asked the Minister for Communications the role he played in the recent dispute between RTE and Century Communications over the cost of the provision of transmission facilities; the reason he did not appoint an independent arbitrator; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Radio Transmission Facilities.
12.
In accordance with section 16 (2) of that Act I have had consultations with RTE and the Independent Radio and Television Commission concerning RTE's transmission charges for the new independent radio service and have issued a direction concerning those charges as provided for under the section mentioned. As the direction was given on the basis that there would be no question of a subsidy from RTE to any independent contractor the question of appointing an arbitrator does not arise.
Does the Minister accept that when the Broadcasting Act was being dealt with in this House, he made it clear that it would be possible and that he would be concerned to appoint an arbitrator if a dispute arose? This matter was raised by me and other Deputies, including Deputy Bruton, when this Bill was going through. Does the Minister not believe that because he failed to appoint an arbitrator, a lot of unnecessary aggravation was caused to RTE, to the company concerned and to the public?
I would refer the Deputy to what I actually said in the Dáil debate that he mentioned. I said that it should be noted that while legally the Minister would be the arbitrator there would be nothing to prevent the Minister of the day from appointing and taking advice from a professional arbitrator. I went on to say that it would be done on the basis of commercial criteria. I do not understand exactly what the Deputy means by aggravation. I had a meeting with the RTE Authority and there was a joint statement emphasising that there was no question of subsidy from RTE to any independent contractor. There might have been elements within RTE that might have been aggrieved but the RTE Authority when I met them, were most agreeable.
Would the Minister accept that Mr. Finn, senior executive of RTE, indicated to press reporters that they were seeking legal opinion as to the Minister's right to make an order with regard to some of the charges involved and that it is hardly appropriate to refer to Mr. Finn as "some elements within RTE? Will the Minister also indicate the basis of his conclusion that £440,000 is adequate recompense to RTE for the service provided when RTE were quite adamant that £612,000 was required in order to provide a service on a commercial basis?
As far as RTE are concerned, obviously they asked for the highest price they thought they would get. The whole object of putting the section into legislation was to leave room for the Minister of the day to decide between the excessive amount RTE would want to do it on a commercial basis and the minimum the commercial operator would want to pay; and that legislation passed through this House unanimously. In relation to the charges with RTE I would refer the Deputy to the joint statement from me and the RTE Authority following my meeting with them. The charges laid down by the Minister will be operated by RTE and the Minister reiterated that these involved no question of a subsidy from RTE to an independent contractor; that a review of the operation of the maintenance will take place after 18 months to ensure that this is so; and the process of finalising the contract between RTE and Century will now proceed.
In regard to reports in the newspapers about RTE seeking legal advice, I saw the Chairman of the RTE Authority being interviewed and he clarified the position and specifically stated that there was no question at any time of the RTE Authority asking for legal advice in relation to the legal right of the Minister to make a decision.
Could the Minister inform the House whether the sum eventually settled on was the sum originally sought by RTE? When I made a statement on this whole matter, the Minister accused me of not having the correct figures. He intimated to me that he would supply me with the figures. To date I have not received them. Would the Minister now inform the House what RTE sought originally? Was it more or less than the figure that Century were originally prepared to pay? I ask because I feel that there are some questions to be answered in relation to this whole affair.
After I spoke to the Deputy in the corridor of the House, all the information in relation to the figures were public knowledge. The whole schedule of figures was published. As to whether they were the exact figures that RTE originally asked for, no they were not; but they were reasonable figures, which involved a payment for access to the RTE facilities in the FM sites and 2 AM sites of £35,000 per annum to increase yearly in line with the consumer price index, in relation to maintenance charges for equipment. There were other charges and they were all well publicised in the media. They are not what RTE were looking for but that is exactly what was in mind when the legislation was passed through this House. The legislation provided that the Minister would decide between the demands of RTE and the offer of the contractor. The one point I want to emphasise is that there is no question of subsidisation by RTE of the commercial operations.
What about the taxpayer?
Or the taxpayer.
Deputy Richard Bruton. I have dwelt overlong on this question. I want to get on to other questions also. This must be a final supplementary and a brief one, Deputy.
In view of the fact that commercial arrangements by RTE with new broadcasters will be quite a frequent issue, does the Minister not agree it is very unsatisfactory that political intervention should finally resolve such issues, leaving a feeling of considerable doubt as to whether it was a commercial arms-length agreement? In view of that, would it not be better to have these problems resolved independently by arbitration in the future?
The matter has already been decided by legislation which was passed in this House only 12 months ago. The legislation specified that it was the Minister of the day who would make the decision.
Deputy De Rossa made clear what the understanding was.
No. 13.
May I ask one brief question?
Sorry, No. 13 has been called.
The question is just a short supplementary.
Please obey the Chair, Deputy.
The taxpayers will have to subsidise——
That is not true. It is totally false.
I have called the next question.
Can the Minister indicate how, given the fact that——
Order, please. Deputy De Rossa must resume his seat.