I agree most heartily with the sentiments which Deputy Bryan Cooper expressed as to the necessity for preventing, if possible, the occasion, the excuse and the practice that he referred to as having prevailed in Canada, in the early part of the present century. I agree with the principle that evidence and documents that have been laid before a Committee of the Dáil, making enquiry into any public matter, should be made known to the Dáil and to the public. There is no harm in saying that when the matter was raised in the Committee regarding the public reporting of the proceedings at a date very late in these proceedings, I was one of the minority that agreed that the Press should be admitted. I did that because I feared the possibility that, under the present Standing Orders, if we refused to allow the Press in, when they made application, to the proceedings of the Committee, it might be taken as a precedent. But I recognise quite well that the majority had much reason upon their side.
The fact remains that the Standing Orders on which we have been working did not contemplate an enquiry of the kind which the Committee on Broadcasting has been dealing with. That Committee's work began quite as a departmental inquiry. It was not opened with the idea of taking evidence so much as to examine documents and consult experts, and it was only by virtue of circumstances which arose unexpectedly that the demand for publicity arose. And it arose at a time much too late for the purpose such as Deputy Cooper would like to have been assured on.
The motion, as it stands, asks that the evidence and the documents laid before the Committee on Wireless Broadcasting be printed and circulated. I am just doubtful, notwithstanding my desire for the fullest publicity, whether the acceptance of this motion, in this form, at present, would do justice to people concerned, whether the Committee or the Dáil or the members and non-members referred to in the evidence. The documents quoted here were very extensive. They were not selected documents. There were files of papers put in dealing with matters quite apart from Broadcasting, and by no means selected for the purpose of evidence appertaining to the enquiry. They were put in by the Postmaster-General himself and others, a complete file of all their correspondence, some dealing with matter quite extraneous to broadcasting, and those were put before the Committee.
I question whether it is just and reasonable that all these documents should be printed, even on the ground of expense, and also on the ground that much of the matter is not germane to the subject under review. So far for that point.
Now as to the evidence. Matters have developed which, I think, require that the evidence relating to broadcasting and relating to extraneous subjects, if such evidence is to be submitted to the public, ought to be submitted in such a manner as would be fair to the persons concerned. As one of those probably chiefly at fault, I admit that the form of the questions put to the witnesses was, in many cases, probably unfair to the witnesses who may have been led to say things which they would not have been allowed to say if the evidence had been taken in public court before one versed in legal procedure. It is possible that the members of the Committee, including myself, may have formed judgments, and having formed judgments, put questions in a manner which really were innuendoes and charges, and in such a case I doubt whether it is fair of the Dáil to publish all the evidence in the form in which it has been taken. Witnesses came to the enquiry and said many things that they probably would not have said had they been examined in public, and possibly they would have been less truthful; but, at any rate, witnesses have a right to know the conditions under which they are giving their evidence, and they did give their evidence on the assumption that it was not a public inquiry. So far I think there is something to be said in favour of not publishing the evidence, but I desire that all the facts germane to the discussion on wireless and on the discussion of other matters quite extraneous to wireless should be made known to the public.
In the Report which was issued by the Committee, and which will be the subject of further discussion, there is a reference to a memorandum furnished to the Committee by the Postmaster-General. This memorandum had nothing whatever to do with broadcasting. It was placed in the file supplied by the Postmaster-General, at the request of the Committee that all the documents should be handed in to the Committee. The memorandum in question had reference to the relations between the chief promoter—one might say the sole person concerned in an effective way with one of the companies referred to in the Postmaster-General's White Paper. The memorandum put in by the Postmaster-General purported to be a record of the relations between Mr. Andrew Belton, of Irish Developments, Ltd., and Deputy Darrell Figgis, long before the latter was a Deputy, presumably with the object of showing the relative virtues of the two persons concerned. The reading of that memorandum disclosed the motive underlying Mr. Belton when he entered into certain associations of a business character with Deputy Figgis, who was then Mr. Darrell Figgis; and it was solely because of the fact that the memorandum disclosed the motive of this gentleman that Mr. Belton was called to give evidence to the Committee, and on that evidence, written by his own hand and supplied by his own words, I had no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the company with which he was associated as the leading spokesman ought not to receive a concession from any Department of State. Arising out of that, Mr. Belton handed in his file of correspondence which affected matters long anterior to the project of an Irish Broadcasting Station or an Irish Broadcasting Company. Deputy Figgis also handed in his file dealing with contemporaneous matters. The point of these statements of mine is this: That wireless broadcasting and matters connected therewith form the subject of a distinct inquiry from matters relating to the association of Mr. Belton and Deputy Figgis and other persons in projects of an industrial and financial kind. These documents, for instance, deal with matters long anterior to broadcasting: to projects which it was sought to obtain the support or assistance in one form or other of the Government of the time; projects, for instance, regarding the flotation of public loans; and projects, for instance, with regard to the establishment of a Casino to replace some of the Continental resorts of the aristocracy of England, and to which the Government were invited to become participants. These are matters that are extraneous entirely to broadcasting, and ought not to be mixed up with an inquiry into broadcasting such as has devolved upon the Committee which the Dáil set up. These matters, therefore, while throwing light upon the qualifications, shall I say, of the promoter of the Irish Broadcasting Company, which was to receive a concession and which only came indirectly within the purview of our Committee, have opened new doors leading into different quarters, and which, I think, require a different kind of enquiry.
My suggestion is that the evidence relating to broadcasting should be followed up by the Committee on Broadcasting after this, if the interim report is adopted, and should be published in due course. All the matters connected with these extraneous subjects should be made the occasion of an entirely new inquiry. There should, in fact, be set up by the Dáil a smaller Committee composed of people who have not prejudged any question, and the evidence that is to come before that Committee should be given in a strictly legal form, and all those persons who have been named by the various witnesses, and in the documents, should have liberty to appear either personally or be represented by solicitors or counsel. The fullest inquiry should be made, and all the parties concerned should have access to all the documents; then the matters which are of public importance will certainly and necessarily be brought out in a proper form, and every question that could possibly be raised will be raised in a public inquiry, conducted in strict conformity with the rules of evidence. I believe that would be the fairest course to adopt, fair to those who may be implicated, and it will do more credit to the Dáil and be more satisfactory to the public.
If, after the whole matter is disposed of, having been dealt with in such a manner as I have suggested, it is still thought desirable that all the past evidence, in the form in which it has been taken, should be made public, then I, for one, would have no objection whatever. I think, in fairness to all parties, in fairness to the public, and with the utmost desire to have every fact dealing with public affairs placed before the public, all those who may consider themselves interested or involved, or upon whom any reflection of any kind has been placed, should have a right to appear before a quasi-official inquiry, which will conduct the case in a much more formal, and probably much more effective, manner than an amateur Committee dealing informally with matters which were really extraneous to the immediate purposes of the Wireless Broadcasting Committee. I would, therefore, suggest to Deputy Cooper that a course such as I have suggested would promote his purpose much more effectively than the mere printing of the evidence and the documents laid before the Committee. Such a Committee as I have suggested would have fuller powers and be able to do the work more efficiently, while the present Committee can, if it is considered necessary by the Dáil, proceed with its work of inquiring into wireless broadcasting.
Professor
