The Bill as it now stands is to some extent different from the Bill that came in here. The Minister displayed a very stiff attitude, but relented—whether under the stress of argument or owing to the charm of certain Senators who proposed amendments, I cannot say— and in the end agreed to certain types of amendment. The Bill has been discussed in great detail, and leaves the House with certain amendments, but substantially as it came in.
There are two things to be said about it. First, the Bill gives the Minister and the Government complete control over the new television service that is being combined with the old Radio Éireann sound service. It is another step—we have taken a great many such steps in this State —towards nationalisation or socialisation, towards giving the State more power.
The second point is connected with that, and it is that this measure will cost the taxpayers a great deal of money. It gives the State power, and the State will have to pay, and that means that the taxpayer pays, so that beyond all doubt we have taken another step on the road to socialisation; and it will cost us not only £2,000,000 of a capital sum, but a considerable sum of money for a considerable number of years.
I do not want to hold up the Bill, or the House, but I should like to develop briefly these two points. There is nobody of opinion in this country, practically speaking, in favour of State control. Yet, we have in fact a system of government which gives more power to the State than the State has in Britain, where they have had for several periods a Government in office whose policy was, then, at any rate, nationalisation. We are a highly centralised and socialised State. Begin anywhere you like-begin with the E.S.B., with Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann. We have a nationalised transport, we have nationalised our own sources of fuel and power in Bord na Móna; we have Irish Shipping; and we have had a radio service which from the beginning was controlled by a Minister. We are now combining that radio sound service with a new television service, and we are giving that entirely into State control.
The body to be set up under this Bill as it now stands has much less power than the corresponding body has in Britain. The State gets more power under this Bill over the new broadcasting Authority than the British Bill of 1954 gives to the British Government. This body will be more controlled than the similar body in our neighbouring island. The Authority cannot appoint a Director-General without the consent of the Minister. As we heard to-day, it cannot appoint an auditor. It can enter into contracts only with the consent of the Minister. Under Section 31, it can be prevented from broadcasting certain things and directed to broadcast certain things by the Minister.
Following the strenuous and continued resistance of the Minister in Committee to amendments, under this Bill as it now stands the new broacasting Authority can be instructed to broadcast certain things or to refrain from doing certain things and can say so only with the consent of the Minister. That is another difference between the broadcasting Authority here and in Britain. We have here a body set up which the Minister told us at the end of the Second Stage he meant to be independent, but which most certainly is not independent at all.
Secondly, a commission was set up by the Government to discuss certain proposals from private interests with regard to television. I am personally entirely without knowledge on this matter, but it would appear that proposals were made which would relieve us from expenditure and, at the same time, set up a television service here under the authority of an Irish State board. That was entirely rejected in favour of public control and public enterprise, and I think inevitably in favour of the expenditure of public money. No firm estimate has been made by the Minister in connection with this Bill, as to what the financial returns will be for the money expended. No firm estimate is possible, apparently, except that in so far as we can discover anything about it in other countries, even in small countries, it is a very expensive service.
It may very well be that in our national position, we cannot avoid this expenditure, and it would be fairer and clearer, and honester to the taxpayer, if we were to say to him: "We cannot avoid having this service; we want to be completely in control of it because we want to maintain certain standards, and in that position, we shall have to pay; that is to say, you, the taxpayer, will have to pay." It is unfortunate, I am afraid, that we fail to look reality straight in the face.
We cannot be sure, as Senator Barry has told us this afternoon, what the viewers will want to look at, and the listeners to hear. There is no method by which we can ensure that. Advertisers on this very expensive medium can afford to wait and see. Both viewers and listeners have alternative services which they can easily reach, so that it seems to me that the prospects of this service being a paying one are very slight, and the proper thing to say to our people is: "We propose to give you a State controlled broadcasting and television service, and you should pay for that."
Those are the facts, but they are concealed in the section of the Bill which enjoins on the Authority the duty of making broadcasting pay, but which does not in any way ensure that they will be able to make it pay. All our experience is, that having expended £2,000,000 on capital for setting up a station and several subsidiary stations, having increased expenditure on the provision of broadcasting and television services, and having employed a certain number of people, we shall certainly keep on, whatever it costs. There is no doubt about that.
With regard to the Authority itself, I should like to say one final word. We should have more confidence in them, should select them carefully, and should give them more scope than they get in this Bill. No matter what adjective the Minister uses, they are cribbed, cabined, and confined at every turn. The Minister is completely in control, and one result of that, whether you think it is good or bad, is that there is complete parliamentary control as well.
I am glad we have had an opportunity in this House of discussing a Bill of this importance, and that we have been able to do so at some length, and in great detail, without ruffling anybody's feelings. The Minister should be congratulated on the fact that he certainly has an excellent grip of his own temper, but perhaps he has not got a temper. In any event, I should like to say, as I said at the beginning, that this is another step towards giving the State more power, and it is an additional burden upon the taxpayer. On that basis, it will have to be considered in the other House and ultimately again perhaps here.
