Austin Deasy
Question:10 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications when he expects that the MMDS system will be fully operational nationwide; and the estimated cost per house per annum.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Radio Communications Systems.
Although MMDS systems are now in operation in nine of the ten franchise areas throughout the country, progress with the provision of MMDS service in some areas has been delayed by the difficulties encountered by the companies concerned, mainly in dealing with entrenched illegal defector systems. The companies feel that they will be able to provide a service to all areas by some time next year. The annual charge to the subscriber currently varies from £91 to £145.96.
It is regrettable that a time limit did not apply to the licences granted. Will the Minister agree if it had applied companies given the franchise would have installed the system within a reasonable period or have lost it and it would be put up for tender again? The position is causing politicians tremendous difficulties. They have been abused and accused where there are illegal deflector systems. Those who are trying to hold the line of legality surely deserve better support from those companies. The Minister should crack the whip in respect of companies which have not installed the system. Will he give a commitment that he will ask those people to fulfil the terms of the licences they obtained or to surrender them?
I share Deputy Deasy's genuine concern about the continuing illegality and commend him for his principled stand on the issue. The problem is not that they are not prepared to provide these services; in some cases they are denied the possibility of providing services despite having gone through the planning system. Many of these companies have undertaken a significant investment in this area. Proceedings are taking place in one area and I do not wish to say anything that would indicate prejudice on my part.
The Minister is prejudiced.
The court will deal with that matter. As regards the merits of the system introduced by the Deputy's colleague, Deputy Mitchell——
Deputy Burke issued the licences.
Deputy Burke reviewed it and agreed with it. Any effort to show that one person is more responsible than another because of short term unpopularity is unacceptable; perhaps the Deputy will be found out quicker than he thinks.
I share Deputy Deasy's concern about the ability of the MMDS operators to market their product. There are illegal deflector systems in some parts of the country. There can be no question of condoning systems that operate outside the law. Continuity of service from illegal systems cannot be guaranteed; illegality cannot be perpetuated. The fault does not lie in the fact that licensees do not provide the equipment. The equipment is provided, but illegal deflector systems operate in competition with the MMDS system and there have been lobbies against it. MMDS operators who follow the due process and obtain planning permission are denied access, that it is to be condemned. I share the Deputy's concern, there must be greater urgency in ensuring the problem is rectified.
Would the Minister agree that one problem is that the expectations of illegal operators and those who support them were raised prior to the last general election by one of the parties now in Government who told them if it was returned to power these systems would be legalised? Is that not a significant contribution factor to the problems that have arisen? Will the Minister make available the names of companies, groups or individuals who tendered for the MMDS system franchise and the tender price for each area? Misinformation is being bandied about that one individual has virtually a monopoly over these franchises — this person is a newspaper magnate as well as being a business man. That malicious and misleading rumour should be shown up for what it is. The people who tendered were legitimate business people and groups, and the public should be informed who they are and the price paid for the franchise in each area.
We seem to be going beyond the bounds of this question.
I will have no problem providing that information to the Deputy. On the first part of the Deputy's question, that is simply his view.
It is true.
It is not technically feasible to allow illegal deflector systems to continue in operation given the very small frequency on the UH band. In addition, we do not have the spectrum necessary for this purpose. The available spectrum is used for the development of our national service. The purpose of the MMDS system is to meet consumer demand, to provide a countrywide — not in pockets, as is the case with the illegal system — multi-channel choice. We need the frequency band for Teilifís na Gaeilge and future developments that may take place.
We do not have the ability to willy-nilly hand over the spectrum, which is a national asset negotiated by the Government in 1960 under the Stockholm Treaty when setting up a national broadcasting service. We will not allow that frequency to be used to bring in services from outside the country. There is a demand for these services and we are meeting that demand by a regulated system. From all the technical advice available, this is the only practicable system that provides the prospect of a countrywide multi-channel choice.
There is no basis for the health scare and hype. No Government would consider introducing a system with such inherent dangers. I try, in all my public pronouncements, to assure people that that is the case.
Will the Minister ask the Labour Party to make a similar unequivocal statement on the matter?
As Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, I enunciate Government policy.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): In view of the fact that there are two sets of experts, the Minister's and those who help other people at meetings, both of whom claim to be correct, will the Minister bring them together so that they can argue this matter with a view to reaching a final conclusion on it? My Question No. 31 which relates to this matter also asks the number of countries in Europe using this system. Perhaps the Minister could give me that information off the top of his head.
I cannot give it off the top of my head but I will give the reply to that question in a few moments. Different systems suit different countries depending on topography, population density and so on. There is a whole range of criteria by which to decide the system used. With our geographical location and the limited frequency in the UH band, this is the most practical system.
On the question of experts, it is possible for any vested interest group to employ people who will agree with them. The experts in my Department are the people from whom we take advice. The Attorney General advises the Government on legal matters, we cannot go to the Law Library to pick and choose our legal advice. The Government has its own legal adviser and abides by the advice received from him or her. The same applies to Departments. We have our expert advisers, we depend on them and we abide by their advice. If there was incontrovertible evidence which would put into question the evidence available to us, it would be considered, but no evidence exists to indicate there is a health scare.
A study of masts was carried out under my predecessor, Deputy Molloy, and the result, which is available to the public, clearly shows that the levels of electromagnetic radiation are infinitesimal and within the guidelines. If we start querying the validity of the rulings of the World Health Organisation we will be in trouble. The World Health Organisation say that a safe limit is 10 watts per cubic meter; what we get is one ten-thousandth of that. They say that, taking into account all the information from all the international entities concerned, that is a safe level. There is no evidence that suggests that will change. If we could look at this matter unemotionally, things might be clearer.
A great amount of money is being collected under the illegal system which is not subject to VAT or to tax. No royalties are being paid to anybody for transmission. When money is involved there is confusion and sometimes the level of confusion is related to the amount of money involved. We have a system which was examined by Ministers who are now in Opposition and reviewed by present Ministers. It is the most practicable system available and we need to implement it if we are to have a countrywide choice. The questions about health and so on have been answered conclusively in my view and in that of my predecessors from all parties.
I assure the Minister that I am not representing anybody who is acting illegally and I resent him giving that impression. The Minister has failed to allay the fears of local people who have no vested interest in deflector systems. They are ordinary people living in the shadow of a transmitter. They want assurances from the Minister about the safety of these structures. Notwithstanding everything that has been said today, and notwithstanding some of the information he gave to this House which may be refuted, will he assist the process between now and 19 May by bringing together his officials and local people with a view to establishing a small committee to resolve the issue and allay the fears of people who have nothing whatever to do with those who have a vested interest in illegal deflectors but are concerned about health and safety issues?
There are different segments who have different levels of interest. There is a vested interest. Much money is being made by those who are running deflector systems and the public are getting information which has no basis in fact. There is no evidence to suggest that animals or humans will be adversely affected. When a Minister for Communications of an Irish Government states the position as known to him and his Department, that might have given some weight.
The Minister is not always right.
There was a specific investigation of sites in this country. Never mind Australia or anywhere else, let us talk about our own country which we know and understand. We can only make progress if there is an acknowledgment of facts. We cannot have argument and counter-argument ad infinitum. The facts are as I have given them.
There is a different problem where people are concerned about how the transmitter will look. That is a genuine concern and we will see if anything can be done about that, but I do not know if anything can. However, planning permission was given. There was an opportunity for an oral hearing on appeal which was not availed of. There is a due process which I cannot unravel. If a licence or a planning permission is properly given——
This has nothing to do with planning permission.
——it gives certain rights to franchisees to proceed. In this case difficulties arose.
In regard to the court cases, I do not like to see anybody's liberty put at risk. However, people are responsible for their actions and have choices. A civil action has been taken and it is not for me to comment other than to make the general point. I am seeking to give the facts in an objective and unemotional way. The Department wishes to allay fears as it has in other areas. In my constituency fears were allayed because people were prepared to accept that certain facts are incontrovertible, one of which is that this is not a health hazard.