained very carefully to the House the objects behind it. I must take it that, whatever criticism may come from this or from any other side of the House, the object behind the Bill, to wit, the dissemination of accurate news about Ireland to the Press of the world, is one which must find sympathy in the minds and hearts of all of us.

I can sympathise to a certain extent with people who criticise the Bill on various grounds. I can even sympathise with the people in this House who have already taken the defeatist attitude taken by members of the other House, the defeatist attitude that says that this thing cannot work. I can sympathise with that attitude because, as I say, until the agency is actually in operation and until we have had an opportunity of watching its working over a period, it is very difficult to see exactly how it will work and with what success it will meet; but, in saying that, I would draw the attention of the House to this point, that, when one sets out on most enterprises of a nature such as this, there is always an element of doubt as to whether one's efforts will meet with success or failure, and if all of us were on all occasions in our everyday lives to say: "We will not embark upon this, because, if we do, it is foredoomed to failure", we would never embark upon anything.

I personally would like the members of the House to consider this effort by the Minister for External Affairs as being in the nature of a worthy and worth-while experiment, an experiment which none of us can say with any certainty will be successful, which perhaps none of us can say will be successful not in the first year but in the second year or which will not be successful until the fifth year. This is the kind of enterprise about which one cannot prognosticate the future with accuracy, but I feel that the outlook for this agency is by no means as gloomy as the prophets of defeatism would like us to believe.

In introducing the Bill, the Minister gave a short but interesting account of the histories of news agencies, and I think we ought to keep in mind that all the big news agencies existing to-day, the agencies with world-wide reputations, did not start as large and successful news agencies. They started, as the Minister pointed out, in a very humble way indeed—in the case of Reuters, through the efforts of one man, a clerk in a shipping office, who undertook to send commercial intelligence to certain correspondents in differents parts of the world. Out of that small beginning grew what is probably one of the most famous news agencies existing to-day.

If the Minister were to come to this House with a Bill under which he visualised a large immediate capital expenditure of £100,000 or £150,000, together with the setting up of elaborate offices and a large staff of journalists, with offices in foreign capitals inter-communicating by teleprinters, this House would be justified in saying to him: "You are starting on too big a scale and you are going to make this agency a failure, because you are starting at the top instead of at the bottom." This agency, it is quite clear from the Bill, is going to be started in a humble way and, while there will be mistakes and maybe failures, I feel that ultimately it will succeed in remedying some of the defects which at present exist in dissemination of Irish news to foreign newspapers and will ultimately build itself up and become a recognised agency, an agency in which newspapers both in this country and outside it will have faith. Once the agency gets to the stage at which it can convince the enterprising newspaper editor that its stuff is accurate and interesting, half the battle will be won.

That there is a need, and a crying need, for such an agency, for a greater knowledge and understanding of Irish affairs and of Ireland abroad, I think very few people will question. I have no doubt that many members of the House have had the irritation and annoyance when meeting people abroad of finding them holding extraordinary views about this country and its affairs. I, on one occasion, had what would have been the laughable, if it had not been such an irritating, experience of hearing an Italian citizen describe Ireland as an island in Scotland. I have no doubt that other members of the House have had similar, and, possibly, even more irritating, experiences.

As this debate continues, various aspects of the proposal in the Bill and the Bill itself will be criticised. As I have said already, I suffer from a sense of disappointment and of puzzlement by reason of the attitude taken by Senator Ó Buachalla. I gather that he has no faith in this agency, in the Minister or in the way the agency will work. What reason Senator Ó Buachalla has for speaking on behalf of the majority of the citizens I fail to understand. I cannot help feeling, if this Bill were being brought before this House by a Fianna Fáil Minister, that we would have heard a very different speech, indeed, from Senator Ó Buachalla. What amazes me most is that he opposes the principles lying behind the Bill. He wants to know what it is going to do. He wants to know what kind of news it will disseminate. Might I suggest to the Senator that he ought to have a little faith in the ingenuity of his fellow-country-men, particularly, of Irish journalists. They will manage to disseminate news, and if it cheers up the Senator, I would suggest that, in time, they might even succeed in getting some of those interesting speeches the Senator makes for us in this House published in the Fiji Islands.

Now, one of the things that I, particularly, like about this Bill is, first of all, that it proposes to start this agency on a modest basis. I do not think the sum of money which is being asked to start it is one at which any Irish Legislature should cavil. I must say that I think to start on this scale to give a clear and accurate picture of our country and its affairs to the foreign Press is an experiment well worthy of the initiative of the present Minister for External Affairs. It is fatally easy to criticise this Bill. It is easy to criticise an agency like this, which has not yet been started, and whose future still remains a matter of conjecture. What I have noticed is, that while a great deal of criticism has been levelled at this agency, no single piece of constructive criticism, so far as I have read the reports in the other House, has yet been introduced. The only effort at constructive criticism was a suggestion that, instead of having a news agency, we might adopt the same principle as the Swedish Legation here in Dublin by producing a small and very creditable monthly news bulletin. I give the Swedish Government full credit for the quality of that Bulletin, but I maintain that our circumstances are entirely different. Sweden has been an independent country, a country with a world wide repute for a very great number of years. As an independent country we are still, so to speak, in our infancy. We have, therefore, a lot of leeway to make up to put our case and our way of life before the peoples of the world. I do know it is quite fantastic to suggest that that object can be achieved alone, by such a monthly bulletin as the Swedish Legation produces here in Dublin. For one thing, I would ask Senators who, perhaps, have this bulletin in view as a model on which we can work to remember, that that bulletin is produced and presented to the privileged few. It is not on sale. It does not reach the ordinary newspaper reader, the person who is so often referred to as the "man in the street", and I doubt very much if the entire output of that bulletin each month reaches more than, perhaps, a couple of thousand people, and, at a couple of thousand, I feel I am, possibly, exaggerating the position. I should like to make this suggestion to the Minister when he sets up this new agency and also to this House, that for the first few years of this agency's existence that we ought to regard it as being in the experimental stages, that we ought not to expect, those of us who support this agency, we ought not to expect too much and too soon. We ought to be prepared for mistakes, for possible errors, but above all that the machinery of the agency and the directors of the agency should be prepared to work in an elastic way, if necessary changing their policy from month to month. It is only, in my opinion, by trial and error that they will ultimately discover the channel by which they can, first of all, make permanent contact with foreign newspapers. Once they have discovered that channel, once they get one or two, the rest will follow. I wish the agency every success. I think it is a national enterprise which comes not one moment too soon. I think the Minister is to be congratulated on his foresight, and on his courage, and I trust that the House will give the Bill a sympathetic hearing.

Mr. Summerfield

Whilst I do not subscribe entirely to all the expressions just used by Senator Crosbie, I want to say that I should very much like to endorse most of what he has said. I believe he has made a very reasoned case for a Bill which I personally, welcome. I think that this Bill is just one of those essentials to our political freedom. I do not see how we can even take pride in our political freedom if we are going to continue to be, in what to my mind, is the humiliating position that news concerning us is to be given to the world from what, I am going to call, tainted sources. Unfortunately, if we are realists, we have to admit, that much of the news given to the world about us is given by people who even yet regret the fact that we have attained the degree of political freedom we have got, and who still are not slow to use their machinations and this tainted propaganda, so as to get them back into that position of privilege and power that we hope has gone for ever. I have been abroad, and I say that it was with a sense of shame, like that of other Senators who spoke in the same vein as myself, that I found a complete ignorance of this country and of the position we occupy in the world. It is not ignorant people who hold these views; it is people whom we are accustomed to call well-informed. It is a fact that almost every news item about Ireland is given out abroad in a distorted form or in a form which is a half truth and, as everyone knows, the half truth can be more damaging than the direct lie.

I regard this news agency proposal as something that we must try out to combat the slanders which have been spread abroad about us. My only doubt and anxiety is caused by the modest way in which the Minister seeks to establish this agency. As a business man I view with concern the limitation of its capital resources. I subscribe to the views of all the other Senators who feel that the objective we seek to attain is one in which the means should not be questioned by anyone who takes pride in our national position. We must do everything we can to remove the sources of wrongful news. This news agency which we are asked to establish may be able to do it, but only time will tell. I welcome the Bill and I think that we in the Seanad should give it our blessing. I hope it will bring about the changes we so ardently desire.

Professor Fearon

While many of us are agreed that this agency can be of immense value to us, and to posterity, there are certain aspects which should be considered as to the functions of the agency in regard to the collection and dissemination of news and intelligence. A Government-sponsored agency would have immense influence in the collection of news. It should also ensure verification of the news. It should make sure that what was published was true. We all know the type of propaganda which was sponsored during the war by various European agencies and we found out how much of it was untrue. If our prospective news agency is to build up a reputation it must build up a reputation for publishing only what is true.

I believe that a very high standard of reportage should be aimed at from the start. If that is achieved the news agency will justify itself, but on this question of the collection of news it has been stated that we wish to avoid competition with our present most representative news papers. The next question is the collection of news. Obviously, the news will have to be selected for various purposes. This is a Government-sponsored organisation and the ideal is to keep it out of Party control. One imagines that that can be done by the board of directors which the Minister proposes. But does that leave it out of the control of the Oireachtas? I was struck by the Minister's phrase about the need for spreading information growing in step with the growth of democracy. There should be bulletins, we have been told, like the bulletins issued in different countries. It seems to me that some of the bulletins we see degenerate into giving social and rather trivial information, instead of facts about the immediate events of the country concerned. Is there any check which the Oireachtas can impose on the bulletins we may issue? It should be possible to devise a method whereby the information is checked by the Oireachtas. As representatives of, indeed, a very democratic democracy we should, as it were, have our ear to the telephone, listening.

I am afraid the news agency may fall between the collection of news which will bring it into competition with various papers and the selection of news which may place it as a weapon in the hands of political Parties, but I imagine that if there is competition with existing news agencies, the best news agency will eventually win. It is to be expected that a Government news agency will have the first news on the spot.

Undoubtedly, this news agency will be used for propaganda. That is in progress at the present time in all countries, and the propaganda is of various types. A lot of it is incompatible with our ideas of liberty and democracy; a lot of it is extravagant and absurd. A lot of it is unwise, and I have in mind a certain strip cartoon appearing in a well-known Sunday newspaper which depicts the events in the lives of two republican children and their misfortunes. I do not know if that kind of propaganda is going to help us on the other side of the Border. If this agency is to collect and select news it will have to be very circumspect. My limited experience of foreign countries shows me that only things that are sensational from here are mentioned in newspapers. I have in mind some silly episodes which were given greater prominence in foreign newspapers than straight news. Our aim should be to secure the collection of news of the best quality and to have it verified so that the name behind the news agency will stand for a good agency. There is also this question, as I have said, of the selection of news and the danger of it becoming one-Party sided so that we would not know whether we were betwixt or between.

Mr. J.T. O'Farrell

There is nothing revolutionary about this Bill. As the Minister has pointed out, there are many precedents for it. I believe the opposition which has developed to it is only the normal opposition which any Government proposal will evoke from the other side of the House.

There is also of course the profound faith in some that anything which is not done by purely private enterprise is bound to be a failure. This news agency can, in my humble opinion, be a success in accordance with the statesmanlike and businesslike manner in which it is handled. If, for instance, it starts largely as a medium for voicing our grievances to the world it is bound to fail and to be looked upon purely as a narrow and nationalistic way of asking the rest of the world to forget their worries and woes in order to listen to ours which must be greater than those of any other land. The rest of the world has too many worries of its own to expect them to lay them aside in order to think of our one and I think only conflict with another country. A nation with a grievance is like a man with a grievance, a bore often avoided even by his own friends. We hope that when this news agency comes into being we will go slow, for a while at all events, on the propaganda. Propaganda is of no possible interest to the people of other lands. I am sure there is a fairly large fund of information cultural, social, economic and historical, that can be conveyed through the news agency to the people of other lands in a manner that will be readable and of interest, information that might make them want to come to see Ireland as tourists. That will require to be written in a way that is not too obviously propagandist. The type of material that we have been publishing, at least in the form of pamphlets and speeches, recently seems to me to be deplorable in many respects and lacking in that national dignity which we should have in a dispute with another country, no matter what country. I hope that the news agency will adopt a high standard in the statement of our case when it does turn to political matters that will be a credit to the country and avoid in all cases exaggeration and overstatement.

If there is one thing the news agency could do in the dissemination of Irish news that would appeal to me, it would be to kill that appalling creation, the stage Irishman. I do not know how it is, but journalists of every country who come here think that they must describe some fantastic and extraordinary experience that they would never experience in their own country and that we never experience here. Our American friends are the worst offenders in that connection. I read of an account which was published in a paper in California where a public park was described and judging by the description it was St. Stephen's Green. We were told that there was a pond there on which there was a lot of fowl of various kinds. There was a notice prohibiting anybody from annoying the wild fowl but, it said, in true Irish fashion beside the notice there was a large table covered with paper bags of stones which were sold to the little boys at 2d. each to fire at the wild fowl to entertain them and the best marksman was the man whose business it was to safeguard the wild fowl on the pond. Just imagine that sort of statement being cabled from here by a visiting journalist. The paper in which this account appeared commented that they hoped that those bags of stones would be retained to fling at the next American journalist who disembarked at Collinstown.

If it can kill that sort of news about Ireland certainly this enterprise will be worth while. A lot of this stage-Irish stuff is not done designedly or mala fide. They feel that they are in some way representing the true soul and spirit of Ireland. Some of these appalling proposals made by Americans to bring across the Blarney stone together with a detachment of Irish soldiers and certain Ministers and to sell the kisses for the purpose of raising a monument to Ireland and America make any Irishman blush because it makes us a sort of Tír na nOg. If in the manner in which we present news we can kill that idea we will do good service. To the extent we exaggerate, overstate or try to convince the world that we are God's own chosen people and that every nation owes us a debt that it will never be able to repay, to the extent we constantly plead our rights with very little mention of our responsibilities, it will become a propagandist and Government news agency in which no serious journal will take an interest and it will be a failure. I take it, however, that the Minister with his training and outlook will try to inspire the news agency to do its duty with dignity and courage and not be merely a propagandist agency of the type one is accustomed to in the Balkans. We want the truth to get out and if the truth, unadorned and without overstatement, is presented to the world then neither politically, culturally or otherwise have we any cause to be ashamed.

Mr. Douglas

I intend to be very brief. I do not know anything about news agencies and I do not know whether this particular news agency will or will not be able to do all we would like it to do, but for the past 30 years I have continually suffered intense irritation at the Irish news I have seen abroad in America and on the Continent. Whether we can remedy that or not remains to be seen. It will not be done at once, but surely to goodness it is worth a try. The tragedy of the kind of opposition to this Bill is not that many people showed a certain amount of cynicism, which is not unnatural or perhaps unreasonable. When this is going to be done as an experiment should we not get behind it, assist it and give it ideas to try to do something to correct a good deal of the evil which undoubtedly exists. I remember that during the Treaty debates I was in the U.S.A. I particularly did not want to talk any politics. My business there was to thank the people for the magnificent gifts that had been given for relief and assistance. I was interviewed by a journalist and I tried politely and quietly to tell him why I did not want to be interviewed. He listened quite politely and then told me crudely that his job was to interview me and that if I did not give it he would write it himself. I am sure he meant it and I had to think out something to say that would not do any harm under the circumstances. I am sure that some of the bad and inaccurate information that goes out is partly because we do not provide information and these people have to write a story themselves often with unreliable and scant information. I hope that it may be the job of the news agency if it is established and particularly if it gets a good reputation to assist journalists who visit here and feel they must send out a report but who have not the time nor opportunity to verify certain matters. That would be a very useful function for such a news agency.

There is another matter in that connection which irritated me. As Senators know, I am very much interested in the development of the Council of Europe. I happened to be in France, in the Basque country, during the time the council was meeting. I naturally tried to get information as to what was happening and I bought an unusual number of French and English papers. I could not get any Irish ones. Normally, I do not have them sent out to me but look through them when I get back. First I could get no information but I came across some reports in the English papers and one short reference in a French paper with the result that I got the impression—I will not say I believed it because I did not—that the Irish delegates refused to take any part in the business of the Council of Europe except to discuss Irish Partition, which would have been, if it had been true, to my mind a completely fatal policy. I think it was perfectly correct to raise the Partition issue if, when you went to the Council of Europe, you were prepared to take full, adequate and proper part in all the proceedings.

This is something on which a completely wrong impression exists, the only impression which persons abroad could get, as far as I could find out. Of course, I did not read all the French papers, but I bought a good many. In the course of my buying the papers, to my great delight I saw an article on Ireland in one and I thought there might be something in it. When I read the article, I found that the writer had visited Ireland a few weeks before. He said that he had some excellent steaks in the hotel, that all the young Irish people love the French, that the majority of them were learning French —the latter part being an advertisement for a French teacher here—and all credit to her, as she does teach some 300 people—that Walt Disney was in Ireland looking for a leprechaun and that the only one he could find was when he visited the Phoenix Park and saw his Excellency. That was all I could get about Ireland in a French paper. That is no exaggeration, only a simple fact. These are only a few specimens which can be quoted. I would not worry too much about the one which said that Ireland was an island in the middle of Scotland, as that was absurd and could do comparatively little harm. It is those which are 75 per cent. accurate and 25 per cent. misleading, or 50 per cent. accurate and 50 per cent. misleading, that do the greatest amount of harm.

I was particularly glad to hear what Senator Fearon said. I think that what is most important, at the beginning, to meet with immediate success, is to establish a reputation for accuracy. If you have inaccurate statements going out from your news agency, you might damn it for ever. That is of the greatest possible importance.

I hope that it may be possible for the agency to send out news in relation to the problem of Partition of a somewhat different character from that which goes out at the moment. I think what we want, and what I believe would go more towards eventually helping to end Partition, would be Irish news of the extent to which Ireland is one, which is a very great extent. Instead of emphasising, by the information that goes out, the fact that we are divided, we should give as far as possible news, statistics, figures, for the whole of Ireland and then regretfully point out they are divided into two. We should try, for instance, where it is possible, to give trade figures for the whole of Ireland. I would give the trade figures for the whole of Ireland and I would try to get the idea over that Ireland is an entity, not two pieces.

We find perfectly friendly people who have no idea that we are anything but a set of cranks, because they really think there are two Irelands; and it is not very easy to explain it satisfactorily. A great deal of that is due to the fact that any news there is about Ireland is news of two Irelands. For that reason, I rather hope we may be able to get over the idea that we have a great many common interests, that we do co-operate in almost all matters relating to religion and in a good many matters with regard to sport and other things. For example, most of our scientific and cultural societies are all-Ireland societies. I think that idea could be got over and I suggest it would do a great deal to counteract, I do not say the pro-Partition propaganda, but the beliefs people have which make it very difficult for them to understand the point of view we have been putting over up to the present.

I do not propose to criticise the details of the Bill, because I recognise that, no matter what Minister introduced it, it would have to be largely experimental. There is, however, one small point which I would like to refer to here. I raised this several times when the last Government was in office. I feel that, when we are creating these State companies, we should see if we cannot create some machinery which would take the place of the shareholders' meeting. This is not a new idea. I believe it is one which would apply, not perhaps to all, but to most of the State-owned companies. It seems to me that it is not enough to say that, on certain occasions or on certain Votes, these can be debated in the House. The suggestion I, for one, would like to make again is that it might be considered as to whether there could not be joint committees of both Houses appointed, which would meet once a year and take the place of the shareholders' meeting. In other words, there would be a joint committee for the News Agency Bill and the directors, apart altogether from the ordinary contacts that they would have with the Government, would present their report and questions could be asked, not on Party or political lines, but in the same way as they are raised at an ordinary shareholders' meeting. I know there might be certain difficulties and until it was tried to see how it worked one could not be quite certain. It would require a certain amount of non-Party co-operation and it might be better not to start with a Bill like this, on which there has been a division on Party lines. It could be started, possibly, with some of the other State-owned companies.

The essential requirement would be that the Committees chosen would consist of people with, as far as possible, specialised knowledge and also they would be people with ordinary common sense and business experience who could act in the place of shareholders. If there was a resolution sent from that meeting or committee, it should then come before the House. Normally, it would be just like a shareholders' meeting, at which questions might be asked. There seems to me to be a gap somewhere, a lack of some measure of that kind to provide for democratic examination into State undertakings. I put this forward, not as irrelevant to the Bill, as it is something that might apply to this particular Bill, though I am not suggesting that this would be the best Bill in which we might start the idea.

Mr. S. O'Farrell

The Minister asked that this Bill might be supported unanimously, and I think it will get that support, as very little of the criticism here is really destructive or opposed to the principle of the Bill. With the principle of the Bill I think everyone must agree. I have heard it said that we should go in for truth and not for propaganda, but the finest propaganda is the truth, and I do not think the Minister had in mind anything but truthful propaganda. Propaganda or the dissemination of facts about the country is almost as necessary to-day as the maintaining of a defence force. Wars are taking new shapes and wars are even now being fought—wars of publicity and wars of propaganda—and this country, almost alone in the world, has been deprived of that weapon, if it is a weapon. What the world knows about us up to the present the world learns, as has been suggested, through alien agencies. We have no direct contact with the newspapers of the world from this side, or from this country. Any news that leaves here for any agency or for any paper is filtered out of the country through some existing newspaper or agency and is coloured and prepared to accord with the agency's requirements and not with the truth. If I am a representative for a news agency abroad, they tell me the type of news they want; and anything other than that they will not print, and what they will not print they will not pay for. Therefore, leaving my moral standards out of it altogether, as a journalist who has to live, if I want to earn my living that way, I must supply what they want— and it is supplied to them. In the same way, the news of the world that we get through any agency comes filtered in to us through a foreign agency. We do not get the truth, unless we get it from some Government source abroad, some Government agency. Otherwise, it is likely to be coloured. We may want to avoid the news that made my namesake blush—though he blushes too easily; the story of the ducks in the Green or the kissing of the Blarney Stone would not make me blush for the Irish—it would make me blush for the people on the other side of the Atlantic who expect to get that type of news in their papers and who read it with avidity. Because a certain type of people over there want that type of news it is supplied to them. It is being supplied to them in every country to-day. We want an agency which will give the truth, even the truth about Partition, whether it is unpalatable to people in this country or outside it.

There is nothing any Irishman could object to in the principle of the Bill. It is long overdue. The Minister pointed out the efforts that had been made and the hopes that were entertained long ago about starting some sort of propagandist news agency to put this country's case before the world, to put its ideas before the world, to advertise it, to keep it in the news. I may mention one effort that was attempted in 1933. An agency called the Irish News and Information Bureau was set up. It was not a Government sponsored bureau but the Government of the time looked with a kindly eye on it. I had a small part in it. We had not the resources. We could not get our propaganda over. We had neither the staff nor the facilities. It is only a Government that can put over an agency of that sort at the present time.

Reference has been made to Swedish propaganda in this country through a journal issued by the Swedish Legation. Does anybody think that that is all the Swedish Government does by way of propaganda? That is purely a local thing. The Swedish Government have a propaganda agency of which this is merely a local subsidiary. If it issues a monthly or quarterly bulletin, similar bulletins are issued through the legations in other countries.

Mr. MacBride

If I may interrupt the Senator, the Swedish Government, through its Legation, issues a monthly bulletin but, in addition to that, and quite apart from that, there are two official Swedish news agencies dealing exclusively with newspapers. The good bulletin that is sent out here is merely issued by the Legation.

Mr. O'Farrell

That is the point I am making. I am glad the Minister has supported me. That is purely a local thing and does not represent the Swedish Government's attempt to put over its propaganda.

I do not think there is any need to go over the ground that has been covered about the need for a news agency. As I hope the Bill will get the assent of the House and that there will not be a long debate on subsequent stages, I will say that the only suggestion I will make is that the news agency, if it is to be a success, ought to be run by competent people, people who are in the habit of handling news, people who are in the habit of preparing matter for publication. There is nothing in the Bill that obliges the Government or the board of directors to employ journalists. I am sorry the Minister is leaving the House at what seems to me the most important criticism. No doubt he will be informed of it when he returns. It is stated in the Bill that a board of directors must be set up. The only qualification a member of the board of directors needs to have is that the Minister hands him at least a one-pound share, for which he is not even asked to pay. That is the qualification to be a director of the Irish News Agency. Remorse of conscience set in in the draftsman's office and, in Part III, as an afterthought, they put in a clause to the effect that an advisory board may, by order, be established to advise and assist the news agency in the conduct of its functions as and when requested by the managing director.

A managing director and colleagues may be put in who know absolutely nothing about publications, propaganda, news collection or distribution. They may be completely at sea in the whole matter for which they are undertaking responsibility and a proviso is inserted that they may or may not consult experts if they wish. If it is even possible that they will need expert advice, it is still more desirable that there should be experts on the board of directors.

I would like to be sure that the people who are put in as directors will know the job that has to be done and how to set about it. If they know that, they will know that it can only be done properly by properly trained journalists. There is a tendency to imagine that anybody, at a moment's notice, can become a journalist. A man or woman can write a book, poetry or a play without any training. A journalist may do any of these things but a playwright, a poet or author, by the mere fact that he is a playwright, a poet or an author, is not necessarily a journalist. Journalism requires special training and special qualifications. It is a profession apart from the others and only professional people should be employed in the news agency.

I am glad that they are not civil servants who will be employed. If it were intended to employ civil servants, arrangements would be made in the Bill for the recruitment of the staff. Since it is not provided for in the Bill, I presume that the staff will be employed in the ordinary way and, if they are employed in the ordinary way for a news agency, they should be journalists and they should be paid the salaries that competent journalists in news agencies in cities comparable with this and that journalists on daily newspapers are paid. I would like an assurance from the Minister, therefore, that when the necessity for a news agency is realised, when it is admitted by everybody and emphasised by the Minister, when everybody sees the difficulties that face it and the long period of but limited success that is likely to lie ahead, at least he will not handicap it by employing any but the most competent people.

Mr. Ireland

All speakers have agreed with the principle of this Bill and the necessity for it. I welcome it as a Belfast man and as a journalist of a kind. I am a free-lance journalist, it is true, but I have had experience in trying to write about Ireland both in English and American papers.

First, about the Belfast part of it. I do not think that even this news agency will succeed in giving us very much information through the channels in the Six Counties that I am referring to. I am referring, for instance, to one well-known newspaper in Belfast. I happened to be at the formal declaration of the Republic in Easter Week, 1948. I was most interested to read in this Belfast newspaper that "a few groups of citizens gathered in Sackville Street" on that occasion. I do not think that even this news agency will get anything through those channels.

If it cannot do very much to alter our existing channels inside the Six Counties, it certainly could give information about the Six Counties and it could convey to the rest of the world that the Six Counties are not the solid block that so many people elsewhere seem to think, however Unionist and Protestant. Actually, I should think the figures are running very nearly 60 to 40 per cent. If even that information were conveyed by this news agency, that in itself would be an extremely useful function.

I think Senator Douglas made an excellent point and I warmly support what he said that information about all Ireland should be given by this agency. When issuing particulars I also suggest that the Department of Education should give particulars about the whole of Ireland. By doing that we would be creating a new line on Partition and for that reason I want to support warmly what Senator Douglas said.

Take the linen trade, which I know best, because it is my family business. If we could give information about that trade we should underline the fact that it is not completely confined to the Six Counties. It may be predominant in the Six Counties, but it is not really a Six County industry, a fact which people in the Six Counties acknowledge. It may not be known to this House that recently an attempt was made to popularise the word "Ulster" instead of Northern Ireland. It got to the stage when the official name of Northern Ireland would be "Ulster", but the project was then defeated as a result of a great deal of lobbying behind the scenes on the part of those who call themselves Ulster linen industrialists. They wanted to keep the word "Irish" associated with Ireland's linen industry. A great deal of information could be given by this agency about the country as a whole, while officially underlining the importance of the linen industry, both in the Twenty-Six Counties and in the Six Counties where it predominates, to people who otherwise would know only Ireland as a country with colleens, round towers, wolf dogs and so on.

As to my experience as a free-lance journalist who writes for English and American newspapers, I discovered, to my sorrow, many years ago, that you could not write about Ireland in English newspapers, unless you made out that everything that happened in this country was comic. I hope this new agency will be one means of destroying that picture. It has been stated that a lot of such an agency's work would find its way into the waste-paper basket. That might have happened a few years ago but the position is not the same to-day. Ireland is now in the news in America and Partition is in the news. Ireland is now figuring nearly every day in discussions in America.

I think this Bill is much overdue, that it is far-seeing, and that it was time to do something of this kind. I agree with Senator Fearon and other Senators that we must not attempt to say that we are God's choesn people or anything like that. That would defeat the purpose of the Bill.

Mr. H. Dockrell

I wish to underline the plea for verification of all news that will be sent out. Looking around one sees the necessity of verifying news sent out to the world. Glancing at an evening newspaper I noticed a paragraph which stated that a birth that occurred 29 years ago had recently been registered. I did not know that it was possible to have that done. If it is, I can foresee some considerable alterations in the records. However, I very much doubt if it could be done. I suppose it was of interest to foreign countries when they learned that America was making a bid for the Blarney Stone. In the dissemination of accurate news it should be one of the duties of this agency to point out to people in foreign countries, that the Blarney Stone could be kissed quite carelessly. Large numbers of people are unaware of that fact. I desire to emphasise what previous speakers said, that what the world wants is sound, accurate, commonsense news about this country.

Professor Stanford

I wish to support this Bill. Its purpose is I think beyond cavil. As the Minister is enthusiastically for it, firmly based on his practical experience, I think we should let him have it. I should like to offer some comment which I hope will be considered constructive. In Section 6 I find that the name is the Irish News Agency. It is a little unfortunate that there is a well-known Irish newspaper called the Irish News. There might be a little confusion on that point. It could not very well be called the Irish Press Agency or the Irish Independent Agency, though it could be said to be a Government Agency. I feel that there may be a certain amount of ambiguity, especially in the Six Counties, when they read about the Irish News Agency. However, it may be a trifling point and I will not dwell on it.

A much more important point is involved in Section 7. This criticism was raised in the Dáil and I think there was a tendency to brush it aside as destructive criticism. I do not think it was. It is a very serious question whether this Bill will hit professional journalists or not. There seems to be a dilemma involved. The agency will either produce the kind of thing that journalists do not want and editors will not print, or it will be in competition with professional journalists. I honestly think that there is that dilemma—either it will be hot or hard news or it will be cold and soft news. If the agency is wisely handled, it may be able to steer between the horns of that dilemma, but it is something that will have to be watched with very great care. Otherwise, the interests of a very important profession amongst us will be harmed.

I see that under Section 18, subsection (3), the advisory board shall consist of, amongst others, newspaper editors, and here I should like to raise again the point which Senator O'Brien has raised in this House before. Will these gentlemen be paid for their services on the advisory board? I think the time has come when we must consider that question very fully. These will be professional journalists. How can they be expected to sit on an advisory board and give professional advice and the whole resources of their skill without any payment? I urge the Minister to consider whether there could not be some definite scale of payment for each visit of the professional journalist to the advisory board. I think it is rather like asking a doctor to perform an operation free, because it is for the sake of the Government or for the sake of the country. It is asking too much in some cases. However, I am sure it will be considered further.

I agree with Senator Crosbie that we must not expect too much quickly. Perhaps I might confirm his experience abroad by mentioning that, a few months ago, when I was in Brittany, I was talking to a French lady and she asked me where I came from and I said: "Ireland." She said: "Oh, yes; Jersey, Guernsey and Ireland? N'est-ce pas?” It set one back a little. Again, during the ten days I was in France, I looked very carefully for references to our country, and, believe me, the only printed reference I saw was in a programme of the Comédie Francaise which referred to “le grand romancier, Jonathan Swift.” Dean Swift was the source of the only reference to Ireland I met in perhaps 500,000 words of print, if not more, so I feel that something must be done.

I suggest, however, that the old sophisticated, self-satisfied countries, will on the whole not be interested at first. Let us turn to the young, progressive, newly-independent countries, like India, Pakistan, Israel and Egypt. These countries are eager for our news. They are ploughing the same furrow as we are ploughing, and if we concentrate on these first and leave the more sophisticated, more blasé, well-established countries alone for a while, we will do more good.

I feel that there is this risk of harming professional journalists in the Bill. I know that the agency will do everything in its power to avoid it, but I suggest a broader aspect of the whole problem which might balance that risk. I think that, besides more Irish news abroad, we need more Irish journalists abroad. If we could place our journalists, with a loyalty to their native land, in the main capitals of the world, or send them out on travels or visits, we would do as much as sending out mere print could ever do. I seriously suggest to the Minister that, if he possibly could, by way of a kind of compensation for any possible damage that might be done to professional journalists, he should do all he can to help the training and progress of professional journalists in this country. I feel that it is a neglected profession in many ways. It is a most influential profession, but it has no great training centres and very little encouragement. The rising journalist has a very difficult struggle at the beginning, and the result is that a good man is often discouraged.

If the Minister could see his way, either within the framework of this Bill or somehow else, to give journalists some encouragement by facilities for a wider training, for being sent abroad, sent to the universities or something of the kind, he would be making a generous gesture and showing that he had no intention whatever of harming them, that, on the contrary, he wished to help them. I should like to emphasise that the bill in the financial sense is moderate and the cause beyond cavilling, and I support it warmly.

Mrs. Concannon

The objects of the Bill have, I think, received universal approval, but, curiously enough, for the Bill itself, apart from the objects, there has been tempered enthusiasm, both outside and inside the Oireachtas, together with a good deal of scepticism. In my opinion, that is largely due— although I do not like to criticise the Minister—to the Minister himself. He did not stage-manage it well, if I may use the phrase without offence. In the first place, we do not understand exactly how this peculiar kind of news agency is going to work, and that makes us ask questions.

A good many of us have never seen all these Government publications, and I think that, before the Bill was presented to either House, arrangements should have been made for some of the better publications of foreign news agencies to have been put in the Library, with an intimation that they were to be seen there. We would then have a good idea of what we were aiming at and I think it would have put more enthusiasm into our support of the Bill.

When the agency gets started and the first bulletins, or whatever they are called, are issued, I hope that arrangements will be made to send them to members of the Oireachtas. We could in this way keep an eye on them and could check on whether there was any tendentious material or unfair political propaganda—and at the back of a good many people's minds there is the fear that it might develop into a propagandist agency—in them. It might also be a good idea if people were encouraged to send to the agency their ideas of what news should be treated, just as, while this debate was in progress, I was thinking how interesting it would be to the nations of Europe to learn that in our universities we now receive a good many Poles and other people who, in Galway, have made a wonderful impression. They are a grand body of boys, full of ardour for their work, who have already done a good deal to stimulate our own young men.

So far, we are working in the dark and have no clear idea of what is aimed at in relation to this news agency. We have no idea of what the return will be for the spending of £25,000. It is a very small sum. How far will that go? We do not know how far it will go and we do not know anything at all about the machinery. It seems to me fantastic the way it appears in the Bill, but that is my ignorance of this kind of Government sponsored companies. They should have a clear idea of what sort of stuff was to be sent out. Could not the Minister arrange that we got a model bulletin or whatever you are going to call it? Another question is, in what language is it to be issued? Will there be a French edition, as well as the language of Europe, and will there be Irish in it? I certainly think that it should have an Irish name. As the Bill stands it is there as the English, and as Senator Stanford has pointed out, that is likely to lead to a complete misunderstanding. If we put it in the Irish it would immediately attract attention. It should be the old Irish name and not this modern language at all. Everybody that knows of good and beautiful things to send out should help the agency by sending to it items, such as I have already suggested. It is quite evident to everybody who has gone abroad that we need something to tell the people about Ireland.

I will end my small contribution to this debate by one experience of mine. It was in the Franciscan year, 1936, and a large Franciscan pilgrimage from Ireland had arrived in Venice. There was great confusion on the platform and everybody wanted to know where we came from. Somebody did not roll their r's and the people on the platform asked were we not Orlando, meaning Dutch. I said then, rolling my r's, "Irlande", and they immediately replied: "Irlande, Dublina, de Valera".

Mr. Ruane

I should like to endorse the welcome given to this Bill by several speakers. I know that the Minister in introducing it made an unanswerable case for its adoption. He pointed out very clearly, and simply, what the Bill proposes to do and what it does not propose to do. A great Irishman, now no more, one time when commenting on the malicious propaganda circulating against his country, and on the efforts made to cast aspersions on the aspirations of people struggling to be free, stated that this country was surrounded by a paper wall, on the outside of which was written distorted versions of occurrences in this country and propaganda, directed against the country's best interests. Since the advent of national Government there had been gaps put in this paper wall but, as the Minister has pointed out, even in 1949, incidents that happened in the Six Counties were given a version, certainly, not in accordance with fact. This Bill is designed to prevent occurrences of that kind. It is a defence against such attacks, and when it starts to operate, it will be a defiance against every disreputable, or even reputable journalist who may continue to disseminate falsehoods, because it would be an instrument to prove his allegations false. I think that at a time when the Partition of this country, the unnatural division of our country, has become a very live question abroad and, perhaps, I should say in regard to that, that whereas all the Ministers of this State and in each of the Governments we have had since the advent of national independence, have at all times used their positions when the opportunity permitted to stress the injustice of the unnatural division of our country, the Minister present has lost no opportunity to protest against the injustice to this country that the unnatural boundary is. I think another argument in favour of this news agency is the fact, that practically every country in Europe at the present time has such an agency, and while I do not for a moment favour the adoption of foreign customs in every respect, I think in this matter that what is good for these countries that have long enjoyed their independence should, certainly, be good for the Irish Republic. I believe myself once this Bill becomes law, and the agency gets under way, that the wisdom of the introduction of the measure will manifest itself.

Mr. Hawkins

I should like at the outset to say that Senator Crosbie, and some other few Senators who made reference to opposition to this Bill, seem to be labouring under some delusion, because I have sat through the whole debate since the Minister introduced the Bill and I have failed to hear any objection to the principle of the Bill. I should further like to say that when a Minister comes before this House, or the other House, he must naturally expect that the Deputies or Senators will ask questions, that they will be anxious to have the full details of the measure which the Minister proposes to put before them, and to put into an Act of Parliament, and that it is their duty, if they think fit, to offer whatever criticism they feel justified in offering. That should be accepted in this, and in the other House, as the function of each member, whatever side of the House he or she occupies. I should like to join with Senator Liam Ó Buachalla and Senator Mrs. Concannon in suggesting that the name of this agency, which is about to be set up, should be in its Irish term. I think that is one of the best means by which it would be taken by the peoples of the world as representing this nation, rather than the English term, which is the Irish News Agency. We have adopted that system in all the various State-sponsored boards we have set up. We have Bord na Móna, Córas Iompair Éireann and the various other bodies set up in the past. There are some few questions that I should like the Minister to give us some further enlightenment on when he is replying. The Bill proposes to set up a board for the collection, dissemination and publication of news and information inside and outside of the State and for other matters connected therewith. Now, I should first like to deal with the question of collecting and making available information inside the State. That is a rather easy matter. That, I take it, is being done already by the Government Information Bureau and by the various newspaper agencies operating in the country. Now, is it proposed in this Bill to set up a new form of organisation for the collection of such information inside the State or is it proposed to utilise the present organisations and the various newspaper organisations that exist? If it is proposed to set up a new organisation for the collection of the same type of information and news that is already being collected by the commercial agencies in the country, then I think that there would be considerable waste in that connection.

We now come to the question of the collection of news and information for distribution in foreign countries. We must remember that we have here, like other countries, representatives of important world newspapers. They will get what the Minister terms "hot news". I do not see the difficulty in the collection of information at all— it is easy to collect information, but the hardest task is to decide what would be published.

The House must be concerned with the possibilities of the publication in foreign papers of the news distributed by the Minister's news agency. The Minister has not addressed himself to those difficulties that may arise. How are the newspapers of the world going to be induced, as induced they must be, to publish the news distributed by this agency and the other matter made available by it?

It is, as Senator Crosbie pointed out, going to be a very slow process. It is going to be slow because the Minister and the proposed new board cannot undertake that the matter they distribute will be published. The Minister says that he will not spread hot news or racy news or, indeed, hot news of any kind, and he left people to interpret his words that perhaps his only purpose would be to rewrite the history of Ireland and disseminate that. After his words, there seemed to be nothing left for the agency but to issue a rewritten version of the history of Ireland.

Mr. Crosbie

And that might not be a bad idea at all.

Mr. Hawkins

The big difficulty will be to get the Press of the world to publish what you give them and, in this connection, in the setting up of this new news agency, the Minister should be very careful that he is not going to antagonise, in any way, the existing commercial undertakings or the employees of such undertakings who supply news to foreign newspapers. If his officially sponsored news agency undertakes to supply foreign newspapers and news agencies with news in competition with their established representatives here, those representatives are going to be antagonised because they will feel that the positions they occupy would be endangered.

The Minister should remember that in the positions that these men hold, they can command a tremendous amount of influence and in the interests of the country their positions should not be endangered by mishandling. The Minister would have been wiser to have kept that fact in mind. The Minister has been congratulated, and it has been said that he is making a modest start. But I suggest to him, although it will probably be more expensive in the long run, that he should devise a different form of making news available about this country abroad. Reference has been made to the activities of the Swedish and Belgian Governments in this regard. Has the Minister considered the suggestion that has been made that he should appoint Press Attachés to our Legations abroad? The big question is that of getting the news into the foreign newspapers and that cannot be done merely by sending out free bulletins.

I believe the most effective way in which you can get news of this country into the foreign newspapers is by personal contacts with the people who edit and control those papers and that that can best be done by men appointed for such a task to each of our Legations abroad. Such Press Attachés would require to be well remunerated and a generous sum should be made available for them to enable them to attend social functions. They would have to break the ice of the people who control the Press of the world, and I include, not only Britain, but the United States, for, after all, our greatest support must come from America in the long run.

I feel that the Minister should not antagonise people in this country who can help us—there is no reason for making enemies when one can help it. It would be better to pay a journalist, a good social mixer, as a Press Attaché, who would get the people with influence in foreign newspapers to give publicity to our case. The next question I would like to ask the Minister is: how is the news to be made available? Is it to be on a commercial basis? There is a mention in this Bill of loans being provided for the company which will have to be repaid, but to repay these loans, it must be assumed that the company will make money. How is the company to repay these loans if the news is to be given out free? And, if the news is to be distributed on the commercial basis, it will merely antagonise the people I have already mentioned. If the news is to be given out free, gratis, and for nothing, you will be antagonising correspondents who have been sending out news from this country and getting payment for it.

The big difficulty, as I see, is not the collection of news or deciding what news will be sent, but getting the papers to publish it. The Minister has drawn the attention of the House to the distorted account of the incidents in Belfast after the Six-County elections. As a responsible person, as Minister for External Affairs, he drew the attention of the papers to the distortions and he has told us that he received an apology. But the distorted statements were not contradicted. If that is the attitude of the Belfast papers, and of the papers in England, there seems to be very little use in dwelling on the point of giving them the news when they are not prepared to publish it. I would suggest that we should dwell more on how to get the goodwill of the Press of the world rather than to dwell too long or too much on the type of news or how it is to be collected, disseminated and distributed. You can have piles of news and views and still the Press of the world might not publish it.

Very much of what I would like to have said has already been said in this long debate but I would appeal to the Minister to avail of the opportunity in this House to have the name of the agency in the Irish language.

Mr. Baxter

I was trying to discover in the course of Senator Hawkins' speech whether he was for or against the measure. I took it from what he said that he had no objection to the Bill on principle, but from that point on he was all against it. I do not think there is anything very constructive about that. It is less destructive, perhaps, than his colleagues in the other House and from that point of view the Minister can be gratified at the reception the measure has received here. The sort of comment we had from Senator Mrs. Concannon was helpful if a bit critical and perhaps in one or two aspects unacceptable, and I think the reception the Bill has received must be encouraging to the Minister.

Senator Hawkins' attitude might be understandable if we were dealing with a problem with which some other Minister was concerned, but I do not think that Senator Hawkins would claim to have any expert knowledge of how our affairs can best be handled internationally. Without casting any reflection on the men who have preceded the Minister in this office, I think the House will agree that since the Irish nation appeared on the map of Europe Irish affairs externally have never been more skilfully handled than they are at the present time.

The capacity the Minister has displayed in all his contacts on foreign fields has raised considerably the prestige of this country and his own prestige stands very high indeed. We have that from the mouths of very responsible foreigners who have come to our shores and when he comes to the Oireachtas with a measure like this and asks its support to proceed I think we should accept his Bill. It is difficult to understand the point of view of the people who say that they want the name and fame of Ireland known abroad but who are not prepared to accept the medium by which that can be achieved. That is the attitude which was taken in the other House and here perhaps by Senator Hawkins.

Many members of the House can give their own experience of the lack of information among foreigners of this country, its history and its way of life. That is a problem for the Irish nation and if it is necessary that it should be better known we must recognise that fact and provide the means to achieve it. We have a problem. We may have many problems. In the first place we must be better known before people will become interested in our problems. I agree with those who suggest that from the point of view of achieving our aims it would not be advisable for the agency immediately to present our case about Partition. We want to court and win these people and present ourselves in a way that will be different from the sort of caricature that Frank O'Connor gave to us in a recent film. That is how we are looked upon by a great many foreigners and that must be changed by positive action on our part.

Others have related their experiences. In the small hotel where I stay across the city a foreigner, an Englishman, sat down to a meal recently and when he was half way through his meal he discovered that Dublin was not in the Six Counties. A look of amazement came over his face and he did not know what was going to happen next. That is the sort of ignorance that is about. Senator Concannon told a tale of her experience. In Stockholm recently I made a contact with a very responsible and well informed Dane who knew from his angle about our country. He spoke English very well and put to me a few direct questions. One of the first questions was if there was not a genuine fear of religious oppression on the part of the majority in the Six Counties if they joined with us.

I should like to have presented Senator Professor Stanford to him, or some of the people who are in the minority living peacefully amongst us. I had an answer for him, but I came back convinced that some action should be taken to present the truth of the situation to every member of every legislative assembly, particularly in the countries of Northern Europe. That was the impression I carried back from my conversation with that distinguished Dane.

Senator Hawkins and his colleagues have a queer impression, apparently, that the Minister through the news agency will disseminate some kind of Party political propaganda. If they gave it a moment's consideration they could easily make up their minds that outsiders are not in the least concerned with out petty squabbles. As soon as a national news agency attempted to present the side of one Party against another, interest in our affairs would immediately flag. We are close to Britain and we cannot but be concerned about what is going to take place in that island in the future. But what was the reaction of our people to squabbles between the Liberals and the Conservatives in Strasbourg recently? We sat back and laughed. It is the same with the ups and downs in the French Chamber of Deputies or the question of the return of King Leopold to Belgium. They are nothing more than matters of passing interest. There would be no wisdom whatever in making the news agency a medium for propaganda for any Party in the country. As soon as it was attempted our whole case would fall to the ground. In their criticism of this measure the Opposition have, I think, approached the question from the narrow point of view of how they would have used such an agency themselves. I think it is time that we left that page of our history behind us. Senator Ó Buachalla tells us that a short-wave broadcasting station could do the work for us when we have not got a short-wave over which we can speak. I think they are all just so many excuses for not having done this positive thing which they now know should have been done long ago. While I am not in disagreement with Senator Ó Buachalla when he said that contact with learned associations abroad, scientists and litterateurs by people competent to stand up and speak in the name of the nation would be an invaluable contribution towards educating foreigners about us, no medium must be neglected by us to make outsiders understand us better.

There are all sorts of caricatures about Irishmen and the Irish nation, and they are not too agreeable or pleasing, but are terribly annoying to the Irish race abroad. If we give those people, in the foreign countries in which they have made their homes, material to use, they will rise to the occasion and will do us credit. The first responsibility is on us and I think that, far from being critical of what the Minister is doing in this Bill, we ought to applaud him and face the problems that are confronting the nation in a united and in a constructive way.

In that sense, I am convinced that constructive suggestions can come from every side of the House and every section in our community. It is in that particular way we ought to face the passing of this measure and urge the Minister to proceed with it and wish him "God speed" in his efforts.

Mr. O'Dwyer

I would like to support the Bill, as I have always felt there was some necessity for a measure of this kind. Since we obtained our freedom, we have suffered from the antagonism shown towards this country shown in other countries. I have to confess that I felt a certain prejudice against the Bill when I remembered the fact that the Government had dismantled the short-wave station or had decided to do so. It was designed to carry out the very thing for which this measure has been brought in. I thought that was a very short-sighted approach. However, the Government has seen its mistake in that direction, so I am sure everyone on this side will do his best to make this measure a success.

I believe there was a good deal in what Senator Hawkins said about the difficulty of getting an Irish version of the news into foreign papers. There is very great antagonism towards this country still, mostly in English-speaking countries. I think there will be difficulty and I would agree that it may be necessary to extend the scope of operations of the proposed company. Even though it should cost more, it would be money well worth spending to try to get the Irish viewpoint into the newspapers of those foreign countries.

I agree with what one Senator said, that any news going from this agency should be the truth and that we should aim always at sending a plain, uncoloured story which would be an inspiration in the long run to foreign journalism, since journalism and propaganda seem to-day to be becoming rapidly divorced from truth. We should set our face against that, and this agency should deal only with the truth.

There was a remark by Senator Stanford with which I thoroughly agree and which would be most valuable. He said it would be very difficult to carry our propaganda into America, England and those other countries which have fixed ideas and generally do not care very much about us. What we should aim at is to keep in touch with the newly-free countries, such as India, and those countries which have a record of suffering, with ourselves, and which share the same aspirations. There we will find a more sympathetic reception. More especially would that be so in the case of South America. In the Argentine alone, as a friend of mine who travelled there told me, there are 200,000 descendants of the Irish, who maintain all the old Irish traditions and games. In that country we could easily find a Press to publish our viewpoint and to build up a spiritual connection. The same is true in regard to Spain and the Latin countries, where we will find a sympathetic reception for the Irish viewpoint. Whatever Government is in office, they would do well to develop a connection between Ireland and the Latin countries of Europe and South America. With them we have the greatest affinity and the future of the world lies with those countries more than it does with the present big empires. I welcome this Bill and I am sure it will receive general support now that it is being passed. I trust it will be very successful in the objects which it has in view.

Mr. E.A. McGuire

I do not intend to make a speech, though if I had been able to get in earlier I had some good points, but they have been all well and truly dealt with on this stage. The only reason I rise is that there has been such a volume of support for this Bill that if I do not get up I might be the one left out. I, too, in my various travels abroad, have found an abysmal ignorance about Ireland, but I am glad to say that, in a recent visit to France, I found an exception to the rule which no one else here seems to have found. That was when I told a gentleman I came from Dublin and he said: "Oh yes, liberated Ireland". I think it is a good sign when that occurs. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Meighan

I would like to take the opportunity, on behalf of those whom I represent, to say that I give my wholehearted support to the Bill. I think that the views put forward by Senator Mrs. Concannon are deserving of the Minister's consideration. I have listened pretty patiently and attentively to the speeches to-day, including those from members of the Opposition such as Senator Mrs. Concannon and Senator Hawkins. I suppose they expressed their views fairly and honestly and, seeing that there is such unanimity in the House, I would appeal to the Minister—as I am sure he will—to give their views his sympathetic consideration. Senator Mrs. Concannon very seldom puts an unreasonable case or makes unreasonable points and I believe she has expressed very genuine views to-night on this Bill.

Senator Baxter, I think, suggested that the Opposition were afraid of political Party propaganda being made. If they are genuinely afraid of that, I am sorry for them, as I certainly do not believe that there is anything like that in the back of the Minister's head. If I thought for a minute that any Minister, or the Government itself, would take advantage of the Bill for that purpose, I think we could not make too strong a protest. If there is anything wrong at a later date, the members of both Houses will have a full opportunity of protesting. With those few remarks, I conclude, repeating, on behalf of those I represent, that I give the Bill wholehearted support.

Mr. MacBride

I want to thank all members of the Seanad for their most constructive approach to this Bill. I am extremely grateful to all Senators for their suggestions and for their attitude in discussing this Bill. There are a number of suggestions which have been made which I should like to accept but which are not quite feasible, purely from a practical point of view.

Senator Mrs. Concannon suggested that probably a lot of the difficulties I met in the Dáil were due to my own bad stage management. I think there is, perhaps, a lot in that, though I meant to be reasonable in explaining the Bill in the other House on the Second Reading. If Senator Mrs. Concannon has time to look at the debates, I think she will see that I was not particularly unreasonable. Where, I think, I did badly stage-manage this Bill was in assuming that both members of the Dáil and members of the Seanad knew a lot more of what I had in mind than I explained to them. That arose from the fact that, from having been mixed up with newspapers and news agencies for a great many years, I took too much for granted.

I think Senator Mrs. Concannon and some of the other Senators were under the impression that the news agency would issue a bulletin in the nature of the bulletins that are issued by various legations or Governments. That is not what was visualised. As I expressed it in the Dáil, I would feel quite satisfied if the news agency transmitted approximately 500 to 1,000 words a day to the various newspapers of the world. May I put it this way? In America, there are between 3,000 and 4,000 newspapers. Before we can complain that papers do not give us a fair show, that papers do not publish our viewpoint, that papers publish distorted news, we must put on the news desks of these 3,000 to 4,000 newspapers, news about Ireland which is truthful, which is correct and which represents Ireland in a proper light; so that, in approaching the question of publicity, there are certain steps.

Before you can complain at not being properly represented abroad, the first step is to put on the news desks of all the newspapers a report which they can publish. That is one phase of the work. The second phase of the work is to try to get as much of your news taken from the news desk and put into the page of the paper. That is where I think Senator Hawkins also was somewhat under a misapprehension. That is where your Press Attachés and other people come in. The news agency gets the news on the news desk of these papers. Your Press Attachés try to get that news from the news desk into the papers. In other words, through contacts with papers, columnists, and so on, they try to arouse their interest in various problems for which we want to secure publicity, but it is quite a separate and distinct phase of news distribution.

If you apply it in a more local sense, just visualise our own papers here. They receive a stream of news the whole time. They probably receive three or four times more news than they publish. Somebody has to select that news and if there is some particular thing you want to get published, there is no use talking to the reporter. He sends in his copy but, actually, if you want to get something into the papers with a particular angle, you have to approach the higher reaches of the newspaper office. Accordingly, the main task of the news agency will be to place on the news desks of, as I have said, between 3,000 and 4,000 papers in America, a regular supply of news which can be published.

Straight away I will grant you that probably 75 per cent. of that will never see daylight but I am quite satisfied if 25 per cent. sees daylight and is published. It will serve, first of all, the purpose of getting Irish news published more frequently than it is at the moment. In the second place, it will be a source of information to which newspapermen all over the world can turn when they want to learn what the Irish viewpoint is. When some particular crisis affecting Ireland develops, the newspaper editor, subeditor, political correspondent or columnist may at the moment want to learn what our viewpoint is but he has no way of finding it unless he goes to the trouble of ringing up the Irish Legation or getting a bulletin of some kind and that, usually, he is not prepared to do and, therefore, he will accept what he sees from the other news agencies.

Concern has been expressed by Senator Professor Stanford and, I think, by Senator Hawkins at the possibility that this might have an adverse effect on some of our own journalists here—that if the Irish News Agency supplies news about Ireland, it may in effect be doing journalists here out of work. Bear in mind that at the moment there are at least five news agencies operating from here and sending news out from Ireland. That has not affected the livelihood of any Dublin journalists. On the contrary, I think the more news agencies you have, the more competition you have and the more work there is for them. Apart from the news agencies, properly speaking, there are a number of correspondents here for foreign papers but their particular work is more or less specialised. They do special reporting for the paper. They cover special stories. They have their own particular angle on the news and these papers will certainly continue to employ their own special correspondents here. As a matter of fact, the more this news agency is successful in putting Ireland on the map, the more will papers be likely to want to have their own correspondent here. If we are sufficiently successful in putting Ireland properly on the map, there will be a tendency for big papers to have their own representative here.

Senator Ó Buachalla, Senator Hawkins and Senator Mrs. Concannon suggested that the name of the news agency should be given in Irish. This is one case where I would say "No", that there would be little or no sense in that. Irish, however much it is spoken here—and it is not as much spoken as we would all like to see it —is certainly not spoken outside the country and if we sent out copy with the name of the news agency in Gaelic to America, Australia and a great many other countries, they would not have the faintest idea where it came from, or even what it was. There are 230,000,000 people whose principal language is English and, in addition, there are 550,000,000 who speak English as their second language, and I think we should avail of that. Likewise, if we had an office in France, for instance, or in Italy, I take it that we would use French or Italian and describe the Irish news agency in the French or Italian language, as the case might be; but why adopt a language which is a language not understood by the people where that news is circulated? I take it that the rule will be that the language used will, as far as possible, coincide with that of the country of circulation.

I am extremely grateful for the realistic attitude adopted by Senators as to the possible inadequacy of the financial provisions visualised, as well as the warning note that we should not expect too much too quickly from it. I certainly will be quite prepared to be ready to modify or vary the policy behind the news agency to meet the changing circumstances of the time and I shall be very glad at all times to have any suggestions that any member of the Oireachtas may wish to make in that connection.

Senator Fearon made a number of suggestions and laid down certain guiding principles in relation to the distribution of news by this agency. He emphasised the necessity for truthfulness, verification and accuracy. These are extremely important, because there is nothing that can destroy a news agency more rapidly than exaggeration or inaccuracy, so that, so far as I can influence it, I will ensure that the news is verified and is accurate and truthful.

Senator J.T. O'Farrell dealt with the question of the stage Irishman presentation. That is a presentation from which we suffer quite a lot and it is largely due, I think, so far as the Press is concerned, to the fact that a lot of the news about Ireland is not written in Ireland. It is very often written from a desk in Fleet Street or somewhere else by some journalist who has to write his copy. He does not know very much about Ireland, but he heard in a pub around the corner a funny story about an Irishman and that makes his copy, which will be sent off under a Dublin date-line.

Senator Douglas was, I think, rather indignant because a journalist told him on one occasion when being interviewed that if he did not talk and give an interview, it was just too bad but the journalist would have to make up the interview himself. That is not very unnatural. The journalist has to earn his living. His job is to write. He gets instructions from his news editor or chief reporter: "Go out and get an interview with Senator Douglas or with X and Y." Is he to go back to his chief reporter and say: "Sorry, boss; I went out, but I did not get my interview?" If he does that a few times, he will not be very long on the paper, and so the tendency of a journalist, when told to write up a story, is to write it whether he knows anything about it or not. He will do the best he can to give an accurate account, if he can get it, but, if not, he will have to make it up from whatever sources are available to him.

Senator Douglas made one very important suggestion not applicable to the News Agency Bill as distinct from the other State-sponsored corporations, that is, that some machinery should be created to take the place of shareholders' meetings. That is a very important suggestion and one which deserves the attention of the House, and indeed of the Oireachtas as a whole, and of the Government. There is in the Bill a provision which enables either House to debate the affairs of the company every year because, under Section 16 (4), a copy of the balance sheet must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas each year. It is then open to the House to put down a motion, but, quite apart from that, I agree entirely with Senator Douglas that the time has been reached when it has become necessary that some machinery should be evolved to deal with all State-sponsored companies and to enable complaints and grievances from members of the public as shareholders to be investigated publicly.

This is a matter with which we cannot deal in this Bill, but I am very glad it was raised here, because I think the time has come when such machinery must be devised. It often occurred to me that one of the best ways of doing it would be to set up, as has been done in many other countries, an administrative court whose function it would be to examine the accounts and to hear complaints in respect of State-sponsored bodies.

The modern tendency—I think it is a tendency which cannot be resisted; it is inevitable—is towards socialisation. This involves a certain degree of nationalisation and State ownership. The only way in which this tendency can be prevented from becoming a complete bureaucracy is by having some form of check on the activities of the nationalised or State-owned bodies.

Senator Douglas suggested that this might be done through a Joint Committee of both Houses. I do not know whether that would be a very efficient way of doing it. I feel that the work would take a considerable amount of time and that members of the Oireachtas are already overburdened with their ordinary parliamentary duties and would not be able to devote the time necessary to it. I therefore think it might possibly be better to evolve some form of judicial investigation, taking the shape of an administrative court whose function it would be to examine the accounts of all State-owned companies yearly and to receive complaints from members of the public or from public bodies.

Senator Stanford mentioned the possibility of confusion between the name "Irish News Agency" and the Irish News in Belfast. I do not think that is very likely to arise. The news emanating from the Irish news agency will be circulated abroad. It is unlikely that any confusion would arise, but as Senator Stanford remarked, there could be quite a lot of difficulty in finding another name that would not trespass on some preserves. Senator Stanford mentioned another matter which is extremely useful and constructive; that is, the question of trying to evolve some form of training, some form of co-ordination for our own journalists which would give them an opportunity of acquiring experience abroad. I do not think it will be possible to do that through the medium of the news agency, but I think it is a thing that should be kept in mind and I, certainly, shall examine the position in my Department to see if anything can be done to develop some scheme along those lines. I do think that journalists here are not sufficiently organised among themselves as a body. I know that tremendous progress has been made over the last few years in their, if you like, trade union organisation, but I always feel that there should be a greater degree of contact between them on a professional basis, irrespective of a purely trade union basis.

May I revert for one second to a point made by Senator Hawkins in relation to the necessity for Press Attachés? We realise the necessity for Press Attachés very clearly, and we hope to be able to appoint one or two Press Attachés in the near future to the principal posts. They will be on the diplomatic staff and their job, in fact, will be to have contact with the upper reaches of the newspaper world in the particular country where they operate, not actually to supply news to the news desks. I should mention that we have at the moment a number of bulletins being issued by the Department. The information division of the Department issues a regular bulletin, which is circulated all over the world to our missions, and through our missions, to those people who we think would be likely to be interested. Apart from that, our legation in Washington also issues a weekly bulletin and on occasions a bi-weekly bulletin. I think the circulation of that bulletin runs into something like 5,000 or 6,000 once a week and it reaches important people in America, Irish-Americans, members of Congress, members of the State Legislature, journalists and so on. Likewise, our legation in Australia also produces a separate bulletin.

Senator O'Dwyer and Senator Ó Buachalla referred to the short-wave station. Senator O'Dwyer seemed to be under the impression that the short-wave station was being dismantled. Far from that being so, the short-wave station will, I hope, be ready to transmit shortly, and it has not been dismantled. A test I should like Senators to apply in relation to the use of the short-wave station for propaganda purposes and for the dissemination of news is this simple test: does any Senator here ever turn on the short-wave station to listen, say, to the news of Australia, New Zealand or South Africa? He may, possibly, turn on an American station accidentally if he is fiddling around, but does he ever make it his business to listen to the American news every day to know what is going on? I think that as far as our short-wave station is concerned and I am not decrying the idea of it—it is necessary and advisable to have it—it would be very foolish to expect that we will get any propaganda result. Senator Ó Buachalla, I think, mentioned that newspaper editors frequently listen to short-wave news transmissions. My experience of newspaper men, newspaper editors and short-wave transmission is that they will have nothing to do with it. There is a kind of dislike for news. Once you get home you do not turn on the wireless unless you are listening to a match or something like that, which you are interested in.

Senator Séamus O'Farrell raised the question of the qualification and experience of the directors. As far as the directors are concerned. I want to make it quite clear that I am not giving any assurance to the House that the directors will be qualified journalists, any more than the directors of other newspapers are necessarily journalists at all. I do not think that qualifications for directorship of a business concern entail being a journalist. As far as the staff of the news agency is concerned they would, naturally, be journalists. They would be trade union journalists and they would receive trade union rates of pay and remuneration and, so far as the State has any connection with the news agency, it should always act the part of the good employer. But, as far as the directors are concerned, I do not visualise that they will be necessarily journalists.

Mr. Séamus O'Farrell

The reason I raised the point was this: the directors of an ordinary company may not know much about the technical side of the business, but they are bound to take an interest in it because they are working on their own money. Five men are appointed as directors here, whose qualification will be, that you lend each of them a £1 share each and, presumably, they will not have any experience of publicity work in any shape or form. Later on in the Bill, you make provision for an advisory body of experts to come in and teach them their job, when the unexpert people think it worth their while to ask them in, and only then. My point is, that if you want a thing to succeed, you must have trained staff and trained personnel. You cannot have people appointed haphazardly because they have a nice personality or because you like the colour of their eyes. If it is to be a technical and skilled job, the importance of which you yourself have insisted upon, and which is realised by everybody, then, skilled direction is necessary, and these directors neither have the skill nor are they playing around with their own money.

Mr. MacBride

There is one suggestion the Senator has just made I should like to correct; that is, that the advisory board is, in fact, to teach the directors their job. The advisory board is really more to co-ordinate, to ensure that there is full co-ordination between the news agency, the journalists and the newspapers outside. Ultimately, what I should like to see happening is the development of a cooperative, if you like, between the different newspapers and the journalists for the purpose of organising a news supply to and from the country. That would be the ideal position, more or less, in the way that it has developed in Britain. That is what the present Press Association amounts to now, in fact, and I would like to see that development taking place in this country but it is a development that would take a few years to evolve, and it is only when people see the benefits that can be derived from co-operation that they will gravitate to it. The advisory board may consider these matters——

Mr. S. O'Farrell

The advisory board may never meet.

Mr. MacBride

So far as the directors of the board are concerned, my view has always been that there are certain interests in the Government that should be represented on the board. I am not saying this because I am Minister for External Affairs, but there should be somebody on the board to represent the Department of External Affairs. This agency will be dealing with the outside world and some contact with the Government Information Bureau will be necessary. There should also be some contact between the agency and the Department of External Affairs. There should also, in my view, be some contact between the agency and the broadcasting news service, and I visualise a board of directors which will provide those contacts. That is the type of directorship I visualise as being necessary and advisable. I think I have given a reply to the main points raised by members of the Seanad and again I want to thank the Seanad for the constructive approach which this House has made to the question.

Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.

Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 7th December.

The Seanad adjourned at 9.45 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 1st December.