Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 27 May 1988

Vol. 381 No. 3

Estimates, 1988. - Vote 37: Communications.

Minister for Energy and Communications (Mr. R. Burke)

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £2,156,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1988, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Minister for Communications and certain other services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain grants and grants-in-aid.

The net Communications Estimate amounts to £2,156,000. The gross expenditure amounts to £52,333,000 of which £50,177,000 is met from Appropriations-in-aid. Virtually all receipts under Appropriations-in-Aid are derived from broadcasting and cable television licence fees which, net of my Department's administration costs are paid to RTE by way of grants-in-aid and to An Post to cover that company's costs of collecting television licence fees. The size of the net estimate does not reflect the relative importance of the role of my Department in the activities for which it exercises responsibility.

Efficient, cost effective and reliable communications facilities are a necessity for the economic life of this country. Everywhere, worldwide significant employment growth is foreseen in service industries. These industries depend for their life blood on the availability of the communications facilities of the highest quality. In many instances the quality and cost of communications facilities is the key factor in the decision-making process affecting the location of industrial activity. In this dynamic and cut-throat environment top class Irish communications facilities are essential if the Government are to achieve their job creation targets.

The objectives set for the postal and telecommunications companies established under the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983, are demanding in a country of our size, population base and spread. An Post are charged with providing a national postal service within the State and between the State and elsewhere, and with meeting the industrial, commercial, social and household needs of the State for comprehensive and efficient postal services. Telecom Éireann likewise are charged with a similar objective in relation to the telecommunications service. Both companies, in the four years since their establishment have come a long way towards meeting the objectives set for them. But much remains to be done particularly in containing and reducing communications costs to industry. I will refer to this later.

Earlier this week we debated the Second Stage of a Private Members' Bill whose aim is to improve the public accountability of the two companies in respect of their achievement of the obligations set for them in the existing legislation. I said in the course of that debate that while I agreed with the aims of the Bill, I did not believe that the detailed proposals in the Bill would achieve the result desired by Deputy Bruton. I do not propose to go over the same ground again but I think it is worthwhile to highlight the performance of the two companies.

Since they took responsibility for the telecommunications service in January 1984 Telecom Éireann have gone from strength to strength and will report a profit for the financial year just ended. I am particularly pleased that in addition to returning a profit this year, the company also repaid, ahead of schedule, part of their indebtedness to the Exchequer. This shows the dedication of the company to their goal of eliminating accumulated losses and becoming a profitable self-financing company and reflects the contribution of the staff at all levels to the well-being of the company.

The automation of Ireland's telephone network has now been completed. With the closure of the last manual exchange in Mountshannon last year, the country now has a fully automatic telephone system. A total of 750,000 subscribers are connected to the network. All of them can dial direct to any part of Ireland and to over 84 countries worldwide. With operator assistance telephone access is available to over 120 more. The technical quality of the network has been transformed. With nearly 50 per cent of customers connected to digital exchanges, Ireland is currently among the most advanced technologically in the world.

At the practical level the waiting list for installation of telephones has now been reduced to such an extent that almost 60 per cent of applicants can be provided with telephone service within three months of application. The quality of service subsequently provided has improved to the extent that a subscriber can expect to have a fault on the line not more than once in about two years. Almost 80 per cent of faults are now cleared within two working days.

Telecom Éireann are fully conscious of the need not only to provide their customers with a service using the most advanced technology but of the need to provide that service in the most costeffective manner. To this end, they will be introducing major price reductions later this year. The call charge to EC countries and Switzerland will be reduced by 20 per cent. Calls to North America will cost 25 per cent less and a 30 per cent reduction will be effected on calls to Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. It is perhaps timely to remind the House that there has been no increase in telephone charges since April 1986. I am confident that this development will provide a welcome boost to our economic recovery.

There has been criticism of the company's relations with their customers. The Ombudsman has referred to over 2,000 complaints received by him against Telecom Éireann. This is a large number of complaints in anybody's books and I am sure the company will accept that this number must be reduced significantly. However, to put the number into perspective, on a subscriber base of 750,000 it means that well under 0.3 per cent of subscribers feel they have a grievance. Most complaints refer to the accounts issued by the company. Telecom are acutely aware of the need to improve the public's confidence in their billing system and have planned to introduce detailed billing for STD calls at a cost of £20 million during this year.

Telecom's capital allocation for the current year is £135 million compared with £127 million in 1987. The allocation will be used mainly to improve the quality of service, to provide for business growth and to exploit new business opportunities. This allocation will be funded by the company from non-Exchequer sources. The money will be found partly from BTE's own resources and partly by borrowing through the company's financial subsidiary, Irish Telecommunications Investments plc.

In addition, funds will be available to the company from the European Regional Fund and under the EC STAR programme.

The aim of the STAR programme is to foster the economic development of the least favoured regions of the Community by improving advanced telecommunications services. Ireland was allocated 50 million ECUs, approximately £38.8 million, over the five-year period 1987-1991. Of this amount Telecom Éireann will receive £33 million. The money will be spent on projects which include the extension of EIRCELL, the company's cellular radio mobile telephone network to less densely populated areas, an optical fibre link between Portmarnock and Holyhead and the provision of a new national radio paging system. To date £5.2 million has been received under the STAR programme.

To turn to postal matters, I am pleased to say that 1987 was a particularly successful year for the company making a profit of £2.776 million. The volume of mail handled by An Post continued to increase last year. Total mail volume is now 16 per cent higher than when An Post commenced operations in 1984. The company are achieving particular success in their express mail service.

Irish postal charges are high by international standards. However, there has been no increase in charges since March 1986 and as a result, those charges now compare more favourably with the postal charges of other EC countries. Our charges now occupy fourth place in the EC league table, as compared with first and second places in 1985. In real terms our postal charges have been reduced by 8 per cent over the past four years. In addition, I am glad to be in a position to state that the Irish postal charges will be maintained at existing levels at least to the end of 1988.

The level of our postage charges reflects the costs which An Post have to bear. The company's medium-term strategy is to become more competitive and to reorganise their structures to meet the challenges of the future. An Post have introduced a self-financing staff productivity scheme in which the company and staff share in the benefits. A major management restructuring was begun last year by An Post aimed at decentralising responsibilities with a view to achieving greater efficiency in meeting customer needs.

The parcel mail service has been a problem for some time, with falling traffic and significant financial losses. Last year the loss on the service was £5.6 million. An Post have drawn up a plan to resolve the problem. It is the company's objective to build a profitable parcels service that recognises the needs of customers for speed, convenience and cost efficiency. If the company should fail in their efforts, the company will be faced with no alternative but to seriously consider discontinuing the service. However, given the outstanding success of An Post in other areas to date, I am hopeful that the company will succeed in reversing the unfavourable trend and in returning the service to an economic basis.

Last year An Post carried out capital development in relation to the improvement of accommodation, the replacement of their motor fleet, the provision of security measures and the acquisition of machinery and equipment, costing £8.67 million. The funds were provided from the company's internal resources and borrowings and there was no Exchequer assistance involved. The company still has a healthy debt ratio 1:5, with their borrowings now amounting to £8.5 million.

The share capital of the company includes £4 million provided by the Exchequer by way of 5 per cent cumulative preference shares. The accumulated dividends due to the Exchequer on these shares will amount to almost £500,000 at the end of 1988. I intend to seek payment of dividends from An Post in the financial year 1989 subject to continued satisfactory financial performance in their current financial year.

At the end of April RTE hosted the Eurovision Song Contest for the third time. I have already conveyed to RTE my own and the Government's appreciation and admiration for a task carried out with the ultimate in professionalism and using technology that is at the leading edge. It is only right that our appreciation is recorded in the report of this House. I am sure my colleagues on all sides of the House will wish to be associated with my expressions of gratitude and appreciation. The production team involved radically altered the traditional format of the programme and attracted record audience levels here at home, clearly appealing to all sections of our population. They have presented an unenviable challenge to next year's host. As they say in show business, follow that. Not alone did RTE once again show the world the facility and imagination with which Irish people can handle the latest technology but they showed to the world the real face of Ireland, a face that is all too often distorted in the media through the violence that has plagued our island for far too long. I am confident that RTE's presentation of the Eurovision Song Contest will contribute enormously to the achievement of our targets for tourist business this year.

While I have highlighted RTE's achievements in televising the Eurovision Song Contest, this is in no way meant to belittle the performance of RTE radio. Through their three national services they have provided a comprehensive service over the years of high quality news, current affairs and entertainment.

RTE's total output is comparable in quality with the best in the world and is achieved at a fraction of the cost of that of our nearest neighbour. I have no doubt that RTE will be able to meet with total confidence the challenges presented by forthcoming broadcasting developments.

A provision of £43,858,000 has been included in my Department's Estimate for the payment of a grant-in-aid to RTE in respect of net receipts from television licence fees. This again represents an increased grant-in-aid over 1987 and reflects an anticipated improvement in television licence sales by An Post. Subhead G of the Estimate provides for a payment of £5,062,000 to An Post in respect of the cost of collecting the licence fees. The task of issuing television licences, collecting television licence fees and detecting and prosecuting licence fee evaders was delegated to An Post following the establishment of the company in January 1984. An Post and RTE liaise closely with one another in an attempt to secure the maximum possible number of licence sales. Ambitious targets for licence sales have been set for An Post over the past three years and I am glad to say that they have managed to achieve the required number of sales each year. Sales have increased by 100,000 per annum since An Post took over the work in January 1984.

Nevertheless evasion continues at an unacceptably high rate. Estimates suggest that the evasion rate in recent years may have been of the order of 20 per cent. However, An Post's performance in 1987 should have made inroads on that figure. The completion of the computerisation of householders' records by An Post and the enactment of the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill, 1987, which substantially increases the penalties for TV licence evasion, will help to combat evasion in the future.

RTE's financial results over the past couple of years have been very encouraging. In particular, the posting of a surplus of £9.5 million in the 15-month period to end of December 1987 is a tremendous achievement and all at RTE must be congratulated. RTE must continue to show good profits, however, if they are to provide for their capital requirements and meet the programming needs of their audience. The broadcasting environment in which they have to operate is becoming more and more competitive. Additional services on cable and satellite are all contributing to a more competitive situation for RTE and they have responded well.

The station very quickly identified the way forward as being the introduction of more and more home-produced programmes in their schedules. This goal was tackled with an intensity and enthusiasm which augurs well for the station. The popularity of RTE's home productions proves that the national broadcasting organisation can meet the challenge presented by the proliferation of new services.

Subhead F2 provides for a grant of £1,740,000 to RTE in respect of net receipts from licence fees on cable television systems. The estimate was prepared on the basis of a licence fee of 15 per cent. I have recently made regulations reducing the fee to 5 per cent. The reasoning behind this decision is to provide a modest financial boost to the cable industry to encourage the investment necessary to upgrade systems to be able to carry a greater range of programme services. In accordance with the general thrust of the recommendation of the Cable Systems Committee, the receipts from cable licence fees will be retained by the Exchequer from 1990 onwards.

Deputies will all be aware that the Sound Broadcasting Bill, 1987, has been introduced to this House and that the Second Stage debate on the Bill has concluded. I have circulated amendments to the Bill, the main thrust of which is to provide for the establishment of an Authority to select radio station operators and to oversee and regulate the programme services provided by the operator. The Authority will be known as the Independent Radio and Television Commission and their ambit will embrace the selection of the programme contractor for the new independent television service and the regulation of its output. Extensive amendments are required to give effect to these changes. These amendments have been circulated together with an informal document setting out the text of the Bill as it would look if these amendments were accepted by the House. I would stress that this document in no way prejudices any decisions the Dail may take in relation to the Bill as passed on Second Stage. As the House will have an opportunity to debate the issues involved fully next week I do not propose to take up the time of the House on this matter at this stage.

At EC level discussions have been taking place with a view to drawing up a directive laying down minimum standards in relation to programme content and advertising to facilitate the free flow of television broadcasts between the member states. The need for such a directive stems from the development in recent years of broadcasting services which are clearly targeted at international audiences and are delivered via satellite. The number of such services will grow in the future and it is clearly desirable that all such services should be required to meet minimum standards.

The Council of Europe is working on a draft Convention with a similar intent which would apply to the wider membership of that body. My Department, in consultation with RTE, are actively involved in the deliberations of both bodies on these issues.

I would like to conclude by expressing my appreciation to the boards and staff of the three bodies under my aegis and to the Secretary and staff of my Department for their commitment and dedication to achieving the tasks set and I look forward to their continuing success in the years to come.

I commend the Estimate to the House.

Mr. R. Bruton

I should like to address briefly the issue of the Broadcasting Bill which is currently before the House. The Minister's change of heart in respect of many of the important issues in the Bill is very welcome but I am worried that it betrays a certain lack of clarity of thinking about policy in the area that he should have come into the House with such a strange proposal in the first place. Even with the present changes, further changes are needed in light of the fact that he is changing the scale of the proposal by tacking on television to his Bill at this stage.

A very worrying feature of his proposal is that the new television station will not be similarly constrained, as are RTE, to refrain from expressing editorial views. Anyone could see that a large commercial organisation who control the sole commercial television station in the country should not have the freedom to express their views on controversial issues of the day. We could end up getting a clearly partisan — and not necessarily politically partisan — statement on controversial issues emanating from a station who had been given a monopoly by the State to operate in the commercial field. That would be highly dangerous.

Similarly there is need for improvement in other areas of the Bill which we will have adequate time to discuss next Wednesday. Just to flag them in advance we would, in the case of monopoly television going out, need to see details of the applications publicly provided so that the public in general can see the sort of programming that is on offer. That is an important element of pressure on the station not only to perform subsequently in conformity with the sort of statement they made at the time of application.

I would like to turn to the issue of the Minister's proposal on the microwave multichannel distribution system. There is, as the Minister knows, growing concern about this proposal. I am sure he knows the arguments that are being rehearsed. I will just summarise the main ones that are being made to me and other Members of the House. They are that 30 per cent of the country will remain uncovered by this system, that it does not have the capacity because of its line of sight technology to cover the whole country and we will need UHF deflectors in the isolated pockets anyhow if we are to get full cover. It is also pointed out that in the UK the MMDS is only used in very special situations and generally it is confined to an interim provision for cable networks where they plan to cable the area anyhow; it is, if one likes, a system of getting in a bit of revenue to the cable company to help finance that high cost. The UK seems to take the view that satellites will anyway supersede this technology.

It has also been argued that the RTE transmission system has considerable spare capacity that would allow it to carry Ireland's needs for further channels without this system. The Minister seems to be proceeding with his decision at breakneck speed and has invited applications, although he has not circulated any of the regulations that will be applied, but it is only fair that before regulations are put in place and the House is asked to acquiesce in those that the Minister should publish from his Department an appraisal of these various options and an assessment of the issues being raised by people who are concerned about this. As you know, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, there has even been a health concern raised about this. It is important that these issues be addressed in a cold and objective manner so that everyone can see that a fair deal is being done in this proposal.

I would like to turn to another issue that the Minister mentioned in the course of his comments, that is, his decision to cut the levy on cable and his decision not to allow the proceeds of that to go back to the consumer but back to the cable companies themselves. I cannot see the rationale in this at all. The Minister will know that the Cablelink's profits have grown very rapidly, considerably faster than inflation, in recent years. They have a high rate of profit on turnover. The consumer, when this merger was agreed, expected great rationalisation gains that would bring down the cost of cable to the subscriber. In fact, we have seen no such reduction; cable subscriptions have grown in line with inflation. I cannot see the rationale of the Minister giving this levy to the cable companies. He is right to abolish the levy and I think he should do away with it altogether, not go threequarters or two-thirds of the way there, but I certainly see no grounds for giving it to the cable companies. It should go to the consumer who has to pay, and if the companies want to make application for price increases on grounds of some new investment plans, they have to run the normal course of getting approval from the Minister. I do not like this backdoor approach to such price applications.

In the post and telecommunications area I must say that I am frankly very disappointed with the Minister's attitude in this area. He has shown a continuous opposition to the interests of customers. Not only did he abolish the users councils at minute savings to the Exchequer — they were costing £80,000 on a turnover for the bodies they were overseeing of £700 million and even that was not a net saving — but he has also gone back on a commitment given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in this House that he would make those two companies amenable to section 39 of the Sale of Goods land Supply of Services Act. The Minister produced a rationale for that last week in the House which does not hold water in any way. No court could reasonably take the ground that a company like An Post would have to go through the sort of procedure that he recited here in the House last Wednesday. The Minister appears to be determined to play down the rights of the consumer and he is pretending that the level of complaint going to the Ombudsman is of something less than great significance by saying it is only .3 per cent of all bills. The truth is that the level of complaints going to the Ombudsman from Telecom Éireann exceeds that of all Government Departments put together and those Government Departments have a combined clientele of probably in the order of two or three million, and if one took a ratio as to what proportion of their clientele are complaining to the Ombudsman it would be dwarfed by the .3 per cent that the Minister says is happening in Telecom Éireann. The truth of the matter is that the highest level of complaint to the Ombudsman is coming from Telecom Éireann subscribers and, as the Minister knows, people take a great deal of irritation before they take the step of going to the Ombudsman with their case. There is no burying that under the carpet by dividing it by some big number produced out of the Minister's head to make it look small. That is not the reality of the situation.

I am also disappointed that the Minister is rejecting the notion of setting clear price targeting for these companies so that we would get to a situation of comparability with Europe. There is nothing unusual about asking him to do that and to report on their performance. There is nothing unusual about asking them to report publicly on the speed of delivery of post and all these other indicators. The Minister tells us he is getting reports on the speed of delivery of post and the condition of telephone boxes in the country. If he is getting the reports why does it continue to be so bad and deteriorating, and what is he doing about it? I am very disappointed that in this area the Minister appears to be taking such an anti-customer view and I hope he will reconsider it.

I would like to go back to the area of broadcasting. I would like to see the Minister look at broadcasting in a much broader context than the very narrow debate about the system of licensing independents. There is enormous economic potential for people here to provide income and jobs through the broadcasting medium and I think it will take more than simply the changing of licence terms for this country to exploit the opportunity that there is for Irish producers of programming to get a market niche in other countries. We are entering into a system of free and open competition in 1992. Broadcasting technology is evolving very rapidly. There will be huge opportunities and it takes more than just the Minister acquiescing in the arrival of commercial broadcasting to exploit those, and I would like to see a much more active look taken at this issue by both the Minister and his colleague the Minister for Industry and Commerce who has most of the tools for promoting industrial development and service development.

Finally, as I understand I am under a very severe time constraint, I would like to mention briefly the issue of education in relation to broadcasting. There is an educational potential of broadcasting that is not being properly exploited. It is a great disappointment to me that foreign language programming has not yet got into the cable system in Dublin although it has arrived in Cork. I certainly appreciate Cablelink's difficulties in Dublin in that they have a smaller capacity to carry stations, but I cannot understand why it would not be possible to have opt-out hours out of channels such as Super and Sky and others who are providing broadcasting that could be viewed at any time; there are surely hours when Cablelink could opt out to provide some foreign language broadcasting.

With the advent of 1992 and the need for Ireland, as a small peripheral country, to be on a level pegging with everybody else we need to develop the language skills of our people. The broadcasting media is uniquely placed to bring language within the reach of many people who might not have the time, the energy, or the opportunity to go through formal classes. The Minister should ask the cable companies to provide, even on a flexible basis — nobody would ask them if they have very limited capacity to carry a wide range of channels in foreign languages — some such programmes.

I wish to raise one last issue relating to the speed of delivery of post. The Minister told us that he will get reports furnished to him. I hope and I am sure he will make available to the House the results of those reports. It is very important that the Minister look not just for the average delivery speed but for a regional breakdown. It is my experience from talking to colleagues around the House that if one is to post — as Deputy Kavanagh mentioned to me — a letter in Wicklow addressed to another part of Wicklow it can often take a week to make the journey. That experience is repeated throughout the country. It would be unfair of the Minister to look solely at the overall average. We must be assured that the different regions of the country are getting a speedy delivery as well. We must also be assured that no letters are delayed to the extent — even if they are only a small proportion — of weeks rather than working days. At the very least I ask the Minister to scrutinise very carefully the overall composition of the survey results and not the simple global average figure at the bottom line.

Mr. P. O'Malley

In dealing with the Estimate for the Department of Communications, I would like to spend some time talking about the proposed MMDS system, which Deputy Bruton has referred to but which I do not think the Minister referred to in his speech. The multipoint microwave distribution system is to have a "must carry" notice for transmission of the new commercial television channel. It would carry up to ten other terrestrial and satellite delivered services but it is specifically required to have a "must carry" notice for the new national channel.

There are many aspects of the Department of Communications on which we could spend some time talking this morning. The Minister pointed out there are two Bill before the House at present, namely, the Postal and Telecommunications Services (Amendment) Bill, 1988 — which we debated last week and will be debated again next week — and the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill, 1987, which no doubt will get a lot of airing in the House.

Mr. R. Bruton

It will be a long day.

Mr. R. Burke

From 10.30 a.m. to 12 midnight, including Question Time.

Mr. P. O'Malley

Allowing for that I would like to confine my remarks to the proposed new television transmission system. As Deputy Bruton said, advertisements for licences to operate the MMDS transmitters have recently been placed in the public press. I am sure the Minister is aware that a campaign is developing, particularly in rural areas, to bring pressure to have the MMDS system stopped. I am not saying to the Minister that I am in agreement with this protest group or that I necessarily support their views but arising out of the campaign certain questions have been posed in relation to this matter and I would ask the Minister to take this opportunity to clarify several aspects of the proposed system. I believe there is need for clarification and until such time as we get it the Minister is putting us in a position where we must keep an open mind on the subject of MMDS.

I want to ask about the technical suitability of this system for the areas it is intended to serve. The system operates on a clear line of sight basis and its capability in many areas where there are mountains or hills, or where trees or buildings intervene could effect the signal and may cause it not to operate effectively. I understand that the system was developed in Canada where there are lots of wide open plains and where the terrain and the geographical conditions are entirely different from that of rural Ireland. I ask the Minister to comment on the fact that there is a likelihood, at the very least, that this system could operate on a very patchy basis.

It is proposed to use the system here in a way that has never been tried elsewhere, that is, on a blanket coverage of the country. Up to now it has been used in an isolated way, mainly in Canada and the US where it has been developed. There is a requirement on the operators of this system to provide a service to anybody who wants it within their own catchment area. There is no guarantee that they will actually provide the service, either willingly or otherwise, and we could end up with only partial coverage of areas which are intended to be serviced by this system.

At present there are several multi-channel television operators supplying service illegally to many areas that the MMDS system is proposed to serve. These operators are using a deflection system and re-beaming signals in the UHF spectrum. They are at present illegal by virtue of the fact that they cannot get a licence from the Department of Communications. They are somewhat like the illegal radio stations which are operating at present, many of whom, I presume, will be in a position where they will be granted licences when the new Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill is enacted. The Department said the main reason they cannot license these operators is because it would not be in the interests of proper frequency management and they wish to keep the UHF spectrum free for the development of State broadcasting services.

I understand that the UHF spectrum is at present under-utilised and has a lot of spare capacity available. Is it absolutely sacrosanct that this spectrum be kept exclusively available for State broadcasting services? It does not appear to be the case in other countries and why should it be so here? The deflector system is much more cost effective and any change in the present illegal transmission system will mean that people who are at present receiving a satisfactory service will have to scrap their receivers, pay a new connection fee, buy a new television aerial and pay a new annual charge which will have to be sufficiently high to enable the MMDS operator to recover his installation costs on the system. We have all this just for the privilege of receiving the same service that one is already receiving and I want the Minister to explain why this is necessary.

The multi-channel UHF operators want nothing other than to be treated in the same way as cable operators. That is why they want to pay their licence fees and copyright fees. They want to be licensed on a provisional basis, say, for a period of five years. Their systems are using well-established technology which is economical and in volume production both here and abroad, unlike MMDS. Because they are localised systems, they are flexible to any future expansion into the UHF spectrum envisaged by RTE. Frequencies can be changed easily and economically at any stage and the UHF operators would be agreeable to yield up their frequencies to accommodate any expansion which RTE might want to make in the future. They could also be obliged to encode their signals which would give protection to existing cable operators. Given that scenario is it not possible that these re-beaming operators could be legalised and enabled to continue providing their services as it is certainly much cheaper and is already doing the job which the MMDS system proposes doing.

In any event, with the way technology is developing, is it not likely that terrestrial transmission systems with the exception of cable — because it will have other functions — are likely to become obsolete within a few years when DBS, direct broadcasting services from sattelite, come on stream? If so, is this not another reason why there is not much point in putting in an expensive new terrestrial system like MMDS which may well turn out to be defective anyway?

The point of concern Deputy Bruton referred to about the MMDS system which I am sure has been brought to the Minister's attention is the growing body of opinion that is concerned about MMDS from a health point of view. Many eminent and professionally qualified people are expressing concern about the health hazards associated with microwave radiation and several articles have appeared in the media recently on the matter. It is very important that the public be given the facts on this for no other reason than to allay their fears. If the Minister does not do this I have no doubt there will be a rash of objections when it comes to planning permission which will be required for all these transmitters which will be dotted around the country. I anticipate there will be problems at that time if the fears out there in the community are not addressed and assurances not given that no health hazards will arise from this system.

As I said, it is not my intention to be obstructive, but the questions I posed on technical, cost and health safety aspects are very important and should be addressed before the MMDS proposals are taken further.

Let me mention the relationship between RTE and Cablelink. RTE own 80 per cent of Cablelink, so effectively they control them. This is a unique situation both in Ireland and abroad, where the State broadcasting service controls a potential competitor; indeed, all cable operators have to pay a levy to RTE.

In the first place Cablelink carry other stations which are in competition with RTE, and I wonder if the Minister considers there could be a conflict of interests there, given the ownership position. Secondly and more importantly, because Cablelink are controlled by RTE, the cable company are effectively prevented from competing with RTE. Cablelink need not function just as a relay company; they could compete for purchasing of programmes and for advertising revenue, particularly by offering local Dublin advertising.

Would the Minister not agree that the public interest and the consumers' interest would best be served where competitive conditions existed between the broadcaster and the cable company and that market forces should determine which programmes are provided? Does he consider that the present situation does not allow that to happen and has he any plans to change it? I look forward to the Minister's replies to the many points I have raised.

Mr. O'Sullivan

We should hold this Estimate over for Wednesday and have a communications day to cover the whole lot.

Mr. R. Bruton

An open day.

Mr. R. Burke

I would not disagree with the Deputy on that.

Mr. O'Sullivan

It would save us having this day here in Dublin. The substantial decrease in the Estimate for Communications represents the board changes within that Department over the last two or three years. The establishment of An Post and Board Telecom Éireann has delegated much of the responsibility within these two areas. We have had a substantial debate this week on both these agencies and I intend to contribute to Deputy Bruton's Postal and Telecommunications Services (Amendment) Bill next week so I will not infringe on that area. Reference has already been made in some detail to some of the contents of that Bill. Suffice it to say I am not terribly happy with the Bill or the criticisms made without consultation with the Postal and Telecommunications Workers' Union of which I am a member, and they are the main union concerned. I tell Deputy Bruton I will be addressing that matter next week.

With regard to the £2.156 million set aside in 1988 for developments within communications, I welcome the increased investment in areas of capital expenditure within the Department. I would like to refer to a number of items and maybe the Minister will respond.

Under subhead A.2 a substantial increase is indicated in Departmental expenditure for consultancy services. Last year £2,000 was the amount spent but for 1988 the amount expected to be spent is £25,000. This is a significant increase which warrants explanation from the Minister. All the Estimates presented to day indicate a huge jump in consultancy fees. I ask the Minister for Communications why such a large increase in this area is necessary. I would also like the Minister to tell us something about consultancy services. Are they contracted staff or fee staff? Could the services so provided not have been provided by long-term departmental research staff? I raise this point because I believe that while jobs are embargoed within the Civil Service there is a growing incidence of staff being taken on on contract on a once-off or consultancy basis and I am concerned that this may be a roundabout way of bypassing the embargo.

With regard to any development in communications, it is important that the new skills and technological information be retained within the Department. This is relevant as we set ourselves the task of preparing for 1992. We must prepare the public sector staff for the major changes and ensure that the skills are developed within governmental agencies rather than developing reliance on consultancy and advisory services. The greater the need the greater will be the increase in price and these agencies are expensive to engage and have a commitment to the profit motive rather than to the Department. Research work conducted abroad indicates that long-term and ongoing training of permanent staff is far more appropriate for Government agencies. In this way banks of skills are built up throughout Departments and can be used without reliance on outside agencies. An added bonus is that staff pay and conditions are negotiated collectively and Governments can be sure of consistency, which is an important feature of public sector employment.

With 1992 in mind there will be increased dependence on advanced and complex technological skills. The Irish Government will be actualy dependent on a highly skilled and reliable workforce if we are not to be left behind. In this regard the Department of Communications will have a central role to play in ensuring that the communication channels are open and accessible to the business and productive agencies. The only resourceful way to ensure that this will happen is to plan for skills within the service and retain them there.

Apart from 1992 considerable changes are about to take place in the communications area as far as broadcasting is concerned. Fortunately, RTE are now returning to profitability, though not without considerable rationalisation and sacrifices on behalf of the staff. The latest announcement by the Minister regarding the third TV channel will undoubtedly create additional financial pressures in RTE. It is essential that RTE be provided with appropriate governmental support and that the new channel is obliged to operate under the same standards and regulations with regard to staffing and programming. Then RTE will be adequately placed to compete. The Labour Party will be asking the Minister to provide guarantees to the national service to ensure RTE are not asked to make any unreasonable sacrifices.

An Post and Bord Telecom Éireann have a crucial part to play in the communications service. Deputy Bruton mentioned criticism regarding delays and undue delays. Delays cannot be attributed solely to An Post. The service was in an advanced state of decay when it was transferred from the Post Office to the semi-State organisation. It is only now that the service has been streamlined. Having worked for practically 30 years in the service I can say with some degree of certainty that the post office staff are probably the most dedicated in the public service. Many of these people give their whole lives to the Department but decisions are taken over which they have no control and there should be greater communication between the workforce and the management. They were involved in the longest strike in the history of the State and the longest strike ever in any communications organisation in the world. This was largely due to a breakdown of communication within the organisation.

I was somewhat surprised by Deputy Bruton's reference to the spare capacity by RTE because they were contrary to his party's position in relation to this.

Mr. R. Bruton

I only reported what people are saying, that the MMDS is inappropriate.

Mr. O'Sullivan

We all recognise that RTE have spare capacity and that it would be sound economic sense to utilise it instead of getting involved in new technology.

Mr. P. O'Malley

That makes sense.

Mr. O'Sullivan

It certainly does and it has been completely ignored and the same can be said in relation to the skills of RTE. It should be recognised that we have a very valuable asset which should be utilised.

Under the 1926 Act, the Minister had the power to come to grips with the problem of pirate radio stations but he did not use it. However, I was a member of a Government which was equally guilty in that regard and who should have taken on the pirates before the problem got out of hand. I will not be opposing the Estimate and I look forward to discussing more points in detail in the weeks ahead.

Mr. McCartan

I welcome the opportunity to comment on the Minister's proposals in support of his amended Estimate for the coming year. Having just listened to his previous colleague in Cabinet propose an Estimate of £126 million the first thing that strikes me is that his request to the House is so modest.

Mr. R. Burke

He is a modest man.

Mr. McCartan

It is worth recognising why the budget is of such modest proportions. As the Minister has borrowed the word I will be reluctant to use it again during the course of the debate. The House and the public should appreciate the very good record which has been achieved by the State and semi-State companies in the area of postal and telecommunications and communications generally. The net requirement of the Minister's Department for a year is something over £2 million. The majority of the running cost of RTE as a communications company is achieved from their income from cable television, licence and broadcasting fees generally.

The postal services in 1987 made a profit of £2.7 million. Many of us who have to listen so often to the criticisms of the State and semi-State bodies take great pride in their achievements and the Minister rightly recognised this in his contribution. I should like to make special mention of the workers in these companies who, through their efforts and contribution, have helped to lift both areas — communications and the postal services — out of the doldrums. They have achieved this through the development of very healthy, good competitive practices. I am glad Deputy Kelly has come back in and I repeat that no semi-State or State companies are worried about competition on fair grounds.

I made this remark in the context of insurance costs a week or two ago and I regret I did not stay to hear Deputy Kelly advise me that perhaps I was in the wrong party. The Worker's Party are not afraid of the policies or philosophies of competition and we look forward to an increased competitiveness on the part of State and semi-State companies. We commend any move in that direction on the part of this or any Government which allows the State to develop competitively. It is a major problem as people on the one hand say it is unfair competition to let them get on with the job and, on the other, criticise them for not doing the job when they are hampered by unfair market constraints.

We should show our disapproval at the failure of the Government to deal with illegal broadcasting. It is not inaccurate to describe the failure of the Government and the authorities to tackle this problem as a scandal. We have been told, on a daily basis over the past number of weeks in the context of the rod licence angling dispute, that the law is in place and must be enforced. It is a great pity this and previous Governments were not of the same mind and did not have the same enthusiasm for the law and its enforcement in the area of illegal radio broadcasting.

As the previous speaker said, this is a remarkable time for communications. A revolution is taking place. The whole area of development and debate is occupying a great deal of our time in the House and outside it. It is important, in making fundamental decisions, to get them right. I hope people will never again be able to engage, nationwide, in illegal broadcasting. One of the aspects of the development of the revolution in communications is the suggestion by the Government of a third television channel. This will have major implications for the State broadcasting company, RTE. I heard the Minister saying that people in RTE are willing to take up the challenge of a third channel on a private basis but, against that, one has to measure the desirability and the capacity of RTE to continue viably with the withdrawal of advertising revenue and what that will add to the cost of the licence fee.

All speakers mentioned the decision of the Government in the past year to disband the Postal Users' Council and the Telecommunications Users' Council. This decision was met with some apprehension by Opposition spokespersons in the House at the time but, to some degree, our worries were assuaged by the suggestion that the remit of these councils would be taken up by the Office of the Ombudsman. That seemed a reasonably fair substitute but the history of the Office of the Ombudsman then and since has been one of appalling cutbacks with the result that the Ombudsman made an unprecedented plea to all interests and parties in the House to come to his aid and that of his staff.

It would be remiss of us not to comment on the fact that more than 2,000 complaints from the communications and postal areas have been submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman since this remit was extended to cover those areas. It is clear the Ombudsman is unable to cope and that the users' councils in postal and communications areas have been abolished and not replaced. In view of the fact that the cost of retaining such a council would be very small I should like to suggest to the Minister that he give serious consideration to reviving it in the near future or, alternatively, that he commit a very strong view through his office to the Cabinet for an increase in the remit and resources of the Office of the Ombudsman.

An Bord Telecom and An Post are major operations employing many people. They provide a wide range of services and it is the general view here, and abroad, that they have become more efficient in the delivery of those services in recent years, particularly since they were taken out of the direct control of Civil service administrators. The quality of the services provided by those companies has improved greatly. The introduction of worker directors to the boards of the companies is recognised as an important advance but I should like to suggest to the Minister that he consider appointing to those boards a person to represent consumer interests. If he does that he will be giving those who use the services of the companies an opportunity to voice their views.

We should pay tribute to the workers of both companies for the contribution they have made to the development of the companies. I should like to make special reference to the skill and experience of those in RTE, particularly in the radio division. I do not think that RTE are given the credit they deserve. I should like to make special mention of Radio 1 and the regional stations. The radio division has been seeking an increase in the number of hours for service delivery for many years. People do not understand the degree of State control in the area of broadcasting in RTE radio and television. The fact that Radio 1 ceases broadcasting at the hour it does each evening by Ministerial edict is an indication of that control. The station has asked on many occasions for an extension of those hours and I urge the Minister to accede to that request.

An area of broadcasting that concerned us in the House recently was the proposal to televise Dáil proceedings. In considering that we must have regard to the service that is being provided by RTE. In my view the timing of the evening broadcast is far from ideal. I urge RTE to consider plotting that transmission at a more appropriate time when, as statistics show, the station enjoys a bigger audience. The timing, and the time afforded, to a great degree belittles the quality of the work of the staff who transmit our deliberations from the House on a daily basis. I understand that "Morning Ireland" propose to extend the time of its programme from 7.30 a.m. to 9 a.m.

Mr. R. Burke

"Morning Ireland" has a new editor.

Mr. McCartan

I welcome the appointment of that talented man to the position of editor of "Morning Ireland" and I have no doubt he will lift the programme and the current affairs section in the way he has helped my other constituent, Mr. Byrne, over the years.

Mr. R. Burke

There are not party political affiliations there.

Mr. McCartan

The additional time will afford the station an opportunity to transmit a slot on the previous day's proceedings in the Dáil. I do not think we have been given adequate coverage on the airwaves when one considers the amount of work we get through daily, particularly in recent weeks when we have taken on an increased workload. I would like to see that programme carrying a more detailed report of Dáil proceedings before we get involved in the argument of whether we should televise our proceedings. The radio service, which is excellent, should be allowed develop to its full potential. We do not have any difficulty in welcoming the Minister's Estimate and we hope that matters will continue to progress as rapidly and as constructively as before.

Mr. Kelly

I should like to begin by saying a word or two about what Deputy McCartan was referring to. It had not been in my mind to say anything about televising Dáil proceedings but it fills me with shame to find that this proposal surfaces only when the British had done it. It is only when the British make a step of this or any other kind that anyone in this country gets round to deciding that it is high time we did it too. Were the reasons for broadcasting by television or otherwise the proceedings of this House not just as strong before the British made their decision as after it? Have there not been reasons for it for the past 65 years? Why then must we wait until it is done across the water by the people we spent 700 years trying to be free from according to the folklore without doing it ourselves? I will have time to refer to that on another occasion no doubt.

In the few minutes I have I should like to concentrate on the situation we have been in in the past five years in regard to pirate radio stations. In 1983 a couple of the very popular ones were attacked, quite rightly, by the Coalition Government and temporarily put out of business, quite rightly. Every Deputy will recall the sackfulls of mail, the countless tens of thousands of signatures of young people flowing in telling us that we were going to enjoy nothing but their disfavour as long as we remained in politics unless we supported the remaining open of those stations. The Government, needless to say, backed down on this issue and every other Government has done the same thing.

In order to give the House an idea of the scale of this problem I should like to refer to what the Minister for Communications said no more than six months ago. On 19 November in the House he estimated that there were about 70 illegal stations operating at various locations in the country. He said the number could vary from month to month. On the Minister's evidence we have 70 pirate stations operating here and harvesting between them, again on the Minister's evidence in reply to the same question on 19 November, between £3.5 million and £4 million in advertising per annum. Are they not in breach of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926? Is that not just as much part of the law of the land as the Fisheries (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1987 which one moment we hear is not being enforced and the next moment we are told is being enforced? It seems to operate north of a particular parallel of latitude but not south of it.

This is of greater importance than merely broadcasting importance. I want to point to those radio stations and what has happened about them as being one of the reasons for the softening of attitudes here towards the law, for the invasion of the Irish Constitution by a sort of dry rot. The institutions are all in place, the Dáil is sitting, the courts are open, the President is signing Bills, the Executive are at work in their various Departments but, just the same, there is a certain invasion of the structure by the following proposition: "we will only obey as much law as it suits us to obey at any particular time". That is the attitude on the citizens part and on the Government's part it is: "we will only enforce as much law as we are let". That is a shameful position for a free republic to be in.

What I know about fishing is so slight that I will not take sides on the merits of whether there should be a charge for trout fishing. If the Government are in difficulties and find themselves divided on whether to give in or not, it is because they have tolerated this slack application of the law, rightly or wrongly, down the years. I do not specially put Fianna Fáil on the spot because, as Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan fairly admitted, the Government we were voting for over the past few years were every bit as bad. That is the reason. Until Governments get their act together in regard to what they will face up to and stop being cowardly and running away from sacksful of petitions, we will never have a settled attitude towards law and government. It has been weakened enough by the history behind us in which law was foreign law and government was oppressive foreign government. It got off to a bad start for that reason alone, but let us not make it worse by despising and scorning the laws we ourselves have enacted, either in 1926 or 1987.

Earlier this year Deputy Richard Bruton asked the Minister the number of pirate stations which he had closed during the previous six months, the grounds on which they had been closed and whether he planned similar action against other stations. The Minister replied that in the previous six months action had been taken by his Department against one illegal broadcasting station on foot of a court order. I do not understand the last phrase too clearly. Summonses had, he said, been issued as a result and the matter was therefore sub judice. The matter is no longer sub judice because it was decided by the District Court last week to fine Mr. T.C.G. O'Mahony £50, not for operating a pop radio station polluting the atmosphere with pop music but for broadcasting his version of the Christian message, running a thing called Christian Community Radio Broadcasting at 90.23 megahertz. He was prosecuted because there are no votes to be lost in prosecuting Mr. O'Mahony.

Not a single other prosecution was brought, although there are 70 other illegal stations broadcasting, free as the air through which they transmit. That is the crown of infamy on this contemptible situation. The State has not the guts to close down a pirate radio unless it is run by somebody such as a religious enthusiast behind whom there are not enough votes to make any difference. My religious faith is very far from being of the same strength as Mr. O'Mahony's and I am by no means attracted by the level of devotionalism which it is his right as a Christian or as a citizen to entertain, but it is a scandal and a shame that he should be singled out for persecution by the Minister and his Department when the 70 other broadcasting stations, not interested in transmitting the Christian message but interested in making money, are allowed to remain open and in business.

Where is the philosophy which would explain the difference between this and what is happening on the waters of the west? This invasion of the Constitution by a psychological dry rot has reached very high levels. A bishop said last week that, if so many people are against that law, there must be something wrong with it. I have not the exact quotation in front of me but I believe I am paraphasing him not unfairly. I wonder would he apply that argument to the law of his own Church. Would he accept that as a valid criterion for changing the law which he preaches and is bound to preach from his pulpit and bound to make sure that the priests subject to him preach in their pulpits? If it has reached that length it is very serious indeed. If bishops, who used to be the main bulwark of respect for the law, are beginning to talk like that, it is very serious and it is a lot for a democratic Government to answer for if they allow that situation to develop. I hope I have not been unfair to the Minister or his Department, but it looks to me, and will look to others, as though this particular defendant was singled out because it was felt to be safe to single him out. That is base for a republic.

I want to change not only subject but gear and pitch in my closing remarks which will be a lot more pacific. I hope they will not be entirely irrelevant to what ordinary people feel. There was a time when I was first in this House when the debates on the Estimate for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs went on for a week. There was hardly a Deputy in the House who did not want to contribute. Everybody had an opinion about RTE or the various programmes they produced. The way the House was run then allowed Deputies to give their views at great length about this or that programme. I do not wish to do that but there is one respect in which I would stop short of supporting the praises which in other respects I would certainly endorse in regard to RTE's standards and expertise. I refer to the amount of control they exercise over their advertisers. I do not object to advertising but there is a level of boredom and infuriation which one ought not to wish on the listener. I do not think anyone in RTE applies a standard to the sort of stuff served up by the advertisers. No one applies the following standard: if people hear this jingle, not for one, two, or three months but for a year on end, are they going to go out of their minds? If they hear that idiotic pipping following by "ACOT — Focus on Farming" for a couple of years in a row, are they going to become nursing home cases? This is not to speak of a canon or genre in advertising which has now virtually taken over.

I refer to a conversation between a man and wife — the marital status is not made clear but they are certainly in what would nowadays be described as a "stable relationship"— in some kind of surreal Castleknock. They speak in accents which are not English accents and are certainly not Irish ones. The scenario always involves the man in disclosing himself to be a well-spoken knucklehead at his wits end because of the insurance premium demand he has received. His wife, who would take my prize for smugness, whoever she is — there is, I suppose, a whole raft of them — calls him with every half sentence "darling" and has the answer up her sleeve. Mrs. Darling O'Smug has all the answers — he should try this company or that company. The building society advertisements are every bit as bad, sometimes worse.

RTE should not be on their knees to their advertisers and should insist on a certain minimum level of amusement and elegance. I do not care how earthy an advertisment is but it should not be irritating or something that will tend to infuriate if heard over too long a period. Advertisers should be told that no matter what jingle they select they will be able to run it for no longer than three months and then will have to come up with a different jingle. Perhaps I have a lower exasperation threshold than other people. I do not hear other people complaining about this matter but when I complain about it among my circle of friends I get virtually 100 per cent agreement, which is not something I am accustomed to getting anywhere about anything, as a general rule. RTE, if they have not heard this point made before, should reflect on it and consider whether their advertisements are phoney and if there is something false or exasperating about them if repeated ad nauseam.

The advertisements I like best are the ones I understand least, like the agricultural ones early in the morning from which one will learn a great deal about liver fluke while having one's breakfast. There is a certain reality about them. Even though I do not have the problem of liver fluke or hoose, I appreciate that it is serious for the farming community. At least it is dealt with in what I might call a manly, straightforward way that one could listen to, even as a city bred person, without resentment for many months on end. There have been occasionally, in the agricultural sphere and in others, excellent advertisments which got their message across through wit but that seems to be in desperately short supply these days as far as the agencies which turn out the material for clients are concerned. Even if the agencies are low on inventiveness, ingenuity and taste, surely RTE which we all praise for their content of skills might apply some of those same skills to sparing the public the kind of low grade and nauseating advertising which we have to listen to. I accept that they have to run advertising but the people should not be expected to listen for sometimes 12 months or years on end to the same idiotic, stomach-turning jingle.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Leonard)

The Deputy's time is up. He has already got two minutes of a bonus.

Mr. Kelly

I am glad of the bonus. I very often find it a problem in rhetoric or in public speaking if one has a few serious points to make and one also has a point which is perhaps just as serious but which allows itself to be addressed more lightheartedly. One always runs the risk that what one has said fairly lightheartedly, although seriously intended, will detract from whatever weight the other part of one's remarks may have had. Even though I have spent some time talking about advertising I hope the Minister will realise that the point I really want to get across is the one in regard to the nonapplication of the laws of this House or rather their selective application in a way that I think is disgraceful.

Mr. R. Burke

In listening to Deputy Kelly's words I wonder if there are those in the general public who would say — people in RTE often say it about politicians: "There they go, irritating and infuriating; we have to listen over a long period to idiotic, stomach-turning speeches by politicians". I want to refer to the question of pirate radio and the statement made by Deputy Kelly and many others on the need to get these pirate radios off the air as soon as possible. Deputy Kelly rightly quoted me as saying that there are 70 such stations and their very existence is bringing the law into disrepute.

Mr. Kelly

The Minister called it a disgraceful situation.

Mr. R. Burke

It is a disgraceful situation. It is for that reason that I introduced the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill which has already passed Second Stage and which, I hope, will be debated the week after next in the House in association with the Report and Final Stages of the Radio and Television Bill because they go hand in hand. It is essential that we come to grips with the pirate stations. They are in existence and they have picked a niche for themselves in the marketplace for independent radio. We want to get these pirates off the air and have a legal regime of alternative radio in force as soon as possible. The fines proposed in that Bill will ensure that it is legislation that can be enforced and that can be effective. At present fines of £50 and £20 are imposed on those who have been brought to court.

Mr. Kelly

You can also seize their apparatus.

Mr. R. Burke

Yes. When the new legislation is passed these people will face jail sentences and fines of up to £20,000. That applies not only to the operators but also to those who advertise on those stations. There are powers in the new Bill to stop the ESB from giving them power and also in relation to the phone service to these operators. I share the concern of the Members of the House. The sooner this legislation is passed the better.

In relation to the specific case mentioned by Deputy Kelly, lest there be any misunderstanding on this, the action taken in that case was not the only one that was taken. Action has been taken in other cases as well. The practice being followed by me, and which was followed by my predecessors, in the absence of legislation to allow radio is that any of these illegal stations who cause intereference with other stations or with the emergency services are taken to court. That is what happened in the case referred to by Deputy Kelly. It had nothing to do with the content of the programmes but with the fact that the person was interfering with other stations and when he was asked to change from the channel he was on he would not do so. It was for that reason that he was taken to court. This has happened in a number of cases where the equipment has been seized. Unfortunately the fines are always about £20 or £50 and the equipment is eventually given back to the operators. Under the new legislation which will be passed within the next couple of weeks we can come to grips with this national scandal that has brought the law into disrepute for the last ten years. The sooner it is passed the better. This matter was mentioned by a number of Deputies, including Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan.

Deputy Bruton referred to the Radio and Television Bill. We will have an opportunity next week and the week after to discuss the various Stages of that Bill. I will not go into detail on the points he made. He referred, as did Deputy O'Malley, to the sacks full of mail, to use Deputy Kelly's phrase, from the present illegal deflector operators around the country trying to retain their illegal operations in relation to the deflection of television services. I can assure the Deputies that I have noted their points and I will put together a properly documented case answering the various points. I will publicise it as widely as possible and make it available to them. I will just mention a few of them briefly today.

First, in relation to the MMDS and the accusation that it will not achieve nationwide coverage and that it is merely line of sight, UHF is also line of sight. The position with regard to the MMDS is that the frequency pattern which has been designed by my Department will give national coverage in any areas where there is a black spot and alternators and repeaters can be put in. There is no difficulty with that. For example, it took RTE nearly 25 years to achieve the whole national coverage that they now have. You will recall that the Black Valley in Kerry, for example, did not have service for a long time and the Cooley Peninsula was another example. The MMDS frequency as designed by the officials of my Department will give national coverage, not all on day one but progressively as the system is constructed.

The position that was referred to by Deputy Bruton in the UK still has not been resolved. We are pioneers in this area in relation to MMDS. As regards UHF capacity and RTE's capacity I can assure the Deputy, as I have done already in replies to questions, that that capacity is, for all intents and purposes, taken up. Deputy O'Malley was concerned about the health aspect. I will deal with this matter in greater detail in the statements that I will prepare because I want to allay the legitimate concerns and worries of the Deputies on this matter.

The technical specifications being laid down by my Department will require MMDS operators to comply with the guidelines laid down by the International Non-Ionising Radiation Committee of the International Radiation Protection Association on the limits of exposure to radio frequency electro-magnetic fields in the frequency range from 100 kilohertz to 300 gigaherts. This body, in co-operation with the environmental health dicision of the World Health Organisation have undertaken responsibility for the development of health criteria documents on non-ionising radiation. These form part of the World Health Organisation's environmental health criteria programme which is funded by the United Nations Environmental Programme. The body has the support of the International Labour Office and the Commission of the European Communities.

A document called "Environmental Health Criteria 16 — Radiofrequency and Microwaves" was published in 1981 under the joint sponsorship of UNEP, WHO/IRPA, and served as a scientific rationale for the development of the "Interim Guidelines on limits of exposure to RF electro-magnetic fields in the frequency range from 100 kilohertz to 300 gigahertz", published in 1984. Following publication of the interim guidelines, important advances were made in biological RF radiation research which led to a revision of the interim guidelines. The revised text was approved in June 1987 and it is this set of guidelines that MMDS operates will be obliged to comply with. I can assure the Deputies these guidelines will be fully enforced.

The microwave is already being used for the telephone network. I am told the health risk from a microwave oven in the home is far in excess of anything that comes across on the microwaves used for telephones and for the proposed system of MMDS. World Health Organisation rules will be fully enforced.

A number of Deputies asked about the future of Cablelink. I have taken note of the points mentioned, as well as the levy question mentioned by Deputy Bruton. I want to put on record and categorically deny the statements made by Deputy Bruton in relation to my attitude and the attitude of the Government as far as consumer protection is concerned. We are fully committed to consumer protection but that does not mean we have to accept the legislative proposal put forward by Deputy Bruton. In our view, rather than being a protection for the consumer Deputy Bruton's Bill would cost the consumer and would lead to greater inefficiencies in the postal and telecommunications area.

I accept what Deputies Bruton said about the foreign language programming on cable television. I believe there is a case to be made for TV 5 or some of the other stations to be put on air for a couple of hours a day in spare capacity time. With the new systems I have no doubt we will be able to do that.

Deputy O'Malley raised questions on the MMDS and legalising the illegal stations. That is not the way to go forward. The suggestion that DBS broadcasting will replace terrestrial broadcasting in the foreseeable future is a little optimistic. The United Kingdom satellite project started in 1983 and may come to pass in 1989. However, subscriber penetration is expected to grow slowly, and individual reception of DBS would require the purchase of expensive new satellite reception equipment at each individual home. The British system will offer three channels some of which will be encoded. None of this will be provided by the existing terrestrial services.

Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned consultancy services. The increase in consultancy services expenditure was due to the engagement of consultants to prepare for the introduction of information technology in the Department. It is planned to computerise the areas of financial control information in semi-State bodies under my aegis and licensing systems. It is part of the Government's determination to exploit the latest advances in information technology to provide the most efficient and cost effective service to the State.

Another point raised dealt with the transmission resources available to RTE. There are a number of misconceptions about this. The transmission resources are very limited and are fully utilised and any expansion would require significant capital investment by RTE.

I welcome Deputy McCartan's endorsement of my views that the three State companies under my aegis are good examples of good management as evidenced by their financial results. I have also recognised the dedicated efforts of the staff, the board and management of those companies who are doing an excellent job.

I have already referred to pirate radio stations. That area will be handled in the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill. Deputy McCartan alleged there was undue ministerial power over hours of broadcasting. It is for the RTE Authority to decide what the hours of broadcasting should be and having so decided, they require my approval. I recently received some proposals from RTE for an extension of their hours, and I hope to be in a position to make an announcement on that very shortly. I will bring to the attention of the Authority the points raised by the Deputies in relation to transmission of "Today in the Dáil" during the extended "Morning Ireland" programme.

We will have a lot of time over the next two weeks, particularly next Wednesday, to discuss many matters which would have come up in the Estimate. I thank Deputies for contributing to this debate. I can assure them we have taken note of the points they have mentioned but to which I have not responded in detail. I will bear them in mind when determining future policy in the Department.

Vote put and agreed to.