I move—"That the Standing Orders be suspended for the purpose of enabling the Second Stage of the Wireless Telegraphy Bill to be taken to-day, Thursday, 16th December, 1926."
WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL, 1926—SECOND STAGE.
CATHAOIRLEACH
That is necessary, because an interval of three days has to elapse between the receipt of a Bill and the Second Reading here. That interval has not elapsed. Therefore we have to have an initial suspension of the Standing Orders.
I second the motion.
I do not propose to oppose the taking of this motion as far as the Second Stage is concerned, but I think it is reasonable for me to express views which I hold strongly with regard to the whole procedure which is being adopted by the Seanad frequently with regard to Bills. The position is that we are asked to-day by this and the following motion to take a Bill which has been received and to put it through all its stages. Members of the House have not been notified, and no information has been given to them, and this frequently occurs. Our Standing Orders were devised to protect members of the House, irrespective of Party and their point of view. They were to provide for a reasonable time after the day when the Bill left the Dáil in order to give time to Senators to read the Bill and to prepare their amendments. I think it is quite useless to read the Bill as it is introduced into the Dáil, as it is frequently amended in the Dáil. It is far better to adopt the procedure that I and other members do, to read the Bill only when it leaves the Dáil. We suspend the provision of our Standing Orders that two stages should not be taken on the same day as often as we observe it. Yesterday it was laid down by a leading Labour Senator that members could suspend Standing Orders when it suited them. I have to protest again and again that as long as we do this it is weakening the Seanad. Certain Ministers frequently laugh at the Seanad. I do not altogether blame them. They laugh at the time we spend over Bills. It is a common joke. Yet they come down often and expect us to take Bills with little or no notice. One of the jokes we had to-day was that the Minister for Local Government was afraid we would have passed this Bill so quickly that he would not get down to the Dáil in time. His opinion was that we would have all the stages finished before he would get back. At the same time, I think that Senators who move the suspension of Standing Orders are not doing good for this or the other House. There are occasions when it is desirable, particularly in the case of Bills of a formal character, such as Bills coming at the end of a session, like the Expiring Laws Bill or Appropriation Bill, which come regularly every year. Everyone knows what they are.
The Minister for Local Government came here and asked us to take to-day or to-morrow all stages of a Bill which he says is urgent. What is the procedure? One month is given in the Dáil; five minutes in the Seanad. The particular Bill of which I am speaking is not so glaring an example. I am in favour of the Seanad meeting sufficiently often to do its work, and I have no sympathy with any refusal to meet. Until we make up our minds that we have Standing Orders, that we mean to keep them, and that we are not going to suspend them at short notice, or hastily, we shall have this happening again and again. A good case can always be made for haste. That is not for the good of this House, which is supposed to be a revising chamber. I think the Cathaoirleach had that in mind when he used words about a Bill coming here red-hot. This is just a cooling chamber, but you cannot do much cooling in five minutes. If we are to do any good in this House we shall have to give attention to the Bills. I do not mean that there should be unnecessary delay, or that a Bill that was two months in the Dáil should be two months in the Seanad.
In the Dáil there is a majority of supporters of the Government. They do not attempt to make little of their Standing Orders. I do not follow what their rules are to prevent the consideration of Bills, but I suggest that the Seanad should carry out its Standing Orders in future so that Bills would get reasonable consideration. One hesitates about attacking any Bill, but I am convinced that talking is no use. Somebody in a high place—I am not going to take the risk that Senator O'Farrell took—suggested that if he came late to the Seanad we would have referred a Bill to the Indigent Room-keepers' Society. That is not fair, but we are partly to blame for this kind of gibe. I ask the Seanad to take steps so that this will not occur again. Personally I propose to put down a motion early next year for alteration of the Standing Orders, so that it will not be possible to suspend them unless the motion has the assent of a very large number. Meantime, the only thing to do is to protest.
On a point of personal explanation, the last speaker said—and I do not care to rest under the imputation—that Senators lightly proposed the suspension of Standing Orders, and that that did no good to this House or to its procedure.
CATHAOIRLEACH
You are going to fit the cap, Senator.
I only wish to say that is the first time I have transgressed in this direction. I would not have done so only that I understood yesterday, when the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs came here, that there was general agreement in the House that there was nothing controversial in the Bill, and that the necessary facilities would be given.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I think that is so.
It is because of that, and of the assent, as I intepreted it, the House gave, that I allowed myself to be made the instrument of the formal proposal I made to-day. I am as much seized as other Senators for the dignity of the House, so that its proceedings may not be reduced to the farce to which Senator Douglas has been made a party more than once. I am very glad to hear Senator Douglas say he would table a motion so that no departure will in future be made from the Standing Order unless for very urgent or special business. I wish to exonerate myself from the innuendo of Senator Douglas, although he may not have meant it.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I think it is obvious from the observations of Senator Douglas that they were against the practice in general, and not aimed at this particular matter, because Senator Kenny was quite right in saying, and certainly the impression was left on my mind yesterday, that the House was prepared and willing to put this Bill through to-day.
I think Senator Douglas's remarks were addressed generally to the practice and in the hope, after the declarations we have heard from many quarters, that we will try and observe our Standing Orders for the future. It is very undesirable, even in absolutely non-controversial and formal measures, that the Standing Orders should be suspended. It is infinitely more necessary in highly controversial political questions. We have only to go back one year, when an exceedingly controversial measure that aroused keen emotions and passions was sledge-hammered through this House in one day, giving absolutely no rights to the minority. Unless I am greatly mistaken, Senator Douglas was one of those who voted with the majority for the suspension of all Standing Orders and all procedure in order to get it through in the one day. It was a question affecting the entire nation and, as I said, aroused keen political controversy.
If the Senator is referring to the Agreement he will find that a number of Senators, including myself, voted against a suspension of Standing Orders which would have prevented him continuing the discussion.
The motion referred to was for the closure, and certainly a great majority in this House voted in favour of suspending the Standing Orders in order to let that measure get through all stages. The Senator also voted against the taking of a Referendum, although no one could advance the slightest argument suggesting that it was an urgent measure to be rushed through in one day. I only mention that as an indication of how easily we can adapt ourselves to circumstances and say that what is justifiable to-day is absolutely unjustifiable to-morrow. A motion by Senator Foran yesterday to suspend Standing Orders to enable formal amendments to be prepared has been referred to, but surely that has no comparison with a Bill that is to become an Act and affect the lives of members of the State. The rushing of these Bills is all the more inexcusable in view of the fact that the Dáil has adjourned for a week on more than one occasion recently.
That is the business of the other House, but we have our business to look after. I do not think we should facilitate, beyond this particular Bill, any more of this rushing tendency. If this was proposed, or anything like it, in the other House, you would stir up a veritable hornet's nest, but here a Minister comes along and, after a public protest on our part, gets what he wants. I do not offer any opposition to this motion, because the House has agreed to it, but I intend, in future, to offer opposition and to challenge any further extension of this practice.
Question—"That the Standing Orders be suspended"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a second time."
I want to put one or two questions to the Minister which, perhaps, he might answer when he comes to speak. When the broadcasting station was established here, there was a practice of relaying some of the performances occasionally from the British Broadcasting stations. That practice has been entirely discontinued. I wonder if the Minister can inform the House why, and also if there is any chance of the practice being resumed. This discontinuance is greatly to the disadvantage of holders of crystal sets in the Free State. They cannot possibly get any programme except what is sent out from the Dublin station and, although one may be disposed to take the most charitable view, that is not the best in existence. I think we are entitled to have placed at the disposal of the holders of crystal sets the best that can be provided and that occasionally they should have relay services. When the relaying was first put in practice from London, I had a shrewd suspicion that the worst possible stuff would be relayed, and it was insinuated that that would be done for the purpose of making relaying unpopular and for the purpose of showing them up in an unfavourable comparison with our own programmes. I do not know if that is the case, but at any rate the programmes that were relayed were about the worst that could be picked out, in my opinion. I suggest it is not beneath the dignity, but, on the contrary, that it is in the interest of the Saorstát that we should not deny to the holders of crystal sets, who cannot get any reception beyond what Dublin extends, the opportunity of availing themselves of the artistical, musical and other programmes sent out by other stations. I do not know whether it is a question of expense. I hope the Minister will consider the matter. I think it is the practise of other broadcasting stations to relay sometimes from the programmes of other stations and to have an interchange of programmes. I do not know whether our programme is considered sufficiently good for the purposes of reciprocity. I do not see why it should not be. At times it is not at all bad and, possibly, other countries think that it is better than we do. The Minister told us that on the Continent of Europe Dublin is one of the most popular. If that is so, I think we should arrange for an exchange with the British Company, which could be done without any outlay.
I notice that Section 7 makes it incumbent upon anybody who is served with notice to do certain things under a penalty not exceeding £5. One of the things that may be asked is to give the number and date of a licence. Many of us are aware that when we get a licence, whether it is a wireless licence or a dog licence, we put it away somewhere where it is not easy to find it sometimes. I hope the Minister does not intend that everybody in every case who is liable to be prosecuted will be prosecuted.
Under Section 8 it is provided that there may be a seizure of wireless apparatus. An officer of the Minister may seize and take away all, or any part, of such apparatus which appears to such officer to be worked or used in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act. The seizure is arranged for, but the confiscation of the article seized is not. Once the article is seized, how is the owner to get it back? I would like the Minister to enlighten me upon that point. Section 12 interferes with every user of electro-magnetic radiation. I would point out to the Minister that we are at present in the early stages, and that wireless telegraphy is practically in its infancy. Crystals sets are those very largely in use and valve sets are rather the exception. With people using those valve sets there is danger of causing radio activity to neighbours through no fault of the users. I hope that the Minister, in such instances, will not be in a hurry to take steps towards their prosecution.
This Bill, as introduced, is admirable for the improvement of broadcasting, and if the Minister assures us he does not intend to use those powers until after the expiration of a certain time, it would be satisfactory.
There are one or two points I wish to raise. One is of considerable importance because it relates to the value of the programme that is provided. I suggest that the Minister might circularise users of apparatus and send them out a simple questionnaire in regard to the programmes. They might be asked if they were in favour of relaying or not. The policy has been adopted of making the users pay and there is good cause, therefore, for associating the users directly with the value of the service obtained and getting suggestions from them. I think that might be a useful thing. It is an opinion which coincides with what I have heard expressed by users themselves.
One other matter is that the news is now sent out very late. I do not think that was always the case, and it is only latterly that the news is deferred until ten o'clock. Now there are a lot of people who get up very early in the morning and consequently want to go to bed early at night, and they would prefer having the news somewhere about eight o'clock as heretofore. I trust the Minister will consider that.
There are a couple of sections in this Bill which involve what seems to me to be a new principle of legislation, and, for that reason, perhaps, I might draw attention to them on the motion for Second Reading. Section 9 gives the Minister power to make regulations and prescribe the various matters with which he may deal by regulation. Sub-section (2) says: "Regulations made under this Act may provide that a breach or contravention of any specified regulation shall be an offence triable summarily, and may prescribe the punishments which may be inflicted for any such breach or contravention but so that a maximum punishment only and no minimum punishment shall be so prescribed and that no such maximum punishment shall exceed a fine of £10."
The other section in which similar provision is made is Section 10 and sub-section (3) of that section provides that "regulations made under this section"—the section deals with Government control in case of national emergency of wireless telegraphy—"may provide that a breach or contravention of any specified regulations shall be an offence triable summarily and may prescribe the punishments which may be inflicted for any breach or contravention of the regulations."
There I think the maximum is £50, or a term of six months' imprisonment. To my mind it is an absolutely wrong principle to give a Minister the right to prescribe punishment. As far as I know it has never been done. The punishments hitherto have been prescribed by Statute.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Is that quite accurate? Surely the railway companies can impose penalties and imprisonment by bye-laws.
Yes, but I do not think they have the right to prescribe punishment.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Yes. All these bye-laws prescribe penalties by legislation.
But not imprisonment.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Not imprisonment, but I think there is a general law. Wherever there is a penalty imposed there is a right to impose the alternative, but bye-laws of railway companies, and companies of that kind, do impose penalties.
But they have to be approved of by the Board of Trade.
CATHAOIRLEACH
And these rules have to be approved of by the Minister.
They have to be approved of by the Minister who makes them. I protest this is a principle that ought not to be introduced into our legislation. It gives a department a right to prescribe the amount of punishment, and it only fixes a maximum. It is true that in each case this is more or less protected by another provision. Under Section 9 the regulation is to have effect unless a resolution of both Houses declares it is not to have effect. Under Section 10 either House may prevent regulations being carried if a resolution is passed within twenty-one days. That is not a sufficient excuse for the introduction of this very mischievous principle into an Act of Parliament.
When the Minister replies to the discussion I hope he will give us some description of this Bill, that he will tell us what he proposes to do, and explain what advantages he expects the country will reap from it. I confess I have hardly had time to read the Bill through, and I have not followed the debates in relation to it. In fact, I am sorry to say I am almost in the position of having to admit ignorance in regard to the measure. I do not know how many members of the Seanad are in a better position than I am. We would like to hear from the Minister a statement as to what he expects to realise from it. One of the reasons why I invite the Minister to explain the Bill is that we have suspended Standing Orders to enable him to get a Second Reading, and in spite of all our protests there is a further proposal to suspend Standing Orders to enable the remaining stages to be taken to-day. I do not know that I am at present disposed to agree to that proposal. I think, having regard to our protest, we are bound to take serious steps to make our protest valid. It may be the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs will tell us something about this Bill, and will be able to assure us that it is not contentious, that it does no harm to anybody, and that the country will reap great advantages from it. Perhaps in that way I may be justified in my own mind in agreeing to give the Minister further facilities for the passing of this measure. It is a complicated Bill with twenty clauses. I am quite certain if one wanted to amend it in Committee it could be amended extensively if one were that way inclined, but it is rather too much to ask us to pass a measure of this kind through all its stages in one day.
CATHAOIRLEACH
We have not reached that yet.
Quite so, but I want to give the Minister warning, and I want to treat him fairly. I am an admirer of his in many ways; he has the courage of his convictions, and so I would like to be of help to him and give him further assistance.
Perhaps I should have apologised at the outset for being the cause of quite a lot of annoyance to-day, but I think Senators will remember that I took the very obvious course of appearing here yesterday, and that they were good enough to concede what I desired I am satisfied that as far as I am concerned, at any rate, the grievance does not seriously arise. If the Seanad had taken the other course, for instance, and decided that the Bill I proposed to introduce was of such a character that longer time was needed for its consideration, and that, notwithstanding anything I may feel on the subject, it should be deferred until, say, the month of January, I would then, perhaps reluctantly, have acquiesced on the spot, and perhaps would have thanked the Seanad equally warmly. I found no alternative for an immediate extension of the broadcasting programme but to approach this House yesterday and ask it to see its way to consider this Bill to-day.
The position is that we have little money for broadcasting purposes. Our resources have never been what we desired, and the Exchequer is slow to part with its finances for that particular purpose, a purpose concerned with the amusement of the people. Realising the necessity for removing this cause of weakness, I had the Broadcasting Bill placed in the hands of the draftsman early in the present year, and if the draftsman has not been able to make the necessary progress it is not my fault. I believe he was otherwise heavily engaged. I did not get this Bill out until recently. All the while the loss of revenue was going on, and the pressure from the public to improve and extend the programme was taking place. I had no alternative but to take steps to expedite the collection of licence fees, which is the main source of revenue.
There are, I believe, something like 40,000 wireless users in this State. We have so calculated the number at any rate, and of these only about 4,000 have so far been good enough to pay the small licence fee of 10s. We have made appeals to them through the Press and through the wireless itself, and the result is what I have put before you. Now, our failure to introduce this Bill earlier has certainly affected the finances of broadcasting very seriously. If the Seanad had deferred the Bill until the end of January, as it could well have done, then it merely would have postponed that extension of the enjoyment of wireless which I hope to secure when greater finances are at our disposal. That is the main reason why I asked it yesterday to accommodate me, and I assure Senators that on any future occasion I will be most careful to avoid rushing a Bill in this way.
The Bill which the Seanad is considering is not revolutionary in any sense, nor is it contentious. It is merely an adaptation of the Acts which are already on the Statute Book governing the Post Office administration, governing the administration of wireless telegraphy, wire telegraphy, and any other types of telegraphy that may be evolved at any time henceforth. There is only one really serious departure, and that deals with the collection of licence fees. That is the only really serious departure that is obvious to anyone. It is an obvious inclusion. It is possibly solely responsible for the Bill.
The Seanad will remember that a Bill was introduced into the English Parliament some time ago dealing with the same subject. That Bill was subsequently modified. In its modification it dealt almost entirely with this question of the collection of fees. In other words it was assumed that the existing Act did not entitle the Post Office to come in and collect those fees. The Post Office held at any rate, without being prepared to put to the test the existing Act, that the existing Act was sufficient. But in order to remove any possibility of doubt, this English Act was introduced, definitely specifying the collection of fees. Now, we could have taken the same course here, and modified that section, but seeing that we were called upon to tighten up that particular weakness in the control of wireless we decided to introduce this Bill and to extend its provisions to wireless on airships and on ships at sea, and wireless in times of national emergency. These are more or less obvious extensions. They would have to come some time, and it is just as well to bring them along now. At any rate, even these are not the material extensions of the existing wireless. There is nothing of very particular moment to explain in connection with this Bill. The method of collecting penalties has not formed the subject of grievance on the part of anybody so far. I have not seen a single reference to that on the part of those likely to be affected. There has not been a single reference to any provision of the Bill in the other House. When the Seanad considers these two facts it will, I think, take it that we have not tried to spring any surprise. I fail to see any objection to anything contained in this Bill. Senator Brown refers to the question of penalties. Penalties will be imposed by the courts in the ordinary way.
Prescribed by the Minister.
Yes, prescribed and sanctioned by both Houses. These penalties are the maximum and not the minimum. It will not be possible to exceed these penalties.
They are prescribed by the Minister, and they remain in force until they are annulled.
Yes. At any rate this is the usual course. There are some other points in the Bill that Senators have referred to. Senator Bennett thinks that we ought to move slowly in checking wireless interference. We necessarily must. We have not the staff to begin with. I should say that if the movement is too slow, the public will very quickly remind us of that fact. It is necessary, of course, to take steps to see that no undue interference is caused by people who are looking for trouble, or people who are seeking to cause trouble to others. We have taken the precaution here—a precaution which was also taken in certain Customs Regulations—of sending notices to delinquents. That is optional.
If we are satisfied that there are people who have failed to pay their licence fees in the ordinary way and who are trying to avoid payment, we will not do them the courtesy of giving them notice that we are calling around. We will proceed direct. But there are other people who may suffer from absent-mindedness or diseases of that kind and we will extend courtesy to them. At any rate we have included these powers in our Bill. It is a matter for ourselves whether we will use these powers or not.
Senator Sir John Keane refers to the advisability of issuing a questionnaire to wireless users. We have, in fact, adopted such a course during the last few months. Every night during a particular week our announcer invited the forty or fifty thousand broadcasting users in this country to furnish us with any grievances which they felt justified in committing to paper. I think we also gave that information through the Press. We did that because of the number of letters we had seen in the Press about the so-called dissatisfaction with wireless and we expected that everybody was burning to pour abuse on us. We got, as a result of this announcement, thirty communications. About fifteen of these were of a favourable character. Another fifteen were what you might term unfavourable. Some objected to the teaching of languages, others to the fact that our programme had not sufficient jazz, some others objected to the fact that we had too much jazz, and there were one or two that were in favour of the reinstatement of the English transmission. From that I think the Seanad will agree with me that the failure to make any substantial demonstration of grievances when the opportunity of doing so presented itself proves that these grievances are not universal. I say further that this is the view of the Broadcasting Advisory Committee, a very representative body of citizens who meet to consider this matter. Some of those gentlemen were displeased, if you like, that the response was not larger, but there you are. It simply comes to this, that the people who are dissatisfied are vocal; the people who are satisfied say nothing. Now at one time we got very frequent relays from Daventry. Those relays were not a great success. We had a fair number of protests against them. They were not selected, as Senator O'Farrell has said, from an element of "stiff ones." They were not selected for the purpose of making relays unpopular. I think that was rather an unfair suggestion. The Station Director was well aware that these relays cost something about £15 an hour. That £15 is something out of the pocket of Irish artistes. It was a serious responsibility to hand over that money, the money of the Irish people, without good results, and the suggestion that it was done in order merely to prove that the English programmes were no good and should not be considered good is not a thing that could hold water. The facts do not bear it out. However, we may again, and possibly will again, bring on the question of relays and examine that possibility. We may do it in a more limited way than on former occasions. It is a matter that is under consideration.
Senator Keane also referred to the question of news. The Dublin news is issued at 7.30, not ten o'clock. The news we are now issuing is of an international character, news taken up by a strong wireless receiver which is located in the Central Telegraph Office. All that news is taken from the air. It emanates from stations in Moscow, Rome, Berlin, Paris and England. We pay nobody for it. It is a little bit behind time, but later on we hope to extend this foreign news series and bring it up to time. It is a venture which no other broadcasting station has embarked upon. We are not quite satisfied that foreign news is sufficient for our station, and we have taken the necessary steps to build up a Press section here. Already one Pressman has been appointed; at least authority has been given for an appointment. In all probability we will find another later on, and possibly a third, and eventually there may be quite a number of Press correspondents not only attached to our station here in Dublin but correspondents in the country. Our general policy is to use broadcasting as a means of disseminating news, irrespective of any other agency.
Will the Minister say what he means by "Dublin news"? Would that be the news that appears in the Dublin evening papers?
It may or it may not, but it would be news at any rate collected by our Dublin agents. It will be understood that we have no right to use news supplied by the Press. We are not entitled to engage in plagiarism of that kind and we are prepared to provide our own independent news supply. It may be the reporting of the Dáil or the Seanad or the reporting of any current event.
Is this the gentleman who is to report both Houses and make a resumé of them at the same time?
I think that we will be able to get a good native supply and that we will be able to get a foreign supply later on. With these two supplies we should be able to keep the public, particularly that part of the public who are not able to get the evening papers, in pretty close touch with current events of the world. I should also say that we may be able to supplement the foreign news that we get in our own daily papers.
A SENATOR
It is easy to do that.
I quite agree. At any rate we mean to try. That is in regard to the news section. In regard to the musical section, we do intend to extend the programme, and the Advisory Committee has suggested that the station should remain open until 11 p.m. and begin operations about half-an-hour earlier than at present—in other words, that our programme should be from seven to eleven, that at one o'clock or one-thirty in the afternoon we should issue a combined market bulletin—cattle and stock prices and matters of that kind—and possibly complete a half-hour's programme. Later on in the afternoon they suggest that we should provide an hour for children. That is, roughly, the kind of programme we have in mind. I think you will find it will materialise as a result of our ability to get these fees. We have in mind its materialisation after Christmas.
There is one other prospect in regard to broadcasting, apart from that to which Senator O'Farrell referred a moment ago. We are experimenting on the possibilities of relaying not alone Daventry, which, of course, will have to be relayed by wire; we are experimenting on certain instruments which may enable us to relay continental stations without serious interruption. That may happen in the immediate future, and it is also within the region of possibility that through the beam system it will be possible to relay a programme from any part of the world. That is one of the practical certainties of the future; those who look for an international programme will not have to wait indefinitely, to say the least of it. We here, however, must get a show; none of us asked that this should be handed over to the State. I, at any rate, did not ask that it should be handed over. I foresaw all kinds of difficulties, difficulties of every kind tacked on to the Ministry. I saw the red tape of finance and the red tape of the Oireachtas——
That is not the Seanad, anyway.
—and the Selection Board method of filling posts, if they ever succeed in filling them, and the difficulty of getting finances. I foresaw all these difficulties, and they are here present. It is really a tough job, to say the least of it, to run broadcasting in this country, and to run it in competition with the free agents in every other country. In England the system has unlimited finances and absolutely unlimited control. There is no question of control whatsoever. They may appoint a director to-night and dismiss him to-morrow, if they wish. I tried to get an assistant-director exactly twelve months ago, and I have not yet got him. The Civil Service Commission have, to their own satisfaction, exhausted the resources of the country and I am yet without an official. Quite recently the Director of the station, because of what I consider grossly unfair attacks in the Press, tendered his resignation. I refused to accept it, but had he persisted I would have found the station in the hands of the Announcer. That is the situation. We have far too many difficulties. We are in the position of a man in a race with half a score of fetters around his legs, and if he does not keep up the pace he is blamed. It does not look an easy job. Time will put it right, but at present it is difficult.
The Minister, in answer, said that he would like to hear what forty or fifty thousand listeners-in thought of the programme. Just imagine what they would have said if they got a chance. Imagine some of those people appearing in a theatre where an audience of 40,000 or 50,000 people would be able to tell them what they thought about them? Only a very small number are satisfied with the programmes they are getting from Dublin. I am not in any way opposed to the Bill. I want to see it through. The excuse the Minister gives is finance and the difficulty in getting in money. I am prepared to give him every advantage in order to get the programmes improved, but I want to suggest that he might have in the Bill a remission of the licence fee for people such as the blind, and so on, in order to give them an opportunity of taking advantage of those wonderful developments of wireless and broadcasting; perhaps it is not too late now to do something to relieve those people.
I do not agree with all the critics of the programme of the Dublin station. I think it is most unfair to be making a comparison between the Dublin station and the Daventry station. Last Monday night I listened on a crystal set to as fine a programme from the Dublin station as anyone could wish for. There was a relay from Waterford of a performance by the Waterford Musical Society. Anyone who is not pleased with a programme such as that is very hard to be pleased. I heard Daventry and other stations, and did not hear anything like what I heard last Monday night.
In furtherance of the point made by Senator Foran, I think a charge of 10s. for a licence is too high, and I hope that if, as a result of this Bill, all the people who have to pay licences for a valve or crystal set pay up, the fee for a crystal set will be reduced from 10s. to 5s. The innovation of wireless has been responsible for a great improvement in the home life of the poor people in this city at any rate. Heretofore there was nothing to encourage unfortunate people to remain in their homes at night. Since the introduction of broadcasting and cheap crystal sets a great deal has been done to improve the home life of the people, and I hope large fees for licences will not be persisted in. As a result of the Bill, if all the people concerned pay the Minister, I hope he will consider the advisability of reducing the licence fee to the holders of the crystal sets.
Question—"That the Bill be read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.