Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Oct 1992

Vol. 423 No. 1

Written Answers. - TV Deflector Systems.

Peter Barry

Question:

249 Mr. Barry asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications if she will outline Government policy on the operation of TV deflector systems throughout the country and the complaints, if any, that have been received about bias in the operation of the policy.

Peter Barry

Question:

250 Mr. Barry asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications the reason her Department did not acknowledge the applications for a licence submitted by a company (details supplied).

Peter Barry

Question:

252 Mr. Barry asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications the reason she insists that the licence granted to a company (details supplied) must be exclusive although an alternative, cheaper and acceptable service is available from another source.

Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications (Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 249, 250 and 252 together. I refer the Deputy to my answer to a Question No. 196 on this subject on 23 June 1992, columns 719-720, volume 421, No. 4, of the Official Report for that day in which Government policy on the operation of illegal deflector systems is clearly set down. It has also been explained in answer to Parliamentary Questions on 18 May, 1992 — volume 380, column 1791 and 1792 of the Official Report for that day refers — why UHF deflector systems, for practical and policy reasons, cannot be licensed and therefore do not and never have constituted an acceptable alternative means of providing a multichannel television service on a nationwide basis to areas which are not cabled.

For the sake of completeness, I refer the Deputy to the Official Reports of Question Time during 1985 and 1986, in particular Question Number 5 of 2 July 1985 columns 13 to 15 of the Official Report for that day and Question No. 36 of 20 February, 1986, columns 3485 and 3486 of the Official Report for that day for the policy of the Government, of which Deputy Barry was a member, on this issue in general and the illegal system in Carrigaline in particular, even before the Government considered the use of MMDS as a legal alternative.

The policy has been clear, under successive Governments, for a considerable time — rebroadcasting systems such as that operating in Carrigaline cannot in the national interest, be licensed. In regard to the continued operation of illegal system, it has been the policy that the illegal systems must close down as legal alternatives — cable and MMDS — become available. There have been allegations that Cork has been singled out in some way in the operation of this policy. I do not accept such allegations. The action taken by my Department in Carrigaline is part of an ongoing process of upholding the law. Since the introduction of MMDS, illegal systems in other parts of the country have closed down on foot of warnings issued by the Department (such as were issued in Cork) or of their own volition. Where such warnings are not heeded, there is no alternative but to enforce the law.

The efficient use of the radio frequencies available for MMDS dictated that licences had to be exclusive in each particular area if we are to bring a credible range of programmes service to people on a nationwide basis. Licences were issued only after a competitive tendering process which was extensively advertised and which was open to any interested party. The company referred to by the Deputy did not make an application for the MMDS franchise in County Cork.

The reasons why applications for licences for systems such as the Carrigaline systems could not be approved were explained on a number of occasions to those associated with its operation. These reasons were once again explained in detail in writing to the operators of the Carrigaline system last July in response to an application for a licence.