Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 21 Jan 1960

Vol. 52 No. 2

Broadcasting Authority Bill, 1959—Second Stage (resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. McGuire

Last evening before the adjournment, I was referring to the great amenity and luxury added to our life and our way of living by the invention of television. Television has come at a time when the standard of living is rapidly increasing and when this luxury is available not only to wealthy people but to people of average means. In the past we always associated the idea of luxuries with wealthy people but nowadays wealth is spread to a greater extent over the community and television can be availed of by almost every section.

One has only to cast one's eye to the roofs of houses, large and small, all over our cities and towns, wherever television is to be picked up, to realise how universal the use of television has become. Therefore its power and importance for good or evil are enormous and the responsibility of those who control and produce its programmes is very great.

In many things we tend to copy Britain and, I think, wrongly so. We very often take things from Great Britain which were designed for an industrial country and apply them with very little change and very little thought to our own agriculturally dominated country. However, in the operation of television we would be well advised to follow the methods of the British Television Authority. Their programmes are varied and they have a generally high standard of quality both in subject and presentation. As a constant viewer of television, I think they are hard to beat. I have seen television in other countries. I think the British service is really a very good headline for us.

The Minister in his opening statement said that from the moment the service goes on the air it would have to stand comparison with the programmes of two television organisations in Britain. As I have already said, if we are to follow the British line our service will have to be as good as, if not better than, they are. I stated yesterday that I.T.V. are spending something like £17,000,000 per annum on programmes and the B.B.C. spend £16,000,000 per annum. At first sight this would seem to be a very formidable task because in television we have the first example in this country of a free trade area. It is not possible to put a protective ring around the country in regard to television and cut off other services from competing with our service. We shall be on the same screen so that we are fighting in a free trade area really and as we have not got sufficient funds to compete purely on a financial basis and in the big way which these many millions of pounds are able to command, we shall have to produce programmes of quality as I said last night.

The first thing we can do is to give something that is Irish. The second thing is—and the Minister also referred to this—that we shall have to employ imported films and telerecordings. In this second category we can, I am told, in spite of the large sums of money available to the British service, compete. These films and telerecordings are comparatively cheap since in many cases they have already earned money on the screens of the cinema.

The Minister went on to say that the quality of our programmes will depend on the judicious selection by the Authority of the best imported programmes available. I think he is absolutely right there. That involves the question of the people who will give us these programmes and this service. Upon them, naturally, will depend the quality because they will be the people who will have to decide what is to be given us and what is to be imported in the form of films and telerecordings and, of course, the live broadcasts from our own country.

The selection of the members of the Authority will be a task of the first importance. So much depends upon the personnel that it is very important that difficult to combine all these character- the best people should be got for these positions. I hope, and I believe, that the conditions and qualifications for appointment to the Authority will be competence for the position and that no political considerations will be brought to bear. This is not directed at the present Government only. I am merely talking now about the Authority which is here for the future. I hope that neither now nor in the future will precedence be given to political considerations in appointing the right people to do the job.

Many of us see the danger in too much Ministerial control over the Authority. We see the danger of an element of political interference which can manifest itself in many ways. Last night this matter was referred to in connection with what was actually put on the screen. A person may make himself persona grata or somebody more desirable to the Minister. That is one of the dangers inherent in having either State or semi-State control of activities but it is one we have got to face. We have got to rely, first of all, upon the terms on which this Bill is based and, secondly, upon the quality of the Minister who is to exercise the powers he is to get. When this Bill leaves this House and the Dáil, a considerable number of changes will have to be made. I hope that much more discretion will be entrusted to the Authority who are about to operate the service.

At first sight it would seem, as Senator O'Brien suggested, that the maximum number on the Authority should be reduced from nine to five. I think, perhaps, from the point of view of efficiency that would be desirable but on second thoughts, when one considers the number of facets that will have to be dealt with in connection with television, it would seem, perhaps, that a larger Authority would be better because, first of all, you must have people on the Authority who know something about entertainment. You must also have people with a cultural outlook, an outlook in regard to the language and the national outlook, not to mention the business side of the matter dealing with finance and so on. Perhaps it would be rather istics in five people and a smaller group might, in fact, be a biased group. However, that is a matter that probably will be discussed on Committee Stage, when more may be said about it.

In 1953, we were told by the Minister, Comhairle Radio Éireann was appointed, which consisted of five persons. On that occasion they were persons outside the State service. On this occasion there is no mention in the Bill as to whether or not that is to be the qualification. There is no mention in the Bill as to whether the members will be part-time or whole-time, or as to whether the Director General is to be a whole-time official. I should like clarification from the Minister on these points.

The most important thing, after the quality of the television programmes, is, of course, the question of finance. There are two sources of revenue for the financing of the operation. One is the revenue from the licences and the other is the advertising revenue. There is little doubt that the revenue from licences will be very large and on an increasing scale, especially if we can expand our economy in this country, because the first thing that any wage earner or salary earner will buy nowadays—almost before the motor car, I would say—is a television set. It is quite certain now that, if given a choice between a motor car and a television set, people will go for the television set and eventually there will hardly be a house in the entire country without a set. Therefore, very good revenue is assured. It will depend only on the number of citizens we are able to keep in the country, the number we can employ and so prevent from leaving us.

On the advertising side, a great deal depends on the way the advertising is handled. This is a business matter and any kind of purely bureaucratic body of people who merely sit down and say they have something for which people must come to them, and that they are offering a privilege, will find their advertising business will not be very successful. This is a business matter in which there will have to be the merchant's outlook, that the Television Authority has something to sell and has to sell it to the buyer. The buyer is on the right foot on this occasion and there must be no feeling that he is being granted a favour by being allowed to advertise on our screens.

I see in this Bill the same idea as was prevalent at the time of the original Control of Manufactures Act. At the time that Act was introduced, we seemed to think we had something here to offer that it was a privilege to obtain, namely, a footing in the Irish industrial market, and we discriminated very blatantly against foreign capital on that occasion. Today we are forced to offer all sorts of incentives to foreign capital and foreign industrialists to invest here. We found that, after all, it was not a land flowing with milk and honey, where everybody wanted to open up and to invest capital. I think we have learned a very salutary lesson in that regard. I do not deny that it was important to foster Irish manufactures in every way but we did too definitely and positively discriminate against foreigners. We made them feel they were foreigners, that we did not want them, that they were here only on sufferance.

In this Bill, we appear, once more, to show discrimination against foreigners, at least by implication in Section 20. As I said, I believe we shall be very pleased to receive applications for advertising on television here from any source, whether home or foreign, and, indeed, it is quite probable that the really large advertisers will be non-Irish, because in the Report of the Television Commission, it was pointed out that there is a comparatively small amount of money spent in this country on advertising. A great deal of the money for advertising will probably have to be taken from the budgets which people make for newspaper advertising and other forms of advertising because there is a very limited industrial economy here and there is not a very large sum available for advertising. Therefore, we simply must depend on outsiders. Television is one of the media that do, in fact, attract large advertisers, the large international advertisers from all over the world, especially if we are moving, as we seem to be at the moment, into a free trade world. Screens have a great potential if a free trade Europe does come into existence and, if we are part of it, it may very easily reflect itself in advertising on our television service.

Under Section 20, the Authority are encouraged to fix preferential rates for Irish advertisers and advertisements in the Irish language. This is an unwise provision. As I said, the aim and the idea are understandable, but, as a practical business proposition, it is undesirable. The power to fix preferential rates is all right and should be given to the Authority and is a power that should be exercised by the Authority, but it should be exercised on their own judgment and not only with the idea of fostering Irish or our national aims but as something that is forthcoming for, say, a very big order or a long term order. If given a preferential rate, people will very often order in bigger figures and for longer terms. Obviously, a person ordering big and ordering for a long term should get preferential treatment, whether he be a foreigner or Irish.

This idea of giving preferential treatment in State or semi-State bodies has now got its headline in C.I.E. where, I understand, it has been introduced by the new Director of C.I.E., very successfully. Of course, it is an ordinary business operation which is used every day in commercial life. I should like to see the Authority being trusted and being allowed to utilise this power in any way they think fit and for any reason they think fit. We must trust them to do it for the best business reasons and not for reasons of friendship or anything else.

Incidentally, I think Senator Ó Maoláin was quite right when he said that it is very probable that foreign manufacturers will use the Irish language in their advertisements more often than Irish manufacturers because many of them will think that Irish is used more extensively than it actually is in the country. I think you will find already it is true in cinema advertising that the Irish language is very much more used by international advertisers than by our own manufacturers and business people.

Subsection (4) of Section 20 says:

The Authority shall not accept any advertisement which is directed towards any religious or political end.

I understand that Senator Stanford saw a very good and tolerant idea in that, but I confess I do not quite understand this prohibition. I think it is a bit too severe. Probably something could be done to avoid religious missionary work being carried on through television but I think the section, as it stands, precludes the advertising of gymkhanas, concerts and commercial undertakings of that kind to provide funds for church building. It seems that they would not be allowed to be advertised, but perhaps that is not so and I hope the Minister will elucidate that point.

One of the most interesting things on British television is the discussion and advertising shown at election times by political Parties; even some of its religious discussions are most interesting. I know this has nothing to do with advertising, but I think we are on rather dangerous ground in this subsection, and I believe this kind of thing should be left to the good sense of the Authority. If there were to be anything blatantly wrong put on television we have always the public and they will not be long in crying out about it. Things like these should be left to the Television Authority and not to the omniscient authority over there who keeps cutting in all the time under the provisions of the Bill.

Senator Hayes said he was not happy about the Authority's freedom of action, and I am in full agreement with him. However, this Bill is only in its introductory stages and perhaps as we proceed with it we shall ease down on these impositions of Ministerial authority. Quite rightly, in his opening statement the Minister said he desired to give the Authority all freedom possible and it is desirable to give statutory sanction to the position of independence which has, in practice, been accorded to sound broadcasting in recent years. If, in fact, a position of independence has been in practice in broadcasting in recent years, it seems to me it would be much better to give this Authority the same freedom, but instead of retaining and giving statutory sanction to that independence we are taking it away.

Speaking generally, an outstanding characteristic of our State—I think it will not be denied—is a reluctance on the part of the Government to trust citizens with many activities that might well be left to them. Many of our citizens are not only resigned to the State guiding and controlling their destinies and activities but they acquiesce in that state of affairs; not only that, but many demand more and more State benevolence and control. That is evident in practically every Bill that comes before this House. I am always saying this but it seems to be an apt comment on almost every Bill presented to us.

In the case of television we have decided that not only can we not trust private enterprise—we have already turned that down because we feel it could not be controlled by the State— but as set up under this Bill we are putting the new Authority very much under the thumb of the Minister. I hope that when the Bill comes to Committee Stage it may be possible to improve the position in that regard.

We are all glad to see the establishment of a television service and we would all be happy to see it succeed. I wish the Minister every success with this, the first Bill ever introduced in this House in this fashion. I hope that any comments I have made will be taken in the constructive spirit in which they were offered.

Professor Quinlan

At the outset, I should like to join in expressing appreciation of this new departure by which the Bill has been introduced in the Seanad. I think also it is a very happy augury that the Bill is of such a non-political nature and that the discussion has been very non-political and very constructive. In fact one can see in the various speakers the influence of their environment—as they see television work and as they see its impact on their environment. That is why, perhaps, what I have got to say may differ substantially from many of their statements because I believe that many speakers—in fact, practically all the Senators, who have spoken so far— have been from Dublin and its environment and they were speaking from an atmosphere where they have been viewing television on and off for the last few years, where they have more or less accepted it as being almost a necessary of life, and where they see its impact on their own region. I hope to present an opposite point of view, viewing Ireland from Cork up and viewing it especially, I hope, through the eyes of rural Ireland and agricultural Ireland because, viewed in that way, I believe that the introduction of this service is at least five years premature and I hope to be able to develop that case.

I do not see the urgency that is being stressed on all sides for this service. In other words, we must keep up with the Joneses and the Joneses in this case, as far as I can see, are our neighbours across the Border. For one moment I do not subscribe to that viewpoint. The main objection I have to the immediate introduction of television is its impact on rural Ireland because, until quite recently, the main characteristic of rural Ireland was its isolation. We had come from a period, perhaps around 1900, where we had scoríochta and the congregating together in houses of neighbours, where you had almost a type of community living, but that was succeeded by isolation. Thank God, since the last war that isolation is breaking down. It is breaking down due to better transport and it is also being broken down due to the enormous development made by rural organisations in recent years. In other words, rural Ireland is again beginning to entertain itself, and I mean entertain in the very broadest sense of the term because most of the entertainment carried on is by way of lectures, question times, public speaking, drama groups, etc. That is a most promising development but it is only in its infancy. Every little town and village has some one of the rural organisations working in it which has got the people to come out of their homes and meet their neighbours.

One of the main effects of television in all countries has been a tendency to keep people at home, to glue them down to a television set in their drawing rooms, and I submit that would be a very bad development in rural Ireland within the next five or ten years. If it could be postponed for ten years, all the better, and the money that would be needed to carry a television service into rural Ireland would be far better spent in stimulating the rural organisations in those areas, in encouraging their efforts to educate and entertain themselves rather than having their entertainment done for them. That is my first main criticism.

Remember also that on this development of talent in rural Ireland will entirely depend the peculiar and national characteristics of our future television service because they are the characteristic groups with their Question Times, their public speaking, their debates, their drama and all the rest. They are the people we hope will appear on our television service. I venture to say that at present any professional television group would regard our rural efforts as being too crude for the television screen. In other words, that development would be killed before it could get into the position in which it would be acceptable as being capable of making a contribution to Irish television.

My second point has to do with the enormous expenditure which is being calmly contemplated. The estimate of the Television Commission—and I think it is a rather modest estimate —is that we shall have about 50,000 new sets each year for the next number of years and 50,000 sets at £80 each is £4,000,000. That £4,000,000 is being taken from the pockets of the Irish people for what is really a luxury. In addition to that, we have the expenditure by the State. I do not for one moment subscribe to the figures given in the Majority Report of the Television Commission. The only realistic figures of expenditure are those contained in the Minority Report signed by Síle Ní Chinnéide, Dr. Roger McHugh and others.

First of all, we cannot hope to put on a television service at something like one-eighth or one-tenth of the cost per hour of the B.B.C. and I.T.V., unless we are to buy most of our programmes, and to buy inferior programmes the rents of which we can afford. If we are to have any live artists, how can we expect them to work here for one-eighth of the reward they could get by skipping across to England and working there? We have been told that television is a hungry medium. It is hungry and the minute we develop any group of talent here, do you not think that the B.B.C. scouts will be even more active than the soccer scouts are at the moment in snapping up and inducing away our promising performers?

The cost will be a good deal more than we have estimated. I think the estimates are something like £900,000 to £1,000,000. That is positive expenditure but we must look at the negative expenditure, too, such as the loss of revenue by the falling off in attendance at cinemas and so on. That will lead to demand for lessening of taxation on cinemas, which at present contribute over £1¼ million to the Exchequer. Other entertainment duties will likewise fall, so, reckoning it up, one can see that the Exchequer will get off very easily if its revenue is not down by at least a further £1,000,000. Put those together and, between concealed or remitted taxation, the cost will be at least £5,000,000 to £6,000,000 a year.

That expenditure on a luxury makes a mockery of the recent Government White Paper and the excellent work of economic development on which it was based. We have been spending on non-productive items—housing, hospitals and so on—as such expenditure is called, and now the whole emphasis must be on production. Yet, here within 12 months, we are calmly looking forward to spending £5,000,000 a year on what is a luxury. I wish to see a television service here as quickly as anybody else for controlled use, but remember, £5,000,000 a year is one per cent. of the target of national income set in the Government White Paper for the next ten years. If we are to progress and develop our national income to that point, it will represent one per cent. per annum and here, with one Act of the Oireachtas, we are to spend that one per cent. per annum on one luxury item.

If we are to do it, well and good, but let us face the facts of what we are doing and rid ourselves of the idea that it will not cost anything. It is almost like living on your tail. We are a closed type of economy and the only mitigation will be whatever will come from outside advertisements and whatever net surplus there may be in the sale of programmes to other countries. I doubt if that is likely to reach any great heights.

My third point is that if we persist in going ahead, I suggest that the introduction of the 405 line medium will be absolutely disastrous and will commit us to tremendous expenditure in the future. The 405 system is the least perfect of the systems of picture transmission. It is the first system which was used in England and at present it is used only in England. All the technical experts agree that the greater the number of lines, the better the picture and that from a practical standpoint, the most effective medium is the 625 line system. The authorities in England recognise that also, so much so that they would have changed after the war, were it not for the fact that at that time probably £100,000,000 of private capital was invested in television sets and they could not afford to declare them obsolete overnight.

Remember, it is so difficult to change the standard set that will give reception on 405 to 625 that, in practice, it is better to throw the set on the scrap heap. An estimate given to me was that the regular receiver costs about £80 and that it would cost at least £50 to do what would not be a fully satisfactory transformation job. Consequently, if the set is a year or two old, it just is not worthwhile making the change.

Now that we have seen what is happening in England, let us take note of it. They propose to begin 625 transmission on two channels. I do not know whether or not the final decision has yet been reached but it is coming, in any case. They will make a gradual change over from 405 to 625 so that the people buying new sets in England in the future will say: "Well, we are going to buy the 625." After five or six years, it will not be any great upheaval in England to change over completely to the 625 medium.

The amount of capital invested in television in England to-day in respect of private sets is £900,000,000. An equivalent amount here would be an investment of £50,000,000. That change is coming. Therefore, what does it mean? We are deterred from making the change to-day because we have 30,000 or 40,000 sets. What number will we have in five years' time when England changes? At our present rate we shall have perhaps 300,000 sets. Economically and otherwise, it will be at least five times as difficult to make the change in five years' time. If we stick to the 405 medium, I submit that that is another reason why this is at least five years premature and why we should await events.

Colour television will be with us within five or at most ten years—in fact, I should say five years—and that demands the higher lineage. Therefore, (1) are we to go ahead immediately and (2)—this is the most vital economic decision—what lineage shall we adopt?

In 1957, that outstanding B.B.C. personality, Father Agnellus, whom I have no doubt many Senators have heard, thought it was almost impossible for us to manage a television service. I know the reason you will put up. You will say it is coming from across the Border and that Ireland north of the line from Dublin to Sligo is under its coverage. If it is, I would point out that that is not all Ireland. However, if you want to face what you may feel is a challenge in that region, you have a couple of ways of doing it.

I do not live in that region. I have not first-hand experience of its impact on the people in that region. If it is vital to win them away from B.B.C. television or to compete with B.B.C. television, all you might need is one booster station in that region and develop that region first. We, down South, are not in the slightest hurry. We are getting on very well without it. We would applaud far more generous grants for our rural and other organisations in that region to stimulate their development in the next few years.

If it is decided to concentrate on that region, what will we do? Will it be 405 or 625? You have the choice. The sets are there and that seems to put a certain force on 405. On the other hand, if you broadcast on 625, it means that all new sets and replacements going into that region will be in the 625 medium. If you want our people to view Irish television and to keep them from viewing B.B.C. television, surely the most effective way of doing it is to have a different lineage where you can view one and you cannot view the other?

I have been assured by first-class communications engineers that it is quite feasible to broadcast on the two lineages. I have checked it this morning and I am quite satisfied with the technical information I have got. It would cost more. You would have to have duplicated equipment. The estimate I got from a very reliable engineer is that it would probably cost an additional £100,000. In other words, it would cost an additional £100,000 to let the 30,000 present viewers have the advantage of using their sets until they become obsolete. That represents one year's rental from them. I submit it would not be an undue amount to spend on giving them that facility. I have also been assured that that £100,000 would not be a complete loss because when we later go over to 625 and decide to discontinue the 405 medium, that equipment could then be modified to fit in as replacements and additions to the 625 broadcasting equipment. Therefore, these may be ways out of our dilemma.

I now come to the impact of this service on many of our national problems. Foremost among our national problems is emigration. Television can be positive or negative on emigration. If it shows us the faraway hills— those wonderful places, and so on— then it could be the greatest accelerating medium possible for emigration. If it shows the beauty of those places, luxury, and so on, our people can be drawn to them. On the other hand, it might show what life in a big industrial city really means to the average or the small wage earner. It might show what it means even in a mighty city like New York to have to hang on to a traffic strap for an hour as you shuffle to and from your work each day. It might give evidence of the din and bustle, and so on. On the other hand, perhaps life in our green fields and smokeless towns might be shown in its proper perspective and might be shown to have an attraction of its own that cannot be measured in financial terms. However, that is a difficult decision.

If we portray the grimy side of life in industrial cities, I think there may be an uproar from some of our more sophisticated audiences who will want to see the sophisticated side of the picture, that is, how the people in their class live. I am not at all sure that it is not their view that would prevail in a television service.

We have the question of the family. Thank God, we have no problem here of keeping the family together. I think we can write off that side of it. In fact, as I showed, it could have an adverse effect on rural families where the emphasis should be to get them out once in a while to meet people. Those in industrial work are away from their homes all day. It is all right to keep them at home at night. In the case of the rural family living in its own little self-contained republic for the whole round of the day, it is an uplift and an education and an inspiration to go out and to meet some of their fellows in pleasant surroundings for a few hours a few times a week.

Secondly, the desire to keep up with the Joneses will percolate, as it has percolated in Dublin, into all sections, especially the less well-to-do sections of our community. The result is that they will want to have the mast rising up above the house, too. The result will be that there will be a tremendous development of and impetus to hire purchase. Again, I doubt if that is a healthy or desirable sign, when we are, as everybody says at the moment, hoping to make a break-through—that things are beginning to look up and that we want to concentrate on the job ahead.

On the question of religion, I do not think that television makes any contribution to religion in our country. It is certainly not comparable with England or elsewhere where many of our fellow religionists have been given the opportunity of appearing on television and dispelling many of the outdated prejudices and hatreds that have long been focussed on them, but that does not apply here.

Previously, down the country, when anything had to be done, the cry was "Ah, let the Government do it— the Government should do this." Now it seems as though the whole thing has turned around and that the Television Authority should do this. But I am not satisfied. I want to see things more in black and white; I want to see the lines more clearly than we seem to have them at present. I hope that, before this Bill ultimately goes through, many changes will be made. I feel certain the Minister is as anxious to make changes as anybody else, that we are dealing completely with a non-political subject, trying to pool our ideas on it and hoping that the best for the country will emerge from our deliberations.

This brings me to the point of the Television Authority. I shudder in a way to think of what type of jazzed-up agricultural programme a Television Authority would put on. At least there is a possibility that a director, being very conscious of the necessity to give the entertainment flavour to his programmes and also probably to sell advertising, would insist on changes or gimmicks in many of the programmes. I suggest that in a typical subject, say, such as agriculture, our television does hold prospects of making a very big contribution to our national production, because the visual means is about the best way to reach the farming community at present. I regret that we have made little or no effort to reach them by radio, that the agricultural talks have been few and that they just do not seem to impact—the spoken word is gone. You can speak to farmers on the necessity for early grass and all that. You can have your 15-minute talk over the radio but ask afterwards: "Well, what about it?" and you will find that in nine cases out of 10, it has made only a very vague impression.

Television seems to offer something more there in that in the middle of March coming, the most effective propaganda you could make for early grass would be to show in your agricultural programme practically every day of the week the cows of some farmer grazing out in this luscious grass, while this poor farmer at home looks out at his bare fields and sees there will be no grass for another six weeks. I submit that could have a tremendous effect, but such a programme should be autonomous to the extent that we, being an agricultural country and staking our whole future development on the increased production we want to get from agriculture, should give at least a five-year or 10-year lease or task to, say, the Agricultural Institute or any committee constituted between that body or the Department of Agriculture and the National Farmers' Association— anyway, some committee or body that will be regarded as being the body to stimulate agricultural production. You might call it the Agricultural Production Council, although in many ways there might be a strong case to be made for leaving it completely to the Agricultural Institute.

Why not give that body a programme of three-quarters of an hour each day? If they get that programme, I submit it should be completely their programme. It should be labelled as being the programme for farmers. Consequently, any of the complaints from other viewers that they did not like it just would not be entertained. I submit that a great deal of good could be done by that. But if you have agricultural production in such a programme, then you will have the pressure of advertisers trying to sell to the Irish farmer. That is something the Irish farmer is to be carefully guarded from, because at present there are far too many slick salesmen going around selling machinery that is in many cases not necessary to the farmer. The Agricultural Institute and other bodies recognise the necessity for the evaluation of equipment so as to ensure that equipment will get a rating and that the farmer, if he bought it, could rely that such was the best suited to his conditions. I am afraid, if advertising is to be one of the main means of financing this undertaking, that the big outside manufacturer, simply due to the fact he is paying for the advertisement, will be able to put it in without any consideration of whether a wrong article is being sold to the farmer or not. By "wrong", I mean an article he does not want or one that is not the best for our situation here. If such an agricultural programme were under the direction and control of the Agricultural Institute, it could fulfil that second most important function, too. I have no enthusiasm for agricultural production if it just means increased purchases of foreign-produced machinery.

Again, let us take an item like education. Education is something that has little or no advertising value. Those who will view any specific educational programme are scarcely likely to be of much value to advertisers. Consequently, unless education has a certain autonomy of its own or is entitled to a certain percentage of broadcasting time, I am afraid it will become, as it has been, the Cinderella of our television service.

Again, taking the question of religion, I do not see any reason why a suitable arrangement could not be made that, proportionately to their numbers, you would give, say, so many hours to Catholics and so many to non-Catholics. Of course, in judging the Commission's Report, many of the speakers have been a little unfair in that the Commission was unfortunately bound by terms of reference which were far too stringent and which seemed to rule out the establishment of the public authority which is now contemplated. Actually, it is a pity in a sense that the Government, having made that decision, did not at least recall the Commission to enable it to make a postscript to the Report.

I have outlined some of the costs of the service. I have shown that certainly it will cost £4,000,000 of private capital in buying sets and the indirect loss to the Government in taxation will be at least £1,000,000. The receipts from the receivers and sets, the annual charge, could bring in another £1,000,000. In other words, in effect, the whole thing is going to cost £6,000,000, or there abouts, a year. Costing that, I think it is wrong then to place so much emphasis on advertising which is estimated at most to bring in £300,000 or £400,000 a year; in other words, ten per cent. of the present total being spent nationally on advertising. If we go so far as spending £6,000,000 a year, then I suggest the tail should go with the hide and we should not be so preoccupied with that £300,000, which is five per cent. of the total.

It does not matter to me whether the money is provided by private enterprise or the Government or by the licence fee. It is still our money and comes out of our national income. Consequently, I would appeal that far less emphasis be placed on advertising and that advertising be kept within bounds. I have referred to the question of agricultural advertising, that we should advertise only those products that are accepted as being suitable for our community. I know that that is hard to carry through—it is not hard in the case of agriculture—but even if the loss in refusing a number of advertisements were one-quarter of the total— £100,000—what is £100,000 in comparison with the magnitude of the sum we are contemplating here? Certainly it is not sufficient if we want to provide a service and we should not let that either mar the service or lead our people into buying things they do not want or which are not suitable for them.

I would have no objection whatever to giving a certain State subsidy. The Minister in his opening speech showed that, in effect, there will be a gain to the State of £125,000 per annum in transferring sound broadcasting to this new body. In other words, the Post Office and the others will recoup themselves from Radio Eireann, for services they are now giving free, in the sum of £125,000 a year. Perhaps the subsidy could more effectively be given in what I suggested, in autonomous programmes, and the Agricultural Institute, having its five or six hours a week, could pay for that time. Of course the payment eventually would come out of the Government's pocket, but on the other hand, there is something coming back to the Government's pocket from the fact that Radio Eireann is now, as it were, on its own. These are many of the points we should consider very carefully.

There is just one other point about finance. It has been mentioned by several speakers that outside companies are prepared to provide the service solely for the advertising revenue. That does not impress me in the slightest because what does it mean? If the cost of advertisements was £400,000 or £500,000 a year, how could we force that outside company to give better programmes than they were giving if they could say to us: "Well, we cannot afford to buy those expensive telecasts. These programmes are within the limit of our £400,000. This is all we can get." What we would have, in effect, would be just the cheaper and poorer programmes that are provided by the English and the other television services, so I think that should be ruled out altogether.

Personally, I am very glad that the Government have not left this service to a private company because, in one sense, the semi-State body can give a far better service in that it can be made much more responsive to our national aspirations and needs and so on. If it cannot do that within the finances it has and if we are still to get the better programme, then the record of such bodies is that we shall have to provide the finance for the better things we need. Therefore, I congratulate the Government on that decision.

Again, I would ask the Government to hasten slowly in this matter. If it is felt that it is such an overriding consideration that we should try to have a service to compete with the B.B.C. in Ireland, north of the line from Dublin to Sligo, well, then, get into that region first, but you can be perfectly assured that down in the country we are in no hurry. We would far more appreciate help to develop our organisations, help to bring out our community and family life, to get our people more community-minded rather than less community-minded. My final plea would be that whatever we do, do not let us tie ourselves to an obsolete system based on the 405 line system because the certainty is in five years' time we shall be forced to make the change and in that period we shall have at least 200,000 obsolete sets on our hands.

I take it that, on Committee Stage, we shall be at liberty to put in amendments to this Bill. Some of the amendments I hope to table will be mainly tabled for discussion purposes, but some amendments may lead to certain changes. There are one or two very important recommendations in the Report of the Commission which are not covered in this Bill. One deals with rotation within the Authority; this matter of rotation is something I have advocated here quite often. The Commission were unanimous—not only were they unanimous but there was a great deal of strength behind their recommendation—that members should be appointed for three years. In the beginning, it will have to be staggered, but, after that, a member is not eligible for immediate reappointment. That is an excellent idea because, while we may occasionally lose some good man, we shall, on the other hand, be saved from stagnation. The ruin of this country is the automatic re-election that takes place in all phases of our life. Once an individual has been elected twice on a committee, we never like to oppose the poor fellow and we have to wait until he eventually dies before we can replace him or appoint somebody else. That is what has caused our present stagnation in agriculture, in education and in industry—indeed, as I said before, in every phase of our life. That is something we should guard against in this regard.

It has been suggested that a review should take place in five or ten years following the setting up of this Authority. We are all agreed that we are venturing into the unknown here; we do not know how this will work, but we have hopes. Surely the prudent thing to do is to take the advice af the Commission and incorporate in the Bill a provision for an automatic review five or ten years hence. I fought for such a review in the case of the Agriculture Institute and our President, who was then our Taoiseach, was quite approving of the idea; he said it was one of the amendments he would have liked to have accepted.

However, it was not accepted on that occasion but it is something for which we should press in this measure. It is something that should be pressed in relation to all semi-State bodies because it is the only safeguard and it is the only means by which we can exercise a legitimate—shall I say?—control in reshaping semi-State bodies when the need for such reshaping is of urgent necessity. A public demand for a commission to review implies, in effect, a vote of censure on the existing body. Therefore, the only solution is rotation. After all, if everything is working smoothly, the commission can report very quickly and that report may well be a pat on the back for the body. Provision for review is the only method by which we can make changes, should we wish to make them.

A suggestion was made with regard to recompensing members of the Authority. I know the position is a difficult one. At the moment, service by members on boards is not altogether satisfactory because some of them seem to think that their thinking should begin only when they come to a meeting, probably having lost the agenda. It is essential that the members of this body should be part-time so that they can be made to feel that their services far surpass just the few hours they may be required to attend at meetings.

Mr. O'Grady

It is a pleasure to me to find that we have in the Seanad so many experts on this subject. I would not dream of intervening, because I cannot claim to be an expert in this subject, but for the fact that a certain remark was passed by one of the earlier speakers in the debate advising the Minister in relation to appointments to the controlling body. I refer to a statement made by Senator Stanford that he hoped the Minister would find a place and give a seat on this body to the minority. I am as anxious as any man to ensure fairplay; we are all of us anxious to give fairplay to the minority and to everybody else. It would, I think, be an extraordinary state of affairs after 30 years of self-government, if we, at this stage, failed in our responsibilities. During all those 30 years, I have never heard of there being any necessity for a claim by anybody for fairplay. If such an instance occurred during the past 30 years, irrespective of whatever Government happened to be in office, I should like to hear of it.

My advice to the Minister would be that if there are two, three or four members of the minority more highly qualified than any of their fellow countrymen, they should be appointed to the Authority; but they should be appointed because of their qualifications and not because they happen to be members of the minority. According to our Constitution, every citizen of this State must be considered for any position that arises, provided he or she fulfils the necessary qualifications. I hope we shall never have a Government, or a Minister in that Government, who would take the point of view that it is not qualifications that matter but rather a personal adherence. Nothing is better calculated to perpetuate unfortunate divisions amongst us, divisions fostered from outside, than the plea for considerations of that kind on an occasion like this.

I speak as one who was blissfully innocent for many years of any such division, for the simple reason that I had grown to be almost as big and as ugly-looking as I am to-day before I knew or met people of a different religious persuasion. That is quite literally true. I was born in an area 99 per cent Catholic. I regret that the occasion has arisen now which makes it necessary for me to make this protest, because, as time went on, I lived with, worked with, was employed by and myself employed, members of the minority. I never had any differences with them in all my life. I trust that the Minister will use his own judgment and common sense when appointing the members of this body and that he will appoint those who will give the best possible service to the community, irrespective of creed or political affiliations.

Senator McGuire referred to the question of appointments and I agree with him in his view that such appointments should be made on merit alone. I believe the Minister and the Government will be fully appreciative of their responsibilities to the community. We are establishing a precedent now and I trust that the Government will choose the best team possible, realising that these very responsible appointments require the best possible men we can get.

Senator McGuire, and some other Senators, were anxious that the Minister should not be given the powers proposed in relation to advising this new Authority. Who would be in a better position, on behalf of the community, than the Minister who carries the responsibility of his office? Who better than the Minister can be brought to book if there is anything wrong? There will be many members in the Dáil and in the Seanad to bring to public notice anything which they may think necesary or any charge they think necessary to make against the Minister. It might be extremely difficult to bring any other kind of body to book. I should like to know from subsequent speakers, if they would deprive the Minister of these powers, what is the alternative? Who will be responsible to the people if not the Minister?

Senator Quinlan wants to defer this whole matter for five or ten years on certain grounds. I do not profess to be an expert on this but I am surprised to hear Senator Quinlan, who advocates an advanced policy in other walks of life, speaking in this way. If we do not keep abreast of the times we shall get completely lost. When it comes to a choice of the type of screen to use, I am sure the Minister and the Authority will get the advice and the services of the best possible technicians. No responsible Minister would take it upon himself to determine that we must have a 405-line standard or a 625-line standard. I know the Minister will get the advice of experts on the subject; otherwise I do not think he would be capable of carrying on the business at all.

Senator Quinlan also suggests that in certain circumstances he would be prepared to subsidise television. That is one question on which I should like to differ with him. We have too many subsidies and it is time to cry halt to the granting of subsidies. This new Authority, when set up, should be able to stand on its own feet without subsidies and without any other extraneous forms of support.

Mr. Burke

This is an opportunity for broadcasting by the Seanad, particularly when the Dáil is not in session, and from the scope of the debate the opportunity has been very well used. I was very interested in some of the statements made yesterday. Some of the eminent bachelor professors spoke on family life. It reminds me of the occasion when an eminent university professor who is now deceased said: "This is a subject about which I know nothing and, therefore, I am eminently qualified to discourse thereon at length." However, I shall use brevity as the soul of wit. I believe, to make a pun, that seeing is believing and I think there is an enormous opportunity for good in television. Up to recently I was rigidly opposed to it. I thought it would destroy family life, that it would change most of the things that were good in Ireland, that it would destroy the opportunities we had of appreciating literature and for reading, opportunities that the people in rural Ireland can enjoy more often than people like myself who are forced to live in towns and to spend much of their time in the capital city.

In my business, and particularly as a member of the committee of the Bacon Curers' Association, I have to make many journeys to Britain and the Continent, investigating this present-day problem of marketing. One of the things borne in on me, the more investigations I make, is the extraordinary difficulty in getting across to the people any of the knowledge which we acquire in our association with those who know the technique of marketing, who have a knowledge of the proper operation of sales techniques and an appreciation of consumer demand.

Our association co-operates with the National Farmers' Association, with the Department of Agriculture, with the progeny testing stations, etc. They give demonstrations all over the country on the proper type of product, but not 1 per cent. of the people have ever seen or had the benefit of these demonstrations or shows. We have brought some of the greatest experts over from Denmark, Britain and other countries to give us talks and even to speak to our farmers but very few have had the benefit of these talks.

If we are to go forward and compete successfully with people trying to take our place in the British market, the proper use by our Government of the television service will allow us to make up a great deal of the slack in our educational "know-how" in regard to the presentation of our goods. For well over 50 years our competitors have been devoting all their energies, their minds and their wills towards the development of proper processing, marketing, etc., and towards acquiring a knowledge of the technique in relation to consumer demand and all the other techniques required in winning markets. During much of that time we have been interested in winning our freedom, may be having odd squabbles among ourselves and getting over some of our growing pains. The Bill before the House can help us to make up a good deal of that deficiency. Recently, I have had a number of discussions with various interested parties, including the officials of the Department of Agriculture, in this connection, and I think that television will be one medium that will help us more than any other.

If I were Minister or, to say an unpopular thing, if I were dictator, I would stipulate that a very large proportion of the programmes would be used for the type of education that would benefit the economy, that would help us quickly to have as high, or nearly as high, a per capita income as the people of Britain and the North of Ireland enjoy because the man-in-the-street suggests to those who are in politics, industry or commerce that we are inefficient, that we are unable to do our job, if we cannot give the people of this little island, in the year 1960, the same standards as are enjoyed in the neighbouring island. Through the medium of television, some of the reasons we are unable to enjoy these standards, why we are unable to have as much of the markets and why we are unable to present our goods as attractively as our neighbours, can be shown.

The very best men, those who know most about these matters, can be produced on television, so that everyone may see them. If knowledge has to be disseminated in other ways, it is very often the third, fourth and even the tenth best man who is sent down to the country hall to give the information. Very often, very few go to listen to him, if the hall is as cold and inhospitable as some country halls, to which I have often had to go, have been. Perhaps it was because some of the gospels I was preaching were political gospels. Be that as it may, accommodation will be given on T.V. to people to expound political views. Thanks be to goodness, this is a democracy and we make no apology to those who disdain politicians.

Having dealt adequately with that point, I should like to make a few other observations before concluding. The first is that the Government would be wise to have the first stations established in the south and west. I would imagine that, roughly, a line drawn from Waterford to Westport would indicate the area in which television is not received. There is no reason why the citizens of Galway, Limerick, Cork, Waterford and the large towns like Tralee, Clonmel and others should not have an opportunity to enjoy Irish television before it is made available for the rest of the country.

Another reference I should like to make—it may affect particularly those engaged in industry—is to the provision in the Third Schedule for comprehensive and what some people may regard as penal regulations governing the use of devices to prevent interference. Even a small industry may have as many as 50 electric motors installed. I should hate to think that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs would be able to send a notice to the effect that every motor in that establishment was to be properly controlled by the fitting of suppressors within a certain date. I have no idea of the cost involved or the dislocation it might cause to the industry concerned. Every housewife in the country might be required to fit suppressors to vacuum cleaners, washing machines and all the other gimmicks of modern civilisation. The Minister should give us some indication of the cost of these fittings. I understand that suppressors are very cheap but the members of the Electrical Trade Union are probably among the highest paid in the world and it is not the cost of the equipment but the cost of having suppressors fitted that may cause a great deal of inconvenience and dislocation.

Finally, I believe that the newest possible system should be adopted. Television has a certain status value, nationally. If we have no television service, tourists conclude that we are backward in a technological sense. If they found that we had a more modern system in operation than the British system, our prestige would be enhanced. We would be regarded as being a progressive and up-to-date country. It has been suggested that the Minister may leave this matter to the technicians, but there are all sorts of considerations involved when a Minister has to decide such matters. There are political, economic, technical considerations, and many others. I would include the consideration of prestige.

I visited a country in Western Europe which, 20 years ago, was considered backward. The authorities there had installed the most modern telephone system in Europe. A large American company had been retained to install and to operate it for a certain number of years until it became a paying concern. It was a pleasure to use that telephone service. The favourable comment of tourists and others was out of all proportion to the cost of the service. That service enhanced the prestige of the country.

The television service which we provide will be talked about by tourists and others. Let us have even colour television. When we are having the service, let us not take two bites of a cherry; let us take one bite and have the very best and most up-to-date system, even if its costs a bit more.

I want to congratulate the Minister and his Department on this very comprehensive measure. There may be other comments which I have to make but which would be more appropriate on Committee Stage. I only wish that the passage of the Bill will be swift and that we shall get a good Bill, that we shall be able to get on with the job of providing a television service for the people. I trust the service will have an educational bias because adult education and the development of the adult approach required in the modern world have been too long delayed in Ireland. It is in that respect that an Irish television service can make the greatest contribution to the well-being and the progress of the people of this country which we all, in our own way, are trying to serve.

Mr. O'Reilly rose.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

May I remind Senators that there are a number of Senators who wish to speak and that the Minister is to get in at 3.30? Therefore, I would ask Senators to be brief. I am not addressing that remark in particular to Senator O'Reilly.

Mr. O'Reilly

The speech made by Senator Burke was refreshing because we were treated to rather mournful and doubting oratory last night and today. It was refreshing to listen to Senator Burke because he is hopeful and confident that this Bill will be the foundation of a wholesome and sound television service. With Senator Burke, I hope and trust that the Bill is the foundation on which this nation will develop a television service worthy of our best traditions. I think it a pity that so many speakers were pessimistic in their approach to this measure. It is a new departure and, despite what people say, it really is the beginning of an epoch.

It is very hard to know what line to take in making a statement on this Bill since so many people just touched on a line or lines and apparently became afraid of getting involved. They retreated immediately without making any very definite pronouncement one way or the other in regard to certain matters. I am inclined to say something about the mechanics of the system which will be established.

There is no indication in the Minister's speech—mind you, I do not blame him for that—nor is there any in the White Paper issued with the Bill or in the Bill itself as to exactly the line or lines upon which our television service will be established. That may be all for the good but still I think it would be right that Senators, so far as they think they are able, should say something on this matter. I regret, therefore, that so many Senators on all sides of the House, who touched on this matter of the line standard, seemed afraid to come down definitely one way or the other.

It is not much help to the Minister or anybody else to touch on a matter, criticise it but refrain from coming down definitely, rightly or wrongly, one way or the other. One is inclined to take the view that people who do that are deliberately refraining from committing themselves but then want to be free to criticise the impact when a decision is made. Whether we decide on a 405 line standard, a 625 line standard or an 819 line standard, as exists in Belgium and France— Belgium is the only country in Europe broadcasting on two standards—it is bound to involve much criticism because it will lead to certain hardships. It is because of that risk and the unpopularity of taking a side in this matter that so many people have refrained from expressing a definite view. They would like to see the Minister doing all and then take a crack at him when the decision has been made.

I am foolish enough to be inclined to take the risk of coming down—I know it is an unpopular thing to do— on a particular side. I am not saying, that I have any technical knowledge of this matter but I have some views. If one could be sure that technical considerations were the only considerations in that decision, then I should be happy enough but I feel that regard will also be had to economic and political considerations when a decision is being made. I feel I have a function to make up my own mind and come down on a particular side, irrespective of what decision is made by the people whose duty it is to make a decision.

I am inclined to come down in favour of the line standard used by the majority and in all of continental Europe. My information is—I must say it is not from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs that I have got my information; it may be wrong information but I believe it is right— that a 625 line standard is used in Algeria, Austria, Belgium, East Germany, West Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Holland, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the U.S.S.R. France, Luxembourg, and Belgium use an 819 line standard which gives better clarity to the broadcast picture. Belgium, which is a small country, can afford and see fit to broadcast on a 625 line standard and an 819 line standard. I am not sufficiently in touch with the mechanics or the financial implications of this matter to suggest that something like that should be done here, but I am sure that before any decision is made, some regard will be had to the fact that Belgium, which is like this country in many ways and particularly in this matter, does broadcast on two line standards.

The reason I feel so hot and bothered about this matter and inclined to come down definitely in favour of the general European standard is this. I have always regretted, since I am bad at mathematics, that we had not the metric system in this country. I have heard—and I am sure many of us have heard—that once upon a time, when the French were deciding on the metric system, some scientist measured the distance from the equator to the North Pole and one ten-millionth part of it was regarded as a metre. Whether he was correct in the measurement, the fact remains that every person who attempted to do the measurement since has always arrived at a different figure. Because of the unfortunate historical fact that Britain was at war with the French at that time, it was not expedient to adopt the metric system adopted by the rest of continental Europe. Instead, they swung a pendulum in Westminster, London, and they called it the yardstick. They stamped it on a brass bar. They could not afford to stamp it on a platinum bar as the French had done. It is a long time since I read that but I think the effect of it was that we have this duplication.

Business suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. O'Reilly

Before the suspension of business, I was referring to the parallel position that existed when the metric system was introduced in continental Europe and the failure, because of political reasons, to adopt that system in these islands, with its consequences to the present day. Had that been done, it would have made it easier for many of us who are not good at mathematics. We would not have suffered as much punishment at school as we did in trying to do multiplication, division, subtraction and addition. I have always regarded it as a tragic factor in the history of Europe that we were unable to adopt the metric system, to have the standard which is the standard in the rest of Europe and, without going too far from the Bill, I hope and trust that the people who are dealing with the introduction of a standard system here, a metric system, will be successful.

An Cathaoirleach

Of course the metric system has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. O'Reilly

We have now to decide the method by which we shall approach television. There should be more thought, more study, another search and another look into the matter. The decision should be made only by the people whose duty it is to make it. It should be made at the last moment only, because of the ever-changing technical development which is continually taking place. What I fear is that we would find ourselves in the same position as that in which we found ourselves with regard to the system which compels people buying pigs to weigh in cwts., quarters and lbs. and people buying grain to weigh in cwts., stones and lbs. That is ridiculous and I fear that we might adopt another outmoded system by adopting the lowest standard in television broadcasting, the 405 standard.

It is a fact that on the smaller screens, at a reasonable distance from the screen, people with normal vision can get a fairly good picture, that is, people who are blessed with 65 vision, which is the standard of vision required for recruitment to the Garda, but not all people are blessed by nature with 65 vision. Quite a number of people in this country have not got 65 vision. If the eyesight of all our people were tested, I would hazard a guess that at least 40 per cent would be found to be under that standard. I may be wrong in that. It is just a guess and one man's guess is as good as another's.

That being so, and in view of the fact that, so far as one can judge from ordinary observation, the tendency in television broadcasting is towards the bigger type of screen, towards the panel type of screen in public places outside this country, if we adopt the 405 line standard, a poor quality picture will be produced if we ever get as far as having 27 inch or 30 inch screens. I say that because I think most people realise that the bigger the screen, the less detailed the picture becomes. That is particularly so when there is a low line standard. Hence there is a strict limit to any development which can take place here or in Britain under the 405 line standard.

Unless some development takes place that does not appear at the moment, there is no reasonable hope of an increase in the screen size in Britain or here under the 405-system. According to my information, the number of sets in operation in Britain is about equal to that for the rest of Continental Europe. It is estimated that there are about 4,000,000 sets in operation in Britain. That being so, it would, financially and economically, be possible for Britain, because of the huge income from the system there, to adopt two line standards.

I suggest that, before very long, Britain will adopt the 625-line standard and then Britain will be in line in this matter with the rest of continental Europe, except France and Belgium. Britain may be able to afford to continue for some time the operation of the 405-line standard. I can see the difficulties that would arise in Britain if suddenly they were to cease operating on the 405-line standard because of the huge number of sets already in operation there. I suggest that what will happen is that Britain will adopt the two systems and then gradually the 405-line standard will become obsolete. Once sets at present in operation become obsolete, there will be no further necessity for Britain to operate the 405 line standard.

When the 625 line standard is adopted in Britain, people there will buy new sets capable of receiving transmissions on that standard. Then we shall be in this position: If we are foolish enough now to adopt the existing system in Britain, we shall find ourselves with an outmoded standard that does not allow any room for development. Public opinion will force us to mend our hand. After spending huge sums in capital investment, we shall be forced to adopt the continental standard of 625.

The Minister may argue that it would be more expedient to adopt the French system of 819, which would give a better picture. If that is decided upon, I shall be very happy indeed. For the ordinary viewer, it will mean, even on a big screen, that he can sit quite close and get a picture in clear detail without any hardship on the eyesight. I regret that so many speakers from every side of the House have touched on this matter but do not seem to have the moral courage to come firmly to a decision.

I am aware that I am making an unpopular argument. I come from an area where television sets are quite common and where there is pretty good reception. In a decision such as this, there will always be a certain amount of hardship but the least hardship would be caused by making this decision now. Existing sets would become obsolete. Possibly they would have a sale value in England. It is even possible that some people would retain them for the reception of programmes from the two stations in Northern Ireland. It would be tragic to adopt this system just because it is in operation in England and in the Six Counties.

An Cathaoirleach

Perhaps, in view of the short time available to the Seanad to complete the discussion on the Bill, the Senator would avoid repeating his arguments.

Mr. O'Reilly

This matter was dealt with by the Commission. The Government did not accept the major recommendations in the Commission's Report and I do not think the Minister should feel bound to accept the recommendation on this issue, either. All I ask is that, if a decision has been taken, it be re-examined and, finally, that the decision be taken only at the latest possible moment because some new development may take place in a very short time which would completely decide the issue.

No indication has been given of costs. The Bill provides for the setting-up of the Television Authority. There are, too, the financial provisions. It is also provided that one authority shall control sound broadcasting and television. I do not think any of us can have any criticism of these provisions or, indeed, of anything in the Bill.

Power is taken to deal with interference and it is about time that were done. I trust the power will be exercised. It may have to be exercised by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs even in dealing with people such as the E.S.B. I hope the power will be effectively operated.

Some people have given a very poor reception to the Bill. Therefore, it was good to hear Senator Burke, who seems to have faith and trust. I was alarmed when I heard people such as Senator O'Quigley refer yesterday evening to skullduggery and suggest that certain sections of the Bill are deliberately intended to make room for administrative sharp practice. We should have a little more faith.

At first, Senator O'Quigley began to talk about line standards but he got off that very quickly and got on to moral standards. The tone of his speech suggested that we are a cut above the British in moral standards, but then it did not seem that we are, because the first thing he decided to do was to accuse the people who may be at the top of skullduggery, and so on. That does not set a very high standard.

I hope and trust this Bill will provide for the setting-up of a Television Authority which will give a good service to the Irish people, in keeping with their traditions. I hope and trust it will be of educational value; of good, clean entertainment value; of cultural value; and that it will be an asset in the restoration of the Irish language.

I also hope television will be a medium for disseminating education, particularly to the rural community. I do not think there should be undue delay in this matter, as was suggested by Senator Quinlan. I think the farmers have quite a lot to learn through the use of television. I foresee that the rural people will represent a substantial part of the viewers when our television service comes into operation and I hope the Authority will ensure that a good educational service is given to the rural community.

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair at this stage would like to get some indication as to the number of speakers.

Dr. O'Donovan

I should like to say a few words, Sir.

Mr. Donegan

I shall try to be as brief as possible in order not to prevent other speakers from expressing their views. Senator Quinlan and Senator O'Reilly both had a bee in their bonnets about lineage. In fact, when I heard Senator Quinlan on it— he was more emphatic than Senator O'Reilly—what I wrote down was: "If ‘Schnozzle' Durante were Senator Quinlan, he would refer to the adoption of the 405 standard as a ‘catastrascope'." I do not think it would be a "catastrascope" at all, because the British standard is 405. We have been told we have 30,000 television sets here. I believe that figure is already historical and that we have, perhaps, 40,000 or 50,000 sets. If we adopt another standard, those sets will become entirely obsolete.

We must remember that television has no borders and no barriers. If you have good reception, you can get your television programme, whether it is disseminated from the Kremlin, Divis or Kippure. When we institute our Irish television service, we must be prepared to compete with other services. Our people—patriotic and nationally-minded as they may be— will sit down at night and look and listen to the programme they prefer. If it comes from Divis, they will definitely tune in to Divis. If our service is on a different lineage, they will spend many evenings looking at their neighbour's set which can receive our service before they will decide to scrap their own set and get another one.

We have no choice. We must proceed with Britain because their service is the only one being received over approximately half the country. If they change over to 625, we must change over to 625. At one stage, Senator Quinlan produced a fantastic figure for the number of obsolete sets if we took 405 as a standard and then had to change over to 625. He then disproved himself by saying that a competent engineer had told him that for £100,000 extra, we could have two transmissions on two separate lineages. It does not matter whether all the European countries have separate lineage or not. It is true that you can get "canned" programmes on different lineages transmitted over 405. There are the Danish stars, Nina and Frederika, the beautiful singing act— they are husband and wife—that is transmitted on 405 from Divis. The Perry Como Show is also "canned" and transmitted for us on 405. Therefore, this point about lineage has been laboured far too much.

I also believe that the point about education has been overdone. We all get up expressing pious hopes about what will be done. But my argument still holds good: if our educational programme is less attractive than the programmes coming from elsewhere, a turn of the knob will switch us off and the other people on. We would, in fact, be limited by competition in ordinary trade in what the people will look at and listen to. We shall not be able to give them a parcelled-up programme and insist that they look at it. Instead they will be the people who will make the choice. It is right that it should be so. The result will be that we shall have an incentive to provide better programmes which will grip our people and compete with educational and entertainment programmes from abroad.

One small point was made by a Senator on the question of religious programmes. As far as I can see, they are ruled out entirely. However, I believe that will be amended and they will be accepted. That Senator said explicitly that the allocation of time should be in direct proportion to the numbers in each religious denomination. As a member of the majority denomination here, I would regard that as unfair. While it would be fair to give an exact proportion of space in a newspaper to a religious minority, it would be unfair in the case of television. I believe that the fact of having one religious broadcast for a minority as against 20 for the majority would mean that all the impact would be lost. Therefore, I believe we should have to err on the side of the minority to achieve any impact at all.

I disagree with the view expressed by Senator Quinlan that the installation of television equipment here should be delayed. Last week, I saw an interview with people who came over from African states where television is to be established. We are very far ahead of the ordinary African State and I think we must move on. The Commission was a good idea, but the restriction of their terms of reference was a very bad idea and it did impact upon their work, but good work there was, and we must pay a tribute to them.

We must never forget the power of television. We have here a susceptible people—people not quite so used as, say, the British people to the impact of theatres, newspapers, high pressure advertising and the general impact of life in an industrialised state. Our people are susceptible to what they read in the newspapers to a greater extent than are the British. I believe that is because we are largely a rural community. It is a very good thing and it means that we are not—shall we say?—so far advanced in our approach to these things. There is an initial investment in sets of £10,000,000 and the Government intend to spend £2,000,000. Therefore, we have at the outset this £10,000,000 installation within the country to disseminate news, entertainment and— breathe it softly—possibly propaganda. When we look at the estimates in the Report of the Commission—I do not want to delay the House by quoting them—we find that in a few years, television will either be in every home or that the people will go down to see it in their pubs, clubs and parish halls. Television will be within the reach of everybody.

Again I want to stress the point that this is not a newspaper with 13 or 14 pages from which one picks out what one wants to read and does not read the rest. If you sit before a television receiver, you have to select a programme, and you have got only two or three choices at most, and you are given a readymade transmission of thought, of idea and of programme. That means, of course, that as a weapon of propaganda, and as an impact on the minds of the people, television is the biggest thing that ever happened in this country. The newspapers generally would be nothing more than "tuppeny-ha' penny" outfits in relation to the impact on the minds of the people that television will have. That power is something that has not been grasped, if I have listened correctly to this debate. I did not hear anybody making special mention of the fantastic power for good or evil this will have. That power is there; let us hope it will be for good.

I should prefer to see a greater autonomy given to the Authority and when I read the Report of the Commission, I found that there was a reservation made on page 51, by Commander George Crosbie, Sir Richard Levinge, Very Rev. Dr. John Canon McCarthy, Padraig O Caoimh, Aindreas O Muimhneachain and Donnchadh O Suilleabháin. To me, this reservation was most interesting and I quote from paragraph 2:

The Commission has accepted that: "If the necessary capital was available there is little or no doubt that television should, if possible, be provided on the basis of a public service."

Then in paragraph 3, they say:—

We believe that ownership of the transmitting service by the Authority is the country's best security against undesirable programmes and against the risk that the television service may be subordinated to purely commercial considerations.

I should like to add here, in a very general way and without suggesting anything that might offend the people opposite or over here "or other considerations"—not only commercial, but over a wide field.

Paragraph 4 reads:—

The Television Authority should in our opinion have little difficulty in raising the necessary capital within the State, either from private or commercial sources, or both. Moreover, the licence revenue recommended by the Commission would in itself be sufficient security to cover the interest and sinking fund of the capital required.

Now, that at first sight might appear to be an extraordinary opinion but it is backed by two men whose abilities and activities I am familiar with. One of them is Mr. O Caoimh and I am sure everybody knows about him. He has made a great business success of the G.A.A. Everybody will concede that he is an excellent businessman who knows his job. The other man is Sir Richard Levinge. I regard him as one of the best brains that have carried Messrs. Arthur Guinness to the position they hold to-day. These two men are of the opinion that the money could be got and I support them.

After the I.T.V. was floated as a commercial concern in Britain—not that there is a very direct comparison here—the shilling share rocketed. To-day it is worth somewhere in the neighbourhood of £3. I am not suggesting that we could look for that sort of thing but if the shilling share, which was sufficient, in the first instance, to put I.T.V. into business, could rocket to £3, would it not be right to say that very possibly the shares which anyone would buy here —although in a smaller economy— would at least hold their own? I believe that that minority reservation should have been followed and that money could have been got on the open market. There might be a danger of money coming in from abroad and the men who made money from I.T.V. might say: "Here we go again," and there would be a necessity for some safeguards.

I believe autonomy could have been achieved in the best way if that reservation had been followed and I am basing that statement on the opinion of the two men I know who contributed to that minority reservation. When we come to the question of autonomy, I think Section 31 has been laboured sufficiently. I do not want to delay the House but I do want to give specific instances and in making accusations here I want to include Senators on my side of the House with Senators opposite. I am not levelling at them any charge that I am not levelling at ourselves. I want to give three instances of boards appointed by the Government and which were appointed entirely from Government supporters and I say that when we were in Government, or part of the Government, we did the same thing.

An Cathaoirleach

I would ask the Senator, in view of his remarks, to be certain to keep to the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Donegan

Certainly. The Bill prescribes that the Authority shall be named in person by the Minister and I want to point out that, in three instances, this practice has been followed. In the three instances involved, excellent men on both sides have been appointed and the work done has been very good but it is a different sort of work from that involved here.

The three I refer to are the Agricultural Credit Corporation, the Hospitals Commission and Bórd na gCon. I shall pass on immediately and say their work is work that does not impinge in the way in which this powerful medium will impinge on the minds of the Irish people. Therefore, it is unfair and unwise that this Authority should be entirely appointed by the Government because the danger arises, first, that you will not get the best men, and secondly, that the best men, with the best interests, will, willy-nilly, because of their associations, because of their friends and because of their beliefs, tend to have disseminated on the television medium a type of programme which will not be in the best interests of the country, no matter what Government are in power, whether we or Senators opposite. I do want to say again that I do not wish to impute any bad ideas to these Senators. I do want to say that the Authority appoints the staff, so that right down through the whole framework of the direction of the Authority and the direction of the undertaking, there is that appointment by the Government.

There is one question that was not asked and I want to ask it. We now have 40,000 or 50,000 television sets and when we have got our own service which will give television to the entire Republic of Ireland, this number will increase to perhaps 200,000. At that stage, it may well be that the Independent Television Authority will wish to install booster stations here because it will be worthwhile commercially. When the Minister is replying, will he indicate whether or not he will allow them to do so?

The U.T.V. are now broadcasting programmes which can be well received as far as Dublin city and beyond it. In the county I come from, there is almost as good reception as from the B.B.C. I can imagine that when the number of sets increases here by the operation of the new Authority, it may well be that it would be a commercial proposition, for I.T.V. to come in and put up booster stations so that places like Cork would receive that station, just as, with freak reception, at the moment, they can get the B.B.C. programme. I should like that question to be answered.

With regard to subsection (4) of Section 20, I think political advertisements should be allowed. Political programmes and advertisements would be desirable. It would be a good thing if people could see and hear the politicians making their case. The B.B.C. has a programme every Friday night during the Parliamentary Session in which two M.P.s from opposing political Parties give their views on a certain set subject, with an independent chairman. I think that is an excellent idea. I see no reason why we should hide our light under a bushel; Radio Éireann should have Deputies and Senators giving their views over the air, not only at election time but on other suitable occasions.

I should like the Minister to answer the few questions I have asked. I wish this undertaking every success. I think that the Government have done a good job in grappling with the problem so very quickly.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I welcome the Minister's introductory remarks partly because of his careful attention to detail but, more so, because of the spirit in which the Bill was presented to us—a spirit of imagination, initiative and trust, trust in the new Authority particularly.

Senator Hayes said he thought the Bill was vague. I do not agree. I think the Bill is precise where it needs to be precise and gives all the necessary detail, where that is requisite, without cluttering up the measure with a plethora of quite unnecessary detail. It is an excellent Bill. It is a carefully drafted Bill. A great deal is left to the Authority. That is the way it should be. It is no good setting up an Authority and shackling it before it can even get down to work. The Government are to be congratulated on a courageous Bill. They are to be congratulated on tackling the matter in the right way. The Bill provides an excellent framework for the new service and, at the same time, for a reestablishment of sound broadcasting.

It is only right that we should at this juncture pay tribute to Radio Éireann, particularly to Radio Éireann in recent years. In that connection I think one should mention the present Minister for Transport and Power; it was he who had the vision to see that all was not well with Radio Éireann, and it was he who had the courage to transfer a good deal of erstwhile Ministerial power and control to the new Director. By so doing he succeeded in greatly improving the general standard of our sound broadcasting. The new Director, too, Mr. Maurice Gorham and his team of workers, deserve tribute for the way in which they have gradually and steadily over the past few years raised the standards in practically every field—drama, music, talks and debates. That does not mean that I think everything they do is wonderful, but, looking back 20 years, I think everyone will agree that today Radio Éireann provides a better and more varied service than it did formerly. It is a service which is less afraid of ideas, for one thing, than it was formerly.

We can all remember the days when Radio Éireann was afraid to mention any controversial subject. From that point of view it has been allowed to grow up in recent years. All the better for it, and for the country. It can go further in that field, as it can go further in practically every field. Yet it is true that in practically every aspect now, it can bear comparison with equivalent teams in services with a great deal more money at their disposal than Radio Éireann has. It has built up an orchestra, a dramatic company, teams of technicians, workers and advisers. All these can stand such comparisons.

Senator O'Brien made an excellent contribution to the debate. He underlined the things that should be underlined in relation to our present system and in relation to our hopes for the future. In particular, he stressed the educational value of television. While I have some sympathy with Senator Donegan's plea that we should be realistic about this and remember that it is no good having wonderful programmes if people will not look at them, there is no doubt that the educational value of broadcasting can be enhanced in this country. Compare our failure to provide broadcasts for schools with the brilliant programmes regularly produced by the B.B.C. in relation to pretty well every subject. It is high time we brought about a beginning at least in this field.

I remember being asked in a Brains Trust not so very long ago what kind of television I should like to have in Ireland; my answer was: "Invisible". Some of the programmes would, I think, be more tolerable if one did not have to look at them. The music is quite good. It strikes me that many singers' programmes are greatly disimproved because one can see so clearly the singer's tonsils. I do not think a song is improved by a close-up view of someone's tonsils in action. They play an important part admittedly in producing the sound, but they have no aesthetic appeal. Television is a medium which can be mishandled. However, I have confidence that we shall set about the task intelligently. We shall certainly make mistakes but, within the framework provided by this Bill, I believe we shall achieve success.

The success, or failure, of the new scheme will depend in great measure on the talent and personality of the new Director-General. The Government cannot be too careful in their choice. They must pick someone with an independent mind, and it is no good hoping that they will get a strong man of tremendous personality who will do exactly what he is told. That is a contradiction in terms. It is essential that the Director-General shall be someone with personality and independence of mind and one must accept the disadvantages of that, if there are such, while also gleaning its benefits.

In subsection (2) of Section 12, it is stipulated that the requirement under subsection (1) that posts must be filled after public competition shall not apply to certain categories. There are two comments I must make here. First, public competition is, of course, a good thing and it is something that should be welcomed in regard to these posts, with the possible exception—I think it is a legitimate one—mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) in regard to those who are already employed in the service. But subsections (iii) and (iv) say exceptions should also be made in the case of offices for which "in the opinion of the Authority, specialised qualifications not commonly held are required." If a particular job requires specialised qualifications not commonly held, that is not an argument against advertising for the purpose of filling the post, because the fact that they are not commonly held does not necessarily mean there are not even two people who hold them. I think we should also advertise in such cases.

Clause (iv) makes an exception in the case of an office to which "appointments are made for limited periods only, periods not exceeding two years." We should not have that loophole. The Authority should not have the right to fill for two years, without public competition, certain posts purely on the grounds that these are short-time posts.

The next section to which I should to refer is Section 16 which deals with the general functions of the Authority. It is an excellent section. It covers everything that is required and, in relation to clause (j) of subsection (2), I compliment the Minister and the drafters of the Bill on recognising the necessity for the Authority having the right to publish magazines and so forth. I should like to see produced by this Authority journals with the value and repute of The Listener and The Radio Times. I am glad provision is made for that type of publication.

Reference has been made to Section 17. This is the section which deals with the fostering of the Irish language, with the national aim of "restoring the Irish language". The Authority must be allowed, if this paragraph is to be taken seriously, to do the job, not perfunctorily but intelligently, as if people wanted to teach Irish and not as if they wanted slabs of it churned out to a non-listening public. I do not think our language-teaching by radio—there have been exceptions; I am not condemning all of it—has been as imaginative as it could be and, consequently, as effective as it could be. For instance, the news in Irish is given first. If you take the case of a person who is struggling to learn the Irish language, it would be far better if he could hear the English news first and then listen to the Irish. Trying to listen to the Irish news, getting one-tenth, one-fifth or a quarter and then hearing the English version, is the wrong way round. There is too much lip service in this connection and not enough intelligent, active service. It must be remembered that broadcasting time is not necessarily listening-time.

On that point, too, one Senator mentioned listener research, which is essential. We should not only have listener research but publish the results. If listeners are asked: "Do you listen to the news in Irish?", we should be told what percentage of the listeners do, and what percentage do not. We have a tendency to avoid looking at the facts in the case of that type of research. Let us have that research, and look at the results.

Under Section 18, one might mention the question of impartiality. Occasionally in the news you get a kind of thing that should never happen, that a Minister's reply to a question or some kind of criticism is given by itself without any reference at all to the criticism. That is clearly not impartial and should never happen. If the Minister's reply is given, at least something of what occasioned the reply should be given.

Mr. O'Quigley

Or indeed, like what happened this morning, in the 9 o'clock news, when the whole of the Minister's statement was given and nothing of what Senators had to say.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

In defence of Radio Éireann it should be said there was last night from 10.45 p.m. to 11 p.m. a long, detailed, very good and graphic account of the debate yesterday, including a good deal of what Senator O'Quigley said and without any distortion of what he said. It included even his withdrawing on second thoughts of something he had said and his replacing of it by another word. If Senator O'Quigley had heard it, I do not think he would have held that it was not fair. Nevertheless sometimes owing to a technical reason for instance, or just slowness, a false impression may be given as was given in this same broadcast. That broadcast at 11 o'clock wound up, having mentioned Senator McGuire's speech, by saying that Senator McGuire was still speaking when the Seanad adjourned till 11 o'clock this morning. That left out the whole half hour in which we raised a matter on the adjournment, and this was not referred to at all. We finished here at 10 o'clock and that report finished at 11 o'clock. That is too slow. I am certain it was not deliberate censorship——

Mr. O'Quigley

Oh, now.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I say this advisedly, despite Senator O'Quigley's interjection, because this morning at 8 o'clock there was a very fair presentation of both sides of the case on this matter of the export of horses which I raised. I am saying I attribute that rather to technical slowness than to partiality, but it is a technical slowness that should not occur. If a discussion finishes at 10 o'clock it ought to be possible at 11 o'clock on Radio Éireann to say something about its having taken place.

In general, I would say in regard to this programme "To-day in the Dáil and Seanad"—and I am sure other Senators agree with me—the Seanad gets perhaps not a very fair proportion. I have no personal complaint, because in fact I get rather more of the time than others, perhaps because I get rather more than my share of the time here. However, in relation to the Seanad as a whole, the Seanad does not get as much attention in the programme as it merits. I hear some rather trivial things reported about the Dáil, but some excellent speeches have been made here and passed over. I am not referring to myself because, as I say, I think I get rather more than my share.

The next point I would refer to is in regard to Section 26. I welcome the fact that the Authority will produce an annual report and that we shall have copies of it placed before each House of the Oireachtas. That gives us an opportunity, if necessary, to debate the points raised in it.

The last section I want to mention is Section 31. This is the Section which gives the Minister a complete and absolute veto, without appeal, upon any particular matter that is to be broadcast. The Minister told us— I am certain he is sincere—that in fact he does not anticipate ever having to use this. I am certain he would be most reluctant to use it but I do not like, as a member of the Oireachtas, to grant power of this kind even with a personal promise that it will not be abused. If we trust the Authority, I do not think we need give the Minister the power of veto. I am prepared to rely, as the Minister said in his opening speech, on their commonsense and judgment not to use material which it would not be in the public interest to use. I object even more strongly to subsection (3) of the same Section which says:

The Authority may, subject to the consent of the Minister, announce that a direction has been given under this Section.

This means that the Authority may not mention that an item has been omitted by direction, unless the Minister allows them to do so. That is very bad. You might, at a pinch, say he must have the right to stop certain things but surely we have a right to be told that he has done so. The Minister is telling us he is not going to use this, but he has the power to prevent our knowing that he is using it.

Subject to these criticisms of details, I welcome the Bill, and I am very glad the Minister has resisted the temptation to yield to commercialism. I was glad to notice that Senator Quinlan came out very strongly in favour of State enterprise as against private enterprise. I notice that when he said "finally"—I am sorry he is not here to hear me say this—he did not seem to advert to the full meaning of the word. I could not help feeling that if, for example, 90 per cent. of the graduates of his university were to be brought by him to Croke Park to a final, they might find themselves at a semi-final, a quarter final or an eighth final, owing to the rather liberal interpretation which he gives to the word "final." I agree with him, however, that the Government have been very wise to keep the control of this in their hands and to set up an Authority under their power. The Government are also to be congratulated warmly on the main principles and the general pattern and structure of the Bill. We all wish the new Authority the best of luck in its two fields.

Dr. O'Donovan

Many years ago, I said something on this subject and I was somewhat amazed to hear that it was dug out of the archives when the Bill was about to be prepared. If a country wants to be regarded as modern, it must have a television service. When a country is small, with limited resources, such a service must be of the best quality possible. While this Bill does not tell the whole story and is not a good forecast of what will happen, it is fair and reasonable to welcome it in much the same way as the last speaker did. I thought that some of his remarks displayed a remarkable lack of a sense of humour on the whole matter. I give place to nobody in my interest in television as I have spent a great deal of time over the past couple of years looking at television programmes—I might say the B.B.C. programmes alone. Perhaps, as a result of the surfeit I got of them, I have not quite the same faith in television as Senator O'Brien but I have just as much faith in its power from time to time as Senator Donegan.

We all know the kind of shows that interest different people. The first time there was a set in my family— I used only look at the news—I came in one evening and I was told to sit down, that Perry Como was coming on. I asked who Perry Como was and I was told to be quiet and sit down. That is typical of what happens in any family in relation to television. You are always told to "hush". It has been said that T.V. kills conversation.

There are exceptionally good shows, including the one I have mentioned and also the one in which Eamonn Andrews appears, "What's my Line". You have a good view of the different personalities, particularly Gilbert Harding. It does provide a great deal of interest for the family. If we succeed, as I hope we shall—indeed, it is almost certain we shall—perhaps, we shall build up one or two programmes like the popular half-hour on our radio. I do not care for them much myself. I do not mind saying it but I notice different people listening to them with great assiduity turning them on at the particular time. That is what we would want to build up. It will not last forever. People will always get tired of it. Whether it is "Mrs. Dale's Diary" or the popular Irish equivalent, you will get tired of it in the long run. I personally do not find them interesting. I do find, particularly on the sound radio, that light music is very pleasing.

I think the community owes a debt of gratitude to the 20 persons who were appointed on the Commission which was broadly based and fairly representative of all sections of the community. It is worth commenting in relation to the reservation mentioned by Senator Donegan signed by six people and the Minority Report to which I shall refer later on signed by four people, that there was, in fact, no Majority Report. I take it that the people who signed this reservation signed the Majority Report only because they agreed with the factual matter in it. Having got a commission of 20 people, in fact, no Majority Report came out of it.

We must always remember—and it is only right to remember—that, in fact, television will be a service in this community for the better-off section of the community. I know that people may refer to seeing television masts in Crumlin and Ballyfermot, but they are exceptional cases. They are cases of families in which a number of adults are working. It will be a service for the better-off section of the community. If there are four or five million sets in Britain, it is still in Britain a service for the better-off section of the community. Even though I have said in relation to Senator O'Brien's remarks that I am not, perhaps, as impressed as he is about it, nevertheless, it is of great educational importance.

The normal complaint made in America can be seen here by anybody. You see children sitting in front of the T.V. set with their exercise books. I am not quite so sure that it is not of some advantage in a modern community where people do two things at the same time. If their mind is on their exercises and their eyes on the television, there is a great deal in modern life which involves just that. It is not only the busy barrister who has to think of two things at the same time. Anybody who drives a motor car through the city has to think of more things than I find I can do.

The gravamen of this matter is the question of finance. The Majority Report in Paragraph 29 comes down to the problem. They talk about being concerned with and pessimistic in the early stages of their labours about the extent and the cost of programmes that are possible for us. I have read the Report and listened to the debate and I am still left with that view. There is grave danger about the cost of our programmes.

Paragraph 44 of the Majority Report which is broadly what is in the Bill is really too neat altogether. We are given an expenditure of £650,000 a year, with a revenue of £680,000 a year from the third year onwards, the expenditure being half on programmes and half on running the service and the revenue being half from licences and half from advertising. To my mind, that is altogether too neat. The two things fit too well into each other. Even so it involves a programme of only one live hour a day. They talk about 25 per cent. of 30 hours a week which I take to be one hour a day. If you are used to looking at television through time as I was, you would certainly find one live hour a day very poor value. You would think of it as very little if you include the news items and so on in it. It is a very small proportion of 30 hours a week —call it four or five hours a day—if you have only one live hour.

The Minority Report, signed by Eoghan Ó hAodha, Síle ní Chinnéide, Michael Gibbons and Roger McHugh faces up to the matter in a much more realistic way in Paragraph 23 and subsequent paragraphs to show what will be the real cost of the service. I think their figure of £1,000 an hour for 30 hours a week, working out at £1,500,000 a year, is a much more realistic figure. It is very much below the British figure a few years ago. We are again on the edge of inflation and then look at the British service with its 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 sets and with the British income pushing up to £50,000,000. It may well be that the Minister may want to soft-pedal this. It may well be that the Department of Finance wrote him down a little. I cannot say anything about that. If we imagine that the final word about cost has been said in this Bill, we are in for a rude awakening. We will have a second-rate service.

I think the Government and the Minister were unwise to put Section 31 into the Bill in the way they did. It would have been far better if the Minister had faced up to it in his brief instead of eliding the important part of that section. I refer to subsection (2). The matter has been dealt with. by Senator O'Quigley and I do not wish to go into details. Subsection (2) reads: "The Minister may direct the Authority in writing to allocate broadcasting time for any announcements by ... any Minister of State". Are we to have the kind of announcement made that we would expect from the Minister for Health? Are we to have that kind of thing imposed on us?

If it read, as was recommended in Paragraph 117 of the Majority Report: "if he considered it necessary or expedient in connection with his functions as such", which, I notice, is much the same as the paragraph out of the British Act read by Senator O'Quigley last night, I should have no great objection to it.

As regards subsection (3):

The Authority may, subject to the consent of the Minister, announce that a direction has been given under this section,

I think it should read: "The Authority shall announce that a direction has been given under this section". After all, all that means is: "We have received an announcement from the Minister" or "The Minister for Finance wants to speak to you at his own request", or something like that. It does not involve a long announcement saying: "We had a row with the Minister" and all the rest of it. I think Section 31 is misconceived and perhaps we shall put down amendments to it.

I could give a number of instances. For example, I think the worst instance was in 1952 when Deputy MacEntee introduced his famous Budget of April 2nd and took the whole time of the news on the 2nd and the larger part of the time on the 3rd. Having got all the time on the 2nd, he insisted on getting 28 minutes out of the 30 minutes of the news time on Radio Éireann on 3rd April. I was with some people listening and they said that, quite obviously, he had insisted on this being done; not alone that, but that Radio Éireann wanted to prove to the general public conclusively that this was imposed on them. Of course, the stuff given out on 3rd April was rubbish, economic "guff". That is a case in point. It shows the kind of thing that happened. A Minister for Health at the beginning of 1951 went on in the same way.

One final point—this is the result of experience—I do not think the part of the Third Schedule which deals with suppressors is adequate. I have a reason for saying that. In my neighbourhood, there is some gentleman who, on Sunday night, does something with his circular saw or his electric razor, or whatever it is. You could set your clock by him. At 9 o'clock to the dot, nearly the whole thing is blotted out.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It comes out my way, too.

Dr. O'Donovan

That is a problem that we shall have to face up to. Subject to these few remarks, I also welcome the Bill.

Mr. L'Estrange

With the introduction of this Bill, we all sincerely hope that the Government, at long last, have made up their mind on this very important question because we all know that decisions and counter-decisions have followed one another with such rapidity in the past few years on this question that only a Solomon could know where the Government intended to go.

In 1958, the then Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Deputy Blaney, put an Irish television service into the first of a "musts" category. He stated clearly that the service would be operated on a commercial basis at no cost to the taxpayer. At that time, there was every indication that the Fianna Fáil Government of the day had come to a decision and that he was speaking on behalf of the Government and announcing Government policy.

Subsequently, Deputy Blaney moved from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to the Department of Local Government. His movement had something to do with Radio Eireann but perhaps we had better pass over it and not mention that here. Deputy Ormonde then became Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and we had an indication of a change. Instead of this question of television being a first of the "musts," he set up a Commission to inquire into the establishment of a television service and, of course, there was to be no cost to the taxpayer.

After a gallop around the United States of America, European and other countries, the Commission produced the inevitable report. It is only fair to state that, in contrast to many other Commissions, the Commission did a quick and efficient job within their terms of reference, but when it came to the ticklish problem of selecting one out of the seven or eight contractors who were prepared to operate the service, the Commission felt unable to come to any decision and back into the Minister's lap came all the applications with no decision or recommendation on them.

The next step was the retirement of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, due to ill health, and the appointment of Deputy Hilliard as Minister and there was the greatest volte face of all. I do not blame the Minister for that; I would say it was Government policy; that despite the fact that the Commission had been set up, which cost the taxpayers a good deal of money, the plan for commercial operation of television has been well and truly discarded and, instead, the already overburdened Irish taxpayer will pay the piper.

We have been told that the Television Authority will borrow £2,000,000 for the purpose and are also to get a free grant of £500,000 during the first five years, with the vague proviso that there shall be no ultimate charge on the Exchequer. I remember hearing similar words in 1942 from the present Taoiseach in connection with the reorganisation of C.I.E. His words then were that we would get as efficient a service with no ultimate charge on the taxpayers. The only change in the wording is the use of the word "Exchequer" instead of the word "taxpayers". That was 17 long years ago. I sincerely hope that the word "ultimate" has not got the same meaning as regards our television service. "Ultimate" may mean for years or it may mean for ever. In the case of C.I.E., it meant 17 years. They have been given another five years. In the case of C.I.E., therefore, it has meant at least 22 years.

The latest political slant on the television project can hardly gladden the hearts of the taxpayer. I call it a political slant. I claim that the Government wanted to retain this ideal medium of propaganda and did not want to let it slip from their hand. We all agree that television brings surprising changes. When a television set becomes part of the equipment of the average home, the repercussions inside and outside the family are tremendous. If properly used, our television service can be a power for good in our community. I suppose that, deep down in every one of us, there is something good. It would be a grand thing if television programmes in future could teach our young people to be better citizens, to have better civic spirit, to have respect for private and public property. If it succeeds in doing that, if it succeeds in putting an end to "teddy boys" and juvenile delinquency, it will do a good job for the people and for the Nation as a whole. If the Irish television service does not face up to Irish life, if it thinks that by ignoring the trends of the times, it can end them, it will be disillusioned. Its duty is to go among the people and to win the young people over.

I sincerely hope that the Television Authority will take a great interest in home affairs. There is notable silence on Radio Éireann with regard to home affairs. There is a programme "To-day in the Dáil" and "To-day in the Seanad". We spoke about impartiality last night. In the programme "To-day in the Seanad", the Fianna Fáil Party got eight and a half minutes; the Fine Gael Party got four minutes and Independents got two and a half minutes. This morning in the news, only the Minister—nobody else —was quoted. I think that, properly used on this front, television could stimulate interest in economic, political and social development. There is no doubt that in relation to religion also a mastery of the new medium provides a new challenge and new opportunities.

Section 17 of the Bill states:

... the Authority shall bear constantly in mind the national aims of restoring the Irish language and developing the national culture...

I think we would all agree that the methods used up to the present have been a failure. I should like to ask, as Senator Hayes did, has any consideration been given to the idea of Gael Linn, or some such organisation, being given responsibility for the revival of the Irish language?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

If I might interrupt the Senator for a moment, the agreement was that the Minister would get in at 3.30 p.m. Would the Senator finish inside a few minutes?

Mr. L'Estrange

A minute, or a minute and a half is all I shall take. As I said, I should like to ask has any consideration been given to the idea of Gael Linn organising Irish language cultural programmes because I think we all admit that Gael Linn has been, and is, a great success? They are a body of young men, doing voluntary work, devoted to an ideal and they are making a huge success of it. I think one of the greatest mistakes we make in Ireland, and one of the greatest fallacies, is that if one ignores what one does not like, foreign dances, foreign games and such things, one will promote the other way of life, but in my opinion the opposite is true. If you do that through the radio, you can sit back and dispense national ideas as much as you like but nobody will be listening except the converted. I think that is one of the mistakes made by Radio Eireann in the past and I hope it will not be made in the future.

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. Hilliard)

In my opening remarks yesterday, I informed the House that I was happy to have the opportunity of addressing it on this important measure and now, having listened to the Second Reading debate, I can say that I am very pleased with the reception the Bill has got in the Seanad. I am glad that the principle involved in the Bill, that is, the establishment of a single, statutory Authority to control and operate a broadcasting service in sound and television in the public interest, is generally accepted. Senator L'Estrange seems to think that because of the fact that that decision was eventually arrived at by the Government it was a decision forced on me, but I want to assure the House that in advocating that principle in this Bill I was, in fact, also expressing my own personal opinion as to how this service should be operated in Ireland.

I trust that I shall be able to give the explanations asked for and to answer the main queries raised by Senators without going further than is proper at this stage, and to answer them in a reasonable way. I should like first to deal with the more general criticisms of the Bill. Some Senators expressed the view that it is too vague, that it does not give sufficient information on different aspects of the services to be controlled and operated by the Authority. My answer is that the matter is entirely one of approach to the establishment of a body to whom it is proposed to give a certain job of work. You can, on the one hand, try to set out in considerable detail what you would like the broadcasting Authority to do or, on the other hand, you can give them very broad terms of reference and leave them the freedom to determine for themselves how they are to tackle the job, and the Government, as Senators know, has decided upon the latter course.

A number of Senators have pointed out that the selection of suitable and responsible people to carry out the duties of the Authority and of the post of Director-General will be far more effective in getting a good service than a multiplicity of detailed legal provisions or high-sounding prescriptions as regards the quality and standard of programmes. That is my view, that a great deal of the success or otherwise of this service will depend on the persons who will eventually be appointed to the Authority and on the character and ability that the Director-General will have.

The Bill proposes to give the Authority the widest possible terms of reference. These are summarised in Section 16, subsection (1), namely:

The Authority shall establish and maintain a national television and sound broadcasting service and shall have all such powers as are necessary for or incidental to that purpose.

Particular powers are mentioned in subsection (2) of the same section and certain essential obligations in relation to programmes and advertisements are laid upon the Authority in the following sections, but the absence of further statutory obligations and restrictions, as regards programmes and advertisements, will increase the freedom of the Authority in these fields. For this reason the Bill does not give information on such matters as the maximum proportion of advertising to be permitted in programmes, or what form the advertising will take. Where I have any functions in these matters, for instance in regard to the amount of time to be allotted to advertisements, I shall await the recommendations of the Authority. I am sure their recommendations and decisions will be founded on good sense and on good taste.

The second criticism of a general nature was that the Minister had retained too many powers in the Bill and that the Authority will not be really independent. I do not agree at all on that point. I have already indicated that the Authority will have very wide independence in programming and advertising, and when the Minister's powers in other respects are examined closely, as they will be, no doubt, on Committee Stage, it will be found that all of them are either essential or very desirable in the interests of the licence holders and of the public generally.

It must also be remembered that the Bill is intended to provide the legal framework for the transfer from the Minister to the Authority of very extensive powers and that references to the Minister must therefore occur frequently in the Bill. In practice, however, most of the clauses in which there are such references will hardly affect the freedom of the Authority in its day-to-day operations, or indeed in its general policy at all.

References were made to the report of the Television Commission and to the fact that a certain part of the report was not published. I am dealing now with the proposals that were made to the Commission by the private groups who were anxious to obtain the right to this service here. That part of the Report, as I have said, referred specifically to the proposals submitted by these private groups. These proposals were submitted on a confidential basis and, therefore, I feel that I would not be at liberty—nor would the Government be at liberty—to make them available to anybody other than the people to whom they were made on that basis.

As I said in my opening speech, the majority of the Commission were not prepared to recommend any of these proposals as submitted and the Government agreed that none of them satisfactorily met the requirements of a television service under effective national control. I should not like to come before this House and try to justify acceptance of any of these proposals to the Oíreachtas when a satisfactory and practicable alternative is available in the form of a public service organisation under national control. I assume that the House will agree that the Government should not go back on that decision now. If so, I cannot see what useful purpose would be served by re-examining particular proposals by private interests.

A question has been raised here as to why I did not follow the recommendation of the Commission to have two separate Authorities, one to control sound broadcasting and the other to control television. Certain suggestions were made that it might be better if we had two separate Authorities. I did not explain the reasons for that decision in my opening speech. The broad answer is that this, and many other recommendations of the Commission, were made within the extent of their terms of reference and of their recommendations which envisaged one statutory body controlling and operating sound broadcasting and the other supervising a privately-owned and operated television service. Once the privately-operated service is removed from the picture, you have to ask: why have two public bodies performing the same functions in relation to broadcasting?

Moreover, both sound and television services have many subjects of common ground and it would be extremely wasteful, particularly for a small country, to incur expenditure separately in these matters. I should instance news services, orchestras, administrative staff, and even studios and other accommodation which could be used in common by the two services. In almost every country in Europe, the television service, which is always expensive, has been built on the existing sound service, for economic, if for no other reasons.

The question of Ministerial control has been raised by several Senators. On that question, I want to say that there are certain matters in which, in the interests of the State and of the viewers, the Minister must exercise control. For example, he must ensure that the viewers who pay a licence fee get the minimum number of hours of television daily. He must also supervise the accounts of the Authority by approving an auditor because a comparatively large sum of State money will be involved in loans to the Authority.

Beyond these the powers reserved by the Minister have been kept to a minimum. Where they have been reserved, I shall be prepared to justify them on Committee Stage, including the one referred to by Senator Hayes in which the Minister reserves the right to prohibit a particular broadcast and to require the Authority to broadcast announcements. I feel, and I believe, that we can have a better debate, more reasonable explanations, and a better approach to an understanding of the problem involved here for the Minister, on Committee Stage of the Bill than if I were to pursue it now in my reply on Second Reading.

Mr. O'Quigley

It might be vital that the Minister should give his reasons at this stage.

Mr. Hilliard

It is included in the British law and the Minister——

Mr. O'Quigley

Not in exactly the same terms.

Mr. Hilliard

——is entitled to have, on behalf of the general public, an overriding authority.

Mr. O'Quigley

More time to be wasted.

Mr. Ryan

Is that a threat?

Mr. O'Quigley

No.

Mr. Hilliard

Time spent on a matter of such importance as this is not wasted and I think that a full and free discussion on a matter of high importance, such as this, is not time wasted.

Senator Hayes also mentioned that no qualifications were set down for the members of the Authority or for the Director General. I want to say that it would be entirely unusual to detail the qualifications for the governing authority of a semi-State body in legislation. I need say here only that experts representing sectional interests are not, in my view, the ideal type of member for a Television Authority. I think that a general culture and wide administrative interests would be much more suitable and the Authority will be extremely lucky if it can get a Director General tailored to such specific qualifications. The Director General of television needs to be a person of high character and broad views to be competent to deal with such a highly specialised service as a television service.

I want to deal now with the question put to me in regard to line standards. It is not necessary for me to say that I am not a technician. I have not got, and I am not expected to have, technical knowledge with which to express a technical opinion on a question like this. As Minister, I am bound to, and must, and do accept the best advice which it is possible for me to get on technical questions.

As regards line definition, which has been referred to by a number of Senators, I should like to refer Senators to Chapter 10 of the Report of the Television Commission which deals with this problem in some detail. It has been urged that the 625 line continental system should be adopted because that system is technically superior to the 405 line system. Undoubtedly, the 625 line gives a better picture, but I wonder if the Senators concerned have considered what would happen if the service were opened here on the 625 line system. The transmission could not be received at all by the thousands of owners of 405 line sets at present in this country.

While British programmes are receivable here, Irish programmes would not be received on the other side of the Border. Clearly, if we adopted the 625-line system we would have to broadcast on the 405-line system as well—at least in those areas where large numbers of 405-line sets are in use. If we did broadcast on the two systems, is it likely that many viewers would purchase 625-line sets capable of receiving the Irish programmes only when they would have a choice of Irish programmes and possibly two British programmes on the 405-line sets?

Apart from these practical aspects, there are, I am advised, serious technical difficulties in the way of adopting the 625-line system at present. When television frequencies were being allocated at an international conference at Stockholm in 1952 it was necessary for each country to choose a standard of definition so that the frequencies could be allocated in the most economical manner. We chose the 405-line standard and frequencies were allocated to us on that basis.

If we now decide to change to the 625-line standard while the British retain the 405-line standard the onus will be on us to take all the measures necessary to protect the British transmissions from interference. This would I understand be very difficult and expensive. In these circumstances it has been decided to open the new service on the 405-line standard. The position will however be kept under continuous review and, in the event of any change being decided upon, it may be taken that the interests of the large number of owners of 405-line sets will be fully considered.

I should like to add that the suggestion by Senator O'Quigley that the decision on line-definition is being left to the Authority is unfounded. This is a matter which comes directly under my powers of control of the technical operation of the broadcasting stations and the Authority will be required to adopt whatever standard of definition is laid down in the licence to be granted under Section 16 (3).

I have noted what Senators have said about appointments to the Authority and to the post of Director-General—I am coming back to that again. I agree that the appointments to these posts will be very important, indeed, for the success of the new Authority. While I myself favour the smallest possible number of persons on a board or committee, I do think it would be very difficult to give representation to the various wide aspects of national life in an Authority with smaller membership than that proposed in the Bill.

I am sure the Government will give the fullest consideration to the suggestions made for representation of the religious minority and for the Irish language and for the preservation of the Irish way of life. I do not agree that the Government's freedom to appoint the most suitable persons should be restricted by prescriptions about their qualifications. As regards the post of Director-General, this will be a key post and the only qualification I would lay down is that he should be the best man, all things considered, that can be obtained for the job.

Questions were asked in regard to the terms of appointment of the new Authority—whether they would be full-time or part-time. At the moment it is the intention that the membership of the Authority shall be part-time. On that question, it was put to me that the appointments should be staggered so that there could be rotation. I do not think it would be proper that the Government should be tied by any Section in a Bill to follow that course. The Government should be left free to decide for themselves on that question.

As far as the Director-General is concerned, the post will be full-time. With regard to the Authority, for the present anyway, as far as we can see into the future, membership will be on a part-time basis.

Mr. Barry

Even the Chairman?

Mr. Hilliard

Even the Chairman.

Professor Quinlan

With remuneration?

Mr. Hilliard

I cannot answer that question. A suggestion was made to me during the course of the debate with regard to shortwave broadcasting by the Television Authority. I think it was made by Senator Ó Maoláin, the Leader of the House. That is a matter that will be left to the Authority. It will be a matter for the Authority to propose what sort of service they should provide. However, according to the information I have got, shortwave broadcasting can be a very expensive matter and the results obtained from it are problematical. Reception conditions on shortwave have never been good and there is no plan to govern the allocation of wavelengths and prevent interference.

Mr. O'Quigley

That is in accordance with the view held by the inter-Party Government.

Mr. Hilliard

Receivers with shortwave bands are, I understand, gradually being displaced for VHF bands and, therefore, the possibility of receiving shortwave broadcasts is becoming less. The switch to television has also affected the number who listen to shortwave broadcasts. I know that a large number of countries are still broadcasting on shortwaves. Probably, like television or any other undertaking, once it has been started it is not easy to give it up. In addition to that, the larger countries engage in shortwave broadcasting a good deal for political propagation purposes.

Mr. Barry

Hear, hear!

Mr. Hilliard

It has also been decided here that the heavy expense of carrying on shortwave broadcasting would not be justified by the results.

I should like to deal with the many questions that have been raised. If I omit to reply to any of the questions asked I hope I shall be able to answer them another time. The matters referred to could probably be raised during the Committee Stage. Many of the suggestions should properly be made to the new Authority when it is established—for instance, suggestions in relation to the programming of the new service. I feel certain that when the new Authority is established it will find, on reading the debate, many useful suggestions that possibly could be implemented in their day-to-day administration of the service.

Mr. Barry

So we did not do any harm by raising the matter?

Mr. Hilliard

The debate was wide and open. I made it so myself, in my opening speech, for the very purpose of obtaining a general overall view of the step we are taking in this Bill. Senator Donegan asked if the two broadcasting stations, the B.B.C. or I.T.V., I do not know which——

Mr. Donegan

I.T.V.

Mr. Hilliard

——would be permitted to establish booster stations in this country whenever our television service was universal to our country. My answer is that the Independent Television Authority could not do so without a licence from me. I cannot imagine any circumstances in which they would request such permission or in which it would be given by me. I understand, in any event, that the I.T.A. is restricted by law to broadcasting in Great Britain and in the Six Counties.

Mr. Donegan

I cannot understand why the Minister would not give that when the number of sets here would make it a commercial proposition. Also I cannot understand why legislation in one country would not allow I.T.A to operate in another. Even though there is legislation in Britain to stop operations outside Britain, what is wrong with their picking up the programme here and relaying it on booster stations?

Mr. Hilliard

I have given my answer.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It would be better if the Minister were permitted to make his speech.

Mr. Donegan

I was not trying to be offensive. I think the Minister knows that. He is a good friend of mine.

Mr. Hilliard

Senator Quinlan had something to say on the problem of the cost of this service. I was not too clear whether his suggestion was that the State expenditure would be £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 or whether the total expenditure would eventually come to that figure through private investment in sets plus the State service. I think my last supposition is right. On the estimates I have seen I cannot agree that the loss on television will be of the order indicated by the Senator. In fact, the official view is that the £1,500,000 being provided in the Bill for television will be sufficient for capital purposes and to meet any initial losses. It is likely that the television service will be able to pay for itself within a few years, but of course there can be no absolute certainty in regard to the volume of advertising and such matters which affect the financing of such an authority.

Senator McGuire asked whether the members of the Authority would come from within or outside the Civil Service. I want to tell him they will be taken from outside the Civil Service. I have already answered another question of his as to whether the members of the Commission would be part-time or full-time. Referring to the section dealing with advertising, the Senator expressed the opinion—I think he intended it as a suggestion for the Authority—that the Authority would have to go after advertising themselves and obtain it rather than wait until it came to them. I quite agree with the Senator in that expression of opinion. I also agree that the getting of advertisements should be a real, live business in the charge of energetic people. I have no doubt that the Television Authority will fully appreciate that point of view expressed by the Senator.

When dealing with this section the Senator seemed to think that it discriminated against foreigners in the payable rates for advertising. I should like to explain that the discrimination in the Bill is not against foreign advertisers as such. Rather is it an attempt on my part to permit Irish industrialists, who generally have not such large resources as outside firms, to take part in Irish television advertising. There is power in that section to enable the new television Authority to make a deal with a firm on a business basis and give them special rates. If the Authority so think fit they may do this in regard to business firms in the case of long-term advertising. I know exactly what the Senator has in his mind. The power is provided in the section to give the Authority the right to enter into a business arrangement with a firm in that respect. Senator McGuire and other Senators raised the question of the prohibition against the use of advertising time for religious or political purposes. They thought it was too severe and might prevent advertisements for, say, a function in aid of the building of a church or such matters. I can assure the House that the intention of the section is not to prevent religious or political matters being mentioned in any way on Irish television. The purpose is to prevent religion and politics from being broadcast in a controversial and propagandistic way. It would be difficult to reduce the section to more detail in this respect. I think that with a common-sense operation of the section as it stands it will not cause any real difficulties.

The question of impartiality as exercised by Radio Éireann was raised by Senator O'Quigley and some other Senators. They referred to its presentation of certain news items and its broadcasting of proceedings in the Seanad and Dáil. The Seanad may take it that the news editor of Radio Éireann and his staff, who are professional journalists, do everything humanly possible to give impartial reports of speeches in the Dáil and Seanad. I do not interfere one way or the other with the news editor or his staff. Never once since I became Minister have I even asked him to broadcast any particular item or not to broadcast any particular item of news. I have never even tried to influence him in any way to present his news as I would wish it.

Mr. O'Quigley

I never accused the Minister.

Mr. Hilliard

They cannot give line by line balance because the speakers on both sides do not balance their speeches.

Mr. L'Estrange

They unbalance it, anyway.

Mr. Hilliard

As Senator Stanford rightly said, an impartial news editor may not have the same views about the news value of a speech as the Senator who made it.

Mr. O'Quigley

In that connection I judged the different occasions by reference to the Press. The Press always took a different view from Radio Éireann. That is the test. The Press are not all wrong and Radio Éireann all right.

Mr. Hilliard

I might say generally that the Party out of power at any particular time believes that some influence is at work to give the major share of the radio bulletins to the Party in power. I can assure the Senator that no such influence operates.

Mr. O'Quigley

We certainly have never accused the Minister.

Mr. L'Estrange

It is the influence used in filling the positions at the beginning.

Mr. Brady

I suppose that did not happen under the inter-Party Government at all?

Mr. O'Quigley

"The Truth in the News," like the Irish Press. That is the truth. That is the standard.

Mr. Hilliard

It would be a pity to upset the Senator's equanimity——

Professor Hayes

Hear, hear!

Mr. Hilliard

——at the tail-end of the debate. Having dealt with what I consider—I am taking the same view as the News Editor of Radio Éireann —to be the most important points raised in this debate, I hope we shall have a fuller and a very useful debate on the Committee Stage of this Bill.

Professor Stanford

Might I just ask one question? Did the Minister look into the question of the cost of the change-over to coloured television which is imminent? Has he any information on that?

Mr. Hilliard

I have not any information as regards costs on that question.

Mr. L'Estrange

You will not get colour with 405.

Mr. O'Quigley

Might I crave the same indulgence? On the question of these confidential proposals, I fully appreciate that, once the Minister has got them, he cannot reveal them but would he ask the proposers if they have any objection, to the proposals being revealed anonymously to at least the Leader of the Opposition in the Dáil?

Mr. Hilliard

I cannot see any useful purpose in reopening that issue.

Mr. O'Quigley

The desire has been expressed from this side of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

Next stage?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Wednesday, February 3rd.

Professor Quinlan

Might I express the hope that if it is found necessary to carry on the Committee Stage to next Thursday we shall again sit on Thursday morning?

An Cathaoirleach

The matter is not being taken next week. It is not being taken until 3rd February.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 3rd February, 1960.