"That the Dáil adopt the Interim Report of the Committee on Wireless Broadcasting," resumed.
WIRELESS BROADCASTING.
Motion of
I desire to make a brief statement more or less in the nature of a personal statement. When the matter of the Interim Report came on before the Dáil yesterday it followed a decision of the Dáil that was to be put into writing and submitted to the Dáil by the President. That very largely put the matter, so far as I was concerned, sub judice. I therefore, was careful to leave the Dáil when the actual Interim Report was on. I did so quite deliberately Nevertheless, when I was gone I saw from the paper this morning that the Postmaster-General introduced my name in a still further connection. I think that that was rather an extraordinary procedure to adopt under the circumstances; but seeing that it has been adopted, I cannot refrain from mentioning it and some of the circumstances attendant upon it. He stated, or inferred, or suggested, that I was moving in the interests of a company, that company being the Marconi Company. I was linked in this connection with another Deputy who was not present then, and whom I do not see present now. Before I go further into it let me say that I have not the honour or the advantage of knowing anything in regard to the Marconi Company whatever. It was only after a suggestion to that effect was made in Committee, and made with a great deal of virulence by the Postmaster-General, that I learned even that they had an establishment in this country with certain persons attached to it, one of whom is a Senator.
I only discovered that as a result of definite and deliberate inquiry. The suggestion was made, and seeing it has been made, I want to point to this kind of procedure that has been adopted. I do not wish to advert to any of the matters that are to be made the subject of inquiry. But it was elicited in the Dáil yesterday that a document was handed in reflecting upon me and my actions long prior to wireless, long prior to the honour that was conferred upon me when I was made a member of the Dáil. That has been put into the hands of a Committee to investigate. That matter not having been already investigated, I am precluded from referring to it. But then immediately another charge is made. I endeavoured yesterday very carefully to avoid using words that I was very much tempted to use. But I do ask if this process be not a process of blackmail what else is it? On what basis was this suggestion made yesterday? I learned, when the matter was first mentioned, that it arose in this way—that the Postmaster-General appointed a detective to frequent the lobbies of the Dáil, and to watch the Deputies. I learned that that detective saw a certain person speaking to me in the lobby. That is true. He did. At that time I did not know that that person had any connection with Marconi.
Now, there are two matters involved in this. The first is, is this the kind of procedure that ought to be adopted; that a Minister, in order to make his inquiries, will put detectives into the lobbies of the Dáil?
On a point of personal explanation, I think the Deputy has outstepped the facts of the situation here. I have not at any time stated that I put detectives into the House.
I would suggest to Deputy Figgis that the matters he is going into now would, perhaps, be more suitable for the Committee which it is proposed to appoint, and which it was understood would investigate all personal matters, and that he should confine himself now to asking the P.M.G. what his meaning was yesterday when he made use of certain words. We might in this way be able to get rid of this whole matter. It is not one which ought to form a subject of debate in the Dáil. It is one which, certainly if it has any substance, should be investigated by a Committee which would report upon it to the Dáil. That was the agreement yesterday, and while I sympathise with Deputy Figgis' desire to have a personal explanation in the matter, and while I do not wish in any way to restrict him, I suggest we might be able to dispose of the matter in that way.
So deeply am I in agreement with you that I deliberately refrained from referring to certain matters yesterday that I had desired to refer to. I am perfectly willing to leave the matter for this subsequent investigation, with my emphatic deliberate denial of the suggestion that was made. I only want, with your permission, to refer to one other aspect of it that I think it is proper I should mention and that would not contravene, as I may have contravened before. It is this: my only interest in moving for wireless broadcasting was not in connection with wireless or broadcasting whatever. It had no connection with any company or companies that were interested in the matter. My only interest in the matter was that the White Paper, that was initially circulated, contained certain proposals that I believe contravene the Constitution of this country. My action had no connection as to whether Marconi or anybody else has it. That is a matter that leaves me entirely cold, and the Dáil has my hostages in that connection. I have the proceedings of the House in my hand for Friday, the 14th December, on which day the resolution in my name was adopted, by which the Committee on Wireless Broadcasting was appointed. I will read that resolution:—
"That a Committee of the Dáil be appointed to consider the circular addressed to Deputies entitled `Wireless Broadcasting,' especially in regard to the proposal by which it is intended that the State should pass over the right to licence and tax incoming apparatus through a clearing house under the control of a private company."
That was my interest in the matter, and not whether this company or the other company should do the business, but that these things that I considered to be the special prerogative of the Minister for Finance should remain absolutely in the charge of the Minister for Finance, acting on behalf of the State, nothing whatever to do with wireless, nothing whatever to do with broadcasting, nothing whatever to do with any companies who were or might be, interested in the matter.
As you are, sir, the custodian of the honour and the guardian of all the rights and privileges of all the members of the Dáil, there is a matter I would like your permission to bring under your notice. There is nothing in the Terms of Reference to the Committee, which have just been read out by Deputy Figgis, declaring whether or not the proceedings of the Committee were to be private or public. There has been persistent denunciation of the Committee in several newspapers on the ground that it arrogated to itself illegal powers of pursuing a secret inquiry, and a great deal of the awkwardness and unpleasantness that have ensued in the course of discussions, both licit and illicit, in the deliberations of the Committee, is ascribed to the alleged secrecy of the tribunal. There is a very admirable leading article in the "Freeman's Journal" this morning, with everything in which I most heartily concur, with the exception of the demand that the further proceedings of the Committee should be public, and retrospectively, the criticism that the earlier proceedings should have been public. We had nothing whatever to guide us, except the Constitution and the Standing Orders. Article 25 of the Constitution lays it down that "Sittings of each House of the Oireachtas shall be public." Standing Order 65 proceeds to elucidate and apply the imperative clause, "shall be public." In this official copy of the Standing Orders Rule 65 is headed "Visitors.""Visitors may be introduced by Teachtaí to such places as may be reserved for them by the Ceann Comhairle, and authorised representatives of the Press may be present at sittings of the Dáil and Special Committees," and in the index to the Standing Orders it is spoken of as permission for the Press to be present.
It is under "Press," page 172.
Yes—"Press, representatives of—must be authorised; permission to attend the Dáil and Special Committees." Now, the index is as much an authoritative and official publication as the body of the text. The Constitution prescribes that meetings of the Dáil and meetings of the Seanad shall be public. Are they to be open to all the public all the time with respect to every part of the accommodation that they might provide? These questions are determined by Standing Order 65:—"Visitors may be introduced by Teachtaí to such places as may be reserved for them by the Ceann Comhairle, and authorised representatives of the Press may be present at sittings of the Dáil and Special Committees." Our Committee was a Special Committee. It was not, in the technical and strict sense of the words, a Departmental Committee, though it was an inquiry into departmental procedure, and projected departmental policy. It was a Special Committee, and under Rule 65 of the Standing Orders, the Press "may be present." That makes it clear to anyone who should raise the objection that the Press are not at liberty to be present, but I submit, sir, that it does not confer upon the Press the right to be present. Apart altogether from that, there are other Committees of this House that meet, and meet in private, and the Press never tender a request to be present. I am a member of several Committees at present that are carrying on their investigations, and there is no Press present, and there is no complaint as regards the absence of them from those Committee meetings.
No application was made to the Committee on Wireless to have the Press present until the twelfth day of the sittings. In order to keep the air clear of other issues than the central issues, and not to cloud any more unnecessarily the findings of the Committee by suggestions of secrecy that the public might ignorantly suppose to be secrecy in the interests of corruption, I am delighted to have the opportunity of making this statement that the reason that there was a majority vote at that twelfth sitting, when the first application for the presence of the Press was made on behalf of the Press, was that all these matters about graft and corruption, or implications of graft and corruption, had already been disposed of, and we were entering upon, let me call it, a calmer scene. If the Press had begun to report at that stage the public would have got a wrong impression altogether. It was not through hostility to the Press. The declared sense of the Committee was that in view of what had actually occurred we regretted very much that the Press had not been there from the beginning.
It was not in the spirit of restricting the privileges of the Press, or desiring to prevent publicity for our work, but it was merely that we, who had gone through all the documents and had heard the evidence, were convinced that if the Press were brought in at that stage, instead of helping matters it would only have made the difficulty greater. So that it is necessary, in the interests of the proper attitude of the public towards the findings, so far as they are findings, of the Interim Report, to have it made clear that the meetings were secret in that sense: they were not secret because of any preconceived design to keep them secret. They were non-public because the members of the Committee considered that it was better that they should be non-public. They simply, if I may use the expression, drifted into non-publicity, and then reaching the stage at which publicity did not seem beneficial. It is for you, sir, and the Dáil, with your concurrence, to decide, if this Committee proceeds with its enquiry, whether further proceedings are to be made in the presence of representatives of the Press.
I wish to raise a point of personal explanation arising out of——
Am I asked to decide something on this other question first?
Yes.
Perhaps we ought to take that other question first.
All right.
What precisely am I asked to decide upon? Am I asked to decide whether the Committee went outside its powers?
Yes. Was the Committee correct in believing in the circumstances that it had a right to decide its own procedure, and is it the wish of the Dáil that in future it shall be bound by the requirement to have the Press present?
In the first place, the Dáil appoints its Committees. The Dáil itself is supreme, and can give to its Special Committees any instructions which the Dáil desires. The Dáil, therefore, in appointing a Committee could instruct the Committee to conduct its proceedings in private, or could instruct the Committee to conduct its proceedings in public, or could, I think, instruct a Committee to conduct its proceedings in public, and if it thought desirable that certain sittings should be held in private to report accordingly to the Dáil for leave to exclude the Press. No instructions whatever were given to this Committee when it was appointed with regard to the question of the presence of the Press. At a certain stage in the proceedings, after the Committee had held several meetings, the question was raised that under Standing Order 65 the Committee had not power to exclude the Press. I understand that that was the contention. It seems to me that the word "may" means that the Press may be given permission to be present. The Committee had no instructions from the Dáil, and I think, therefore, that the Committee was right in deciding the matter itself, and was within its right in deciding that the Press should not be present, just as the Committee would have been within its rights had it decided that the Press should be present. It may be necessary to frame additional Standing Orders bearing on this matter, with particular reference to the different kinds of Committees which we set up. There is a certain difference, an obvious difference, between a Special Committee set up to consider a Bill, for example, and a Special Committee set up to consider some other matter, and it may be necessary for the Committee on Procedure to frame Standing Orders dealing with these matters. But in the absence of these Standing Orders, and on the construction of Standing Order 65, the Committee, I think, was quite within its rights in assuming that it had itself power to decide whether the Press should or should not be present. The Postmaster-General desires to make a personal explanation.
It appears that the Press, in its report of last evening's proceedings, conveyed the impression that in the course of my speech I imputed certain motives to the Committee, or rather that I conveyed the impression that the Committee was influenced in its decision by exterior forces. As a matter of fact, if my reference did convey that impression, I wish it to be understood it is not in any way applicable to what I had in my mind. I had not for one instant conceived the idea that this Committee came to its decisions on any other grounds than that of its own unaided judgment. I regard this Committee as being the maximum of integrity, and I have said so here. I am perfectly satisfied that any decision it has come to, or that it will come to, is a decision based solely on honesty and the best interests for the country.
Yesterday evening, in moving the adjournment of this debate, I did not feel very happy about it, because this is a subject which would require very close examination and a good deal of study. Many complexities arise from the nature of the case. The Postmaster - General is an Extern Minister, and the Executive Council, as such, has no responsibility in so far as the control of his Department is concerned, outside of one particular matter, and that is questions affecting finance. In listening to the Postmaster-General yesterday evening, and in reading the Press report of his statement, this morning, I have not been satisfied by the statement he has made that this Report should not be adopted. They were faced with a certain difficulty in its adoption; first as regards its interpretation, and secondly with regard to the decision that was given, particularly one decision which is very definite. In Paragraph 4, Sub-section (e), the question is: "Should the public necessity require that a concession be given to a composite company? Is the Irish Broadcasting Company, as set out in the White Paper, such in its inception, formation, and composition as to warrant the grant to it of the broadcasting concession." If I correctly interpret the Postmaster-General's statement yesterday, it was to the effect that the answer to that question should be "yes." If I am wrong in that interpretation, I think it is due to the Postmaster-General that he should put me right, but that is the real question at issue.
The Postmaster-General went further, and said that if the evidence before the Committee were before the Dáil that it would scarcely adopt that suggestion, and the Dáil is in this position that it has set up a responsible Committee which has examined this problem and has given us the benefit of its advice, and there is no minority report from any person on it. We should be fair in this matter to the Postmaster-General, whose main idea, I take it, is to provide a service for the public, which he believes the public needs, and which in his opinion, ought to be provided in the way he suggests. On the question of evidence, I think it will be generally admitted that the ritual usually prevailing where evidence is taken, is that one promises to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The Committee was faced with the still further difficulty that I am sure it had to take into consideration what was germane in evidence. This was the first Committee which was formed to deal with a subject like this, and obviously there would creep in, in the nature of events, matters which would be entirely extraneous.
I have seen one document in connection with this business which would not fulfil or would not be within that ritual which is inseparable from a person giving evidence, that when you are telling the truth you must tell the whole truth. The other question then arises: if you are going to tell the whole truth, how far will it be relevant to the matter under consideration? I must say that I believe, in so far as any disability in connection with telling the whole truth is concerned, it was entirely unintentional. But there is this unfortunate disadvantage, that the telling of the whole truth might reflect on an individual, and that reflection might be intensified by reason of the position he holds in the State.
The next question that the Postmaster-General dealt with in his statement yesterday evening was that there was connected with this proposed company a gentleman of the highest standing in the country. I accept that unreservedly. I do not know that there is a more eminent, more respectable or more honoured citizen than Mr. Dowdall. I would have the utmost possible confidence in any company in which Mr. Dowdall would be interested. But while saying that, I must state my experience with regard to these matters. I recollect somewhere within the last quarter of a century a company being formed in Dublin, with one of the most eminent citizens of the country as chairman, the late Alderman Meade. The company was to have provided motor or electric bicycles, or something like that, at a cost of £7 10s. A good deal of public money was invested, and Alderman Meade found that he had to use all his ability and all his industry to preserve for the people who had put their money into it, by reason of the fact that his name was associated with the company, their rights, and only succeeded in doing so. That is not a position I would like to see Mr. Dowdall placed in. I take it the Report of the Committee was that this was the judgment of the Committee in connection with this matter, and I take it that Deputy Johnson subscribed to that.
Looking over the White Paper, we find that the conclusion come to in the second paragraph was that an Irish Broadcasting Company should be established, the main capital of which should be provided by the chief firms interested in the industry. In the recommendation that is made from the Post Office is that condition fulfilled by the various companies, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5? If I am correct, outside of No. 4, I do not know of any firm that does. Possibly No. 1 may be interested in this business, may have some knowledge of it. But the facts are, that we appear to be dealing in this case with company-promoting rather than with companies that are in the business. I do not think that the Dáil would subscribe to a proposition of that sort. If, on the other hand, these companies have all the elements indicated in the second paragraph of the White Paper, I think it was due to the Dáil that the Postmaster-General should give the Dáil that particular information.
Going further and examining the lines upon which this particular company should be formed, we are faced with, perhaps, the greatest complexity that I have ever seen or heard of in connection with the formation of a public company. The company is to be established with a capital of £30,000, and by some extraordinary reservation £7,500 of that money is to be reserved to firms which, according to the second paragraph of this White Paper, should have a predominant interest in this particular company. But there is a further liability on persons interested in wireless or broadcasting who propose to take a £5 share, that in order to establish, as it were, their bona fides, they must buy £50 worth of our Savings Certificates. There would be, to my mind, a case for insisting upon the purchase of an equivalent amount in some sort of security if the sum subscribed were to be a proportion of the capital. In other words, if there was to be liability to a call on the shares there would be some justification for asking for security in respect to the amount of capital that would not be called up. But I fail to see, through any examination or otherwise, how you are going to establish your bona fides by purchasing £50 worth of Savings Certificates, to be left in the custody of the company, and to revert to the individual when he separates himself from the company. I presume in separating himself from the company he would have to confer upon any person taking his place the same liability that he had when he entered it. The position then would be that a person wishing to leave the company should forfeit his £5 and say: “I am no longer a member of the company,” and make the company a present of his share, if he could not get some person who would undertake to put up a £50 Savings Certificate. What would be the position, I wonder, in the event of our ceasing to issue these £50 Savings Certificates? What would be the position of a person who could not get any equivalent security to secure his bona fides? The proposition appears to me to be the most outlandish one that I ever heard of in my experience. That experience may have been short, it may not have been varied, but I have yet to learn of a similar case in connection with any parallel concern.
The Government's position in regard to this is to consider whether, as a question of policy, the British parallel of handing over to a company the exclusive broadcasting rights should be adopted. That is number one. Number two is: What proportion of the licence fees paid by individual holders of wireless sets should accrue to the State and what proportion to the proposed company? I take it, as regards the second point, our main concern would be as to whether any service we would provide in the matter would be covered by those licence fees. Apart from that it is a question of policy and for the Postmaster-General to recommend. I understand that we were assured with regard to that, that the licence fees would pay for the service. But another point arises. It is upon this point I would like to make the position of the Government perfectly clear. It is a difficult position. It is the first time this question has arisen and I would like in considering it that the utmost possible justice should be done to an Extern Minister. It is a constitutional position that we have scarcely had an opportunity of dealing with so far. My interpretation of it is this: In considering this matter as leader of the Dáil I do not associate with that position my membership of the Executive Council. In other words, this is a matter that should be decided by a free vote of the Dáil. The Postmaster-General is responsible to the Dáil and, therefore, the weight of the Executive and of the Government should not be thrown into the scales one way or the other. It is a business proposition upon which every Deputy ought to be perfectly free to exercise his discretion and judgment according to the best of his ability. In saying that I may say there is no limitation with regard to Deputies in matters put forward by the Government.
Mr. O'CONNELL
Oh, no.
With regard to that question, the interpretation of this Report is a matter of considerable importance. The Committee finds that it is not yet in a position to say what its answers are to B., C. or D. of sub-Section 4. That question was developed to some extent by Deputy Johnson. I do not altogether subscribe to his interpretation of it. Unquestionably if a sum of money is required by any Minister, extern or intern, that sum of money must be provided by this Oireachtas in the manner and form laid down by the Constitution. I do subscribe to Deputy Johnson's view, to this extent, that if an Extern Minister comes to the Dáil and says "I want £20,000 for a service and the Executive Council would not give it," it is in the nature of a vote of want of confidence in the Government. The Minister ought to be in a position to move for that vote of want of confidence. To that extent I think we would maintain the Constitutional position and give the Dáil full authority in the matter. I do not know of any other way in which the matter can be solved constitutionally, keeping within the four corners of the Constitution, which will be as binding on the successors of the persons forming the Executive Council, who have been so deposed by that vote of want of confidence. To that extent only is there a difference between the Deputy's position and mine. In the event of the Dáil passing a resolution to that effect, it is a vote of want of confidence in the Government, and the Government cannot keep office. With regard to "B.," which is the main question, I do not subscribe, and I think the Dáil is not asked to subscribe, to the proposal that by not accepting the recommendation in the White Paper we are committed to this expenditure out of public funds to set up a broadcasting station. Other than that I do not think I have anything further to say.
I have not listened to all the speeches on this question of broadcasting, but, as far as I have listened to them, it struck me that the subject was one of great national importance. It is scarcely necessary to say that broadcasting in the future may develop into one of the greatest elements of our national life. Perhaps in the very near future broadcasting may find its way into a good many homes, possibly into every home. When one realises the great educational influence that broadcasting will have in this and every other country where it is operating, to my mind it will be almost as important in a national and moral sense as our schools.
Any Government or any representatives of the people who are careful of the national, as well as the moral, life of the nation will be anxious to see the system controlled in the same way as our national education. Who in this country, I ask, would think of handing over national education to a private company or to a foreign company? There is no doubt at all about the importance and the influence of the matter that will be broadcasted. It is not a matter, I think, that ought to be passed over very lightly, or on which a quick decision should be come to. It is new and has been sprung upon us, and consequently deserves the most careful attention we could give it in all its aspects. That is what impressed me in connection with it.
Recently we have had complaints about the harm the films have done. If we are not careful about broadcasting we will have the same complaints, and in addition to a film censor we will have to have a broadcasting censor. I think the Government would be well advised to move carefully in this matter and not shut its eyes to the vast importance and to the far-reaching effects of broadcasting. I believe that broadcasting should be controlled by the Government regardless of the expense involved. The matter that will be transmitted should, in my opinion, be carefully revised from the moral and national standpoint. We do not want the minds of our youths contaminated with some of the stuff that the youths of other countries have been imbibing. We do not want to have a repetition in connection with broadcasting of our experience of the films. I would ask the Minister responsible to look at the question from that point of view. It has been stated that this is only a business proposition. It is much more: it is a national proposition. I quite agree with the Postmaster-General's statement of yesterday that we ought to be careful not to make this country an English shire. There are vast possibilities in broadcasting. It is only in its infancy and we want to be very careful as to who controls it and how it is used.
I think the President cleared the air a great deal. Possibly the last Deputy devoted his attention too much to what were merely suggestions in the Report of the Committee for it to be really quite clear to members of the Dáil as to what is the actual issue before them and what they will commit themselves to if they agree to Deputy O'Maille's motion. I take it that there are three definite recommendations in the Committee's Report and three only. There are suggestions, and the Committee has asked permission to discuss these suggestions further in order to work out a practical scheme. I take the three points that are dealt with, not exactly in the order on the Paper.
First, there is the issue of licences. That was really within the power of the Postmaster-General, and I am glad to say that he has already acted on that recommendation. I do not at all share the pessimistic feelings he has with regard to his action. I think he will be very glad he did so in the end. The second point, more important perhaps to us, is the recommendation that a broadcasting station should be established. That has been recommended by the Committee, not merely as a pious opinion, as the Postmaster-General stated, but recommended with equal strength to that with which they recommended the first point I referred to. It merely says that they recommend the setting up of a broadcasting station. Until the approval of the Dáil is given to that, as a general principle, it does not seem worth while for the Committee to proceed with its work, because they could do nothing useful. The Committee asked for a provisional approval of that. As the President stated, that does not in any way, I take it, commit the Dáil to any State expenditure. The Committee asked permission to consider further what would be the best way of carrying out that proposal. I think the Postmaster-General is, as I said, more likely to get nearer that realisation if the Dáil at this stage gave that provisional acceptance that is proposed in Deputy O Maille's motion. As to the third point, there may possibly be some difference of opinion between the Postmaster-General and the Committee. I do not think he made himself quite clear, and I think the President was not quite clear as to what exact attitude the Postmaster-General was taking on that point. They seemed rather to cloud the issue. I doubt very much if the Postmaster-General would advocate in the Dáil, at the present moment, that this particular concession should be given to the particular company as constituted in the White Paper. That, I think, is the only point upon which there is any difference of opinion at all possible between the Postmaster-General and the Committee.
I do not refer to other reasons, and I do not agree at all with the Postmaster-General that the Report, as issued by the Committee, casts any reflections on any other people but one. I fear the Postmaster-General has failed to realise the very big issue that was raised in this question, quite apart from the broadcasting problem at all. The Committee was definitely of opinion that this concession should not be given to a company constituted as described in the White Paper. I think the Committee has given sufficient reasons in its Report to the Dáil for the Dáil not to go with the Postmaster-General if he was openly to advocate that that concession should be given to that particular company. That is quite a different thing from saying a concession should not be given to some other company. I might pass on to say that the White Paper was such that it would not be a practical proposition to consider it at all at present. I doubt if that particular company mentioned in the White Paper is still a matter of practical politics for us. We were told yesterday, and I think it is true, that Mr. Belton has already left the country. If it is true, the proposal falls, and I doubt if any real difference remains between the Postmaster-General and the Committee. If it does come to an issue I hope that the Dáil will give a definite expression of opinion as to whether this or any other State concession should be given to a firm against any single one of whose members can be raised the points that have been raised against this particular one. I do not think there are any other recommendations of a definite nature in the Report. The Dáil is merely asked to agree to the Committee going on further with its work on those lines. It is not asked to commit itself to anything further than that.
Mr. O'CONNELL
I just wish to say that the Dáil ought to be thankful to the Deputy who has spoken last for putting the matter so definitely and clearly before it. There was a tendency, I fear, to wander into things that were not altogether pertinent to the question at issue. The motion before the Dáil, I take it, is that this Report, submitted by the Committee set up by the Dáil, should be adopted. As Deputy Thrift pointed out, it contains three definite recommendations and a request that it should be given authority from this Dáil to continue its investigations into other matters. The three recommendations that it makes are set out definitely. It states quite positively:
"That the control of broadcasting in Ireland must be rigorously preserved a national control, and that the transmission service must not be permitted to become a monopoly in private hands."
It is not so very long ago since we, on this side of the House, put before the Dáil a Bill in which we endeavoured to take back again into the hands of the people what was in effect, and is in effect, a national service and we found there was very considerable difficulty in doing it. We would advocate, therefore, any proposition which would prevent, at this stage, what should be a national service getting into the hands of private monopolists.
The second question, which is answered definitely, is whether or not this special company that is mentioned in the White Paper should be given this power. The answer to that is equally definite. If any member of the Dáil wishes to make up his mind as to how he should vote on the motion, he has only to ask himself whether or not he agrees with the suggestion of the Committee with regard to this question and the other two questions. From what has been put before the Dáil by members of the Committee, and from what is in the written Report, I think nobody can come to any other conclusion but that the particular company that was suggested should not in any circumstances be given this right.
As to the question of an Irish Broadcasting Station, I think that there can be no doubt that it is highly advisable that we should have an Irish Broadcasting Station set up. It is not often that I agree with Deputy Gorey, especially on educational matters, but I do thoroughly endorse the sentiments which he expressed, that broadcasting can be made a service of great educational value, and of great value especially to the main industry of the country. For that reason I think it is essential, in the national interests, that the national authorities should keep control of it. I have no hesitation in recommending the Dáil to adopt the Report of the Committee.
I think, on the whole, as far as I can see, the Report of the Committee is an admirable one. There is only one small point on which I wish to take issue with them. They speak of "broadcasting lectures, educative or entertaining." I do not like the word "or." I should like lectures to be educative and entertaining. But there were two Professors on the Committee, and they, presumably, are authorities on lectures. They laid it down that no lecture that entertained can be also educative.
Or vice versa.
Or vice versa. As an humble lecturer myself, from time to time, I am very sorry that lectures cannot be entertaining as well as educative, but it is definitely laid down here as a dogma that they cannot be. With that exception, I endorse the Report.
I also, on this occasion, must enrol myself under Deputy O'Connell's banner. I am not a believer in State monopoly, in many things, but I do hold that a broadcasting service has certain tremendous factors in the development of a people, and is such a tremendous aid to education, that it ought to be under direct State control. That is particularly so in regard to one item. It is proposed, among other things, to broadcast market reports, as I gather that the farmers are going to have listening-in sets. From all we have heard here, I do not know how they are going to buy them. Perhaps they are going to get Government grants to buy them in order to receive market reports. I hope the market reports will not be solely concerned with the rise and fall of the price of jute, which, whenever I read the market reports, seems to be the chief item. I do not even know what jute is; I believe it comes from India. I hope the Report will also refer to things of more interest to the farmer, such as the prices of butter, eggs, and poultry. Surely you cannot run the risk of allowing some outside source not under direct State control to distribute those market reports, because unscrupulous people by broadcasting a false report might conceivably reap an enormous profit and might cause serious loss to the farmer. That, I think, is a very strong argument for direct State control. But I think we would be going too far if we, as the Postmaster-General apparently desires, should try to create an entirely self-contained Irish broadcasting service. Perhaps it is necessary, as the suggestion has been made, to say that I am not interested in the Marconi Company. I have not the smallest financial connection with it, and I have never been approached by anybody on behalf of the Marconi Company.
I sometimes feel intensely insignificant because nobody seems to think it worth while to approach me in connection with these matters. Apparently other Deputies are approached in this way. But the only people who approach me in connection with financial matters are people who want to get money out of the Minister for Finance. That is not infrequent. I have not been influenced in this matter by any outside consideration whatsoever. But if we are to have proper education, we are not going to obtain it by building a Chinese wall around our country. That is particularly so in regard to music— and most of the broadcasting is concerned with music. Lectures are a comparatively subordinate feature. I saw a letter to the Postmaster-General in which there was talk of broadcasting art. Broadcasting has made immense strides, but I do not think it is yet possible to broadcast a picture. Music is, undoubtedly, the main feature of every broadcasting programme. The Minister, in his speech yesterday, dismissed all wireless which comes from outside this country as "British music-hall dope and British propaganda." I do not know if he has studied the programmes of the British Broadcasting Company. The last time I "listened-in" in London, the propaganda, whatever it was, was not British.
I must say that I never experienced so much Scotch—externally—in my life. There was not one word of English in it. I looked up the wireless programme for to-night and I looked for the "British music hall dope." I find that to-night the principal feature of the British Broadcasting Company's programme is "Hamlet." Hamlet, I suppose, is "music hall dope." Hamlet, which I, personally, should think enough for an evening, is to be followed by the third act of "Parsifal." I think we, in Dublin, have never heard "Parsifal." The Postmaster-General cannot dismiss all these things as "British music hall dope." Neither can they be described as "British propaganda."
Now, we are a small country. We cannot afford the resources of places like London or Paris or even Manchester in the way of orchestras or in the way of music. We can get a symphony by Glazounov played at Manchester that was never played in Manchester before; it has been specially arranged for. I do not think a Russian symphony can be called "British music hall dope" or "propaganda." There are to be supplied, too, movements from Beethoven. The Fifth Symphony was played in Dublin last year, but I do not think that for ten years the other symphonies were played in Dublin for the reason that we have not an orchestra capable of the task. We have a first-class military band; we have the nucleus of a chamber orchestra, and we have also a number of able 'celloists, but we have not any great orchestra, and if it is the intention of the Postmaster-General to deny us any opportunity of picking up these British and Continental concerts we will be at a great loss.
I am sure the Postmaster-General, as a good patriot, would like to see some great musical genius arise in Ireland. But that genius is not likely to arise if we keep in a narrow circle and if the young composer never hears any of the really first-class orchestras or any of the really great compositions of the masters, none of whom, with perhaps one exception, was English. By this extraordinary invention of wireless, you can bring first-class music to the door of almost everybody. Even the poor boy, who cannot afford a set, will find some kind neighbour who will oblige him, or on some public occasion—a bazaar or something of that sort—he will be able to pick up some of this music. In this way, it may have an influence on his life and may turn his mind to great things. An Irish station will never be able to provide this on a really satisfactory scale. I am afraid that if we are to have wireless established on an exclusively Irish-Ireland basis, the result will be "Danny Boy" four times a week, with variations by way of camouflage.
Every performer will be told: "The Postmaster-General wishes you to sing something of an exclusively Irish character." The result will be "Danny Boy," and then, of course, we shall have the Postmaster-General's speeches about the Tailteann games to follow up. I am afraid that after a short time the people will begin to look for variety, and I urge that in any scheme set up some opportunity of obtaining that variety should be given. It is not a question of cutting out Manchester or Cardiff or London; it is a question of cutting out Paris as well. I never "listened-in" in Ireland in my life. I am a law-abiding citizen. I do not go about with pirate sets, but I am told by people who do—as a matter of fact, I have been told by a Deputy who supports the Government—that you can receive Paris admirably. In time, no doubt, we shall receive the United States. It is my very deep and profound conviction—if I have spoken frivolously on this matter it is not because I feel lightly—that we cannot set up a Chinese wall around the country or establish an exclusive civilisation. If we wish to do that, let there be no wireless broadcasting, let there be no telegraphic cables, no foreign postal service. If we are to pursue that policy let us pursue it to its logical conclusion. We are not a little island in the Atlantic between America and Europe. For good or evil we are a part of Europe. In the past—the distant past—we influenced Europe profoundly, and I hope it will be our lot to do it again. We shall not do it by pursuing a policy of isolation and by shutting out the education that comes from European civilisation.
rose to speak.
Deputy O'Maille will conclude the debate.
I think I should be permitted to reply before the debate concludes, seeing that I am the Minister responsible and that a few matters arose concerning me.
Is the Dáil agreeable that the Postmaster-General should be allowed to speak a second time?
Permission granted.
My position in this House as an Extern Minister provides that I may report to the House, and to the House only, on any particular project, and that it is solely a matter for the House to accept or reject any of my proposals. I have necessarily, because of that subordination and responsibility to the House, to accept the decision of the Dáil without question. There can be no doubting that position. It is one that I suppose is understood by the House generally and by Ministers in a similar position to that in which I am. As a matter of fact, it would be very strange if it were otherwise—for instance, if I were to act in the capacity of dictator in matters of this kind, if I were not subordinate to the Cabinet, if I were not subordinate to the Dáil, in short, if it was my own affair to introduce any proposal concerning public policy, and that that proposal should not be subject to close scrutiny and revision where revision is desirable.
When opposing proposals of the Committee yesterday in this Interim Report. I did not move an amendment for obvious reasons, nor did I intend that there should be any vote on the subject, as many members of the Dáil concluded, apparently. I tried to impress on the Committee the rather obvious fact that it would be inadvisable to come to definite conclusions in regard to the matters contained in Section 8, in the absence of some alternative. In any case there was no pressing reason why the Dáil should be committed to conclusions in regard thereto. Not only has the Committee not provided an alternative, but likewise the subject matter arising out of Mr. Belton's relations with a Deputy of the Dáil, are yet to form the subject of investigation, I understand from a resolution passed yesterday, and it strikes me, without in any way defending, or attempting to defend, Mr. Belton, it is a rather unfair attempt to prejudice his position in advance. It is purely a matter for the Dáil to accept or reject the proposal put forward by the Committee. In either event I will not have any grievance. In accepting the proposals, they throw directly on the Committee the responsibility of providing an alternative programme.
I only hope the Committee will provide an alternative programme. I am not taking a narrow view-point. I am not taking the view-point that because evidence which was not at my disposal at the time I agreed to the formation of this Company, may have actuated them in a decision contrary to mine; that decision may not be justified, or that had I been on the Committee with that evidence at my disposal, I would not say I would have agreed with the Committee. It is quite possible I would. That is the point I want to emphasise. It is quite possible, were I on the Committee, and had the further evidence which this Committee had placed at its disposal, I may or may not have been in agreement with their decision. But for me to question the decision at this particular stage, beyond the fact that I believe it would be more advisable to come to no decision on it, or to question the justification for that decision, is not a thing I could stand over or attempt to stand over.
A great deal of play has been made with some apparent desire of mine to exclude foreign music. Now, everybody knows that even if I tried to exclude foreign music, I could not do so, once the instruments were in the country. The thing is obvious to anybody who wants to understand it. I have never for one instant suggested that foreign music and foreign propaganda should be excluded. As everybody knows, there is such a thing conveyed through wireless as dope that will not assist this country, and dope that the people of this country do not desire. Nevertheless, that is conveyed through wireless. Even if I tried to prevent its dissemination here, I could not succeed. It is my obvious duty to see that that material which is of the utmost importance to the life of this country material concerning the country and concerning its culture, should not be quietly placed aside to leave the field free for this foreign material. That is my only standpoint, and I am glad to see that at any rate the Committee is satisfied that this standpoint must be maintained. I know that many Deputies have been asking themselves why, in the first instance, this broadcasting station was not put up by the State, and why, in fact, we worried to introduce private capital.
I know sufficient of the Treasury mind of the Government to satisfy me that if I had presented a proposal which might eventually cost the funds of the State tens of thousands of pounds per annum for the erection and maintenance of a broadcasting station, my proposal would get very short shrift; it would be scouted out. Even if I proposed it to the Dáil, which now, apparently, is so anxious to speculate State monies in a project of the kind, it would be very sharply turned down. I would not dream of doing any such thing. It would not get one half-hour's consideration by the Dáil or the Finance Minister, for the reason that I could not satisfy anybody that in investing State monies in a broadcasting station it would not be a reckless chancing of monies which are not our own and which we should not chance. I determined, therefore, that there was only one alternative in this matter, and that was an invitation to private citizens to organise, finance and control this station as had been done in England. I may say in this connection were I a private citizen—I said so to the Committee—and had I been invited to put my money into a broadcasting station, I would not do so. It may not appear perfectly honest to invite others to do it, but that would be their own outlook, and very few of them responded. If I took that course, it was because of the fact that I had no alternative.
The President wants to know is there any parallel anywhere to this proposal of ours, that shareholders in the proposed broadcasting company should deposit a sum of £50 in Savings Certificates. It would have been some enlightenment to the President had he been enabled to read the evidence on that subject. There are parallels and definite reasons for this course. I do not suppose the President thinks for one instant that a Department deliberately inserted a proposal of that kind without having direct justification for it or without having a parallel. He also speaks rather lightly of companies which were the main constituent element. At least, three of these companies were as much involved in electrical business here as any of the other agents of foreign companies, because that is what they all are. There are no manufacturers of wireless here. In all probability the whole five companies would eventually have been engaged in electrical business. I cannot, at any rate, say they would not. But to talk of electrical people in this country is to stretch one's imagination to some length. They are all only agents of British companies. There is no real live manufacturer here. We hope there will be, but at present there is not. To suppose we could raise the necessary funds for a project of this kind from people who at the present moment are engaged in the manufacture of wireless, is to anticipate something that is not possible.
I only want to assure the Committee that I have no personal objection, nor do I take any exception to a decision of theirs contrary to my judgment. It would be very small of me to assume that, even though I was at the Head of a Department and advised by my Department, my opinion is of more importance than that of the Committee specially selected or that the decisions of that Committee are not based on grounds solely in the interests of the Nation. Now whatever decision this Committee comes to I hope sincerely they will get money from the State for the erection of a Broadcasting Station. I can assure them so far as I am personally concerned and so far as my Department is concerned that they will find in us the utmost loyalty and co-operation in the carrying through of that project.
On a point of order, or I think I should say procedure, I wish to say that the Postmaster-General is referring to this Committee as if it were a Committee in authority over him and his Department directly. I think it is as well, right at once, that he should be disabused of that idea. We are not removing from him any responsibility for the conduct of his Department.
Nuair do chuireas an cheist seo os comhair na Dála indé labhair mé as Gaedhilg ar feadh tamaill mhaith. Ach níl focal den chainnt a rinne mé as Gaedhilg le feicsint ins na páipéirí indiu. Is minic a mbíonn cuid de sna páipéirí sin ag gearán fé nach mbíonn focal ar bith dhá labhairt annseo, agus anois nuair a labhartar as Gaedhilg ní chuireann siad óiread is focal i gcló.
Dubhairt Aire an Phuist rud indé nár mhaith liomsa ná le haon Teachta a bhí ar an gCoiste. Dubhairt sé gur ndearna duine éigin laistigh den choiste iarratas ar neamh-spleadhachas an Coiste do chur ar leath-taoibh.
Tharraing sé síar an cainnt sin agus is maith liom gur dhein sé amhlaidh. Táim lán-chinnte nach raibh aon dúil ag lucht an Choisde aon rud do dhéanamh ach tuarasgabháil cóir, ceart, neamh-spleadhach do chur cughainn annso gan tagairt d'aon rud eile ach amháin don cheist seo.
It is not necessary for me to say much in recommending this Report for the adoption of the Dáil, but I would wish to remark at the outset that in introducing the Report here yesterday I spoke for a considerable time in Irish, and there was no mention made of that fact in either of the two morning papers I saw to-day, although one, at least, of those papers is not slow to make statements that no Irish is spoken in the Dáil. The Postmaster-General in his speech yesterday made one suggestion that was resented very much by myself and every member of the Committee, and that is that there was influence inside the Committee to interfere with its independence. I am very glad that he has withdrawn that statement unreservedly, because, as far as the members of the Committee are concerned, there was no spirit moving them except to bring in a truly impartial report before the Dáil. The Postmaster-General seems to think that because the Committee did not think well to recommend the broadcasting project suggested in the White Paper that we had killed broadcasting in Ireland. That is not so at all. The chief factor that decided the Committee in rejecting or recommending the Dáil to reject that proposed plan was the character of one of its chief promoters, namely, Mr. Belton. The Committee had not the slightest desire or intention to cast a reflection or aspersion on the character, honesty or integrity of a number of gentlemen who were connected with that project. We quite realised that they are honest-minded citizens, men of worth and integrity in the nation. We were also convinced, and we can realise, that the Postmaster-General is disappointed because his proposed plan is not being adopted. We know that the Postmaster-General and his Department went to considerable trouble in studying this question. It was a new question in Ireland, and a very complex question, and it took our Committee a considerable time to go through it. But as I said the principal reason that made us turn the report down was the fact of Mr. Belton's connection with the scheme. The Postmaster-General in his statement to-day twits the Committee that they are not putting up any alternative programme. It was not the duty of the Committee to put up an alternative programme, because the Committee, as he knows, was appointed to consider the White Paper on broadcasting and report to the Dáil thereon. We have made a suggestion here in paragraph 7 of the Report, which we had not time to develop, and on which we could not express a definite opinion until we have heard further evidence. Deputy Major Cooper found fault with the words "educative or entertaining." I must say that his speech to-day has been entertaining.
And educative.
And educative, but at the same time I prefer to take the two professors' definition of the meaning of lectures and entertainments to his, because there are some lectures and speeches, on political economy and other subjects, that are not oftentimes very entertaining. Deputy Gorey suggested that the Committee did not display any anxiety about having a control of Irish broadcasting.
On a point of explanation, I did not refer to the Committee at all, nor was the Committee in my mind.
No, Deputy Gorey made no such insinuation.
In paragraph 5 it is stated: "The Committee is convinced that the control of broadcasting in Ireland must be rigorously preserved as a national control," and we also dwelt in the Report as to how useful broadcasting could be in circulating market reports. I wish to recommend this report to the Dáil, and I am glad to see that the Postmaster-General has withdrawn his objection to it. After all, his objection was only to one paragraph, and it may be possible to evolve a scheme which can be financed by Irish investors without having to call upon the State to support the scheme by State funds.
Motion put, and declared carried unanimously.
When the Interim Report was presented it was ordered that the Report be printed and circulated; that the Report be considered on the 14th February, and further, that the Committee continue its deliberations and present a final Report not later than the 14th March.
May I ask would it be in the power of the Committee, in making the final Report, to recommend the publication of all the evidence that it took and all the documents referred to in the evidence. I am not quite clear in my own mind as to whether the decision on yesterday evening's debate has made it impossible for the public to have access to the evidence that we took, and if I am not out of order, I should like to point out to you that a great many of the speeches that were made drew largely on that evidence. Some of us speaking on the matter were careful not to draw upon it until it had been decided to make it public. If the decision of the Dáil is to accept the Report mainly on the vote of the Committee members who have signed it and to leave the matter there, is that to hold good also with regard to the final Report?
No. The decision yesterday was to allow Deputy Cooper to withdraw his Motion for the publication of the evidence. But Deputy Cooper stated, and I think he was correct in stating it, that he still had a right to move that the evidence be printed and circulated, at any future time. I have not given any consideration to the matter because it had not been raised before, but at the moment I see no objection to the Committee itself recommending in its Report that the evidence should be printed and circulated. Therefore, there is no doubt that the matter is still open. Does that satisfy the Deputy?
It does. I am most anxious that the public should know what is the evidence upon which that Report was founded, and there seems to be an idea in the minds, not merely of the public, but of members of the Dáil, that that is not to be made public, that instead there is to be substituted an inquiry into the Figgis-Belton affair. I suggested yesterday, and I would like to repeat to-day, that it is wholly unfair to the members of the Committee if ——
The Deputy is going into an argument on the question. The question of the publication of the evidence taken before this Committee is not finally disposed of.
Personally, I think that it would solve matters——
Is the Postmaster-General asking me a question?
Yes.
What is the question?
Has it been definitely decided to publish all this evidence or not? It does not seem clear to many of us.
No decision has been taken on the question of the publication of the evidence. A Motion can again be moved to publish the evidence. Such a Motion would be in order, and presumably, would be decided upon.