Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 27 Oct 1966

Vol. 224 No. 15

Committee on Finance. - Vote 42—Posts and Telegraphs (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration.
—(Deputy M.E. Dockrell).

Last night I mentioned the fact that I would like to refer briefly to some points which I feel should be mentioned when this Estimate appears before the House. I began last night before the House adjourned with the question of television reception in Connemara. This matter has been raised before but it still has not been rectified and I would like to refer to it again. It is hard on those people when you consider we had a football team in the All-Ireland this year and a large part of the county could not follow the fortunes of the favourite team because they could not get reception. This is rather a difficult and awkward situation for public representatives and the sooner the position is rectified the sooner every one of us will be happy about it.

There is one other thing in relation to television to which I would like to refer. The West is always placed in a most unfavourable light, and this also applies to Radio Éireann on the broadcasting side, in the weather forecast. We know the prevailing winds come from the west, but we do not have to have day after day this sad-faced forecaster telling us about imminent rain from the west, which we never see to the extent they would like or wish upon us.

We are living in a part of the country which is very much dependent on the attraction of tourists to the area and in which the question of weather is an important factor, and we feel that this type of mention which we are constantly getting on our television and radio sets is detrimental in its own way to the great work done there to promote the tourist industry. We are prepared to accept the weather God sends us but not the weather Radio Éireann and Telefís Éireann wish to send us. They are frequently wrong in this and should be a bit more careful. It might be a good shot to say there is rain in the west if they believe there is never anything else there. If they came down and visited us more often and saw the beautiful sunshine we get, they might treat us more kindly in their sometimes wholly incorrect forecasts.

Last night mention was made about long-haired individuals appearing on television screens and some people said that sheep shears could be used to make them more presentable looking. I could never agree with that outlook, that we should present only what we think is acceptable to the majority. I think we should in our television service go out of our way to serve all sections of the community of all ages. The producers understand that and are doing quite a good job, and I do not see any objection to providing the type of entertainment which younger people expect to see on television. I compliment them on what they are doing in that regard.

I would like to criticise one aspect which one notices from time to time of the news broadcasts. Producers do not seem to show a terrible lot of respect for people who have recently, shall we say, suffered a loss in their family, by showing films and pictures of people in their hour of grief. It is not very kind, certainly not very Irish, to project some poor lady in her grief into every home in the country at a time when this lady's, or any other person's privacy should be respected. I am referring in particular to the pictures of the funeral of Sister O'Sullivan in respect of that family. I just wish to mention it but not to speak too much or say any more about it. I would ask them to be a little more selective and to show a little more respect for people and their privacy.

The question of the Irish language on television is something that interests me very much, indeed, agus ag labhairt faoi sin ba mhaith liom chomhgáir-deachas a dhéanamh le lucht RTE as ucht an méid atá á dhéanamh aca chun an Ghaeilge a chur ar aghaidh. Tig liom a rá gur tháinig feabhas mór ar an obair a bhí á dhéanamh aca ó tháinig Eoin Ó Súilleabháin—fear as mo chontae féin—go dtí an seirbhís.

Ba mhaith liom rud amháin a mholadh do lucht stiúrtha na gcláranna i nGaeilge—deis a thúirt do na daoine a d'fhoghlaim an Ghaeilge ar scoil dul ar roint de na cláranna atá á gcur amach aca. Molaim é sin toisc gur insna scoileanna a d'fhoghlaim an chuid is mó de na daoine seo a gcuid Gaeilge.

Dá ndéanfaí é sin, do bhainfidís níos mó taithnimh as na cláracha. Nuair a chloiseann said daoine a bhfuil an Ghaeilge aca ó dhúchas agus an blas atá aca feictear dóibh nach féidir leo féin Gaeilge den tsaghas sin a labhairt choíche. Cuireann sin díomá ortha. Nílim ag caint faoi Ghaeilge Chonamara amháin ach Gaeilge Chiarraí agus Gaeilge Dhún na nGall chomh maith. Dá mbainfí níos mó úsáid as na daoine seo a bhfuil Gaeilge aca a d'fhoghlamaíodar ar scoil, tá mé cinnte go mbeadh an-dul chun cinn ar fad maidir le leathnú úsáid na teanga.

Ba mhaith liom traoslú le gach duine a bhfuil baint aige leis na cláracha seo i nGaeilge, go mór mhór leo siúd a bhfuil baint aca leis na drámaí. Bhain mé féin an-tairbhe as an obair íontach a dheineadar le goirid i léiriú "Cúirt an Mheán-Oíche".

With regard to the Late Late show which was a rather popular programme, televised when most people in the country were free, on Saturday night, to sit back in anticipation of enjoying the programme, of late I think they have lost the originality and the appeal to the people which they had in the beginning. If they want advice from us here, I would advise them to think twice about the way they are presenting the programme at the moment. We see too many foreigners on this programme, people of whom we have never heard before and never will hear again. They are introduced with great accolade and blowing of trumpets. We ask ourselves: "Who is this man we have never heard of or seen before?" and the further the programme goes the better we know that we could not possibly have heard of him before. They seem to make stars overnight of some people just to present them on the programme.

We have plenty of good Irish characters all over the country whom the people could enjoy on this programme. We are inclined to forget about the native talent when it comes to presenting entertaining programmes on the television. I would make the suggestion to those involved in producing the Late Late Show that they should use more of the Irish talent and character that we have in the country instead of bringing in those tin-pot film stars who are only spending a week here and did not know where Ireland was a week before they came. By playing up this kind of thing, I do not think it will do much for our image or self-confidence.

I would like to comment on the staff in the GPO and sub-post offices in my own county. It can be safely said now that any letter posted in County Galway will be delivered by the next day. That applies to the whole of West Galway anyway, Galway city and Connemara, except the Islands, of course. That is a great step forward. It is a wonderful service and I think compliments are due to the staffs and the Department officials who have worked so hard to bring this about.

On the question of van deliveries, it is only a question of time until the complete postal service will be motorised, certainly in my constituency. We often complain about the slowness of telephones and other things and it is nice to be able to compliment the Department when you see a job being well done.

A special word of thanks is due to the staff in the same GPO and sub-post offices who were involved on a certain day when two young men rowed across the Atlantic and the whole press of the world seemed to descend upon us in Galway. I know, from personal account, of the willingness of the officials in the General Post Office and sub-post offices involved in Galway to co-operate in what was an emergency. We had 40 or 50 pressmen, all trying to get on three lines to the Aran Islands. We had men who stayed up all day and all night to try to help out as best they could, and I understand that it was of no financial gain to the people in the sub-post offices who provided this excellent service to those men when they descended upon us. It is largely thanks to the work of the post office officials that it was said, very shortly afterwards, that if anybody wants to cross the Atlantic and to get publicity out of it the best place he could land is Galway because everybody seems to co-operate in times of emergency. When a thing like this suddenly descends, it is difficult to be on your toes but on that occasion the post office staff provided an excellent service.

There is one matter I would like to raise. It relates to the staff on the engineering side of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. It is something with which, I think, the Minister himself would have some sympathy. It is the question of a young boy who is taken in as a trainee technician and who does not pass the examination which is necessary at the end of the first year. As a trainee technician, he might get a second chance but if he fails at the end of the second year, he is out completely. There are lower grades and I think it should be possible for the Department to accept these trainee technicians who have not passed in the examination and to bring them in under the installer grade. It seems rather a waste of time and energy which the senior staffs have put into the training of these young men.

When they do not reach the required standards in that grade, I think it is a pity if the service is to lose them, having invested time and energy in them. The proper thing to do seems to me to be to bring them in at the installer level. I make this suggestion to the Minister and I think he has a certain sympathy with it. It is time something was done about it. A young man who spends one or two years at this is in a very awkward position if he does not succeed in his examination. He is out in the street again, whereas he is more than fit for employment in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs as an installer with the experience and training he has got in his efforts to become a trainee teachnician.

I would also like to compliment the Sports Department of Telefís Éireann. It must be one of the finest sports reporting departments in any television service in the world. They certainly go out of their way if there is something on to give the people in the country an opportunity of seeing it. There is great credit due to them. There is no need for me to mention any names. I would suggest that when they are covering sports in which the ordinary staff are not very well up, it might be an idea if they were to bring in people from organisations to do the commentary for them. I refer in particular to commentaries on the Irish Swimming Championships in Mosney this year where a man was put on as a commentator who had not any great knowledge of swimming, who did not know the swimmers and who did not really understand what the whole thing was about. There are in the Swimming Association very many able commentators who would have been able to put that across and they would not have wasted so many tapes, which unfortunately happened because of wrong names and the person concerned not understanding the situation in that sport. Telefís Éireann are inclined to confine the commentaries to the few people they have in the service rather than bring in temporary people who have a greater knowledge and make use of that knowledge to put the image across.

Last night, and indeed for the length of time this Estimate has been before the House, most of the Opposition speakers spent their time criticising the action of a certain Minister and tried to imply that the television service and the radio broadcasting service were completely dominated and run by the Fianna Fáil Government. Anybody who would believe that would be very naive indeed because it is evident to most people and indeed it was most evident on the occasion this was raised here in the House, when the Minister for Education intervened from the storm that descended upon him from the front benches of the Fine Gael Party that Fine Gael were looking on Telefís Éireann as their little empire. The editor of the Irish Times was not far wrong in his editorial this morning where he more or less hints at something on the same lines. The reason the front benches of Fine Gael were so terribly worried—we saw Deputy Cosgrave get very hot under the collar about it—was that they were afraid the grip they had on Telefís Éireann was slipping out of their hands.

This debate has gone on for a few days now and the main emphasis seems to be on television. In these circumstances, I believe the main functions of the Department are lost completely in the debate. I want to draw the Minister's attention to a few of the problems confronting the people of my constituency. I have taken matters up with him recently in connection with the erection of telephone kiosks in some of the villages in mid-Cork. I have tabled Parliamentary Questions in that respect over the past year and a half and have received the same reply with monotonous regularity. I believe, in view of the fact that we have now a large number of applicants awaiting the installation of private telephones, this is a system which could give good service, particularly to the people in the rural villages of this country. I should like to ask the Minister in relation to local post offices where a public telephone is available to the people, at what time at night is that service finished as far as the people are concerned? There seems to be a misunderstanding in this regard because, in remote areas, it may happen that people are looking for a doctor or a veterinary surgeon late at night and there is no telephone available apart from the public kiosk which could be a long distance away. The erection of those kiosks is something the Minister could examine.

The next matter I want to condemn in the strongest manner possible is the number of people on the waiting list for a number of years for the installation of a private telephone in their homes. The Department have the deplorable system that, when they feel it is time to instal the telephone, the person in question is approached and a sum of money is demanded from him. Even though he pays the sum in question by cheque to the Department, and the cheque is cashed, it is possible that that person will wait as long as six months before the telephone is installed. I condemn that because I believe, once the money is demanded and paid, the person concerned should at least be given an indication when the work will commence on the installation of that telephone. We have a huge waiting list and progress is rather slow. That is why I suggested to the Minister, at the outset, that the erection of telephone kiosks could provide a very useful service for those people, particularly those who have been waiting for a long time. I feel this is not a good system and is something which should be discontinued immediately.

We have had a discussion here for the past few days on Telefís Éireann. I believe that no matter what Minister sits opposite, this service will never be perfected. It is impossible to suit all the people and I believe, further, that what may suit one section of the people may not suit another. By and large Telefís Éireann is doing a good job. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to one programme put on recently known as "Discovery". In the preparation of this programme, they visited the town of Kinsale in my constituency where industries there were filmed, reported on and shown to viewers. It was rather amazing that in this town—where there are three industries, two of which are German, and one native—which never received one penny of State aid of any kind and employing 38 males receiving a large wage—this was completely omitted from that programme. I do not blame the Minister but I believe this caused quite a lot of uneasiness and bitterness in the town of Kinsale. The industry I referred to was Henry Good and Sons, millers and supermarkets who employ 38 men. It is regrettable that this should have happened, that foreign industries who came into Kinsale and were helped to erect their factories and install their machinery with State aid were included in the programme while the oldest industry in Kinsale was omitted. That should not happen. I do not know whether it was an oversight on the part of the people concerned, but it caused a lot of uneasiness in this town.

I have already drawn the Minister's attention to Farnanes in County Cork where television reception is so bad at times that people have to switch off their sets. Deputy Molloy also referred to this in relation to Connemara. I am sure the Minister and everyone in the House will agree that there is nothing more annoying or more aggravating when you are interested in a programme than the reception being so bad that you have to switch off your set. It is incumbent on the Minister or RTE to rectify this immediately. Television can be a great source of entertainment particularly in the country, with news and all forms of entertainment brought into the houses of people who are not in a position to avail of the entertainments in the towns and villages.

Television provides an essential service, so far as entertainment is concerned for the people in rural Ireland. These people have to pay for their licences and they have to pay through taxation for the provision of this service. When it is not provided, I believe this money is collected under false pretences. This should be rectified immediately. I have taken it up with the Minister already and I have not heard of any progress being made. If the Minister makes inquiries, he will find that what I am saying will be borne out by the people in that locality. It is disgraceful. Several complaints have been made to me and to other Deputies from mid-Cork, that these people will refuse to pay their television licences in the future.

As I said, regardless of what Minister is sitting over there, this service will never be perfect. It has been suggested that there are programmes early in the night which are not suitable for children. Some programmes can be of great educational value to schoolgoing children, but there should be some dividing line between programmes presented for the benefit of children, education-wise or otherwise, and programmes presented for the entertainment of adults. We are all aware that what Deputy Corry described as "sloppy stuff" appears on television from time to time and is not suitable for schoolgoing children. Of course it can be said that there is always the off-switch, and that the parents can tell the children that a programme is not suitable and they should not watch it, but very often the children and parents are in the same room with the television set, and it is rather difficult, particularly in the case of children aged eight, nine, ten and 11, to prevent them from watching certain programmes. I put this to the Minister in the form of a suggestion and I think it would be worth his while having a look at it.

Like Deputy Molloy, I should like to compliment the people responsible for the presentation of sporting programmes. They are very well done and a majority of the people look forward to them and are pleased with them.

Deputies on this side of the House dealt very adequately with interference by members of the Government in the presentation of certain programmes. I believe that a Minister, the same as anyone else, has the right and the privilege to protest, but when we reach the stage where a Minister of State interferes with the presentation of a programme and tries to manipulate that programme for his personal advantage, or his Government's advantage, that is a sorrowful state of affairs. It should not happen, and it has been condemned by a large number of people inside and outside the House. I hope it will not occur again, and I hope the Minister will explain to the House what happened on that occasion.

I want to return again to sub-post offices and postmen generally, and I want the Minister to make a ruling on this. There was a case recently where a postman who was actively engaged with a political Party was severely reprimanded by his postmaster. I should like to know from the Minister can these postmen take part in politics and associate themselves actively with a political Party? I was amazed to find that in one place a postman was severely reprimanded for taking an active part in politics, while in another part of my constituency, another postman who was actively associated with a different political Party got promotion. If the Minister doubts the validity of my statement, I can supply him with the names of the people concerned, and with the name of the postmaster who issued the reprimand. It may be that there is a distinction so far as status is concerned, but I should like the Minister to tell me what the position is so far as postmen who take part in politics are concerned. Can they be actively associated with any political Party? I believe that postmen, the same as anyone else, have a right to give vent to their political feelings regardless of what political Party they may belong to.

I hope that the points I have brought to the Minister's attention will at least be considered. This has given me an opportunity of which I am glad to avail of drawing the Minister's attention to those problems. There are many as far as the postal service is concerned but they are mostly trivial and can be dealt with at local level rather than taking the time of the House to bring them to the Minister's attention here. It is my experience in general that the delivery services provided by the Post Office are quite good. I have no complaints in that direction. Good services are provided for the people. In this respect I should like to pay a particular tribute to postmen, particularly in rural areas, who carry out their duties in all kinds of weather, delivering letters and parcels to remote districts. I should, however, like to add to that a reminder that many of those men, particularly the unestablished section, are very poorly paid for the very hard work they do in difficult circumstances. I hope the Minister will see to it that they are better paid for the valuable service they render.

I shall open my remarks by paying a tribute to the Minister for the magnificent work and the many improvements he has carried out during the past year. Last year the postal service in my part of the city was hopeless. The first post arrived at 10 a.m. when most people had left for their businesses and therefore a whole day elapsed before they got their post. There has been a tremendous improvement in this and in connection with it, I should like to express appreciation of the postmen, a most efficient and hardworking body of men who do everything possible to facilitate the people.

I cannot agree with the attitude of the Department on the question of the installation of public telephone kiosks in the city. I have it on record from the Department that they will not provide a public telephone kiosk unless there is a prospect that it will pay its way. I wish to emphasise that the availability of a telephone in a public place can be the means of saving a life in an emergency and why should it be suggested that we should put a cash value on a human life? Even if the public kiosk service is to be run at a deficit, we should provide it adequately and I earnestly ask the Minister to review the Department's policy on this matter. If a good public phone service is provided, the public will appreciate it. Practically every Deputy receives letters asking him to make representations to have telephone kiosks installed in his area. Invariably he gets the answer "No; it would be uneconomic, and we shall not provide it." I feel sure the loss on a single kiosk would not be very great. It certainly would not outweigh the risk that a single life might be lost for lack of a telephone in times of emergency. That should be our criterion.

To get back to the work of the Department in general, there is hardly a more successful organisation in the State set-up. The service provided by the Post Office is the oldest we have in the public sphere and it continues to be an efficient one. When one enters the realm of the television service, however, one must be critical about certain matters even if one can praise others. We have heard much criticism during the debate of the Minister making representations to the television Authority about some programme. The Minister has a perfect right to do so as has any Deputy.

The Opposition have been bleating about this matter. They are very naïve if they think they can put it across publicly that the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party do not put pressure on Radio Telefís Éireann. They may not do it publicly but everyone knows they have various contacts through which they can make representations. I do not know if they are listened to but they make representations at all times, and who can blame them for doing so if they think they are not getting a fair crack of the whip? Telefís Éireann is the most powerfull medium of communication in the country and any Party in power will be suspect and there will be criticisms that the service is not impartial. However, as the standard of our appreciation increases, we shall realise more and more the good work Radio Telefís Éireann are trying to do.

There is one aspect of television broadcasting in this country which perturbs many people. It is the accent on alcohol advertising. There are numerous advertisements which give the picture to our youth that they are not with it unless they are seen in a public house with glasses of beer or whiskey in their hands. That is a totally wrong impression to give to our youth. I am glad to say that here we have the largest proportion of non-drinkers in the world. Many of these slick advertisements try to sell foreign drinks and young people are shown on the screen sitting in pubs. Now they have invaded even the sports pavilions, though we all know that in a sports pavilion after a match, none of the players changing from togs drinks anything stronger than water. There may be some drinking in the bar afterwards. I suggest that the Minister should urge the Authority strongly to change their attitude in this respect. It is doing untold harm to our youth. Perhaps these advertisements bring in a lot of money but it is a high price to pay for a monster.

There are also advertisements about medicinal cure-alls which are nothing but rubbish. We realise Telefís Éireann must get money from advertisements but surely they must have some sense of proportion? I suggest there should be some censorship of these advertisements because the whole idea of the people who sponsor them is to make money, and if this is done at the expense of the physical or spiritual welfare of our people, they do not care a whit. Their idea is to make money and they do not care very much how they do it. Another branch of television advertising is in respect of detergents. It is nauseating to have to listen to some of them, prepared in England for audiences in Leeds or Durham or somewhere else. A great number of the products so advertised are fake. Many of the people subjected to this barrage go out to shop and will not buy a detergent which is not in the so-called popular line.

If we are to have an intelligent service which represents our thinking and what we believe should be our outlook, we have got to take a very hard look at these matters. It would be much better if we increased taxation in some way and were able to forgo those advertisements. I am not in the least a prude about those things but our young people are looking at those advertisements every night and some of them go beyond the bounds of good taste.

Some time ago a newspaper mentioned that advertisements on television should be reviewed and certain ones taken off. Despite this, they are going on as merrily as ever and as scandalously as ever. Many years ago when parents were rearing their families, they always tried to keep them on the straight and narrow path by refusing to allow them to go to certain types of amusements. That day has gone now and we have certain people shown on Telefís Éireann as celebrities.

Not long ago on a Saturday night a person was brought on from across the Channel. She was hailed as being what youth should be. I never heard of that person before and I am sure plenty viewers never heard of her. That person was brought on and was feted on the show. The following week this person was involved in a most scandalous case in London. This must have been known to the people in Ireland who put on that show. We criticise our young people today but what can we expect from them when our national broadcasting service brings such a nonentity over here whose only claim to fame is notoriety?

The Minister and the Authority have a grave duty when bringing a television service into the homes of our people. They must ensure that such a service will not do untold harm to our young people. For years we have tried to build up a nation of which we could be proud but then we come along and provide the gravest influence for our young people it is possible to have.

Some Deputies mentioned the sports coverage on Telefís Éireann. I admit that generally it is very good indeed but I consider that certain sports are not being given a fair crack of the whip. I do not consider that Association Football is being given any kind of fair showing. Another sport, which is mainly for a minority of people, but which is a good manly sport, rowing, is seldom shown. Despite the fact that we have about 20 regattas throughout the season one seldom sees rowing shown on Telefís Éireann. I do not see why we cater only for the majority.

Now, more than ever, it is necessary that we show to the youth of the country what sport can really be and what it can do for them. I have noticed that while Telefís Éireann are quite content to accept the BBC commentator on horseracing in England, if there is show jumping on in England, we have to send a sports commentator over, whose continued references to Royalty present is absolutely nauseating. People want to see the horse jumping. They do not want to see the VIPs present. It is the horses they are interested in. If Telefís Éireann accept a BBC commentator when horseracing is shown, it is unreasonable to see why we should send a team over there when show jumping is on.

When I was going to school, I remember there was always somebody in class who used Anglo-Saxon words to shock the rest of us. I referred to this matter before and because I did so, a political commentator seemed to think I was suffering from some kind of frustration. I certainly was not suffering from any kind of frustration. It is more likely this commentator was. It is deplorable in times when we are trying to improve our youth that we have this obsession with James Joyce on Telefís Éireann and this use of Anglo-Saxon words. Parents have to correct their children when they use such words.

Deputy Molloy mentioned the long-haired people who appear on Telefís Éireann. I presume he was talking about the male long-haired people. Those people should have a label put on them when they appear on Telefís Éireann so that we can identify their sex. This would help things a lot. I consider Telefís Éireann should get away from the arty clique and put on people who matter, ordinary down to earth people. The vast majority of our people are down to earth.

It may sound strange from a city man when I say that the programmes which cater for agriculture are tremendously popular with city people. It is probably the fault of our educational system that people in the city do not know anything about agriculture. The programmes which deal in a dramatic way with the agricultural scene are appreciated very much by city people and more of those programmes should be put on. I am also told that the serial play, "Tolka Row", which is essentially a Dublin play, is tremendously popular in the rural parts of the country. Telefís Éireann, in this aspect, is trying to strike a balance. Despite this, we still have to take a much more critical view of television than we have been taking up to the present. We are inclined to sit back and say that it is a new station. We know it is a new station but we should ensure that the finest programmes are put on. I would ask the Minister to speak with the Authority about the matters I have referred to.

The Authority have been much maligned by the Opposition who say they are supporters of Fianna Fáil. I do not know if they are, but if there were another Government sitting here, probably others would say that the Authority were supporters of that Party. This is human nature and this thing will go on all the time. We will never have a perfect television service. We are inclined to blame its imperfections on the fact that we are not given everything we want.

The news service given by Telefís Éireann is very good but as one Labour representative mentioned, when the news is given in Irish, why must the announcer speak so fast? I have diligently tried to follow the Irish news every night but I have found it almost impossible. It seems that if they do not get finished by 11 o'clock or 11.30 they face the crack of doom. They could take things much more slowly. There are a great number of people who can follow everything said through Irish but there are also many people who want to follow the news in Irish but just cannot do so because of the speed at which those people speak. In conclusion, I would again commend the Minister on the work he has done during the year and ask him to examine the points I have made.

This is a debate which draws forth annually congratulations and criticisms in varying degrees but I hope that my first criticism will not be regarded by the Minister as an effort to do him out of a job. This is a Department which I believe could well be amalgamated with another and thus reduce the administrative cost as well as the Ministerial cost. I have always held the view that, now that Radio Telefís Éireann is under the control, if it is, of an independent Authority, there is nothing much left to the Post Office except the sale of stamps and the provision and organisation of telephones, plus the sending of telegrams, and all that is something I think which largely falls under the heading of commerce and could, therefore, well be amalgamated with CIE and the various other State bodies, all to be run together under a heading like "Telecommunications" or just simply "Communications". I have no desire that the present Minister should be deprived of a job; I am quite sure he would be retained under the new order I advocate and lesser people might then be relegated to a position in which great demand would not be made upon the wrong exercise of functions.

It is good to know that Deputy Molloy finds the sub-post offices of Galway and Connemara in such wonderful working order. I suppose it is no harm for a Deputy to pay a compliment to this little network, of no mean importance in his constituency, but the fact is, of course, that what he has described as obtaining in Galway is equally true of the whole country. Nowadays in very few places has one to wait more than the following morning for a letter posted in reasonably good time the day before anywhere else. The courtesy extended, not just from time to time, but invariably, by subpostmasters and subpostmistresses is well known. That is particularly true in cases of emergency. They cope successfully with the publicity requirements of people who row across the Atlantic and, more important still, whenever there is an occasion of sadness, or an emergency involving sickness or accident, these people rally round in a most marvellous way and bring into play all the services at their disposal with quite wonderful efficiency. If there is a complaint about any individual person or any individual office, the fact is that kind of person would be difficult anywhere else too. That is true of all human relations.

The subpostmasters, subpostmistresses, postmen, linesmen and all others involved provide an excellent service. The only criticism would appear to be that which was referred to by Deputy Creed a short time ago —the slowness of providing telephones and, more particularly, the fact that the Department accepts the money, a great deal of money in certain cases, and then fails for months to provide the service for which that money was intended. I know that kind of thing may happen in other businesses, but I doubt that the delay would be as long. It is wrong that the delay should be so great or that the money should be accepted at a time when it must be well known to the particular branch of the Department that the service cannot be provided. Some provision should be made, particularly when they ask for money for so many years in advance, to ensure that the cheque will not be cashed until reasonably near the time when the service can be provided.

I know of some isolated instances in this connection. The people concerned are growing more and more annoyed as each day passes. There may be difficulty in the provision of equipment. There may be—I am sure there are— financial difficulties. There may be shortage of staff. There may be more calls being made upon the minimum staff but, all in all, I think it is something in which half-way measures could be employed. Let me say at once that I deplore the present practice—it has been in operation now for some little time—under which so many years in advance of the rental is demanded before a telephone service will be offered. I do not think the telephone is on a par with hire purchase because, as far as I know, one never owns one's telephone. One simply rents it for ever and ever. It is there. There is one certain way of being deprived of it and that is not to pay one's bill at the right time.

Some years ago a question was asked here about the average delay by the exchange on dialling 10 for trunk calls. The answer given at the time by the then incumbent of the office, Deputy Hilliard, was that it was an average of 11 seconds. Personally, I have spent 11 minutes, and more, waiting for the exchange to answer. Is that due to shortage of staff? Is it due to the fact that the staff cannot get around to the calls? Is it due to the fact that there are not enough people to deal with them? Or is it due to some kind of slow-up deliberately planned inside? That view has been put to me from time to time; I have been told it is a deliberate slow-up on the inside. I find it very difficult to accept that because, when I eventually get through to either a supervisor or an operator, I meet with nothing but the greatest courtesy and help. The delay in between is what I should like to have explained because there is certainly no indication from the other end of any impatience, irritation or discourtesy, and these would be the normal consequences of deliberate delay.

One thing that is very irritating to the subscriber is that, when one is going through the almost coronary process of waiting for an answer to a call, and one asks to whom one is speaking, the male or female operator immediately says: "We are not allowed to give names." I do not know what the regulation is governing that but it would seem to me that, where there is a case of genuine complaint on the part of a member of the public, it should be possible for him or her, as the case may be, to direct that complaint, to be examined on its merits, against a particular official. Now, this is not very prevalent by any means but I should like to know what the regulation is, why it is there and why somebody is protected at the other end of the telephone line.

As I have said, there is very little in the Post Office proper, as we know it at the moment, except stamps, telephones, and that. There would appear to be very little complaint, as I have said, in relation to these and there appears to be very little necessity for what I describe as the preponderance of Ministerial direction in dealing with a commercial enterprise of that kind. The Post Office could easily be amalgamated with another Department.

In connection with Radio Telefís Éireann, I welcome the improvement not alone in the extent of the programmes provided but also in the quality. It is a pity, I think, that the visual side has tended to turn our attention away from sound. Many excellent sound programmes are lost in our anxiety not alone to hear but to see. That is all I have to say about the sound part of broadcasting, but it is appropriate to make some mention here of the public concern centred round the cessation of the services of the distinguished musical director, Mr. Tibor Paul. I am not musical and I would not therefore be regarded as as sensitive as those who are so blessed with the gift of discerning and appreciating a variety of sound, as my distinguished colleague, Deputy Dockrell, is blessed. He is a master not alone of sound but of the five-finger exercise as well. Surely it should have been possible for the Authority, in determining the manner and the time this distinguished musician's services would end, to have been more tactful and more sensitive and not to have given notice when the man was actually about to go on stage, as it were, to conduct a very important musical event in the RDS? Even a civil bill officer would have more discretion.

I am sure the Minister will be able to tell us something more about that when he is concluding. I hope he will, and I hope he will be able to reassure the public and allay their concern about this whole matter. Indeed, on a very murky democratic horizon that obtains in this respect, I am very happy to say that the only bright light that appeared in the course of this whole thing was the very simple, very honest and very brave expression of opinion by Mrs. Aiken, the wife of the Minister for External Affairs. It is a healthy sign but it is to be deplored that it was the only healthy sign there was. It would be a good thing if other Ministerial wives were equally honest and equally brave and thus influence their husbands in the Front Bench of this Government.

Now we move on to what is probably the real matter of controversy in these times, that is, Telefís Éireann itself. I listened with some amusement, with some dismay and with more than a little curiosity to both Deputy Molloy and Deputy Moore deploring certain things that, in their view, are calculated to corrupt the youth of this country. Deputy Molloy does not like the idea of tin-pot actresses being put on the Late Late Show. Were it not for the fact that I did not want to interrupt him, I would have loved to have asked for a definition of "tin-pot actress". It has many charming and not so charming possibilities on investigation, especially on a Late Late Show.

"Tin-pot" is something that is made quickly and does not last too long.

It is made quickly and does not last so long. That means it is not equal to the purpose for which it is intended.

It might serve the purpose well for the time being.

For the time being. Well, the box office regulates the lives, both public and private, of actresses, tin-pot or otherwise. In any event, I have no intention of engaging with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs on the relative merits of actresses, tin-pot or otherwise. We had Deputy Moore complaining about some actress being brought on to the Late Late Show and held out as a model for young people who later was involved in some scandal in London and that it was an awful thing entirely that this should have happened, that Radio Telefís Éireann should have known she was likely to be so embroiled before they asked her on. He did not tell us anything about her and we did not know anything about her—a pity—and accordingly I cannot say anything more about this.

However, if we are to be subjected to the process of having to screen everybody before he or she is brought on to Telefís Éireann, somebody who happens to be in Dublin, who is altogether blameless in the view of people in Telefís Éireann, and who is asked to appear, well, God knows their task is difficult enough selecting people to come on and make the show enjoyable, as I would say it is, by and large, every Saturday night, without that. Sometimes I think the great grievance probably is that the same people come on the show for too long, the same panel at any rate, that there should be a greater variety. I find myself in agreement with Deputy Molloy that possibly a more extended use could be made of local talent.

Deputy Moore made an attack on television advertisements. Well, we cannot have it both ways. We collect a large amount of revenue from the sales of tobacco and drink and what is needed in this country is not the power-assisted brakes being put on everything but to tell people how to drink and enjoy it and to know when to stop. That would be better than putting on a brake that may fail at any given time, with disastrous results. A little and frequently is probably the better idea than complete cessation.

Deputy Moore is also disturbed about advertising of detergents. Is it not a refinement of the black doctor at the country fair selling cures for headaches? Deputy Moore says it is all rubbish. If these people are prepared to pay Radio Telefís Éireann their advertising prices, and if a certain number of gullible people believe in buying these harmless things, there is no great harm done to anybody and Telefís Éireann is the richer. We cannot be putting our heads in the sand about these matters. We have to face up to the fact that we are a drink-producing country, that we produce the best beer in the world and the best whiskey, and why cannot we advertise them even to our own people who must be expected to consume them if we expect people outside to take our exports from us?

There are a number of programmes to which I should like to refer, one of which is the Irish programme "Iarphroinn" which I think is a decided success. It is very good and people are brought on who are competent and interesting and who discuss the subject facilely and in a brand of Irish that is extremely easy to understand. So far it has been a great success and I hope the producers will continue in the same manner.

I have to return now to Deputy Moore who spoke on James Joyce and deplored the use of Anglo-Saxon words. I do not know why there is this terrible fear of Anglo-Saxon words. If the Deputy cares to have a look through some of the old Irish poetry and some of the medieval Irish writings, and even some of the modern Irish writings, he will find words that James Joyce would probably have been glad to use. Let us get away from this nonsense and hypocrisy that we are the great people of the earth and that Anglo-Saxon influence and Anglo-Saxon words might corrupt us in some ways. We are a very human people, a very human part of a very human Celtic race, with all their tendencies and susceptibilities. As somebody said recently, and I think it summed up our whole moral attitude: "For a fairly drunken country, is drink not a great stigma?"

The big talking point of the moment is Telefís Éireann and interference by Ministers and people in high places and the counter-allegations that former Ministers and Deputies in Opposition have their own particular contacts in Telefís Éireann. I can speak on this subject as one who has been in the Telefís Éireann building once, who has appeared on television once and who has never interfered or asked anybody in Telefís Éireann to do anything for me or do anything against anybody else. It is a very natural thing to have a contact, and equally natural to use the contact, but it is a most improper thing to abuse that contact, not only for one's own advantage but particularly for the detriment of one's adversary at any time.

A controversy such as this is not a good thing for an infant institution like Telefís Éireann. If I may say by way of aside, I think at this stage, the station's greatest difficulty, and one which it must try to overcome as soon as possible, is the fact that in the public mind in ever-increasing volume and with, apparently, increasing validity as each day passes, it is the subject of suspicion, suspicion arising from the allegations and counter-allegations of interfering hands from without, from other allegations that there are ready, receiving hands within and suspicion, finally, throughout the whole country that Telefís Éireann has become the nest of small sets or cliques of near-politicals, some intellectuals and of many more pseudo-intellectuals, and that all of them are in a close and confined group which has become in itself already a little vested interest into the realms of which no outsider dare poke his nose.

I hope I have given a fair assessment of what the public think in this regard at present. The people are thinking in an atmosphere of suspicion of the kind to which I refer and if that suspicion is allowed to grow and get a grip, it will do the service no good. It will destroy any, if not all of the advantages it has for the viewing population because it will not be accepted as giving a proper, forthright view either in feature programmes or in news presentation.

Section 18 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960 says:

It shall be the duty of the Authority to secure that, when it broadcasts any information, news or feature which relates to matters of public controversy, or is the subject of current public debate, the information, news or feature is presented objectively and impartially, without any expression of the Authority's own views.

It is equally true that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has authority to intervene in writing with the Authority when he, in his carefully considered exercise of discretion, thinks fit, but nobody else has that right. We all have the right, as Deputy Creed said, to ring up and complain and make our point but we have no right to tell anybody in Telefís Éireann, whether reporter, technician or operator at any level, or executive or administrator, to take off one programme and substitute another, to change the order of programmes or suppress any news.

There seems no doubt that very recently the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has been in touch with RTE with a view to having his own point of view on the retention of young cattle by farmers to a later time given prominence over an NFA statement. That is putting it at its mildest. I am not concerned in this debate or at this time with the merits of the dispute between the Minister and the farmers. We are concerned with freedom of expression on Telefís Éireann and we feel that freedom should certainly be no less than that, not alone enjoyed but diligently exercised, by the NUJ in the newspapers. It is equally clear that the NUJ took exception to this interference by the Minister and that after careful deliberation, they sought an interview with the Taoiseach and with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and that both requests were refused.

Not with the Minister for Agriculture; with me.

I beg your pardon; it was with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. This refusal to grant interviews to properly organised bodies is becoming a feature of our public life. It has been called arrogance and might be——

I do not see how we can discuss that on the Minister's Estimate.

The Minister refused to receive the NUJ in relation to a matter connected with Telefís Éireann.

I thought the Deputy was discussing the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.

There are many discussions involving that Minister at the moment but, according to my information, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs refused, according to a report in the Irish Times on Wednesday, 26th October, 1966, to receive a deputation from the NUJ to discuss this interference with RTE and he refused. I think I should be permitted to say that a refusal of this kind—I am saying this in a general way, without reference to any particular Minister—to receive a properly organised deputation should be deplored, and that some people refer to it as arrogance, but there are other words which could be applied to it probably more so.

This matter has received considerable criticism both in the daily Press and in other publications. There is a very interesting and a very strong expression of opinion in this regard in Ireland's Catholic Standard of October 7th, 1966, and I quote:

Telefís Éireann allowed itself to be influenced by this interference to the extent of omitting the NFA statement from one of its news broadcasts. The National Union of Journalists protested, quite properly. The Director General of Telefís Éireann admits that there was an error of judgment on their part.

Then it goes on to say:

We have expressed most vigorously the necessity for the complete independence of the television and radio news services because they are so readily open to Government pressures. We believe that the vigilance of the journalists in the TE news department was necessary and courageous on this occasion.

I need hardly say that I endorse that view completely, and it is a very good follow-up of a former occasion when the Press Gallery of this House had to take a similar stand with regard to what they saw, what they heard, what they wrote and what their papers printed.

The article continues:

The public must view with some concern Mr. Haughey's approaches to Telefís Éireann and are unlikely to accept with complete confidence the assurances of the TE Director, Mr. Kevin McCourt, given during the address to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce on Monday.

It is not necessary for anybody to lay down the principle which has operated all down the years from the very beginning of newspapers and from the very beginning of the development of media of this kind, that there must be freedom of expression, unless, of course, that freedom of expression offends against public morality or against some aspect of the statutory provisions in relation to criminal libel or the like. Freedom of expression is a very important thing not alone for the individual, not alone for groups, but particularly for those media of communication that are to be regarded, until the contrary is proved to the hilt, as responsible, informed and informing, and I regard our newspapers at national and local level as having those qualities.

Is it too much to expect that Radio Telefís Éireann, as a more powerful medium of communication with a more influencing effect on more and more people, should conform with these simple principles enshrined in the freedom of expression which the Press has enjoyed down the years? I do not think the Taoiseach has any right, in spite of his exalted position as Leader of the Government, to state an improper principle here, contrary to the provision of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960, which laid down the principle that the Authority, subject to intervention by a discreet Minister properly exercising his rights, has not alone the right but the duty to give an impartial and objective presentation of news. I do not accept that the Taoiseach or any other person has the right to say that the Government have an overall responsibility for this matter and that the Government, through any one of its members, can interfere at any time with the working of a station such as this or, indeed, with the working of any State body.

We hear from time to time the Minister for Transport and Power answering question after question with the invariable phrase that he has no function in the matter. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has one function and he must exercise it in writing in relation to this Authority, and that is all. The Taoiseach has none, never had any and should not have any, and certainly should not have spoken in such a manner as to make the House and the country believe that somewhere within the framework of the Broadcasting Authority Act, he has some kind of queer power that nobody else can find in the legislation.

The people cannot be expected to respect institutions, cannot be expected to respond to exhortations about the preservation of democracy in other spheres, as the Taoiseach exhorted them yesterday, if one of the instruments of democracy, Telefís Éireann, is to be exposed to intervention by the Taoiseach, by his Government as a whole or by individual Ministers with his backing and approval. I say to this Government and to the Taoiseach: "Take your hands off this medium. Stay with the medium over which you exercise control, your national press, the Irish Press, with the Sunday Press and the Evening Press. That is your paper and give as much publicity as you want to give to all of your occasions, all of your propaganda in that paper. But do not use the people's money that was used to set up Telefís Éireann for the benefit of one Party or for the benefit of one person as was evidenced in the Presidential election of last May.”

I wonder how many times the President of this country appeared on television in the month of May in 1965, 1964 or in 1963 whereas he was appearing once, twice, three and four times a day during the month of May, 1966, and where he was given a back door piece of publicity in a Presidential campaign. I do not think that is evidence of lack of interference either. The Radio Éireann Authority said they decided not to cover the Presidential election campaign. They should have clamped down on everybody, but, of course, the answer is that the President would have to get publicity any way. An interesting comparison would be the number of times there were appearances in the month of May in the years prior to 1965. Of course, it is very difficult to divorce this from the feeling that exists in the country that all of this publicity for the Presidential election campaign was being afforded, not to an independent Presidential candidate but to the titular head of the Fianna Fáil Party who has never removed himself from that position, even right up to the present time.

That is all I have to say on the question of interference in regard to this medium of mass communication. This is an infant station doing very well. In my one and only visit there, I could not help being impressed by, not alone the courtesy and the helpfulness, but the quiet efficiency of every person there in the execution of the job allotted to him. There, I felt, was a dedicated little band of men anxious to give to the Irish public the best possible service that they, in their knowledge and experience, could give. Do not interfere with them. Leave them alone. Let them progress from what people are inclined, not alone to concede, but to assert, will always be an imperfect station. I do not subscribe to that view. It is imperfect now. Its imperfection has been growing less. The only remaining real imperfection is the interference of the Fianna Fáil Party in an effort to monopolise that station as their sole medium of expression.

At the commencement of the debate, I gave a very comprehensive statement which, I regret to say, obviously, was not studied very closely by the Deputies who have spoken. My statement covered the ground pretty well and factually in relation to the working of all sections of my Department. I do not believe that those Deputies who referred to the Department as being of little importance could possibly have studied the report. In that respect, the first speaker for the Opposition, Deputy Dockrell, covered the ground very well and, by his own lights, very reasonably. He suggested that the Fine Gael policy in relation to telephones—he also suggested that the postal services should also be examined—was that the Department should be handed over to some semi-State body on account of its being such a huge undertaking. The last speaker, Deputy Lindsay, for the same Party, suggested that the Department was going so well and was of such little importance, actually only selling stamps, that it should be amalgamated with some other Department. I take it, then, that Fine Gael have no policy with regard to my Department, nor would I expect them to be able easily to state what their intentions are.

They have: that is the policy.

Which one? Yours?

I will take Deputy Dockrell's word that they have made some decision in that respect.

I was rather disappointed that Deputies did not pay tribute to the postal services because most of the Deputies who spoke are people who have had occasion in one way or another to examine the services offered by other countries. All of us have been abroad time and again and the postal service is one of the things we are sure to rub up against immediately we go to any other country. I can safely say that the postal services in this country compare favourably with those of any country in the world and are better than most.

One has an occasional complaint about delay in the delivery of a letter or parcel and on investigation, in most cases, it is found that the letter or parcel has not been properly addressed. Nevertheless, it is a complaint and the public gets one side of the complaint only. We receive compliments also. Somebody wrote to me recently paying tribute because he had posted a letter to a relative in Sandycove at 12 noon and the letter had been delivered before 4 p.m. the same day. That is quite good by any standards. I take it that these are not isolated cases. The service goes well.

As to those people who talk about the Department's relative unimportance, we do not vote in this House £20 million odd and expend it on over 18,000 people and a lot of stores and equipment and we have not been investing State money in the service to the extent of millions and millions over the past number of years just to pass it over lightly and say that we are prepared to throw it to any other concern that would be prepared to run it. The people who make that suggestion either do not know what is involved or have not taken the trouble, or perhaps have not had the opportunity, to examine it.

The State has a huge amount of money invested in the telephone service. This is the important factor: those people who talk about handing over the running of the service to some other body, corporation or outside authority, do not make any attempt to explain how that would improve the service. Supposing we did hand over to a State-sponsored organisation similar to the other State bodies, we would still have to give them money to run the service; they would still have to get the necessary capital. If anyone is prepared to allow me to increase charges to the extent where they would provide all the capital necessary to give an immediate service in the case of, say, telephone installations, then I would be very happy to come into the House with proposals for the necessary increases.

The Post Office is run as a commercial concern, although its revenue is handed over to the Exchequer in the ordinary way, but we do keep commercial accounts and, by and large, the service is run on commercial lines and, one year with another, is expected to pay its way. The increased demand on the telephone side is the matter which causes the most complaint and, indeed, frequently provides material for journalists when they are short of other copy. That does not apply exclusively to this country. People who sympathise with me occasionally send me magazines and newspapers from various countries carrying articles attacking their telephone system, the lack of courtesy of manual operators and the failure of the automatic system to respond when overloaded. These are of some consolation to me but do not in any way take away from the fact that I appreciate effort must be made to continue to improve the system.

In the past five years we spent £23½ million on telephones as compared with £7¾ million in the previous five years. That is a substantial increase but it is not nearly enough to meet the decided acceleration we would like to have in the whole organisation of the telephone system. As should be mentioned on every occasion possible, this is not a question of money alone. The human element and the facilities for the training of personnel come into it very much. Four years of training are required before the average telephone technician is of much use. The number being trained each year is increasing as rapidly as training facilities permit.

There are other factors. The acquisition of sites for buildings, particularly exchanges, the laying of cables and so on all necessitate contracts, the delivery of equipment, the provision of wayleaves are things which no corporate body, whether State-sponsored or private, can overcome any quicker than our engineering section at present. We have examined this carefully because we are not opposed to any change in the system which would improve the rate of growth at present without putting an undue burden on the public who have to pay. These are all inter-related considerations. We have endeavoured to keep the charges as low as possible consistent with the provision of capital to meet the cost of expanding the system.

The question may be asked why somebody had not the foresight ten years ago to make provision for long-term planning. I could visualise what the position would be if the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs walked into this House ten years ago and asked for £50 million to make provision for long-term planning for the development of the telephone system. Installations in those days would be comparatively small, whereas in the year under review, although we installed 13,500 telephones we reduced the waiting list by only a comparatively small number because the applications come rolling in every day. This is progressive. Every time we instal a few telephones it means more applications come in. When your brothers or your cousins have a telephone, you want to have one as well.

It is true we have a priority list and that priority must be given to such categories as the medical profession, clerics, Deputies, manufacturing industry and so forth, where we take into account the employment factor. But generally we do not like to have the squads working on development moved around from Billy to Jack. There should be as little interference as possible if we are to proceed in a methodical and organised way to clear up the backlog. This year I was perhaps unfortunate in that we tackled all the old outstanding applications. Here again people very seldom know what is involved. Most of these old applications were cases where the subscriber was a considerable distance from the exchange. Very often in the country it necessitated the erection of miles of telephone lines costing a huge amount of money and taking up a tremendous amount of time. We concentrated on clearing as many of these as possible in the past year and have done a considerable number. We are now dealing with 1965-66. When the figures for 1966-67 are available, they will not be as impressive numerically as I would like because they will include a large number of these difficult routes. That is not to say, however, we did not deal with as many as possible on the priority list, the people anxious to get a telephone quickly in order to carry on their business, many of whom can hardly carry on at all without a telephone.

In Dublin city we have many problems. Some areas are poorly supplied with cabling and we must necessarily have delays until we have the cabling necessary for us to provide connection. This very often applies to new housing schemes. Now, however, the engineers are endeavouring to ensure that in all new schemes ducts are laid in the course of the erection of the scheme which enables them to put in the wires eventually, thus facilitating the installation of telephones. We have reached the stage now where a telephone in a new house is just as essential as electricity or a bathroom. Ideally when housing estates are erected, provision should be made at the same time for connection with the telephone system. This would enable us to expedite the installation of telephones in the future.

The telephone system has come under unfavourable comment and will continue to do so. No matter how well our engineers do their work, there will always be criticism of the system. We do not deny that some of this is justified. There are few of us who have not from time to time lost our patience and our temper with the telephone. If we get 60 calls easily and have trouble with one, that is the one call we remember for the rest of the year and about which we write letters. I get letters of complaint which always exaggerate to some degree. They say "My telephone never works." I ring up and find that it does work. At the same time, I know they are experiencing some difficulty. While we have had many complaints, it is remarkable the amount of tolerance there is and the huge number of people who appreciate they are dealing with a system not easily remedied and with which they must exercise as much patience as possible. My greatest delight would be if during my time in the Department we should reach the stage where the installation of telephones would be carried out as soon as possible after application. I say that because there must necessarily be some little delay.

I should like to deal with the points made by different speakers before moving on to deal with other sections of the Department. Many of the problems referred to were of common concern and, following my general remarks on the telephone service, I shall now deal only with the individual items raised. Deputy Dockrell referred to temporary male night telephonists and said he would like to see a system whereby they would be established and the temporary aspect done away with. Deputy James Tully referred to the same point. The male night telephonists have an opportunity to compete for established positions if they have three years' service. The Post Office Workers' Union have asked for certain changes in the conditions and these are being examined at the present time. Indeed, this is something about which I am concerned, too. I should like to see in these positions people who would regard the work as a career, who would be fully interested in it, who would not look on it as merely something passing and who would be prepared to give the fullest possible co-operation. That is the type of thing I should like to move towards and I hope we shall be able to accomplish it.

In that respect, I should not pass on without referring to Deputy James Tully's comments on some of the buildings being gloomy and not as bright and attractive as they should be. He did not actually say they were not in good order. We have a scheme whereby decorations are carried out at regular intervals, interior and exterior. These should suffice to ensure that buildings are kept up to a reasonable standard. However, I shall have a look again at some of the buildings referred to to see to what extent there may be any truth in the statements made. Nobody made any serious statement about this but all sections of the Department are concerned with giving the best possible conditions and continually keep improving them.

I gave the Minister details of specific buildings which are bad.

I think all the new buildings conform to the best modern standards. Whether they are post offices or exchanges, I think they are a credit to the designers and to the contractors. Any person who has had the pleasure of seeing some of these buildings—we open them pretty frequently throughout the country—will have to agree that they are up to the highest possible standard.

Deputy James Tully referred to the new sorting office and complained that it is not fitted with a dust extractor. It is very difficult to know to what extreme one should go with a new building in order to have it absolutely perfect. I have inspected this building, which is not yet ready for occupation but will be early in the new year, and I think it is as fine a job as could be carried out to give every amenity to the personnel working in it.

Except a dust extractor.

The need for a dust extractor in a building of this type which will be absolutely free from dust——

How could it be free from dust with the mail bags?

Keep quiet.

I want to bring the Minister back to earth. I shall not keep quiet.

I am dealing with this matter, please.

The building is absolutely dust-free. It has tiling, floor covering, polished floors—everything to ensure that dust will not be present. The only thing that is likely to cause dust in the building is the mailbags which come and go and special machinery has been installed for the purpose of extracting the dust from the bags so that they, too, will be free from dust. After that, I think we have met the position fairly well. In fact, I think we can regard it as the best sorting office of its type in Europe. It will have cost £1 million, when occupied.

I hope I shall not have to say next year, or somebody else: "I told you so."

I gave details in my opening statement and I do not intend to elaborate further on it. Before departing from the postal services, in deference to those who made reference to our stamps—a few people referred to stamps—I want to say that, by and large, our stamps are being received with general approval throughout the world. I now have ready for submission to the Government a new series of permanent stamps which will be issued next year. These designs, the House will notice, will have moved gradually, if not entirely—I do not want to get out of my depth here— towards modern art. We have a very good stamp design committee who make these selections, who go into the matter very carefully and finally submit their selected designs to me and, in turn, I submit them to the Government. We have got these now and I propose to show not merely the designs selected as permanent issues for next year but to put on display the entire submissions by the various artists who competed for these designs. I think There were nine or eleven artists in all. There were quite a few submissions, anyhow, and they will be most interesting. The stamps design committee have already made their selections.

It is not always possible to meet demands for commemorative stamps. There is a limit to the distance one can go in this respect. People frequently come up with new suggestions about centenary issues and suggestions that certain events are worthy of commemoration by a stamp. These suggestions are all considered but, here again, some priorities have to be given and we can take on only a limited number each year. As Deputies are aware, the current year has been one of the peak years for commemorative issues and, there again, I think the people were generally pleased with the designs.

Before passing on from the general working of the Department, and telephones in particular, I should like to say that our efforts towards automatic working is something we try to keep going simultaneous with the meeting of applications for ordinary installations. When complaints are made about the rate of progress in the installation of telephones, the people making the complaints—I would hardly expect them to—seldom appreciate what is involved. If we were dealing with the installation of telephones alone, that would not be too difficult a task with the personnel available to us but there is the necessity to lay new cables simultaneously with the expansion of existing exchanges and switchboards, with the installation of new ones and with the bringing in of automatic working.

There is a huge amount of money involved here and I think a huge amount of trained personnel is necessary as well. In my opening speech, I think those few lines which refer to the numbers employed on maintenance work alone is a fairly impressive account and is worthy of repetition now. It said that when it is remembered that there are over 160,000 exchange lines, 1,100 exchanges, 10,000 trunk circuits and 1,300 kiosks, a fair idea can be obtained of the scale of the maintenance job to be done. These are the things which are constantly in the picture for maintenance and the maintenance of that huge variety of installations and fittings is in itself sufficient to absorb a fairly large staff, apart from new work altogether.

I want to run over some of the items raised by Deputy James Tully, many of which correspond with those raised by Deputy Dockrell. The central sorting office I have already dealt with. With regard to the cleaning and upkeep of buildings, Deputy James Tully made a sweeping attack on the way these are maintained. I find there is no shortage of trained staff and the efficient standard of cleaning has not been reduced. The buildings are painted internally and externally at intervals and a great deal has been done in recent times to provide new and reconstructed buildings of a high quality for the Post Office. Other projects are at various stages. One has to accept that the same standard of cleanliness is not always evident in all places although the same effort applies to those places. I suppose one could apply that to an ordinary dwelling as well but we are ensuring that adequate provision is made for proper cleanliness and, indeed, complaints on this are few and far between.

Somebody questioned the suggestion made by me in my opening statement about the door-to-door service.

I think Deputy James Tully made the suggestion that motorisation would provide something less than door-to-door service. In a statement recently, when opening an exchange in Portarlington, I made a reference to the idea of the mailbox at the end of the avenue. This would not be an innovation by any means. It is something which is in operation in many countries. This would drastically reduce the cost of delivery and it would take a considerable amount of mileage and time off the postman's work. It would facilibo tate the motorisation service which we are working towards for some years. As you know, the intention is to have motorisation brought in to the maximum extent possible, ultimately, and if we get the co-operation of the people in providing mail-boxes at the end of the avenue, it will help our van drivers. They could drop in the mail from the van and then we could cover a very big area, giving a much better service and possibly in many cases a much earlier service than at present for less cost.

That section of the Post Office which is constantly dealing with better methods is examining what economies can be effected in the improvement of the delivery system. They will ultimately be able to provide me with more definite figures as to possibilities in this respect. At the same time, it is just a suggestion and is one of the many things that most other countries have been examining.

It looks as if it will have to come in.

One of the objections is that the postman in most areas becomes part of the social life of the area. He brings the news, and sometimes waits until the letter is read, but those are not things that come within the scope of his contract with the Post Office. Human nature being what it is, he is often looked on as the ombudsman of the area. On the motorisation of the service, this would cease anyhow. With the introduction of motorisation it might be possible to introduce mailboxes by the road easily. In the few places where I experienced that type of service, nobody had any complaint and it worked quite well. I saw it in rural areas in New Jersey and the people liked it.

There is a slight difference here.

They prefer it to having the postman coming knocking at the door.

They had it in Canada 50 years ago when they went on horseback.

Yes, for an obvious reason; the houses were so far apart, but surely it is not right to speak of Canada in connection with the matter of which the Minister is talking now?

It ensures delivery of mail to every house in the country. Deputy James Tully also referred to the telephone exchange in Kilmallock. The builders expect to begin work shortly. I hope the Deputy does not think that the by-election has anything to do with it.

I do not think it will be ready for this election unless the Government get money somewhere.

The contract is placed. When we place a contract, the money is available. We work within what we have to spend and there is no question of getting money anywhere. The provision of improved conditions for the Kilmallock exchange is at present being examined. With regard to Cahirciveen, the Department is aware that the construction is quite poor for some time past. They have been trying to secure alternative accommodation but so far without success. You may take it that the Department is making every effort to have it reconstructed as soon as possible.

With regard to the postman's uniform, Deputy James Tully raised the question of the quality, style and fitting of the uniforms. This is already dealt with in my brief and I may read it when I come to it later on. I should say that only recently we had representatives of the trade union having a look at the proposed new styles of uniforms with a view to getting their opinion and we had a few model postmen wearing them and they all looked nice but we found difficulty in agreeing as to which would be the most suitable. Suitability and attractiveness are two different things and we are trying to combine both. But there again unlike the Garda we have no standard measurements for men in the postal service. We have no particular chest measurements and height. One must deal with every sort of man. There is quite a variety of sizes in uniforms. Someone suggested to me recently that there were only two sizes.

There is quite a variety of sizes and quite a good job is done. So far as I am aware, the present uniform is one that was selected at one time by representatives of the men themselves.

I thought the Minister was going to say during the inter-Party Government.

Changes have been made time and again.

The Post Office Workers Union submitted a prototype which they would like to have adopted.

The Deputy reminded me about someone who refused to wear his uniform. I do not accept that it was for any reason other than that he had other work as well and would not wear his uniform so that he could do the other work.

He was so badly paid that he worked for a farmer but he had to go home anyway.

Deputy P. Byrne referred to the early closing for posting of parcels and bulky packages. We try to move with the times like every other organisation and give the people we employ the best conditions we can compatible with the requirements of the public. In the matter of posting, I have a note which says that business houses generally are able to organise their postings so that parcels and bulky packages are posted well before the hours of closing of the Post Office and in Dublin facilities for posting packets are available up to 11 p.m. at the GPO. Those are mainly the points raised by Deputy James Tully and other Deputies and I do not think it necessary to go into them any further.

Deputy James Tully raised the old hare about a man who was notified of his qualification and later found to be not suitable. I do not think I can add anything to the volumes that have already been put on record about that case. It simply means that when the Appointments Commission make a decision or a recommendation, they do not disclose the reason. Perhaps it is as well they do not.

In this case it is a scandalous situation.

Unfortunately I am afraid there is no exception.

Could the Minister not ask for reconsideration of it?

The man is employed in a temporary capacity in the meantime anyway.

Yes, and I am grateful for that, but if the Minister could ask for reconsideration, I think it might be better.

No; I did not say I would. I am looking over the Official Report and the thing has been hacked out several times. I do not think I would reopen it again.

I think the Minister might because there is absolutely nothing against him. Somebody made a mistake and surely the Minister should be big enough to have it rectified?

Civil servants do not make mistakes.

The erection of kiosks was another matter raised. One must draw a line between what is a social service and what is economically justifiable. If we were quite up to date with the essential things we must do, we could be a bit more liberal with regard to the erection of kiosks, even in places where they would not show a return but one could not possibly budget on such an improvement. One must be very circumspect. Personally, I always look on them as we looked on the water fountains on the streets long ago. When a water scheme came to a village or town, the most important thing was to have fountains on the street. Nowadays they are hardly necessary, except in rare cases, because everybody connects with the public supply and thereby has water laid on to his premises. Few people have to go out to the street to carry in water. The same applies here. Sometimes we have kiosks erected in new housing schemes and eventually find that practically every householder becomes a subscriber and the use being made of the kiosk is very little.

Then we have demands for kiosks in rather remote places in rural Ireland. The case is always made that if somebody is looking for a priest or doctor in the middle of the night, they have no way of contacting them. Finally, a telephone is installed in some of these and it is found that the revenue during the year is very small. One must set certain economic standards which would justify the erection of these kiosks. Each year we have a programme and we erect a fairly substantial number. One cannot be entirely influenced by the social amenity aspect. I do not think there were many other points raised on the postal side.

What about the Minister's regulation about the ten hours? Would he comment on that?

Yes. The Deputy referred to the ten hour waiting period which is required and I must say I am very grateful. He confused me because I thought he was dealing with something else, but he cleared it up in a letter to me afterwards and pointed out that he was dealing with the ten hours in relation to drivers. As far as it is possible to enforce this regulation within the service, we can enforce it but when people come on and we cannot find what they were doing before they came on, and our jurisdiction does not extend beyond that——

If someone is on from 10 p.m. until 2 a.m., he cannot report for driving at 8 a.m. and if, in fact, he were out digging his own garden——

It is enforced as far as possible. I think I am right when I say, without closer examination, that if they had to work otherwise, it would be regarded as overtime. The Deputy made the remark that overtime should not be essential. Human nature being what it is, no matter how well paid a person is, and I think this has been proven in every country, he will look for overtime to get the extra money. This, I suppose, is a failing of human nature.

The Post Office will suffer as a result of this themselves because they will not be able to get the people.

I shall certainly look into it to see if there is any substance in the complaint made by the Deputy.

Deputy P. Byrne referred to the connection of telephones in certain areas. When people refer to particular areas, it is hardly necessary to go into them individually because there is a definite reason in each case. I have had representations from the Deputy time and again and some of the cases about which he complained have since been dealt with. Here again it was a question of clearing up some of the cabling in the area. The question of providing a kiosk was referred to, too, but if the Deputy will communicate with me personally, I will look into the matter rather than deal with it here.

I was about to say that concludes the matter but there were a few other points raised which in fact overshadowed the whole debate. The question of the £20 million odd which we are voting for the Department was, in almost all cases, relegated to the background and what should be a comparatively trivial matter was brought up as the over-riding feature of the discussion. I want to say something about this. I have already, through replies to Parliamentary questions, dealt with some of the controversy raised over what responsibility the Government should or should not have over Telefís Éireann.

Did the Minister refer to the points made regarding the defence of democracy as a trivial matter?

Mr. Barrett

"Relatively trivial."

I said what should be a trivial matter.

The defence of democracy?

The Deputy can call it any nice names he wishes. First of all, Deputy Dockrell, in referring to Telefís Éireann as a whole, referred to the gloomy atmosphere. I would like to say, before I deal with any of the specific points raised regarding Telefís Éireann and these controversial matters, that Telefís Éireann is going well.

Mr. Barrett

Going where?

Yes, if it is let go well.

It is going well and is doing a reasonably good job.

I paid tribute to that.

So far as I am concerned, it will continue to do that. It is keeping quite a number of people in good employment. It is not an essential service in this country; it is an amenity and one which provides a good deal of entertainment for a great many people. It is in charge of the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority, about which some Deputies passed sneering remarks. I do not care what their politics are or what the politics of each man may be.

That is the joke of the week.

Most people in this country have some politics but I venture to give this assurance, that it does not in any way preclude them from carrying out their work conscientiously and well. For a trivial amount of money, they give a great deal of their time to doing a good job and are not concerned with being influenced by anything, other than a desire to give a good service. I am satisfied with that. I think tribute should be paid to them and anybody who is intimately associated with their working could not say anything else.

Now, to deal with some of the references made, some people referred to a matter which I had already explained in this House in answer to Parliamentary questions, that is, the resignation of the former Chairman, Mr. Eamonn Andrews. I have nothing to add to what I have already said about that resignation. I was very sorry to see him go; I liked him, considered him an estimable chairman who was doing a difficult job well. It was a personal decision——

The pressure group got at him.

——and not due to any pressure exercised by anybody. He made the decision of his own free will and intimated that he did not wish to continue when his term of contract expired. Mind you, when he was appointed—like many of the things said in this House, looking over the records —the remarks about him were not so complimentary at all. There were beautiful remarks passed about him when he went but he was accused of being a lot of things by innuendo, which was the foulest of all, when first appointed. I found him good; I was sorry he went, and to get a suitable Chairman for Telefís Éireann is not an easy matter. You need to get a strong man because this is a case of where the tail would very quickly try to wag the dog. As far as I am concerned, that will not happen. I cannot be accused in this House, above all other Ministers, of having anything but a fair outlook on anything in my Department for which I am responsible. I have given the least possible trouble to Telefís Éireann, indeed to the extent that sometimes some people might think I am soft, but I am anything but; I have no intention of allowing it to become a Frankenstein in this country. It is going in the right direction; if it keeps going in the right direction, then everybody will be happy and there will be no need for complaint.

There was a furore here because a Minister rang up Telefís Éireann and complained about the presentation of a piece of news. He had a perfect right to do that. He is only one of many who have done it and I will not aggravate the position much further by making reference to it. As one Deputy —I think, Deputy Lindsay—said: "People here have contacts; it is natural and it is only natural to use them". He went on to say that they should not abuse them. Section 18 (1) of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960 lays down certain things which Telefís Éireann must abide by. It is the guideline for presentation of programmes, if you like. I will repeat it here for the record:

It shall be the duty of the Authority to secure that, when it broadcasts any information, news or feature which relates to matters of public controversy or is the subject of current public debate, the information, news or feature is presented objectively and impartially and without any expression of the Authority's own views.

Would the Minister not like to read section 31 now?

Deputy Barrett referred to this as the "immovable body" and that it ran completely contrary to section 31. It is under that section I could easily have recourse to invoking section 31. The two are very much related. Subsection (1) gives me authority, an authority which I have never used; Section 31 gives the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs certain authority to interfere. Who is the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs? It does not just mean that Joe Brennan alone uses his sole judgement as to what should or should not be put on Telefís Éireann.

Yes, he does.

He is certainly a member of the Government. I am a member of the Government with collective responsibility, along with other members of the Government, and on any matter about which I want to complain in writing or otherwise, I have the right to have the opinion of the Government. They have collective responsibility with me and consequently, have as much right under section 31 as I have.

Did the Minister delegate his authority to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries?

Can the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries interfere in any Department, in say, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and vice versa? Can the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs direct anybody to set up a committee on agriculture?

If the Deputy wants to make a speech, I will give him permission.

The Minister is making a poor case.

He has a poor case.

With collective responsibility in the Government, surely any member of the Government has that right under section 31? I would not apply my own standards as an individual.

That is what the Minister for Agriculture did.

The question of what happens, or does not happen, or has happened is irrelevant. An effort has been made to get me to declare absolutely that Radio Telefís Éireann is completely free from any control by the Government.

Would the Minister answer one question?

I am not answering questions; I am speaking. When I have finished, I will answer questions.

I doubt if the Minister for Agriculture consulted the Minister before he rang up.

The Minister should be allowed to speak without interruption.

I can invoke section 31 if I want to. Surely it was never the intention that the section was put there to be used absolutely as a guillotine, to be used only after it was discovered that something wrong was going on? There are Standing Orders which the Ceann Comhairle must insist that this House abides by. We know we should abide by them. The Chair will quickly remind us if we go wrong. He does not wait until a Deputy has to be put out of the House. The same thing applies in any legislation of this type. The Authority and the people responsible for carrying out the provisions of this Act in any section of Montrose——

That is not what section 31 says.

——and the Director General know that if I think something is likely to go wrong——

Likely to go wrong?

——I will not wait until it happens to write out a statement saying this must be stopped. Naturally I would have some inquiries made through the Department or otherwise. I remember some time ago when going home one evening I read in the evening papers that someone was coming from London and bringing some people called "Bunny Girls" to appear on television. I did not wait until they appeared and then send in a letter prohibiting them from appearing. I made inquiries the next day about it and was told that there was no such thing going to happen, that the report was wrong.

There was.

There was not.

There was, and an announcement was made. I was listening to it. It was stopped by public opinion.

No Minister objected to the "Bunny Girls".

My Secretary got in touch with the Director General and asked for a report, and he was told that a man who was invited to appear on "The Late Late Show" had announced that he was bringing some people with him called "Bunny Girls". My secretary was told he could rest assured that Telefís Éireann had made no such arrangement. That was done immediately after the report appeared in the evening papers—on a Thursday, I think. There were all sorts of protests from the "holier than thou" people and from people who were actuated by the best motives. I am using this as an example of the procedure which must be adopted under section 31 of the Act. The Minister does not sit back until something serious has happened. I would immediately make inquiries, or have inquiries made, and I would convey to the Director General and the Authority, through the Chairman, that the Government were perturbed about a certain production. I might have to invoke the terms of section 31, and if he is a wise Director General, or they are a wise Authority, it will be changed.

The Minister for Agriculture disagreed with the presentation of a news item on one occasion recently, and he phoned some people in Montrose and told them that, and as a result, I understand, a change was made. This was a very important matter. Two things were being presented in a way —through a genuine mistake—in which the whole context of the item of news was changed. The Minister did not ask to have this taken off. He merely complained as you would, and as perhaps many of you have. When it was examined, they agreed that to put a statement from an outside source immediately in juxtaposition to the Minister's statement could completely nullify the Minister's meaning.

Where else could they put it?

Mr. Barrett

That might be impartial reporting.

It was a question of the presentation of an item of news.

Mr. Barrett

It might be impartial and objective reporting.

In the course of this debate, people have shed many tears for democracy and high standards, and principles, as if we were all in a monastery, to build up an effect in order to magnify something which was hardly discernible. We seem to have reached the stage where democracy has taken on a new meaning, where the Government must do something because of pressure by pressure groups. If that is your definition of democracy, it is not ours.

Democracy must be guarded against pressure groups trying to jockey the Government into a position they do not want to get into. If the Government were to be put into that position by pressure groups, they would quickly be accused by everyone, and by the man in the street of being weak, of being unfit to be the Government, and of not protecting the highest ideals of democracy. It seems that democracy is very like the Encyclical Rerum Novarum. Everyone seemed to be able to find something to suit himself in that Encyclical whether he was an employer or a labourer. If a Government allow themselves to be pushed by people who are putting on an act, then that Government would be better to get out and put it on record that they went out on that principle.

What has this to do with the withdrawal of a news item?

It has everything to do with it. We are told that just because the Government have the right to comment on how something is presented on Telefís Éireann, democracy is ruined forever, or democracy is being undermined. Anyone else can come along and be an arbiter, but the Government must not interfere. Oh, no! The National Union of Journalists can decide on how something is to be presented, the Labour Party are entitled to decide, any group can decide, but the Government must not.

They tried to blame the journalists for the blunder.

A statement made by the NUJ has been quoted here. I have no responsibility for the different sections working in Radio Telefís Éireann. That is a problem for the Authority: it is their duty, their responsibility to deal with it as they will.

Is that a threat?

It sounds awfully like it.

The Deputy need not think that making a point like that will get him well in with the NUJ.

I am very well in with the NUJ.

We are well in with all the working classes.

I am not courting publicity through any journalists in this country. Every section has its place and should keep to it. I was blamed for not seeing the NUJ. My responsibility does not extend to the staff at Montrose. We have a body there, responsible, capable and competent to deal with them. This matter got into print and accusations were made. There was reference to a letter by Deputy Smith when he resigned as Minister for Agriculture. The matters dealt with were so insignificant that it was obvious the people concerned had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find something that looked like an accusation.

My experience has been that there has been no unnecessary interference with these people. Nobody there, from the Director General down to the junior man on the staff, can accuse any Minister of interfering with him in any unreasonable way. That is not to say that I shall not exercise my powers under the Act, but I shall never become Frankenstein. I hope the day will never come when Ministers will not have the right to protest——

The Minister has, but other Ministers have not the right——

Every bit as much as I.

Not of intimidation and coercion.

I do not think it is necessary to go further into that matter. It seems to me that the tone of the debate—the editor of the Irish Times apparently thinks along the same broad lines as I do—has been: “We want to have control and you are not to have it”. That is the way to ruin democratic process. It is a dangerous approach. One thing that can be said about the Authority in their conduct of the media, sound and television, is that they have given an impartial service all the way. Opposition Deputies raised this trivial matter and in view of the record of impartiality of the Authority, I regard the matter as too insignificant to deserve the attention it has received here.

It was not the only one.

It should not have been mentioned. As far as I am concerned, the Authority have always been impartial and no Deputy needs to have any worry about that. I hope this record of impartiality will continue. Of course it does not mean that I shall in any way abdicate——

If the Minister could get his colleagues in the Government to adopt the same line, we would all be happy.

They have the same responsibility as I have.

The Act does not give them any responsibility; the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has it.

The Minister cannot go into the Department of Agriculture and tell them how to do the job.

I have as much responsibility for the attitude of the Minister for Agriculture to the farmers as anybody else.

Will the Minister be taking over the Army next?

I have collective responsibility——

An all-round man.

——and if the Opposition are hoping for some fragmentation, and they will be sadly disappointed.

The Minister is worried.

Indeed I am not. I have been in the House during the past 15 or 16 years and with every wind that blew we were threatened with an election and when the election came, we went with it.

I remember the wave of emotion that swept the Minister in and he only a slim young man.

We are not talking about waves of emotion. I shall now deal briefly with another matter. Ordinarily, I should not make any reference to the notification given to Mr. Tibor Paul because it is not part of my duty: it is entirely within the competence of the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority. I might have passed it over, as I should, but for some reason or other, it has become so much a part of public controversy that I could not let it pass without some reference to it, particularly because a good deal of adverse publicity has been given to it—all on one side.

Let me say I appreciate as much as anybody the work Mr. Tibor Paul has done during the past six years. I appreciate that he did a lot for the advancement of music in this country; that is why we maintain a symphony orchestra at all at a cost in the region of £200,000. We maintain it as something towards which musical effort should be directed, as a stimulant for musical effort. I am not too sure that we have provided sufficient facilities in this field to bring our people up to the required standard. There is a void somewhere which should be filled and which probably will be filled.

I should like to speak as dispassionately as possible about this matter, lest I be compelled by the type of publicity it already has got to say some things which ordinarily I would not feel like saying. Until this happened, I found nothing but the highest regard for the man concerned, with, as any human being must experience, a share of criticism too. That is human. He has been here six years and I think we looked after him well. Looking at the records, I thought we looked after him very well.

We did a very good job.

He was not on a continuous contract during that time. This contract had been changed time and again. He came in September, 1961 and the first contract which was due to run up to April, 1963, was replaced by one from April 1962 to March, 1964, and was followed by others from April, 1964 to March, 1966, and April, 1966 to 31st July, 1967. Then I read in the paper one day that he was dismissed with a two lines notice in a letter which was handed to him just as he was about to go on to the platform for a concert in the RDS. Then follows the surge of publicity. Some people who are completely immersed in the world of music and who could be expected to appreciate the artistic sensitivity of artists said that we were virtually a lot of barbarians. The words "medical murder" and "ruthless dismissal" were used.

When those things began to appear, although it was outside the scope of my responsibility, I felt I had to make some inquiries as to what happened. I was amazed to find that the "two-line letter of dismissal" consisted of two pages and 45 lines and I think, in fairness, it should have been published. It was not a dismissal; it was notice of the termination of a contract which ends in July next in its present form. This letter offered different terms. It proposed to divorce the directorship from the conductorship which I personally agree with. I consider this is wise. This letter made a fairly generous offer for a continued renewal of contract on a conductorship basis for the gentleman in question for two concert periods. The rate was to be £2,000 per concert period. I do not think I should read the letter. I have a copy of it here. I would like to refute some of the allegations that have been made.

All the criticism did not come from the Opposition.

(Interruptions.)

Would Deputies cease interrupting and allow the Minister to continue?

This is in relation to culture of which the Deputies opposite would have no knowledge.

Order. The Minister should be allowed to make his speech.

The contract being offered would ensure a reasonably good contract for this conductor in the two concert periods in 1967-68 and 1968-69. This, together with other plans for the future of the Symphony Orchestra, would tend to ensure fairly definite progress, but with all the accusations that have been made and the manner in which this has been approached by this gentleman, I question whether he is now suited to be retained in any capacity. If we take a man in here, and he does a good job, and we treat him well over six years at least, we have the right to terminate his contract. The question of whether ten months' notice was sufficient or whether it should have been 12 months does not really enter into it. This man's contract was renewed on a number of occasions on the same procedure as has been adopted here. It is not correct to say that a two-line letter was sent to him or that it came as a bombshell. It was actually a sequel to discussions and correspondence which had already taken place. It has also been said it was intolerable that his contract was not renewed on the same basis as before.

I think the public are entitled to know that and I am very sorry that this thing exploded in the way it did with one party not in a position to defend themselves. Indeed, I may say, I would have expected it to have been handled entirely in another way. The fact that it has been handled in the way it has been must necessarily give those in a position of responsibility second thoughts as to whether this man is suitable to be retained at all.

The question has been raised about losing a trip to America for the Symphony Orchestra. Deputy Dockrell gave particulars of the engagement, what was being paid and all that. This is described as a prestige tour. I am sure one must go easy here when you do not belong to that peculiar echelon of artists who suffer from this sensitivity. This concert might have had some prestige.

There were to be 36 concerts.

This concert tour might have had some prestige. It would cost us £12,000. That would not be a lot if it had any great prestige. I am sure it would have prestige for the artists and perhaps it is a pity it is not taking place, but I question the amount of prestige which the orchestra would have with a foreign conductor and a high percentage of the players non-nationals playing classical music in America. If it were an orchestra completely composed of Irish people, they would probably say: "They have sufficient culture over there to maintain this outfit". The real purpose of the Symphony Orchestra is to encourage Irish artists to maintain the highest possible standard in the music world and to give encouragement to Irish composers and arrangers. We should simultaneously establish training facilities to enable Irish artists to maintain that standard.

That did not apply to the Garda Band.

I hope this orchestra will be supported and maintained in the years to come. I do not think it necessary to elaborate any further. I am sorry it should have been my lot to say anything regarding this because it really does not come within the scope of my authority; but this matter was dealt with by every speaker who spoke here and has been highlighted, and I think my silence would have been misinterpreted.

The Minister's comments that he has not any authority means that it will not influence him to change this decision?

Any remarks I have made have been made after some discussion with the Authority. I do not want to bring any innuendoes into this.

I do not want to make innuendoes but it is odd that the Minister has not referred to the manner in which this was carried out, nor has he referred to the fact that this thing was put into the man's hand when he was about to go on to a platform to conduct a concert.

I was going to finish without saying any more. I doubt if the Deputy was listening when I said that this letter was a sequel to discussions which had taken place already. I understand the man himself expressed the desire to have the particulars before the end of the week. It is quite common practice, when a communication goes out from Montrose, to send it by messenger. That is how the letter in question was sent. I do not know at what time it was delivered but it was sent out early in the day.

Having undertaken to make reference to this matter. I should like now to review some of the statements made. Some people have said that this gentleman found a musical wilderness here when he arrived in the country. That is not fair to the great conductors who preceded him and who did a magnificent job of work. When this gentleman arrived here, we already had the Light Orchestra, the String Quartet and the Radio Eireann Choir. We also had the Symphony Orchestra. It is not fair to write down the work of these conductors, some of whom have since gone to the top in the music world. It is not true to say that this gentleman arrived to find a musical wilderness here. I am not now to be taken, when I make these statement, as in any degree denigrating his efforts or his work. I am sure he was highly appreciated by many.

The statement to which the Minister has referred was not made by any Member of this House.

It was not said in this House.

No, it was not.

The Minister might be able to deal with it through Party channels.

There is no political significance whatsoever in this. As Deputy Dockrell said, the music world knows no political boundaries. I am prepared to accept that there is some emotionalism attaching to the musical world because some people seem to have lost their heads completely, judging by the statements made in relation to a matter about which obviously they did not know the facts. It is regrettable that I should have to stand up here and say these things. It ought never to have been necessary.

What was Mrs. External Affairs talking about so?

Why did the Minister remain so silent for so long about these things?

I should prefer not to make any reference to the matter at all.

It was not important until it was made important here.

I have dealt with most of the matters raised here. We shall always have to defend, I think, the people in the Post Office who try to carry out development work. As the years go on, and with the improvement in the amount of capital made available, I believe we shall have a brighter picture to depict year by year. It is only fair to say that I and every officer in my Department would be very happy to find ourselves in the position in which Deputy Dockrell and some other speakers would find themselves being asked to take yet another line in addition to the five Deputy Dockrell already has. That is the position we should like to reach.

When does the Minister hope to reach that position?

When, I cannot say, but I am hoping to reach it and, please God, we will. It will require capital, trained personnel and a good deal of planning. All these are being attended to at a rate which is not, perhaps, as satisfactory as we should like, but undoubtedly they are being attended to, and the position will improve as time goes on.

Now that we realise telecommunications are of such importance, I hope to take the very first opportunity that offers of changing the name of my Department to that of Posts and Telecommunications instead of Posts and Telegraphs.

There was reference made to the need for giving more political freedom to the lower grades of employees in the Post Office. Has the Minister considered that?

I do not know what exactly the Deputy has in mind. Is it freedom to become members of local authorities and so on?

I do not look unfavourably on that and I think the commission of inquiry recommended that.

A chairman of one local authority is at present under dire threat because of his affiliations. He is an auxiliary postman in County Limerick.

He is chairman of the county council and he has been a member of the county council for a number of years.

These matters are governed by Civil Service regulation and, if one changes the regulation in one case, then one must change it in all. We are no different from other Departments.

A teacher can be a member of this House and a member of a local authority and he has far greater influence than a rural postman would have, or a clerk for that matter. Could we get agreement from the Minister that he will not interfere with this man?

I will give no such undertaking, but I shall look into the system again, particularly in the light of somewhat similar thinking at the moment in the Department of Local Government.

He has been there for 25 years. Would the Minister not consider turning a blind eye?

Is he a Fianna Fáil councillor?

He is. Is that all right?

Will the Minister give an assurance?

Mr. Barrett

The Minister indicated that he would answer questions. Yesterday I raised the conflict as between his powers under section 31 and the Authority's duties under section 18. I posed a hypothetical question.

I think I answered that.

Mr. Barrett

If the Minister did, the reply eluded me. If, under section 31 (2) the Minister gives a written direction to the Authority directing them to give a declaration by the Minister for Agriculture and if, under section 31 (1) the Minister at the same time directs them to refrain from publishing any answer from the NFA, the Authority, under section 18, would have a duty to say to the Minister: "That is not impartial. That is not objective. We refuse to do it." In such circumstances whose powers would be paramount?

There is no conflict. section 18 simply lays down the broad guiding lines for the Authority.

Mr. Barrett

Section 18 says the Authority shall be impartial and objective. That is no mere guiding line.

The Deputy's opinion of what is impartial and mine might be two different things. These are the lines that guide me if I consider the section has been infringed.

Mr. Barrett

Suppose the Minister tells the Authority that they must publish what the Minister for Agriculture said but must not publish any replies and the Authority says: "Go to blazes. We must do this under section 18", what is the Minister's answer? Does the Minister say: "I am the boss" or does he say to the Authority: "You are the boss under section 18 and publication should be given"?

There is no argument. If I decide, in consultation with my colleagues, and I may consult my colleagues, that section 18 has been infringed, then I would invoke my powers under section 31 and prohibit publication.

Mr. Barrett

But by doing that the Minister infringes section 18. Who is then the boss? Does the Minister consider he is?

Of course I have the last word.

Mr. Barrett

Section 18 provides that the Authority shall secure that news items shall be presented in an impartial and objective way. There is no qualification to that; it is a statutory duty, and if the Minister says he is the boss. I should like the Authority at some stage to state their views on that. What rights would they consider they had under section 18? I think the Minister's view is very perturbing.

No; I think it is very plain.

Mr. Barrett

The Minister is quite satisfied?

Perfectly satisfied.

Vote No. 42, and the motion to refer back in the name of Deputy M.E. Dockrell —I am putting the question that the Vote be referred back.

Question put, and a Division being demanded, it was postponed in accordance with the Order of the Dáil of 28th April, 1965, until 10.15 p.m. on Wednesday, 2nd November, 1966.
Barr
Roinn