I want to ask the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if he has any other jobs in Telefís Éireann that he might give to the needy and deserving pensioners of CIE. This part-time man is being paid £1,000 a year. How can anybody be expected to work for such a miserable figure other than part-time? It is something of a national scandal that this matter should have been handled in the way it was. It is simply more evidence of the other side of the coin of nepotism to which I was referring earlier when Private Members' Business interrupted the debate on this Estimate. I do not want to use words which do not exactly describe what has taken place and therefore I will not use the word "corruption". But it is something akin to corruption which has occurred in so far as the appointment of the ex-Chairman of CIE is concerned. It is all under the Old Pals Act. Nobody will persuade me that there resides in the person of the former Chairman of CIE such a wealth of ability and knowledge that RTE could not do without his services or that the post could not have been given to somebody more in need of it and who could discharge it equally well, if not better. This is much in the same way as the appointment of judges is open, naked and unashamed political patronage.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 42—Posts and Telegraphs (Resumed).
The Deputy may not discuss the appointment of judges.
I am not going to, Sir; I merely mention it in passing. I want to question the appointment of the ex-Chairman of CIE to this part-time post at £1,000 a year. Members of this House are paid a salary of 50 per cent more than the Chairman of the Television Authority. It may very well be that some Deputies find that membership of the House is not a fulltime occupation, but for 99 per cent of the Members of this House, there are not enough hours in the day within which to complete the multifarious duties required of a TD. None the less we must struggle on and do the best we can, giving all our time. It may be, of course, that we are not deemed to be deserving of payment on a scale level with that of the person of whom I speak, who has so brilliant talents. But it is certain that a big number of the Members of this House did not hitch their political wagons to the star which was so fortunate in his case.
The appointment of the ex-Chairman of CIE, coming at the time it did, justifiably caused considerable public disquiet. I do not think it is right that it should be let pass or that it should be deemed in bad taste on my part to mention the fact that people were appalled by this piece of political cynicism which showed such utter disregard, not alone for the economic facts of the society in which we live, but for the feelings of the people. However, cynical disregard for the feelings of the people seems to be the trend now. Let me say to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, who is a member of the Government and shares in the responsibility for this trend, that the day of reckoning is going to come. Those who are now treating lightly certain matters which are disturbing the public mind may very well find themselves at the end of the day not being troubled with such matters at all.
Before the adjournment, I was referring to the programme on Telefís Éireann called "The Politicians". The Minister thought fit to suggest that if Harold Wilson knew his job as well apparently as the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs knows his——
What an odious comparison !
——he would not permit the democratic practice which now prevails in that detested foreign broadcasting and television system they have across the water, the BBC, and that he would not permit and would be well advised to alter the present system whereby each of the Parties is allowed equal representation on any political discussions televised in that country. It is a pity the Minister's colleagues did not give this advice to the British Prime Minister when they were all palsy-walsy with him some months ago doing such great work for Ireland and the Irish farmer, and indeed when they were securing the future of the Irish farmer. However, they did not avail of that opportunity. It now appears there is an agonising reappraisal in progress of the position of the Government vis-á-vis John Bull and that we are getting back to where we were more or less. Indeed, I have heard the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries describe the British once more as “the enemy”.
The Deputy is getting away from the Estimate.
I have no responsibility for conditions in England.
I admit it galls you even to think of what is happening in that detested foreign country. I know the Republican Party feel this very deeply. This is since last June or whenever it was you made your Trade Agreement. But there is good even in the worst of us. The democratic practice, not alone in Britain but wherever social democracy prevails, ordains that if there is a public discussion on any issue of national importance, televised or no, each Party should get an equal length of time to state its point of view for or against, just as we in this House do as we are called in rotation by the Chair.
This does not apply with the programme called "The Politicians." For some years we did have a programme "The Hurlers on the Ditch." I must say it was infinitely superior, from what I have seen so far of "The Politicians," to what "The Politicians" as a programme is likely to turn out to be. "The Hurlers" consisted of people outside politics who could at least express the public point of view to some extent and who were conversant with what goes on in the corridors where the illusion of power presides. But we have had "The Hurlers" replaced by this charade, this masquerade of a programme, the basis of which is determined not by the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority but by the Minister and his colleagues in Government.
At the outset, it will be remembered that there was a row because it was proposed by the Telefís people to bring on the programme somebody, not a Member of the House, to discuss matters concerning— I think, agriculture — at which the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries would be present. This was considered to be lése majesté. It was not considered to be at all proper that such elevated beings as we are should be forced to sit before television cameras accompanied by the ordinary people of Ireland. We must be, as it were, in a reserved position and argue only with ourselves.
A Deputy
Enclosure.
Reserved enclosure: how apt the description. If we were to follow that to its logical conclusion, it would mean that contact with the ordinary people would become a very rare thing. I have no doubt that there are Members of this House for whom it is a rare thing to have contact with the electorate but that does not apply to the vast majority of us. We have to go about our affairs through the bustle of humanity—and very happy we are to have the opportunity of doing so. I think any of us would be very glad to engage in discussion on the country's problems with any member of the public on any medium, contrary to the impression given by the Government that television should be reserved, in instances such as this, for discussion as between politicians.
Let me get back to the point I was making. Here we have a programme for the politicians. I understand it is to be put on each month. There will be three representatives of the Fianna Fáil Government—three spokesmen; there will be two representatives of Fine Gael; and there will be one representative of Labour who will discuss different matters over—I understand it is proposed—a period of an hour. While we may take it, as has happened, that the opening batsmen—I think that would be the proper word to describe it—will invariably be a Government Minister or spokesman, he will be followed by his two sons who will fill in on anything he has forgotten about.
Fielders.
Fielders, in the slips.
Hatchetmen.
They will take up a fair amount of time, judging by the recent programmes. Then the second largest Party will be called on and their men will do the best they can in as long a period of time as they can get away with and as the Chairman will allow, and finally it will come to the lone Labour representative. I am not arguing the principle that any politician who finds himself on such a programme would, and indeed should, avail of it to the best possible advantage for his Party and to put over his own point of view. What I am arguing about and what I am objecting to, is the fact that this Government have sought to kill any expression of opposition by insisting upon this proportion of representation; in other words, as far as Fianna Fáil and Labour are concerned, there shall be three Fianna Fáil spokesmen to one Labour spokesman. I can understand it very well. From what we have seen on previous programmes, notably "Open House," I can understand the anxiety of the Government to have three Fianna Fáil spokesmen for every one Labour spokesman, and, even then, victory will no doubt go to the side in which the greatest political wisdom resides and I do not have to draw pictures for Deputies to indicate to them which side that is. Invariably, the Labour Party have shown on these media—as indeed they have in other countries, as people looking at television will verify—that Labour, in all social matters, go right to the core of things.
We are not discussing this point. We are discussing the composition of——
We are entitled to discuss any programme in which the Minister has a hand and he has very much a hand in this programme. It is very important. I am trying to get accepted the democratic principle, which we accept here in Dáil Éireann, that every Party represented in the Dáil has an equal right with every other Party to be heard on any subject: that is all I am asking. That is denied them. It is denied the Labour Party and it is denied, indeed, the main Opposition Party, Fine Gael. However, it may very well suit Fine Gael to have things as they are. They may feel that, with two speakers, they can talk effectively enough. I am not at all making the case that we are not able to cope in our situation but I am talking about the principle of unequal representation and I want to carry it a little further.
Supposing the day comes which, to my mind, must surely come, when there will be a two-Party system in this House. It will not come about as a result of any abolition of PR because I think we will cling to that and hold on to it but it must come. The elements of the Right on both sides of the House will combine against the elements of the Left. When I say "Left", I mean those who are socially conscious of what is needed to uplift the people of the country as against those who could not care less. When these two divisions fall into their natural place in this House, an event to which I look forward, it is not impossible, if we pursue the present system in political discussions in this programme "The Politicians", that five members of one Party would put a point of view or argue a case against one member of the Opposition. Indeed, the Labour representative participating in the programme "The Politicians" at the present time is very much in that situation. It is a safe assumption that those against whom he is arguing are to the right of his opinions.
Is this situation just? I do not think it is. Of course, it falls into line with what we were discussing earlier, the blatant interference with the Television Authority by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and the successful attempt he made to censor a particular newscast. Here, I want to refer to the Official Report of 31st March, 1960. At column 1578 of Volume 180, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, at the time Deputy Hilliard, had this to say in the debate on the Broadcasting Authority Bill, 1959:
I do not want any doubt to exist in regard to this matter. When Deputy Dr. Browne asked the question, I assumed he was making reference to a programme that would be regarded by the people as generally objectionable. I was not dealing with any particular item in a programme, in a different class of programme. Take a situation in which you would have a general objection expressed, say, at county council meetings or at other meetings at which our people come together, similar to a situation which developed recently as a result of a programme from another broadcasting service. If such an objectionable programme were put out by our broadcasting service and our people took grave exception to it, and so expressed themselves, I think it would be very hard for a Minister to resist a discussion on the matter in this House, a matter that was of vital interest and which so affected the moral standards of our people.
Whatever may be said about the argument between the Minister for Agriculture and the NFA, it is hardly an immoral argument. The Minister of the day went on to say:
It is true that the Authority will be an autonomous Authority and the Minister will not have any interference whatsoever with the day-to-day programme of that Authority...
That was the statement of the Minister who introduced the Bill, which subsequently became an Act, and under which the Television Authority now operates. In other words, there was no legal warrant whatsoever for the action of the Minister in directing, as he did direct, because even a request from a Minister to a civil servant is a direction, that any news item should be dropped on the RTE transmission. What is being done about that now? This was, in fact, an infraction of the law. I could argue, too, that in the programme "The Politicians" the Authority are also disregarding the law which charges them with responsibility to present news as objectively and as fairly as possible. I know that is a difficult thing to do, because Irish people, by their very nature, have political convictions and proclivities and Party affiliations; unconsciously, maybe, those who have to do with the dissemination of news may colour news reports in the way in which their subconscious prompts them. That is an urge which must be suppressed and the obligation rests squarely on the shoulders of the RTE Authority to present news, and political programmes particularly, as objectively as possible. They are not doing that in "The Politicians". It cannot be said that the Authority are responsible for the shape of "The Politicians" or for the representation the programme has or the allocation of representation; they have accepted it. But they should not have accepted it. The principle should be that every Party represented here should have an equal voice with every other Party. That has been disregarded. It is very wrong and it must be exposed. That is what I am trying to do now. At the same time, I am quite satisfied that any member of the Labour Party could take on, at his ease, any five members of the Government at any time.
I want now to compliment Telefís Éireann on the programme broadcast via the BBC on, I think, Sunday night last. The film was made by our people and it was a prize winner at, I understand, the Monte Carlo Film Festival. It was a perfect example of what Irish people are capable of when they set their minds and hearts to the task. It was a programme dealing with the work of some of our own in Africa, showing the problems that exist in parts of Africa. I urge the Minister to convey my compliments and, I am certain, the compliments of other Members of this House, to those who made that film. I urge him also to take steps to ensure that that line of country is further explored. This film was made by a religious order. That is not the reason why I praise it. I praise it for the technique and expertise with which it was put across and the tremendous heart in the film itself. It was a wonderful experience to see it. It opens up a very wide prospect. I have always believed we are capable of producing that which would be the admiration of the whole world. We have the ability.
Deputy Dillon made a very powerful plea this evening for the preservation of the rights of the people in relation to television. He made a passing reference to the dismissal of Mr. Tibor Paul, about which I know as little as Deputy Dillon said he did; but I join with him in supporting the sentiments he expressed in regard to the gross manner in which this gentleman was treated. There may be an explanation for it, but I believe there is never an explanation for bad manners and boorishness. Bad manners lead to bad manners, it may be said, but, in the heel of the hunt, the really admirable person is the man who can contain himself, in spite of aggravation. I do not know whether or not there was aggravation, but we certainly showed up pretty badly in the manner in which this gentleman was treated.
Deputy Dillon said that it might be that some Members of this House are artistes. He was referring to the artistic temperament. It occurred to me that if they are artistes, there is little effort to humour their temperamental outbursts, if they make them, or wherever they make them, or to be seen publicly to be making them. But Members of this House are subject to one other sanction with which there is very little civility connected, that is, summary dismissal. Unlike artistes of any kind, Members of this House have to face the most rigorous examination, far more rigorous than the leaving certificate, or even the thesis for an honours degree, at regular intervals, and they may be dismissed from the public service at any time. There is that essential difference between Members of the Dáil and the artistic fraternity generally.
It seems to me, too, that while there are admirable aspects of television techniques in other countries which can be studied to good effect, there is other evidence of television techniques which I fear may begin to be copied here which are not so desirable. There is, for instance the position of television interviewing. It has grown up to be very much modish in Britain—as any of us who look at the BBC know—for television interviewers to be as insulting as they can to those they are interviewing, in the interests, it is said, of live and entertaining programmes. I detect on the part of one or two of our brighter young sparks an inclination to imitate this technique. There is, of course, an answer to that kind of ill-informed bowsyism. Unfortunately, one does not have the opportunity to be in the studio to deliver the answer when it occurs. It never seems to happen to oneself but it is annoying to hear querulous and shrewish interviewing. This does not happen in all cases but it does happen in certain cases, and I am certain that those of whom I am speaking can try on the cap to see if it fits. Certain of them approach their victims—or those they conceive to be their victims—as a kind of lesser specimen of mortal, and this is particularly so when they have achieved election to this House. This seems to denote a complete inferiority of intellect altogether.
Fair game for anything.
Not alone that, but it is a sort of test of moronism in the eyes of these characters. One can laugh at it, but there is a certain element of truth in the moronic aspect, and it is annoying when you see it and it might give the wrong impression abroad. Some of these people probably got into Telefís Éireann by knowing the right person. Would the Minister think that is right? They pontificate and put themselves in the position of public prosecutors when they get the opportunity with people who have had to face election. I am not objecting to this being done, provided we do not develop a corps of Robin Days, because we will not tolerate that, will not tolerate incivility. Poor Mr. Tibor Paul may have had to, but we will not.
The Taoiseach made an extraordinary statement when questioned about this interference with Telefís Éireann. He seemed to infer in his most ebullient fashion, that the Government had a right to do this, and that he would stand over it. The Government were going to see that public policy and so on—you know the way it goes. What he was saying in effect was: "We are going to insist that the Fianna Fáil policy be put across." I was addressing my mind earlier to this pernicious evil, the pernicious evil which may develop from this kind of thing, from having so all-embracing a medium of propaganda interfered with and bent to put over the thinking of one political Party. It is a very grave thought.
It may have been thought that Deputy Dillon was exaggerating but I do not think he was, because a large amount of television material is to my mind, a kind of subliminal material——if you will forgive the expression. I understand that it means that you absorb things without really getting much time to see them, or to analyse them, as a picture which passes quickly and registers on the subconscious, and without being completely conscious of it, it helps to form an impression. A large amount of material is of this nature and it has been proved that propaganda, which is not, although many think it is, a dirty word—there is even a Department of Propaganda in the Vatican—is the very method by which political power is achieved. This was seen in the forces of evil in the 1930s, and I am certain that the communists utilise it to the fullest extent to grip the minds of people. In the days of Nazism, it was the wireless which achieved this but how much greater as an agent of propaganda can television be when it goes right into the homes of most people in the country?
This is the reason we have to be careful to ensure that at all times, no abuse, no shadow of a suggestion of abuse, can be made of the medium and there has been positive evidence, which was not alone admitted but practically boasted about, of abuse and interference as if there were a divine right in some people here to use television for his own personal and political advantage—personal and political meaning one and the same thing in this case as in most cases in the Fianna Fáil Party. The Taoiseach took it on himself to defend this. I know that the Taoiseach is a long time in this House and, indeed, a long time in this business, if one likes to call it a business, trade, profession or occupation, or what-you-will. I know he is quite capable of making a defence of the indefensible at any time but I thought that, having reached his present elevated position, he could at least afford to defend one of the fundamentals of liberty and that the would in some way have brushed aside the suggestion that any of his Party had the right to interfere to this extent with news transmissions for his own benefit. He did not do so. Boldly and as brazen as brass, he supported the Minister for Agriculture who did not back down one step from this censorship in which he indulged.
This is the kind of thing we have to face and must attack and the more assured it is, the more we must attack it. In my view, acceptance of that principle or idea, that a Minister may lift the telephone and alter the arrangements for a news transmission, is irresponsible and undemocratic and something that we should never as a Parliament accept, because if it applies to the present incumbents, it can very well apply to their successors, whoever they may be. Nobody here is in any position to prophesy that; neither is anybody in the country. The only certainty we have at the moment is the certainty that the Government are going out at the next election. We cannot yet say who their successors will be. We have our ideas, our plans and our hopes that whatever follows will be for the good of the country. Why not, seeing that it could not possibly be for the worse? Regardless of who may be in power, we must, as a Parliament, for the benefit of those who will come at other times, put on record that we will not tolerate interference of this kind with the national news transmission system.
I may add that it seems that in some cases Telefís Éireann in its news activities gets an advantage over the commercial newspapers which it should not get. Certain facilities, I think, are afforded to television in the matter of news, particularly political news, which is not so readily available, or at least so immediately available, to the commercial newspapers. This is not as it should be. Commercial newspapers exist in the cold blast of business competition; television is subsidised to some extent and in any case it was initiated by capital gathered from the taxpayers and it should get no preferential treatment over that given or applied to ordinary newspapers. If the Minister takes a close look at that. I am sure the position will be safeguarded and that there will be no preference which might be to the detriment of the newspapers which are, and have been for years, the ordinary means of news dissemination and which employ large numbers of our people.
What would be wrong in presenting the housing crisis on television, with having, say, a fortnightly programme? I am not going to pin responsibility for the housing position on the Minister, although he comes from the same county as the Minister responsible.
If you follow that line, you could get in anything on this Estimate.
I suggest that the Minister should not provoke the Chair in that fashion. I am asking seriously what would be wrong with having a fortnightly or monthly programme on television dealing with housing programmes, the housing situation, say, in Dublin in one programme, in Cork, Limerick, Galway and the larger centres in others and, if you like, treat it on a provincial basis, setting out the problems, the plans and progress of the local authorities, what they have been doing and are trying to do?
Is the Deputy discussing the housing situation or programmes on television?
I have waited until this Estimate to make this suggestion to the Minister.
Is the Deputy trying to interfere with the work of Telefís Éireann?
He is criticising the day-to-day administration.
No; I am merely making what I think is a constructive suggestion, but if the Minister wants to treat it as lightly as that, people who are living in such unfortunate circumstances in my constituency, 15 in a house in Ballyfermot, will not thank him for that flippant attitude.
Surely the Deputy must know that type of programme would be distorted through Fianna Fáil hands.
I am not making a speech about the housing situation. I dealt with that at some length when the Local Government Estimate was being discussed. Suffice it to say that it is the worst housing situation in Europe.
The Deputy is getting away from the Estimate. He is trying to discuss housing.
No; I am——
Would the Deputy listen, please? He is trying to discuss housing, with an occasional reference to Telefís Éireann.
Thank you very much. You compliment me more than I deserve. I am asking the Minister to think about a programme, a bulletin which would set out for the people clearly what the housing situation is. I am very serious in making this suggestion and such a programme would be very interesting to us all, whether in local authorities or not. It could be presented by, say, an official of the corporation or some non-political person if such an animal exists.
One of the hardy annuals of this Estimate is the question of the denial of political rights to postmen, auxiliary postmen, postal clerks and what may be called junior employees of the Post Office generally. These workers cannot stand for election to local authorities or be members of political Parties or stand for county council election. They are even denied the very simple right which is open to the whole population over 21 of standing for the Dáil.
One cannot stop them standing for the Dáil.
As representing a political Party?
They cannot be a member of one except of Fianna Fáil.
They can stand if they abandon it.
The job or the Party? Where would many of them be if they did not have the Party behind them?
(Cavan): Must they abandon the job before they become candidates?
I think I would see that they abandoned it.
Is it not time to remove this Victorian bar against these people? What purpose does it serve? Does it apply to subpostmasters? Subpostmasters, as we know, are usually appointed from the cumainn, at the moment anyway, cumainn chairmen or rúnaither or people of that general class, a diminishing class but nevertheless there. I do not think they are prevented legally from standing for the highest office in the land. I do seriously urge upon the Minister the need to do something about this. There does not seem to be any justification for it. I doubt if ever there was any justification for it. I cannot recall what arguments were used for preventing such men from having full political rights and from exercising them. I do not think I have ever heard a good case being made for it. I feel the Minister could avail of this suggestion of mine and that of the Labour Party, and even if he wants to make it his own and claim it as a Fianna Fáil breakthrough, as a lot of his colleagues are doing with Labour Party policies, the best of luck to him, if he does it.
Balbriggan in my constituency complains that the telephone service there is in a very bad way. It is impossible at times to dial and get a response. It is very often possible to lift the phone and find yourself in on a neighbour's converstion which is the last thing you want to hear.
You suggested they are tapping the phones here.
I dealt with phone-tapping at considerable length a couple of years ago. I must say the nuisance was abated thereafter, but I am beginning to have doubts again now. There are all sorts of clickings. In fact, one man swore to me he could hear them breathing. However, it is not a question of phone-tapping I want to deal with in regard to Balbriggan but a very legitimate complaint by the business people of the town and everybody else who has a phone, that the service there is most unsatisfactory. I would ask the Minister to have it seen to and to issue directions to the responsible officers in his Department to try to get the faults corrected as quickly as possible.
I understand there are many thousands of phone applications awaiting attention. We should like to know when the Minister estimates these people will get service. This Department has always been, as far as I can recall, a Department which paid and made a profit, and why would it not? The cost of the telephone service and the cost of stamps to the ordinary citizen is very high by any standards. I should like to know, in view of the alleged healthy financial position of the GPO, when these many thousands of applications for telephones will be dealt with. I would ask the Minister to try to give a comprehensive answer when he is replying on the Estimate, because this is a matter which I am certain affects every Deputy, which more especially affects myself and my fellow Deputies in County Dublin where the demand for telephones continues to grow, due to the continuing addition to the population of Dublin county caused by the flight from the land. Everybody in Ireland wants to live in County Dublin, and not alone live here but have phones as well, a very laudable and legitimate ambition. I would urge the Minister to let us know when he considers, in County Dublin at least, the demand for phones will be satisfied.
I am glad to have had the opportunity of making these views known, particularly in relation to what has been happening in Telefís Éireann. I do not suppose that our efforts here to bring home to the Minister a sense of democratic responsibility will have very much effect, but that he will go on his merry way as he has gone on before. However, one thing is certain: we have put on the records of the House the way we felt about it, and if this abuse grows, we shall be able to point to the fact that when the abuse of political censorship showed its ugly head at Montrose, we were the first to speak out against it.
Mr. Barrett
Recent happening in this House and in the house of the Minister for Agriculture invest this debate on this occasion with an importance far transcending the importance attaching to the debate on the same Estimate for previous years. There has been reference here by Deputy Dunne and other speakers to the alleged interference by the Minister for Agriculture with a programme on September 29th. I think the Minister has every right to ring Montrose and protest about a programme, provided we in this House, the Minister included, preserve also the right of Telefís Éireann to say: "Minister, will you go to hell." If the Minister, being dissatisfied, rings the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs phones Montrose and says: "He does not like the programme", again that is all right, provided we here in this House, the Minister included, uphold the statutory right of Telefís Éireann to say: "Will you go to hell, too" and "You know, Minister, that if you want to make a direction to us, you must put it in writing".
I am dealing chronologically with the events which caused my misgivings. I have started with 29th September in the house of the Minister for Agriculture. Here in this House a fortnight ago the Leader of the Government expressed sentiments which impinged on the events which happened in the house of the Minister for Agriculture on September 29th. Does he uphold the legislation of this House which entitles Telefís Éireann to tell any Minister to go where I suggested earlier? I should like to quote verbatim from the reports of the proceedings in this House. Talking of Telefís Éireann he says at column 1046, volume 224, of the Dáil Debates of 12th October, 1966:
The Government have over-all responsibility for its conduct and especially the obligation to ensure that its programmes do not offend against the public interest or conflict with national policy as defined in legislation.
What does that mean? Does that mean that Telefís Éireann or Radio Éireann are precluded from making any derogatory remarks about any legislation passed in this House? Does it mean that nobody can call on Telefís Éireann or Radio Éireann and say: "I think this legislation was a mistake." Does it mean that nobody can press for the amendment of legislation that would appear to be opposed to the thinking of the Leader of the Government? The Taoiseach went on to say:
To this extent the Government rejects the view that Radio Telefís Éireann should be either generally or in regard to its current affairs and news programmes, completely independent of Government supervision.
To that, of course, I subscribe, and to the policy set out in the Broadcasting Act of 1960. I rejoice in it because at least it means we can come in here and tax the Minister with certain happenings with which we would not be able to tax him if the Telefís Éireann Authority were an autonomous body.
The Taoiseach went on to say:
As a public institution, supported by public funds and operating under statute, it has the duty, while maintaining partiality between political Parties, to present programmes which inform the public regarding current affairs, to sustain public respect for the institutions of Government and, where appropriate, to assist public understanding of the policies enshrined in legislation enacted by the Oireachtas.
There is a sinister ring about that, "to assist public understanding of the policies enshrined in legislation enacted by the Oireachtas." Does that mean that only references favourable to the legislation passed by the Oireachtas can be made by Telefís Éireann? The Taoiseach went on to say that the Government would take such action by way of representation or otherwise as may be necessary to ensure that Radio Telefís Éireann does not deviate from the true performance of this duty. If the Taoiseach is not going to come in here and explain what he means by this statement, I would like the Minister to explain it.
That sentence is followed by a later reference in volume 224, column 1047, where the Taoiseach said the Government have a right to ensure that in its news programmes and current affairs programmes, Radio Telefís Éireann fulfil the purpose for which the institution was set up, and he continued in column 1048 to say that the manner in which the Authority does this now is the concern of the Government and that he was prepared to stand over every act of every Minister in this regard or in any other. Does this mean that the Taoiseach is prepared to stand over every act of any Minister in matters such as I have mentioned?
I can understand why the Government had considerable anxiety in entrusting to an independent authority the working of Telefís Éireann instead of giving control to a Minister answerable to this House. I am glad that the happenings of the past three weeks have brought the functions of Telefís Éireann into public focus. Up to three weeks ago, I doubt if very many people in this country had heard or understood the provisions of section 31 of the Broadcasting Authority Act. Section 31 of that Act empowers the Minister to direct the Authority in writing to refrain from broadcasting any particular matter or matter of any particular class, and in the following subsection he may direct the Authority to allocate time to announcements by any Minister of State in connection with that Minister's functions. It is an excellent thing that these matters should now have been brought into public focus.
If the Taoiseach is not prepared to come into this House and explain these references, the Minister should at least explain them in order to allay to some degree the anxiety which exists not only in this House but up and down the length and breadth of this country. If the Taoiseach refuses to meet the representatives of the National Union of Journalists, a body representative of men who have upheld the tradition of freedom of speech and thought in this country, in this matter, at least he can still be made answerable to this House, either in his person or through the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs who is charged with complete control of Radio Telefís Éireann.
The Minister has some important questions to answer in view of the conduct of the Minister for Agriculture some three weeks ago in making demands which were complied with and also in view of the attitude adopted by the Taoiseach here this day fortnight. It is due to this House and to the country that the Minister should explain his views on the operation of the Broadcasting Authority Act under which he has certain rights. Certainly, in order to comply with the provisions of section 31 the Minister or some of his officials should see beforehand every item which is broadcast so as to make himself aware of their entire content. How else could he adjudicate on what should or should not be the object of a written direction by him to the Authority? The Minister could say that he wanted to see everything that is going to be broadcast before it is broadcast. The Minister may smile at that but it is statutorily possible for him to do that.
It is possible, but not necessary.
Mr. Barrett
I am only talking about possibilities and the Minister may deem it necessary to do that. I can see the danger that lies in this power and I would be interested to hear if the Minister would tell us when that possibility might arise. In the light of the Taoiseach's challenge to the statutory powers of RTE this day fortnight and in the light of the terms of section 31 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, it is of the greatest importance that every Deputy here should elicit from the Minister his views of the responsibilities which reside in him as a result of section 31. Could the Minister indicate what he conceives to be his duty in this regard?
It might be difficult to tell the House what sort of matter the Minister might make the subject of a written direction to the Authority but surely he must have in mind some broad principles to guide him as regards matters of any particular class. The provisions of section 31 are definitely dangerous if misused by the Minister who can look upon almost anything broadcast as a matter of any particular class. I have the duty to ask here that the Minister should enunciate the principles by which he would be guided in using section 31. He should tell us what principles have guided him to date in the use of these powers, how often he has involved them and the order in which he has invoked them and each occasion on which he has done so.
While these things may not have been necessary in the past, the recent events to which I have referred make it necessary for the Minister to give to the House and the country an indication of his future intentions in this matter. Could the Minister indicate to the House the number of times he has issued directions to Radio Telefís Éireann under this section? In particular, the Minister should be able to tell us if he has set his face against matter of any particular class, which he is able under section 21 to ban simply by writing a letter to the Authority?
I can tell you now that the Authority's prudent handling of their affairs obviated——
Mr. Barrett
The Minister can tell us when he is replying to the debate.
All right; I thought the Deputy wanted it now.
Mr. Barrett
I do not. I will be glad to hear the Minister's reply. If he has set his face against matters of any particular class, I should like him to enumerate the classes because I think the House should be in a position to express its views on the Minister's past actions in this regard. The Minister should also put the House into the position of being able to discuss and, if necessary, criticise, the Minister's intentions in regard to the future in this connection.
There is another thing upon which it is absolutely necessary that the Minister should inform the country and the House. I refer to the opposition which arises between section 31 and section 18. Section 18, the Minister will recall and I need not remind him, places a statutory duty upon the Authority to secure that when it broadcasts any information, news or feature which relates to a matter of public controversy or is the subject of public debate, the information, news or feature is presented objectively and impartially.
A very important section.
Mr. Barrett
The Minister can reply and I will not interfere with his reply. I would ask him to show me the same courtesy. We have a very interesting situation. First, under statute, we have a Minister who may direct Radio Telefís Éireann to refrain from broadcasting a certain thing. That means, of course, that the Minister may in writing direct Radio Telefís Éireann not to publish a comment of, say, a noted economist or chairman of a chamber of commerce or somebody like that upon the broadcast of the Budget proposals of the Minister for Finance. The Minister could do that. Not only that, but he can direct in writing that Telefís Éireann give special time to the Minister for Finance to explain his Budget proposals to the country.
This is where the interesting situation arises; what is Telefís Éireann to do in such circumstances? I am taking a purely hypothetical case because it might tomorrow morning become a real case. Telefís Éireann is under statutory duty, by virtue of section 18, to secure that in any discussion of the Minister's Budgetary proposals there shall be an impartial and objective report.
The House is entitled to know how the Minister reconciles these two sections. If the irresistible force of the Minister's powers under section 31 comes in contact with the immovable object created by section 18 of the Act, what will happen? Again, the Minister may smile and look upon it as a hypothetical case. It is no such thing. It is something which I plainly can see as quite likely to happen, where the Minister uses his power and, where the Authority says: "You have no right to do it because we are under a duty". The Minister should indicate to the House what his view would be should such an occasion arise. Who does he consider to be the final arbiter under these conflicting sections—he as Minister under section 31 or the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority under section 18? It is terribly important.
Yes.
Mr. Barrett
The House and the country should have a plain, unequivocal statement of the Minister's mind on this matter. Not now— in case the Minister is going to interrupt me again—but when the Minister is replying to the debate.
I am dying to answer it.
Mr. Barrett
I consider that to be one of the most important questions with which the Minister should deal. I doubt if he will. The Act could have been ideal if we had on one side a Minister using his powers as Minister —because I agree when the Taoiseach says that Radio Telefís Éireann cannot be completely free of some Government intervention—and, as the intention of the Act was, that you would have on the other side an independent Authority saying: "These are our rights under the Act and these rights we will insist on having". The great tragedy and the great danger of our times is that the manner in which the Minister appointed the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority completely robs the Act of any effectiveness it might have from the point of view of safeguarding the rights of public discussion of public affairs, either on television or radio, because, largely speaking, the Authority is the creature of the Minister. If there did arise between the Minister and the Authority the conflict which I have mentioned between the Minister's powers under section 31 and the Authority's powers under section 18, there would be no need for the Minister to be in any difficulty. All he need do is to telephone his creatures, these creatures whom he has created of Telefís Éireann, many of them coming from nowhere and likely to return to the same destination after their period of office, and simply tell them what to do. That is the danger and the difficulty that agitates my mind and that agitates the mind of anybody who intelligently appraises the situation in Radio Telefís Éireann at the moment.
I simply want to say that the one thing I rejoice in is that although the Minister may tie the hands of the Authority by putting on to it his own pliant, complacent nominees, the power still to decide what attitude Radio Telefís Éireann should adopt in public affairs resides in the hands of the people of the country. I do wish that every man and woman who views television or listens to radio would bear constantly in mind their right and, indeed, duty, to make it very plain both to the Authority and to the Minister that they will not brook interference of the nature which the Taoiseach envisaged here on October 12th. Fundamentally, the power to guard the rights of the people in regard to Radio Telefís Éireann resides in the hands of the people. If the people felt that a recent programme showing the new face of communism was showing a face which was not true and which was unduly kind to communism, theirs is the right to protest. No matter how much we may protest here, we might not be heard, but if the men and women of this country make their views known to the Minister and to the Authority in that way they will effect the proper management of Radio Telefís Éireann.
To mention another programme, if parents of large families felt that a recent programme dealing with keeping families on a small basis was unduly weighted against the keeping of large families, it is not alone the right but the duty of the mother of a family of ten to phone Telefís Éireann and to say: "I was not given any opportunity to go on Telefís Éireann and to say that I have a family of ten and bless God every day of my life that I have them." It is about time the people awakened to their rights and responsibilities in that regard and imposed on those who produce programmes on Radio Telefís Éireann their views because much of what I have seen on Telefís Éireann is, in my view, the sort of stuff which is absolutely contrary to the views and the wishes of the majority of those who listen to the radio or view television.
I shall finish on this note, a note which I think is the most important in this debate. I want to remind the people of this country of their power in this regard. I want to remind the Minister that he has a right and a responsibility, in view of the dangers and indeed of the vicious trends of the past three or four weeks relative to the production of political programmes on Telefís Éireann to explain to the House exactly how he intends to use his powers under section 31. I want him to explain to the House exactly how he intends to react if by any chance the Broadcasting Authority should challenge the Minister and insist on demanding their rights under section 18, because that is fundamental to any discussion of freedom of thought on Radio Telefís Éireann.
Without going into the rights and wrongs of the dismissal of Tibor Paul, I should like to join with those who regret it was done in such an ill-mannered and ugly fashion. I do not know whether there was reason or otherwise for the dismissal of Tibor Paul. I do not know there were means other than simply dropping him a letter two minutes before he went on to do the kind of important work he does. I regret that that happened. I regret still more that it appears to me the Minister does not consider it was in bad taste and does not consider it is the sort of thing for which he should answer to this House and to the country generally.
(Cavan): This debate began at 7.30 yesterday evening when the Minister made his opening statement. It continued for the rest of yesterday and has been on all day today. So far, from the Government benches we have had the Minister and the Minister only. I suppose that is understandable. The Deputies sitting behind him could hardly have had the hardihood to congratulate the Minister and the Department on a job well done, as far as the telephone service is considered, for example. Apparently they are going to leave it to the Minister himself to justify the conduct of his colleagues in interfering with the day-to-day working and programming of Telefís Éireann.
The Department of Posts and Telegraphs enjoy a monopoly in providing a telephone system for this country. I think it will be agreed that any monopoly has a serious obligation to the community to provide a service when that monopoly prevents anybody else from providing it. I suggest that the monopoly operating the telephone system in this country has a great obligation to the public because the telephone service pays its way. It is not being subsidised by the taxpayer and is not run as a social service. The people who use the telephone system are entitled to a service. Those who have not already got a telephone and who wish to instal one are entitled to have it. If this service were run by a private public concern and if other public concerns were entitled to go into this field and complete with one another for the available market, we may take it we would have an efficient and economic telephone system.
We have heard during this debate from the Minister that there is a waiting list of approximately 13,000 applicants for telephones and that about 2,500 are being installed. When are these other applicants going to be supplied? It would appear from letters Deputies receive when they make representations that it will be a very long time, that there is no hope of these people being supplied in the immediate future or indeed in the months ahead. It is reasonable to interpret from the letters we have received that people away down on the waiting list will not get a telephone for years to come.
It is depressing to find a business man, who is investing a considerable amount of money in a new business in a town with a population of 4,000 or 5,000, being told he has no hope of getting a telephone in the immediate future. I know of such a case where the man is investing that amount of money without the aid of one penny by way of Government grant. He applied for a telephone and the reply was that it was impossible to say when he would get a phone because there was a huge waiting list. The only meaning that could be put on the letter is that the Department for the want of money—that is part of it—or the want of equipment cannot say when that man will get a telephone.
That is an abuse of an monopoly, I cannot see why such a man, who requires a telephone for his business and who cannot run his business without one, should be told nothing can be done about it, and that he will have to take his place in this queue of 13,000 people. I repeat that, in my view, this is an abuse of a monopoly. Apparently, the only people who rank for priority are doctors, clergymen, veterinary surgeons and the like. Business people should get priority also. I was told as recently as last week that farmers are not on the list at all. They enjoy some sort of lower rate of rental and do not come into the queue at all. In this day and age, when farming is being carried on by modern scientific methods, when the cattle breeding station or the vet has to be contacted, farmers should get serious consideration and an effort should be made to provide them with a telephone within a reasonable time when they apply.
When these same people get a telephone, they are asked to pay five and seven years' rental in advance. That also is difficult to understand, but it is so. I say that the Minister should recruit more staff if he has not enough. He should get more money if he has not enough finance to get on with the job, because, according to his statement and according to the accounts, the telephone system is paying its way. Therefore, there is no reason on earth why it should not be brought up to date and why business people should be hindered in their business and why people who already have telephones cannot make full use of them because other essential services are not provided with telephones. I have stressed one case because I think it is typical of many cases and of the type of abuse that this monopoly is guilty of.
I should like to say a word or two about post office buildings. I think post office buildings in general are unsatisfactory. Some of them are very much out of date. I may be pardoned if I deal with this particular aspect of the matter on a somewhat parochial basis and if I deal with the capital town of my own constituency, the town of Cavan. It cannot be denied that the post office in Cavan is housed in a building that is entirely unsuitable for the purpose. The telephone exchange attached to it is completely inadequate for this purpose and a proper automatic telephone exchange cannot be provided until such time as adequate buildings are provided.
The position there is—I have raised this matter twice by way of Parliamentary Question and I intend to raise it again—that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, as far back as 1962, acquired the premises known as the Central Markets in the middle of Cavan town at a very reasonable price from the urban council, on the understanding that they would provide a much-wanted post office and automatic telephone exchange. From that good day in 1962 until today, as far as the general public know, nothing has been done with these buildings; nothing has been done to provide a post office and nothing has been done with these buildings except to board them up. This public property now constitutes an eye-sore in the locality while the town is crying out for a new general post office and for an automatic telephone exchange.
I think that, when considering whether Cavan town is entitled to priority in the building of a post office, the Department should ask itself what money has been spent in that town in the past 20 years, what public money has been spent there on public building. The answer will be that not one penny was spent there because a house has not been built there since 1952. That is something the Department should take into account when arranging priorities in deciding whether the money it has at its disposal should be spent in Cavan town or elsewhere. I think it should be spent in Cavan town for two reasons: (1) the site is there, an ideal site, and (2) no public money has been spent there for very many years. It is coming to the time when the people are beginning to say that if the Minister is not prepared to get on with the building of the post office, he should agree to transfer this property back to the urban council so that they can make some other use of it.
A question was asked here during the past couple of weeks as to whether any provision was made for the cleaning of telephone kiosks in the city of Dublin and elsewhere. The Minister stated in reply that money was provided for the cleansing of these kiosks and apparently the Department accepts responsibility. I want to say now that these telephone kiosks in the city of Dublin and throughout the country are a public disgrace. They are filthy: that is the only expression I can think of to describe them. Seeing that they provide a service which is availed of by visitors to this country, by tourists, something should be done about them. They should be kept in a condition in which they are fit to be frequented by the general public and by the visitors to this country.
I should like to say something about our radio and television service. Again, this is a monopoly and, in regard to this particular monopoly, the Minister owes serious obligations to the country as a whole. Radio Telefís Éireann should present new items in an unbiased manner. It should not tolerate censorship of news items. It should not tolerate the altering of its programmes. It should present all national events in an unbaised and fair manner.
I want to refer to the manner in which Telefís Éireann dealt with the Presidential election, one of the most important events in the life of this country, an event which, in normal circumstances, occur only once every seven years. There is no doubt that on this occasion in June last Telefís Éireann campaigned for one candidate and blacked out the other. I say that, after full consideration. I put it to the House and to the country as an accurate description of what happened.
I know that Telefís Éireann stated, that the Government stated, that it was not the policy of Telefís Éireann to cover the Presidential election campaign. Well, if Telefís Éireann think or if the controllers of Telefís Éireann think that they did not cover the Presidential election campaign in May of this year, then they are not fit to be in control of Telefís Éireann because they are not fit to form a correct judgment of what is going on. When dealing with an event, such as a Presidential election, it is the duty of Telefís Éireann to look at the overall picture, see what is happening and see the kind of picture they are, in effect, presenting. It is not sufficient for them to say, as they said on that occasion, that they were not covering the election, and then proceed to present one candidate to people night after night, or allow that candidate to present himself to the people on the national television network night after night, blacking out the other candidate altogether.
It is not sufficient for Telefís Éireann to ask: "What can we do? One of the candidates is the President and he is big news, and it is our duty to present him to the people whenever he appears in public." There can be no argument with me about that because I make you a present of it. Surely to goodness, that was something Telefís Éireann should have taken into account in summing up the situation and deciding whether or not they would be fair to both candidates in the campaign. That is something the controllers of Telefís Éireann should have considered and, if they had considered it, they could come to only one conclusion, namely, in order to do justice and to be fair to both candidates, there was only one way in which to deal with the election campaign, and that was to cover it. Failure to cover it meant one thing, and one thing only: that Telefís Éireann campaigned for one candidate and blacked out the other. I defy contradiction on that.
There is general dissatisfaction over the interference of the Government and Government Ministers in the day-to-day working of Telefís Éireann. The excision of the NFA statement in reply to the advice of the Minister for Agriculture to the farmers to hold on to their cattle has been dealt with already. That bit of news, coming from a responsible national organisation, was broadcast in one news bulletin and was blacked out in subsequent bulletins. That was done in response to a telephone call from the Minister for Agriculture, a person directly interested for personal reasons in keeping the item out.
When the Broadcasting Authority Act of 1960 was being debated in this House, every effort was made to write into that Act a provision whereby directions given to Telefís Éireann by a Minister would be reduced to writing. The reason for that provision was obvious. The House wanted to ensure there would be as little interference as possible with Telefís Éireann and it also wanted to ensure that, if there were interference, there would be a record of it; it would not be done behind backs or by a member of the Government seeing a pal in Montrose and telling him that he did not want this, that or the other to appear, The Legislature went to great trouble to ensure that directions to Telefís Éireann would be given only by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, and in writing, because the Legislature feared that there would be abuses, abuses such as occurred recently when the Minister for Agriculture phoned some subordinate official at Montrose and had criticism of his speech excised from news bulletins. I think I am correct in saying that the Minister for Agriculture stated here that he advised farmers to hold on to their cattle, if possible; the very next day, after making that statement, when he was questioned about it, he said that that was his personal opinion. Apparently he was not speaking with the backing of the Government or even of his Department; he was putting it forward as his personal opinion.
Why then should be object to the NFA having their statement broadcast on television? Apparently Telefís Éireann considered that the NFA statement was of sufficient importance and sufficient national interest to warrant its inclusion in the news bulletin. It was wrong of the Minister to telephone Montrose and have this statement excised, blacked out, without any consideration. That was done merely because a Minister of State rang up. It is just not good enough for the Taoiseach, or anybody else in this House, to argue that any member of the House is at liberty to ring up Telefís Éireann and complain about a programme. The people who are employed in Montrose hold their positions at the will of the Government. That is the practical way of looking at the situation. When a Minister of State rings up and tells a subordinate official that a news item is a dreadful item to include in the news, and that he does not think it should be broadcast at all, we know the effect such an intimation will have as compared with a complaint from a private Deputy, from a member of the public, or from the President of the NFA.
That is what this House feared when it put the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960, through this House and that is why it wrote into the Act that any interference with Telefís Éireann or Radio Éireann should be in writing over the hand of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, who could then be questioned in this House about the propriety of his actions.
The Minister for Agriculture is particularly vulnerable on this question of interfering with Telefís Éireann. The Minister was directly responsible for removing an entire programme, planned 12 months in advance, the programme known as "Division". The Chief Whips of the three Parties met and after long consideration and many meetings, decided that a programme known as "Division" would be put on once a month, or certainly over a protracted period. The understanding between the three Whips and Mr. Rugheimer was that the programme would be open to Members of this House and to people who are not Members of the House. In accordance with that understanding and that agreement, the first presentation of "Division" was arranged and the Minister for Agriculture was invited to go on it, as were a member of the Fine Gael Party, and I presume a member of the Labour Party, and Mr. Richard Deasy, the President of the NFA. When this became known, the Minister for Agriculture refused to go on the programme and I say in this House that the Minister for Agriculture spent an entire day trying to make sure that the programme which was to feature himself, Mr. Deasy and other prominent people, would never go on.
If he wanted to have it taken off, he had only to contact me——
That is a queer admission.
There is no cat out of the bag. There is no getting over the section.
(Cavan): That is the depth to which we have sunk. All the Minister's colleague had to do——
If he were anxious to get it off, this is what he had to do. He did not do it and he has not done it.
The Deputy said that the Minister for Agriculture spent a day trying to get it off. That is wrong.
Order.
(Cavan): This debate is well worthwhile because we now have it on the record——
You will have more on the record before I am finished. I have been listening to a lot of nonsense for a long time and I have reached the limit of my patience.
The Minister would not be in the position to set aside the agreement of the Whips as easily as that.
(Cavan): I am not going to be put off this. We have it on the record of the House that all that any one of the Minister's colleagues has to do in order to get a programme which he does not like and which might be bad for his political image off the air is to contact the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to act as the cat's paw and remove the programme for political reasons. That is exactly what the Minister now——
Grow up and be your age.
The Deputy said that the Minister spent a day trying to get it off. That is wrong.
The Minister said that all he had to do was to ask him.
Deputy Fitzpatrick must be allowed to make his statement without interruptions.
(Cavan): It is a fact, and I defy contradiction of it, that the Minister for Agriculture refused to go on “Division”, refused to participate in this political programme which had been agreed upon by the Chief Whip of the Fianna Fáil Party, the Chief Whip of the Fine Gael Party, and the Chief Whip of the Labour Party, in consultation with the controllers of Telefís Éireann. The reason he would not go on it was that he refused to meet Mr. Rickard Deasy on the television screen. Not alone did he refuse to meet him in the flesh in his office in this city but he refused to go on television and debate the rights or wrongs of the farmers' problems with him before the television audience throughout the length and breadth of the country.
Recently on a television programme on which the Minister was speaking to young people, he stated that this programme would not be continued, that it had been taken off because the Fianna Fáil Party did not agree with the interpretation of the agreement arrived at between the Whips. Everybody is out of step but the Fianna Fáil Party. The Labour Party Whip, the Fine Gael Party Whip and Mr. Rugheimer, the controller of Telefís Éireann, agreed on the interpretation of the agreement, which, in their opinion, was that it was open to Members of this House and members of the public, but because it did not suit the Minister for Agriculture and the Fianna Fáil Party, they refused to accept the interpretation put on the agreement by the others and sabotaged the programme. Those are the facts and they cannot be contradicted. It is obvious, as I say, that interference with Radio Telefís Éireann by the Government should be a very rare occurrence, should only take place when a matter of grave public policy demands it——
That is all.
(Cavan): ——and it should be in writing and there should be nothing secret or underhand or have any backdoor methods about it. I repeat that that is why this House wrote into the Act the direction to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, whoever he might be, that his directions should be given in writing and should be there in the form of a permanent record. I want also to say that I believe that Telefís Éireann does not act fairly in covering national events. We are providing money in this House for Telefís Éireann and Radio Éireann——
Hear, hear.
(Cavan): ——and we are entitled to give our views but not over the telephone in a manner of haste and bad humour.
You would like it to be free but only in your way.
(Cavan): It was only by accident that the Minister's interference became public, because some of the journalists or news people in Telefís Éireann were so absolutely outraged that they brought it to light. In covering national events, we have the Taoiseach and Ministers of State highlighted. You cannot have an argument with me about that. I agree that the Taoiseach and members of the Government are entitled to more publicity and that they are better news than private Members of this House, but the members of the Government represent, in votes, about 50 per cent of the people of the country.
We are the Government.
(Cavan): Admittedly, they are the Government. Because they are the Government, and for that reason only, they are entitled to more of the limelight and are bigger news than private Members of this House. However, the leaders of other Parties and private Members of the House are entitled on such occasions to their fair share of the camera and it is wrong that they should be completely blacked out.
These are the two matters I wish to deal with, the complete and absolute failure of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to fulfil the obligation which the monopoly to provide a telephone service imposes on them and the great abuse for political reasons at the behest of the Government that Telefís Éireann has suffered. For those reasons I think that this House should refer back this Estimate.
I am not too concerned as to whether Telefís Éireann publishes the nonsense being spoken by Deputy Fitzpatrick or anybody else in this House. I do not see any reason why any public representative should want to be stuck in it and I can tell the gentlemen opposite that the more they appear on Telefís Éireann, the longer they will be over there. I object to some of the things I have seen on Telefís Éireann. If we have take the life history of one who is admitted on all sides to have been a great Irishman, one who was known as the Uncrowned King of Ireland, Charles Stewart Parnell, and if Telefís Éireann wants to throw the image of that great Irishman out to the young people of today, they seem to be able to find nothing else to deal with but a divorce case. If that is so, I think the sooner Telefís Éireann is taken out of this country the better. Their job seems to be to take a great national figure, a man who raised up the ordinary peasantry of this country and gave them their freedom, and when they come to show a picture of him to the young people of this country, all they can produce is Parnell and what happened in the Galway election.
Surely the young people of this country deserve to see something better than that? This is a scandal. I nearly took the damn thing and three it out of the window when I saw it. If Telefís Éireann cannot do anything else than bring out films of American filth to fill their screens practically every night of the week, then the members of this House should not be voting money for them. It is bad enough to see a flock of I-don't know-what-to-call-thems on the screen. You would not know whether they are men or women or boys and girls, but before those creatures are allowed on the screen in any public assembly, one should get a sheep shears and shear them and then show them. Telefís Éireann was not brought into this country for that kind of thing.
I want to protest against this on behalf of the ordinary rural population who get a certain amount of relaxation and entertainment from Telefís Éireann. I want to protest against this kind of stuff being shoved out. We have films like "The Dawn" that show what can be done in this country and that would give to our young people some image of what was happening when this country was fighting for its freedom. Surely they could find some other type of film to show than the filth they are putting on? I object to it, and I object to it here on behalf of my people. It is time it changed and I appeal to the Minister to exercise his authority in that respect.
I am not concerned whether Deputy O'Higgins or the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs appears on the screen. I do not give a hoot either way and I do not think the public gives a hoot either. What I want to see are programmes presented that will not necessitate the young members of the family being put outside the door for fear they would not see them. We want programmes that our young people can see and not the filth that is being put out by Telefís Éireann. I object to it.
We have before us a sizeable Estimate for some £20 million and one is prompted to ask what is the return for that £20 million. I have not too much to say to the officials of the Post Office. They are doing a good job but I would like to know why there is a waiting list of 13,000 applicants for telephones and when that waiting list will be dealt with. If only 2,000 per year are being dealt with, it will take a long time.
We do more than 2,000 a year.
I understood that was the figure mentioned tonight. As regards the amount of money a person is asked to put down, it is all right to have a financial squeeze, but when you are squeezing it out of the future, it is not so good.
Were it not for Telefís Éireann being thrown into the debate here, I do not think there would be a lot said on the Minister's Department. The big topic has been Telefís Éireann. I do not want to add to what has been said on certain aspects of it. On the whole there is a fairly good job being done but we are entitled to make criticisms and that is why I am on my feet now. There are some programmes and if we are to stick by our television sets, we will have American accents before long. A great deal of tripe is being presented.
What programme?
Many of them.
The first speech from the Fianna Fáil benches, except for the Minister's.
Order.
There are some terrible programmes, but if they suit the Deputy, that is his business. I did not intend to add fuel to the fire in regard to Telefís Éireann, but I must say that 80 per cent of the staff there were put in there, and we know their political colours. They were put in to do a certain job and they are doing it. We have them tagged and when the day comes, they will get their cards stamped.
The purge is on.
I know they are doing the job they were sent in to do, that is, to cut out the Opposition at every possible opportunity, as the Members tried to do here but failed. However, I would remind them to be on their toes, for the day will come when they will find the boot will be on the other foot.
I should like to see television playing a bigger role in advertising tourism. There is a great deal of scenery in this country that even people in Dublin do not know exists. If I could go back to the postal service, might I suggest a return to the franking of letters with "See Ireland first"? The thing nowadays is to go on the Continent. I met some of these people who do not know where certain tourist resorts in this country are and they could tell you about places in Spain, the names of which they could hardly pronounce.
Another thing that has been remarked to me in regard to the news in Irish is the number of Munster dialect speakers who come on. We have the cradle of the Gaeltacht in the West and I should like to hear more of the real native speakers.
More Ulster, too.
We have more Irish speakers to spare than you have in Ulster. On the entertainment side, let us have more of this Tolka Row stuff and cut out the cowboy films. I saw more shots fired across the screen in my house one evening than were fired in South Vietnam. I saw them firing all night from one revolver and I never saw them reloading it. There was a time I could swallow that stuff but time marches on. It may suit the children but we get an overdose of it. Let us have more of "Tolka Row" and "The Riordans", which are racy of the soil. We have actors who are able to put this material across. Mrs. Butler and Mr. Feeney are great characters. I would take this opportunity of congratulating these artists on their performances.
Another important thing I would like to see on Telefís Éireann is a course on first aid. With all the accidents on the roads nowadays, this is a very necessary service. It is not so much a question of what you should do as what you should not do. These things should be brought home.
A programme I should like to see continued is "Club Céilí". A very good job has been done there, and it enables the youth to see we have something of cultural value.
If the Minister wants to know what kind of programmes people like, he should issue a questionnaire to every licence holder asking him what he wants, and then try to put that across in the programmes. He will not please all the people all the time but he will go a long way on that road.
"Labhair Gaeilge Linn" is another programme which is doing a good job. I congratulate Mr. O'Sullivan, a Galway man, for the capable manner in which he puts this programme across. I would also congratulate him on his acting in parts he has played in other programmes. I must agree with Deputy Corry when he mentions the scruffy type of people who sometimes appear on programmes. They are disgusting. It is not a shears one would want for them but a blowlamp. Whether they are singing ballads or anything else makes no difference. It is what one sees that counts. They have been the cause of adverse comment and the Minister should see it is cut off.
The beards or the programme?
The beards. It would be the greatest thing if it could be tackled in the programme. It would go down very well throughout the country.
Section 31 does not give me that power.
The advertising is sometimes most irritating. We get an overdose of beer drinking—it would nearly drive one to drink. There is more drink consumed than would be drunk at the Kerry Festival. Possibly that is what they are aiming at. I would also ask the Minister to see that news programmes do not clash on Radio Éireann and Telefís Éireann.
The Deputy should look at the Coca Cola programme.
No advertising, please.
Somebody has to drive and if you drive you should not drink. I suggest the Minister should examine the possibility of ensuring better timing regarding radio and television news. One can hear both at the same time but if you miss one you should be able to switch off and get it on the other. On the whole the authority is doing a pretty good job. You cannot please all the people all the time. I suggest the questionnaire be sent to every licence holder and you might then get some where as regards pleasing some of the people some of the time.
I did not intend to speak but I was tempted to do so having heard the previous speaker and one or two interruptions. I listened to the play-actors and the pure-minded putting across their points of view in regard to Post Office and Telefís Éireann affairs. These people act as playboys in order to impress the Gallery and they make no constructive comments. Political honesty is necessary if we are to flourish. It is necessary in our approach to television programmes. The same applies in this House. We know, however, that in the past the people who preached that, members of Fine Gael and the Labour Party, so long and so loudly and who are preaching now about the "terrible situation" that developed in Telefís Éireann some days ago when a correction was made in some of the newscasts, themselves made use of the radio and television in a reckless and unscrupulous way.
We recall that a few years ago on the eve of a general election, we heard the State servants being bribed over the radio by a speaker on behalf of the Fine Gael Party. Quite recently members of the Labour Party had cameras at their beck and call. This is one thing I have against Telefís Éireann; they had cameras moving around this city in a situation where unfortunate people were being moved from one part of the city to another to end up in a rat-infested area at the behest of people who were trying to attract attention by having Telefís Éireann on the spot. Many of them could not scratch themselves—including Members of this House—unless the television cameras were on them.
The Deputy is talking about the scandal of Griffith Barracks?
Yes. Now that it has been mentioned, I should like to deal more fully with it. In that period we had public representatives, Members of the House, threatening responsible members of Dublin Health Authority, of the corporation and of the House, that they would have the cameras down if such and such was not done. They had the cameras down day after day and week after week and unfortunate homeless families were brought along to face the cameras, unfortunate expectant mothers included, causing concern to their mothers and fathers and other relatives. They were led out of Griffith Barracks into a rat-infested area in Mountjoy Square. This was done so that one political Party or its members would get some type of publicity that would portray them as the saviours of a section of the community. Unfortunately, those who spoke long and loudly to the people in Mountjoy Square and at the corner of Middle Abbey Street had the television cameras. They had them on the health authorities, on Griffith Barracks and on Mountjoy Square and unfortunate people were paraded before the cameras. It was unfortunate that those in the Labour Party could induce the people in Telefís Éireann to bring the cameras there and make them available. Shame on Telefís Éireann for allowing such undiluted nonsense as went over the air then, the grossly inaccurate statements which when they were asked to correct them were corrected in a very half-hearted manner.
Is the Deputy attacking Telefís Éireann?
And the Labour Party.
Let the Labour Party look after itself.
They did on that occasion.
The Deputy has gone over that several times.
I want to impress them. There are probably more important matters. I did not intend to mention this but seeing that I was pressed into action, I thought it would clear the air to deal with it. We have listened to threats about the purge that is promised if they are returned to power. No doubt that purge will come if the Opposition Parties get into office just as it came to Aer Lingus and their workers previously. Fine Gael speakers have said that purge will come if they get into power. I suppose there is always the possibility and the axe is hanging over the heads of people now in important posts but I should not be surprised that, if there is a move for a political change, many of these people would pack up and go before Fine Gael got the chance to implement the purge.
I am sure that purge will come. In the past it did not come alone to Aer Lingus but to a number of other concerns as we are only too well aware.
I should like to bring the matter of the postal service to the Minister's notice, especially in cases where this service is being changed for reasons of economy or betterment of the service. In some cases I think the preliminary examination carried out is not sufficiently comprehensive. I would ask the Minister to have such schemes fully investigated where mechanisation is being used or where it is a case of changing a postman. In newly-built areas, this constitutes a special problem, especially in the case of large new estates of 50 or 200 or more houses where you may have 20 or 30 William Murphys or John Murphys. If there is a change of postman, the whole scheme is disrupted for many weeks. I have witnessed this in my own area. I ask the Minister to ensure that the postman who is familiar with the area is retained on the route until such time as all the roadways are named and identifiable by any other postman.
I understand that the question of a new design for telephone kiosks was considered at one time and I would ask the Minister to have regard to the fact that the type of kiosk that has been installed at many points in this city is an eyesore. It is most desirable that telephone kiosks should fit in with the architecture of the surroundings. The pillbox type of kiosk now in use does not fit in with the surroundings in many of the developed areas where a very fine job of development has been carried out. Perhaps a variety of designs could be introduced which would enhance the appearance of the streets. Kiosks as a rule occupy vantage points and it is important that they should be of good appearance.
The question of design is also very important in connection with stamps. It is a matter which does not receive sufficient attention. There are in this country artists who could produce stamps that would be pleasing to the eye and attractive to collectors rather than the drab type to which we have become accustomed over a long period of years.
I would ask the Minister to bear in mind the points I have made. In conclusion, I should like to say that I wish the Minister and his Department well and trust that he will be able to solve the many problems in relation to the installation of telephones. I trust that applications for telephones, where a telephone is needed, will receive the sympathetic consideration that they have been receiving over the past number of years. I am quite sure that, under the very capable leadership of the Minister, many of the problems that have confronted the Department will be eliminated and that we can look forward to a brighter future. I trust that the necessary finance will be available shortly so that the Minister will be able to put into operation the programme that he would desire.
I would appeal for political honesty in relation to the very important media of television and radio. It is absolutely essential that there should be political honesty in our approach to these matters. Many of the statements that have come from politicians in Fine Gael and Labour can be questioned here day after day. I would have questioned them here tonight but time does not permit.
The Deputy has until 10.30 p.m.
There are a number of people waiting for me in the waiting room. I decided that I would say a few words and then deal with the problems of my constituency.
A great sacrifice.
I do not want to take up too much time of the House, particularly as my remarks on this Estimate will be directed along ground already covered but it is necessary that Deputies should speak out clearly regarding some of the matters which have been matters of public news in recent times.
The particular matter with which I want to deal is the question of—I do not mind whether you call it interference or intervention—with the television Authority in their presentation of news and programmes. I do not know whether the Minister or the Government really appreciate the extent to which public unease and disquiet have been caused in recent weeks at the happenings involving the Minister for Agriculture in relation to the television newscast towards the end of last month. I do not know whether the Minister or the Government appreciate to the full the extent to which people have been perturbed by the claims made by the Taoiseach in this House on 12th October, in what was, I assume, intended to be an explanatory statement of the Government viewpoint and the views held by the Government as to their rights and duties in relation to the television service.
It is right, whether it suits us politically or not, no matter from which side of the House we speak, to pay some tribute to the courage of the National Union of Journalists for bringing this matter out into the open. It is because of their courage in doing that that Deputies in the House and the public at large have had their attention directed to a situation which certainly seems to be unhealthy so far as the question of presentation of news in certain circumstances is concerned.
The Taoiseach, when speaking here in reply to a question on 12th October, made a number of claims with regard to the duty and responsibility of the Government in relation to the television service. I want quite clearly and bluntly to challenge, not so much the accuracy, as the validity of the claims made by the Taoiseach on that occasion. I am referring, Sir, to the Dáil Debates of 12th October in which the Taoiseach said in relation to Radio Telefís Éireann that the Government have overall responsibility for its conduct and especially the obligation to ensure that its programmes do not offend against the public interest or conflict with national policy as defined in legislation.
I should like the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, when he is replying to the debate, to quote me any single section from the Broadcasting Authority Act of 1960 which justifies that assumption on the part of the Taoiseach when he spoke here on 12th October. If it is the Government's duty to ensure that Radio Telefís Éireann does not in its programmes offend against the public interest, it is necessary that the Minister and the Government should be able to tell us who is to be the judge of public interest, whether the right to arbitrate and to decide on what questions are or are not matters of public interest rests solely with the Government and as to whether or not the Television Authority set up by them and, indeed, Deputies in this House, are not entitled to have some say in that question. With regard to the Taoiseach's claim that it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that television programmes do not conflict with national policy as defined in legislation, again, I would ask the Minister to let me know any single section or any single line in any section of the Broadcasting Authority Act which justifies that assumption on the part of the Taoiseach.
Surely national policy is created, and can only be created, by informed public opinion? If the sole arbiter as to what news is to be given to the public with regard to any particular matter is to be the Government or individual Government Ministers, how can a properly informed public opinion be created? Remember we are only in this House as representatives of the people. We are here as servants of the people. Of all in this House the people who should most fully appreciate their position as servants of the people are Government Ministers. It is not their job to dictate to them. It is the right and privilege of the people themselves to decide what is or what is not to be national policy. If the people decide that national policy should be changed, it is their right to come to that decision. It is no part of the duty of, and certainly, to my mind, no obligation whatever exists on, any member of the Government to try to propound national policy according to their own ideas without consultation with the people.
I want to put this point of view to the Minister. I do it not for the purpose of being in any way mischievous and certainly not for the purpose of treating this matter in any lighthearted way. I want to put to him the point of view that all this situation could have been avoided if the Government had regard to the provisions clearly laid down in the Constitution with regard to the right of the citizens freely to express their convictions and opinions. That right, according to the words of the Constitution, is guaranteed to the citizens of this country. The actual wording of the relevant Article of the Constitution is that:
The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights subject to public order and morality.
The first of the rights guaranteed by the State, according to the Constitution, is the right of citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions. Surely there is no question of any citizen expressing freely his convictions and opinions if the situation is that any Government Minister, or the Government as a whole for that matter, have the right to direct the public television Authority that particular viewpoints are not to be expressed on the news services of the Authority? I do not want to exaggerate this. I know a case can reasonably be made by the Government benches that in the particular instance, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries did not ask or request the news item to be taken out of the news, that he did not ask or request and that no member of the Government asked or requested that that particular item of news should not be expressed at all, and that he simply exercised his right to protest against a particular presentation. I know that that case can be made and I do not want to exaggerate this particular incident but to express the point of view that, unless this House views the matter seriously, unless this House looks the matter clearly in the face, there is a likelihood that the thin end of the wedge is getting in.
I do not make that statement lightly. I do not make it for the sake of political advantage or of political taunting. I make it because of the statement which appears in the public press today from the National Union of Journalists. I am referring to today's issue of the Irish Times wherein some very disquieting comments were made in this statement issued by a responsible journalists' body in this country. It is bad that neither the Taoiseach nor the Minister met this union and discussed the matter with them, as apparently they were asked to do. Perhaps I had better not say what I was going to say in case I get off on another tack. It is unfortunate that neither the Minister nor the Taoiseach met them when they were asked to do so.
It is gravely disturbing to find in this statement issued by the NUJ that apparently what occurred at the end of last month between the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and the television Authority is not the first incident of that sort. This statement sets out:
It is fair to ask how public order or morality or the authority of the State would have been undermined by broadcasting the particular item. It is fair to ask how public order or morality or the authority of the State would have been undermined by broadcasting the text of the letter of resignation of Mr. Patrick Smith, former Minister for Agriculture, late in 1964.
On that occasion, an order was issued to the RTE News Division that only official statements from the Government Information Bureau could be broadcast—an order which was reversed later on the same day when the letter had been published in full by the evening newspapers.
Surely that is a very unhealthy state of affairs? When a Government Minister of long standing, a Government Minister who has served as a Deputy for I think more than 40 years in this House, comes to a particular decision that he can no longer remain a member of the Government, when he writes a letter to that effect and gives out that letter for publication, surely it is a very unhealthy situation if the television service in this country is to be precluded from including that as a news item? Why should they be precluded from including it as a news item in their bulletin? Is there any reason other than that it is embarrassed the Government at the time? I do not suggest, because it is not clear from this statement, that the order not to use that item of news, or to make any reference to it unless it came from the Government Information Bureau, came from the Minister or from the Government. I want to stick to facts within my own knowledge or brought to my knowledge by statements of this kind. But it is an unhealthy thing that such an order should be given by anyone on a matter which obviously was newsworthy and should have been reported.
References have been made to the conduct of the television Authority during the course of the Presidential election campaign. I do not want to labour that except to say that their conduct in that regard did not escape the attention of very many people in this country, particularly when the comment was made that a Presidential election in another country was very fully covered by the television service here. But later on in this statement— this emphasises what I have been saying about the unhealthy state of affairs —we read: Yet, as the Dublin Radio Branch of the union has already pointed out, news has been suppressed from time to time, not even at the request of a Minister but, presumably, through fear of Ministerial or Governmental displeasure.
Surely that is the most unhealthy situation that could arise in a national service of this kind—that, even without a request being made by a Minister, news would be suppressed for fear of Ministerial or Governmental displeasure. Is it any wonder, in face of that kind of public statement appearing in our national newspapers, that some Deputies feel that should there be a change of Government, things should be radically altered? People are inclined to be provoked into saying that kind of thing but, in view of the comments made by Deputy Dowling, I think it only right to say—I have no doubt that Deputies of the Labour Party would join me in saying this— that, so far as we are concerned, anyone in any employment who is doing his job properly would have nothing to fear from a change of Government, either in the television service or anywhere else. I should like to make that position quite clear in case some of the remarks made might indicate to people that we would approach this matter from the point of view of political bias.
Deputy Flanagan will not agree with that statement.
I do not care who does or who does not agree with it. I am giving my point of view which, I believe, is the viewpoint of this Party.
We get so many different ones that it is very difficult to know which one we, on this side of the House, are supposed to accept.
If the young Deputy, whose name I have not yet learned, and whose contribution this evening is only by way of interruption——
I am here very often.
——would just pay attention when he is in this House, he would learn quite a lot.
I am here more often than you are: I wish to make that point.
Will the Deputy stay here as long as Deputy O'Higgins?
Will the Deputy stay as long?
Deputy O'Higgins, to continue.
So far as the Taoiseach's statement is concerned, I believe it has caused considerable disquiet in the country. Under section 16 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, it is the duty of the Broadcasting Authority to maintain a national service. That is the duty they have to discharge. A national service is surely a service that will give equal treatment to all sections of the people. There is danger here—I am prepared to accept from the Minister that he is not encouraging it but I do not believe he sees the danger—that the kind of thing that has been happening, the kind of situation that has been referred to in the statement from the National Union of Journalists, is simply one more step on the road to a one-Party State in this country. No matter how some individuals may feel that that would suit their particular Party, I want to go on record as saying that I believe it would be a damnably bad thing for this country if we ever allowed ourselves to walk blindfold into that kind of situation.
Under section 18 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, an obligation of impartiality is imposed on the television Authority. Here again, I want to challenge the statement by the Taoiseach when he referred here on 12th October, 1966, to impartiality as between political Parties. At column 1046 of the Official Report of 12th October, 1966, he used the following words: "while maintaining impartiality between political Parties". That, to my mind, is a misreading of section 18. The obligation of impartiality does not exist only as between political Parties. If there is a matter of public controversy then, whether or not one side is composed of politicians and the other side of people such as the National Farmers Association who are not politicians, the same obligation of impartiality exists and it does not depend on whether or not people are politicians. There is only one method under this Act whereby the Government have any right to interfere with the presentation of news or any other feature by the television Authority and that is under section 31, to which the Minister referred in a most extraordinary way here already this evening. I do not intend to pursue that.
The Deputy will agree that a breach of section 18 might be the reason for my intervention under section 31.
I do not know what justification the Minister might have but the Minister certainly gave the impression initially here this evening of saying that all the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries had to do, if he wanted to get a particular programme taken out, was to go to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs who could operate section 31. I think possibly the Minister did not mean it in as comprehensive a way as that, but, if that is the Minister's outlook, then I suggest that he should think a lot more seriously of his obligations to this House and to the public in this matter.
Do not worry. The suggestion was made, on a point of order, that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries spent the whole day trying to get the programme taken off. I pointed out quite clearly that that was not right because all he had to do was to come to me. He did not come to me.
It was still an extraordinary statement.
And the Minister would be delighted to——
Why did he not follow the proper procedure?
Somebody made the wrong and unture statement that he spent the day trying to have the programme taken off. He did not.
He could take it off in five minutes.
You are very modest.
I am the one whom he should have approached and he did not do so.
I shall not delay the House——
The Deputy has only three minutes to go.
I hope Deputy O'Higgins knows that my name is Deputy Molloy.
Pleased to meet you.
"If they ask you what your name is, tell them it's Molloy."
I have heard a lot of the O'Higgins family and of their being men of the people. It is rather strange that, being in politics for such a long time, they do not know the names of the 72 Fianna Fáil Deputies who sit in this House in this year of 1966.
A Deputy
Seventy-one.
There is nothing strange about it.
Henceforth, even the children at school will know the names of all the Deputies, including those of Deputy O'Higgins' Party.
It is like Beamish: it is making the Deputy famous.
That is a word we do not like to hear in use in this House too often. One of the points I wish to make concerns the rather poor reception we receive in Connemara. This matter is becoming a bit of a hardy annual. Deputy Geoghegan has mentioned it several times. However, if we do not mention it on the occasion of the annual Estimate, there is the danger that the officials may feel that we are not as keen as ever to have this matter remedied, that the pressure has relaxed and that there is not the same need for it. The position is very bad in Connemara in the area around Clifden. I would again ask the Minister to see what he can do to remedy the difficulty speedily. I know that he is making great efforts to improve the situation but winter is now coming upon us and the people in the area would be very grateful if something could be done about it without delay.