Vol. 446 No. 3
I move:
That Dáil Éireann supports the need for competition between community television and existing licenceholders under the 1926 Wireless and Telegraphy Act and calls on the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications to amend the Wireless Telegraphy (Television Programme Retransmission) Regulations, 1989 to implement this policy.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Jim O'Keeffe and Bradford.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Under the provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926, the Minister for Communications has the power to grant or refuse an applicant a licence to transmit signals within a certain frequency band. By regulations published by the Minister for Communications in March 1988, the Minister regulated the manner in which licences for an apparatus used solely for the purpose of transmitting television programmes were to be applied for and granted. Subsequently, it was decided to grant ten franchise areas throughout the country for the purpose of retransmitting television programmes and multipoints micro wave distribution systems, known as MMDS, were identified as the appropriate technology which would provide a range of high quality multi-channel TV choice in rural areas as is already available to people served by cable systems in urban areas. An extension of existing cable systems would not operate satisfactorily to the less densely populated areas due to the high cost to subscribers and the large capital investment that such developments would demand. Accordingly, the Department of Communications ignored all possibilities and adopted the MMDS system, the best available technology, to give greater choice of TV channels at a reasonable cost in those parts of the country where a cable system would be cost prohibitive and meet our international treaty obligations on the use of radio frequencies. MMDS owes its development to two systems first used in North America in the early 1960s, the metropolitan distribution system, MDS, and the instructional television fixed service, ITFS.
MDS is a local delivery system capable of distributing video voice and data signals by radio waves from a central transmitter to individual residential locations. It has the potential to retransmit up to 11 channels in addition to the RTE services without any requirement to change a television set. However, an MMDS receiver antenna and a down converter will be required to pick up the MMDS signals from the control transmitter and change them to frequencies suited to the TV set. On 6 May 1988 the Minister for Communications issued retransmission licences for the ten franchise areas. The decision announced by the Minister was that only applications for the supply of a retransmission system known as MMDS would be entertained by the Minister; that licences granted would be exclusive licences, that is, the licensee would have a monopoly in the area over which the licence was granted and no other licence would be granted over it and that the MMDS system be used for the transmission of signals in the band 2,500 to 2,700 MHZ.
The result of the Minister's policy decision was that no other community group could obtain a licence under the 1926 Act, or be approved for a deflector system on the VHF band.
Frequency bands are a national asset and must be managed carefully by the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications. However, there are also international obligations for Ireland. A specialised agency of the United Nations, known as the International Telecommunications Union, ITU, regulate the telecommunications services worldwide. One of its committees — the Consultative Committee for International Radio, CCIR, is responsible for establishing regulations governing all forms of broadcasting.
Under these radio regulations UHF channels are allocated. Following an agreement reached at a conference in Stockholm in 1961, specific channels were allocated to each member state for broadcasting. They were termed primary and secondary stations using power output levels greater than ten kilowatts. In addition permission was granted for what was called a tertiary status which was defined as operating on a non-interfering basis. Accordingly, a system must be put in place that will meet our international obligations and also not interfere with space on a frequency band that has already been allocated to RTE or other users of radio transmission.
The Minister holds that there is no space available for community TV services on the UHF band. This is contradicted by existing community television groups who have been providing a low cost and high quality service for the past number of years without any interference problems with RTE services. In fact there are many parts of this country where RTE services are not provided. They maintain that there is ample room in the UHF band to accommodate Irish and UK TV broadcasts. That is graphically demonstrated by the fact that the northern counties in the Republic and the Six Counties receive without mutual interference RTE 1, Network 2, BBC 1 and 2, UTV and Channel 4, all transmitted from high powered national primary stations.
It is argued that the Minister is not implementing the spirit of EC Directive 89/552/EEC, which deals with aspects of transfer frontier television broadcasting. Microwave transmitters have been erected at various sites in the Republic to broadcast European and satellite television signals to the population. At present the only European terrestrial television signals being re-transmitted are those from the United Kingdom and there do not appear to be any plans to transmit television signals from other European member states. The transmitters are generally sited on high ground in isolated areas.
Deflector systems operate on a part of the UHF band which is governed by an international treaty. The Department has stressed on many occasions that deflector systems cannot be licensed. It has been said that there are simply not enough frequencies available to Ireland to establish a nationwide network of deflector transmitters while at the same time meeting other national requirements such as RTE frequency requirements. The treaty provides Ireland with spectrum capacity for the equivalent of four television networks and no more. RTE already uses part of these bands both for medium power transmitters and local transposers designed to improve reception in areas where it is poor. Capacity equivalent to two of the four national networks has effectively been allocated for RTE requirements. Furthermore, Teilifís na Gaeilge has to operate on the UHF band and technical studies indicate that the third of the four available networks will be required for this service.
The final network has been ear-marked by the Department for any future development of an independent TV channel. The Minister has argued that the fundamental physics of frequency management, combined with the international constraints which apply, mean that the opportunity for multi-channel television throughout the country can only be provided by MMDS. However, new technological developments could be different in the near future. The advent of digital compression has made the transmission of high quality digital television a laboratory reality. In the future it may be possible for an MMDS operator to transmit multiple high quality television signals on a smaller frequency band through compression. Recent advances in digital compression have reduced the necessary data rates by factors of more than one hundred to one while retaining most of the original picture quality.
There are 11 channels available on MMDS at present. Through digital compression it is anticipated that only two channels will be required to meet the same re-transmission obligations which will allow more frequency space to be made available for other use. Technology has major implications for community television. The technological basis will be available to allow a licence to be granted by the Minister and not interfere with existing operators or international treaties.
Each MMDS transmission facility can cost up to £250,000 and between £250 and £300 worth of equipment has to installed in the subscriber's home. The annual charge to subscriber varies as between franchise areas from £84 to £140. The latter charge is regarded as the norm while the charges by operators of the illegal deflector systems at present are approximately £30 to £40.
All forms of radio and television broadcasting employ a broadcasting frequency. For example, the popular music station, Radio Atlantic 252, broadcasts at 252 kilohertz or 252,000 cycles per second. While this seems a large number of cycles, in broadcasting terms it is quite low and suitable only for transmitting music and the spoken word. When transmitting more information one must use higher frequencies. Black and white television employed VHF frequencies of between 30 and 300 million cycles per second. For colour transmissions the broadcasting frequencies had to be increased to the UHF range — 300 million to three billion cycles per second. MMDS which can broadcast up to 11 colour channels utilise frequencies at the upper end of the UHF range. In international telecommunications circles, engineers define all frequencies between 300 million cycles per second 300 billion cycles per second as being in the "microwave" region. The use of this terminology and the association in the public mind of microwaves for cooking has given rise to much of the public concern in respect of the safety or otherwise of this system. A great deal of confusion has been generated by vested interests on all sides in regard to the health implications of this issue.
Within the last five years the health advisory organisations in a number of major countries re-examined their guidelines for public exposure to electro magnetic fields in the MMDS range. Last year the World Health Organisation updated and published its guidelines. With one or two exceptions the authorities recommended that public exposure should be limited to ten watts per square metre. As part of the safety requirements for MMDS transmitters, the system was complying with the international radiological protection guidelines on limits of exposure to electro magnetic fields. The National Electronics Test Centre under the auspices of Forbairt is the only agency in Ireland properly equipped to carry out independent monitoring of MMDS installations. To date, this centre has not found any non-compliance in respect of its monitoring or any breach of the IRPA guidelines limit for public exposure of 1 m W/cm squared. The centre has indicated that the levels of power density measured in areas accessible to the public or on typical MMDS installation have been found to be several orders less than the guidelines limit and, to be subjected to appeal to a strength in excess of the guideline limit, it would be necessary to be within several metres distance of a main broadcast transmitter antenna. It has been argued by other scientists that the International Radiation Protection Association guidelines are concerned only with preventing thermal injury from microwave exposure. It has also been argued that biological defects can occur from exposure to non-ionising radiation. There is no independent body with responsibility for non-ionising radiation in our jurisdiction.
In reply to questions in the House, the Minister gave an undertaking on a number of occasions to examine the possibility of using the resources of the Radiological Protection Insitute of Ireland as an independent body to allay public fears. Advice given to members of the public or politicians on exposure to non-ionising radiation appears to be divided among various Government Departments, namely, the Departments of Energy, Environment, Health and Communications. As a member of the South Eastern Health Board, I asked many times for a definitive view on exposure to non-ionising radiation, but as yet I failed to receive such a view from the South Eastern Health Board through the Department of Health or any other health agency so that I could inform the general public in my area that their concerns about non-ionising radiation are unfounded.
Under the Radiological Protection Act, 1991 the Minister for Energy has the power to extend the functions of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland to cover non ionising radiation, which requires a ministerial order. This independent body could have an important role to play in the monitoring of the microwave emissions from MMDS transmitters in all regions. I understand the Department of Communications has a sophisticated microwave meter which was used to measure density levels around the Galway MMDS site and this should be used by an independent body such as the RPI.
South Coast Community Television, based in Carrigaline, County Cork, runs an unlicensed deflector system in Cork. It pursued injunctive action to restrain the Minister for Energy and Communications from taking action against the company under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts. The case was heard in the High Court in May by Mr. Justice Costello who granted the right of the plaintiffs to a full hearing on the issues raised by them. I understand a full hearing on the application of South Coast Community Television will be heard early in 1995. The action was linked to proceedings seeking declarations that the 1988 MMDS regulations, the MMDS licence granted to Cork Communications and the refusal to grant a retransmission licence to South Coast Community Television were all made ultra vires.
A number of issues was raised by the plaintiffs, considered by Mr. Justice Costello in the context of that High Court case and subsequently upheld in respect of an appeal to the Supreme Court. The question of competition between a local community television group, such as South Coast Community Television in Cork and Cork Communications, was raised. The spirit of European directives and deregulation agreed by Ireland in the context of our membership of the European Union indicates we will be forced to deregulate and generate a system of competition in all public services. In that context and in the context that the technology is now available for community television to be licensed I move the motion tonight.
Members of the Fianna Fáil and Labour parties have been speaking with forked tongues on the question of community television. Prior to the last election specific commitments were given by both Government parties, but were not honoured. I have a copy of a letter dated 13 November 1992 issued by the then Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, Deputy Geoghegan Quinn, addressed to Pat Farrell, General Secretary of Fianna Fáil. The letter was not submitted to me, but it went into circulation and consequently landed at my door. In that letter the then Minister promised that Fianna Fáil would arrange for the examination of the monopoly of MMDS operators under competition legislation. In the course of the same letter the Minister stated:
...I will examine the role of deflector systems in the provision of multi-channel services.
That was the approach of the Fianna Fáil Government prior to the last general election, as evidenced by the letter signed "Máire" dated 13 November 1992. One would reasonably assume that that commitment was made in good faith and that the promises given therein would have been carried out after the election if Fianna Fáil continued in power. For a variety of reasons Fianna Fáil did continue in power.
What happened after the general election? The former Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn, had a different portfolio and we had a new Minister in this area. A few months later her succcessor, the present Minister, Deputy Cowen, was again approached by people involved in community television, apparently for the first time as far as he was concerned. This approach was made through a prominent Member of the Fianna Fáil Party in Cork. A letter from the Minister dated 23 March 1993 addressed to a Fianna Fáil Deputy was given wide circulation and a photocopy landed on my doorstep.
There must be a bad postman down there. I must check on that. The Deputy is getting too much information.
I have no difficulty whatsoever in accounting for the background fully and fairly. I can recollect the full circumstances surrounding it. This was not a private letter because it was given wide circulation. The Minister wrote to Deputy Michael Ahern that he was still settling into his new responsibilities, which is fair enough. He had this to say in response to a request for a meeting with those involved in community television:
...I have found that the question of establishing a licensing regime for deflector systems was seriously considered and successive Governments have concluded that it would not be practical nor in the national interest to license such systems...
In all the circumstances I am not prepared to meet with those involved in illegal deflector systems.
That sudden change took place within Fianna Fáil because in the intervening months a general election had taken place and it was not then considered necessary to honour those election commitments.
The position of the Labour Party on this issue is even more exposed in that campaign literature was circulated on behalf of the candidates which included a promise that: "Labour in Government will license community television throughout the country". There were no ifs or buts; it was a straightforward commitment. That promise was not kept either.
In the meantime there was one further development on the Labour end. Under pressure from a reporter, the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, who has responsibility for broadcasting, committed himself, as reported in the Cork Examiner on 6 February 1993, to conduct “an extensive and thorough review of community television policy”. He was speaking in Cork in the wake of a court decision restraining the transmission of Cork South Coast community television service. The Minister said he would be looking at ways in which community broadcasting could be advanced. Subsequently he evaded all questions on the issue and had them transferred to the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Cowen. When finally I cornered him in this House by something of a technical subterfuge on 7 July 1993 and eventually got him to answer for the commitment he had given in Cork about community television his answer was that he was not referring to community television at all.
That is the sorry record of the Government parties in the debate on the legislation of community television.
The Deputy did not go back far enough.
I had a role to play as director of policy at the time. We gave a commitment prior to the last general election, in the drafting of which I was involved. Any commitment we gave has been fully met and, were we still in Government, it would still be fully met. We made no false promises. That is not the tradition of Fine Gael.
Did the Deputy fulfil his commitments in Opposition?
There is a huge sense of outrage and grievance in many coastal areas because community television has either been taken off the air or threats made to have it taken off the air. Many citizens of our towns and villages have enjoyed multi-channel television programmes for many years solely because of community television, without any rental, without any connection fee or any hidden extras. There had been a voluntary contribution of £30 annually; if one wanted to make it that was all that was collected. Essentially the people were fully satisfied with the service provided at the cost of a box of matches per day.
I raised the issue a dozen times in this House with the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications. Stonewall Jackson had nothing on him when it came to his attitude. He always claimed that the service was illegal. I want to reject this approach. What is available in south-west Cork and other coastal areas is the same service available on over-spill in the eastern part of the country. Is the suggestion being made that what is legal on the east coast is illegal on the west coast? That is the nub of the issue. I do not accept that it is illegal; it is unlicensed. I believe it should be licensed. What we in Fine Gael seek is to ensure that community television is licensed.
Technical objections have been raised but I understand these can be overcome. If we are interested in competition, why is the service not licensed? I have no difficulty with the MMDS system. If they want to operate side by side with community television, that is fine with me. The old saying is that competition is the life of trade. However, I object to a monopoly position. If the MMDS system is as good as is suggested why does it not compete with community television? Of course, there is the question of cost. A voluntary subscription of £30 annually is in very sharp contrast to installation fees in the case of MMDS of between £130 and £160 annually. Thereafter there is an annual fee of £140 to £160, in addition to which there is a further charge of £95 for a movie channel, plus another £73 annual charge for a sports channel. That is the enormous difference in cost. It is a matter for the private commercial organisation in charge of the MMDS system to justify these charges. I ask whether they can justify the higher charges they are imposing in Cork as opposed to other parts of the country, including Galway, where I understand it is much cheaper. We in Cork are used to being discriminated against.
I regard it as entirely unreasonable and unacceptable that people should be forced to pay these charges. Many people, particularly the elderly and others living in deprived circumstances who have come to rely on community television over the years, are not able to afford multi-channel television on the MMDS system. For them a shut down in community television means that their multi-channel viewing will be finished.
How can the Government justify the 1989 agreement which negotiated a monopoly arrangement with MMDS for the paltry sum of £20,000 plus 5 per cent royalties? That was absolutely outrageous. The MMDS system will progress to being the alternative Eircel system, but I will not go into that at this stage.
When I raised the issue in the past with the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications great play was made about the illegality of community television. Is he not aware that, following a recent decision of An Bord Pleanála, it has been found that the erection of MMDS antennae is not an exempted development from the point of view of planning and it appears that dozens of these antennae erected around the country are unauthorised? I have a further letter from Cork County Council dated 14 October 1994 confirming this to me. I will be interested in the Minister's response about the legality of the other system in the light of the unauthorised structures they have erected all over the country.
It was possible before the general election for both Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party to give specific commitments on the issue of community television. What was possible before the election should be possible now, otherwise the whole profession of politics and the overall credibility of policy promises is debased. It is time for those who gave those promises to honour them. The way to do so is for Members to vote in favour of the Fine Gael motion.
I support what my colleagues Deputies Hogan and Jim O'Keeffe have said. I might pick up where Deputy Jim O'Keeffe left off in relation to the political commitments and promises given in advance of the last general election. In that regard my constituency of Cork East was not different from many others. At least one Labour Deputy, representing Cork East, owes his presence here in no small measure to the commitment given by his party to make the necessary legislative changes to facilitate the introduction of community television. In that constituency a community television service has been provided and enjoyed by many communities in Mitchelstown, Fermoy, Midleton and Cobh for many years. I agree with Deputy Hogan about many communities benefiting greatly from the MMDS system. Many people enjoy the system and those who did not have access to the community system considered it a godsend. In Mallow, where the community system is not in place, there has been a widespread take-up of the MMDS system, people are reasonably happy with the service although I am sure many are dissatisfied with its cost.
We must consider the hundreds of thousands of people, who for many years enjoyed a good community service system at a nominal cost, who demand that we, as their elected representatives, put in place the necessary legislative changes to ensure that the system they enjoy can operate in tandem with the MMDS service and provide necessary competition to multichannel television. The debate on the provision of a multichannel service goes back to the 1960s and it is amusing to reflect on the large demand at that time for BBC and ITV. People who lived in the major urban cities were the first to receive the multichannel service and were considered privileged. A demand quickly rose for that service to be made available throughout the country and as a result there were initiatives to relay community systems.
A profit is not made from the community system in my constituency. The cornerstone of that system is a voluntary group who gives its time and money to maintain it. When transmission masts are taken down as a result of legal challenges local community activists erect their masts on the mountain tops within hours, often in harsh weather conditions. Those people responded to a community demand and took the initiative, for which they did not receive a monetary gain. It will be disappointing if there are not legislative changes to ensure that those systems remain in place.
Like Deputy O'Keeffe, I tabled questions on this matter during the past two to three years. I am not concerned about the Minister's personal attitude to this problem. Aside from the illegality of such a service, he indicated that there was a technical difficulty in providing it in tandem with the MMDS service. Technology is ever changing and advancing and the previous contributions illustrate that there is no difficulty in those systems operating side by side. I hope this matter can be taken off the agenda as quickly as possible. Given that the problem can be technically solved, I hope the Minister will change his mind in this regard. I am aware there was strong support for community television in the Minister's constituency. If he is brave enough to face down the people of Laois-Offaly I would not be surprised if he did the same for the people of Cork East. I respect his opinion, but I believe he has been hard-headed in regard to it. He should be willing to listen to the technical arguments for the two systems to operate in tandem. I hope we will be able to get the Minister off the hook and he will be able to get the thousands of people throughout the country dependent on community television off the hook.
The cost of the service is a major issue. It is difficult to explain to a person in receipt of a top class multichannel service at a maximum cost of £50 per annum that they will have to pay £100 to £200 for the provision of that service by a new group operating a different system. Under the deflector system the number of channels is more limited but the choice provided is sufficient for most people. In the wider debate questions must be asked about the level of fees charged by MMDS companies. A plethora of satellite channels dominate the airwaves and some broadcast sporting events live but its cost is beyond the reach of most people. People who wish to view live sporting events must subscribe to Sky Sports channel and pay a hefty charge. Such charges appear to have increased astronomically in recent years and that matter must be addressed. It is a subject for another debate but I would like the Minister to refer to it in his reply.
This motion seeks to respond to a community demand and initiative. The economics of community television appeal to people in receipt of low incomes, like the elderly and the unemployed, who are able to avail of the service free of charge. I know people in Fermoy and Mitchelstown who collect money for that service. Those people are generous in that they consider the ability of people on low incomes to pay for such a service. As a result many people enjoy virtually free television. A social case can be made in that regard. Some people cannot afford MMDS despite incentives by companies providing the service. While many people sign for the service free of charge they cannot afford the bi-monthly bills. The provision of such a service has been an emotive issue in recent years. In my constituency the largest public meetings I attended during the past three to four years have not been in respect of health, education or budgetary policy — that makes a political point — but in respect of community television.
I never attended a meeting about community television at which fewer than 400 people attended. It is an issue about which people feel strongly and which strikes a chord among community activists in rural areas. I hope the Minister will address this matter. I note he has taken a hard line on this issue to date but that approach results from a technical argument about the difficulty in providing the two services. I hope we will be able to convince him that technical improvements will allow for the licensing of an alternative system, that its provision is important in the light of the spirit of competition at European level and that it is important to respond to the needs of and the initiatives taken by communities. I hope he will respond favourably to the motion.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann, recognising the need to manage in the public interest the use of the radio frequency spectrum, supports the implemenntation by the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications of the Wireless Telegraphy (Television Programme Retransmission) Regulations, 1989, pending the decision of the Courts in relation to the deflector systems when consideration can be given to any necessary review of the regulations and legislation involved."
Firstly, I am very surprised that the Opposition has put down such a motion at this time. The Deputies are fully aware of the fact that a case currently listed for hearing in the High Court is concerned with this very issue. I have answered questions in this House as recently as last week informing Opposition Deputies that the date for this case has been set for 11 January next, so I know that they are fully aware of it and of the nature of the case. Leaving aside any question there might be about the propriety or otherwise of our discussing matters bearing so closely on that case — which is of course sub judice— in this House, they must know that those matters cannot receive a full airing without the risk of prejudicing the matter before the court.
I would have thought that the Deputies would not want me to prejudice the outcome of that case. It seems however that they would like me to go further, because what I am being asked to do here is to actually pre-empt the court's judgment on the entire issue by amending the 1989 Wireless Telegraphy Regulations now. That course of action would be unwise and irresponsible, indeed I am not sure that it might not be construed as contempt of court. I have no desire to undermine the due and fair processes of the law in this way and I can only express my surprise and dismay that the Deputies would ask me to do so.
It is worth noting in that regard that Opposition Deputies have persisted in recent times in tabling parliamentary questions specifically relating to this issue, questions that are asking me in effect to either interpret the High Court's judgment to date, which they will be aware is an interlocutory one, or to pre-empt the court's judgment in the substantive case which is now listed for hearing. Such a course of action is unthinkable. I make no apologies for saying that I will uphold the law and that I will not be browbeaten into any action which might prejudice that case.
Turning to the substance of the motion itself, the first aspect I want to address is the use of the term "community TV" as liberally used by Deputy O'Keeffe earlier today. What this motion does is to set out clearly the intention of those Deputies behind it who align themselves with a specific cause. So let us look at this "cause". What exactly is it? The first thing that must be said is that this issue has been fudged and confused by those people who persist in using the ambiguous and misleading term "community TV".
"Community TV" somehow implies a civic minded, community based operation properly and lawfully providing a service without the need for Government assistance or intervention. Let us be quite clear. What the Opposition is talking about here is not "community TV" in that sense at all. Their status now is that of illegal transmission systems that are misappropriating the use of the radio frequency spectrum by arrogating to themselves whatever frequencies they choose in their own areas. The people who operate these systems are in effect advocating the abandonment of the national radio frequency plan and the abdication by Government of its responsibility for it.
Lest there be any confusion about this, I acknowledge that community television does exist, but it is not what the Deputies are referring to here tonight. Community television, properly so called, is in operation on a number of cable systems throughout the country. It consists of local people, in what is truly a community activity, producing local programming about local events which is then lawfully transmitted over the local cable systems. This provides a valuable service to the local area, including experience in programme making and other related activities, and contributes to a sense of community identity. It does no service at all to these innovative and valuable service providers to lump them in with those who, in contrast, simply pick up signals and retransmit them illegally on the deflector systems.
I would ask the Opposition here and now to cease the misuse of the term "community television". It is only confusing the issue, reflecting in turn on those activities which can be truly described as community television.
Let me now remind the Deputies of the genesis of, and the reasons for, the existing scheme for providing multi-channel television throughout the country. Let me remind them of the sequence of events which led up to the establishment of the current licensing regime. I will point out the detailed planning which went into the process and indeed the acceptance by successive Governments of the principles which underline the decisions which were made and the policies which were adopted.
It is well known in this House that the demand for multi-channel television in those areas which could not, for economic or technical reasons, be cabled was recognised a long time ago. What was also recognised from the earliest time was that such services could not be provided by means of the deflector systems about which we are now talking.
In this regard, let me quote the Fine Gael Minister for Communications. Deputy Jim Mitchell, when he said, in this House on 2 July 1985:
...the broadcasting frequencies available to this country under international agreements are not sufficient to allow the widespread rebroadcasting of television signals. Any such systems serving extensive areas would lead to unacceptable interference with other services and would inhibit the improvement of reception of existing RTE services and the development of new services.
This, as early as 1985, was a clear acknowledgment by the then Minister of the problems posed by the deflector approach, and of the type of action which is now being requested of me in my capacity as Minister. The same Minister said in the House on 6 November 1986:
I have no plans to introduce legislation to legalise television rebroadcasting systems or deflectors as they operate at present. As I have said in replies to questions on this matter on a number of occasions, these systems raise major practical and policy issues from the point of view of good radio frequency management.
That Minister not only acknowledged the difficulties posed by this issue, but also stated that deflector systems cannot be licensed. This conclusion was not arrived at overnight. The issue was thoroughly researched and the available options were fully considered, including the possibility of provision of services by deflector systems. The conclusion arrived at was that such systems were not practicable, for the same reasons which I, in my turn, have stated many times and which were summarised by the then Minister, Deputy Jim Mitchell, in a press release on 5 March 1987. I would like to quote that press release. In it the then Minister referred to deflector systems, stating that he "... could not see his way to legalise the use of such systems as they create major practical and policy issues from the point of view of good radio frequency management ...". He then went on to say "...the UHF spectrum used by existing rebroadcasting systems represents the only remaining spectrum space to cater for the improvement and development of our terrestrial television broadcasting service for the foreseeable future".
I am sure that much of this must sound very familiar to the Deputies, and well it should; I know it sounds familiar to me. That is because not only was it stated by Deputy Mitchell in 1986, but it was repeated by him in 1987 and by successive Ministers since then, including myself. It is a clear statement of the need to adopt a realistic and viable policy in relation to the provisions of multi-channel television to non-cabled areas. It is an acknowledgment of the difficulties involved in formulating such a policy and the need to have regard to the proper and responsible management of a valuable national resource, the radio frequency spectrum. It is also a recognition that deflector systems cannot be licensed. It is a policy which I have continued to uphold and to implement. It is a policy, based on sound frequency management principles, which was first stated by the Fine Gael Minister for Communications, Deputy Jim Mitchell.
In that same press release the then Minister announced plans for an alternative to the deflector systems, a system which would meet the objectives of providing real multi-channel television choice in a professional, technically competent manner and make available the same quality and continuity of service which was available in cabled areas. Let me quote him again:
On the basis of the examination carried out the Minister has concluded that MMDS is a feasible alternative to illegal rebroadcasting, and his Department is at present drawing up a national frequency plan and technical specifications for the system, as well as a regime to govern the licensing of the installation and use of such systems.
Without wishing to labour the point, the date of this announcement was 5 March 1987. The then Minister had obviously concluded at that time that the MMDS system was the only practicable system for the provision of multi-channel television in non-cabled areas that was compatible with national and international frequency management obligations. I agree with that conclusion, in common with the intervening Ministers, and I have continued to implement that policy decision with the result that significant progress has been made in the provision of such services and we are well on the way to being able to provide a legitimate multi-channel choice in all parts of the country.
At the risk of repeating myself, and possibly boring the Deputies with information, I have provided to many of them on previous occasions, I will not reiterate the reasons for that policy decision, which was stated in 1986 and again in 1987, not to licence deflector systems. The frequency spectrum is a limited national resource. The use of that spectrum must be properly managed, not only in Ireland but in all other countries. Radio transmission does not of itself respect national boundaries and so a great degree of co-operation and co-ordination must take place to ensure that the use of the spectrum can be maximised and that any possible interference can be minimised. As a result, much of the frequency spectrum use is governed by international treaty. This includes the UHF band, which is the one in which the deflector systems operate.
Under the Stockholm Treaty of 1961 Ireland has been provided with spectrum capacity in this band for the equivalent of four television networks and no more. This is after we have taken account of the need for fill-in stations and schemes for repeating the use of frequencies in different parts of the country. Having obtained this resource, its use must be carefully planned on a nationwide basis to ensure maximum benefit to the country. What we are talking about is nationwide planning. The Government is obliged to ensure equity of services throughout the country and this is an important factor in such planning exercises. Given these conditions, there are simply not enough frequencies available to facilitate a nationwide network of deflector transmitters to be established and at the same time meet other national requirements.
I will set out briefly the uses for which these four national networks are allocated. Two of the networks are allocated for RTE's requirements. RTE already uses part of these bands both for high and medium powered transmitters as well as for local "fill-in" transposers designed to improve reception in areas where it is poor. In addition, there is a need to take into account the new technology being developed in Europe and worldwide for digital television. Spectrum within the UHF band will have to be reserved for this eventuality. In particular my Department will have to make provision, sometime in the coming decade, for the simultaneous operation of the existing television networks as well as the new digital networks for a transition period of up to 15 years.
In addition, the new Teilifís na Gaeilge service will need a third of the four networks. The Government's decision with regard to Teilifís na Gaeilge would be negated if this spectrum had to be given over for other purposes. This is a very good practical example of the effect which a decision to licence deflector systems would have. Therefore, we are effectively left with UHF frequency capacity equivalent to about one network and, as Deputies will know, that has already been earmarked for any future developments with regard to an independent TV channel.
These spectrum allocations to Ireland are national assets and must be used prudently and wisely in the national interest. Any decision to licence deflectors would immediately negate this plan and inhibit future developments such as digital television. All frequency planning in my Department is done with the objective of providing equity of service to all parts of the country. These frequencies cannot be taken over and used haphazardly by those involved in deflector systems while they are already earmarked for national requirements. It is important to understand, therefore, that there is not actually a choice between deflector systems and MMDS if the non-cabled public are to be offered nationwide quality multi-channel television. The fundamental physics of frequency management, combined with the international constraints which apply, mean that it can be done only by an MMDS type system.
I notice that the Deputies have asked that the Dáil support competition between these deflector systems and the existing licence holders who are legally franchised to provide multi-channel television services — in other words, the cable and MMDS companies. Deputies may tell me that they are not asking me to abandon the existing schemes. They may say that if they are so effective, why not allow the deflector systems to compete with them. I say that they are being disingenuous. It is clear from what I have said tonight and what was said back in 1986 and 1987 that the issue here is not competition. The situation is simple: deflector systems cannot be licensed either in substitution for or in addition to existing systems.
Deputy O'Keeffe, who is a practising solicitor in Cork, mentioned that a service was not illegal; rather it was unlicensed. Let me cite a premises which does not have a publican's licence as an example. That is an unlicensed premises and it is illegal to serve intoxicating liquor in such a premises. The Deputy was being disingenuous in attempting to split the atom; this argument does not hold up.
I hear the allegation of "monopoly" being levied in relation to both cable and MMDS operators. This liberal use of the word "monopoly" is inaccurate and irresponsible. Deputies will be well aware of the economic and practical realities which underlie the decision by successive administrations to issue licences for both cable and MMDS which are exclusive within a specified geographic area.
It is clear that there is a massive investment involved in establishing the infrastructure which is necessary to ensure reliable and high quality multi-channel television services in the long term. This is the sort of investment which is now being made by the lawful franchisees, and it is one which the deflector operators would be neither able or willing to make. In order to foster this investment a regulated franchise of an exclusive nature was clearly indicated as the best solution and was so adopted. These companies, having made these very substantial investments are, as was intended, entitled to a reasonable return on them. Direct competition of the kind proposed in the Opposition motion would be inimical to the economics of the scheme at this stage of its development and would deny that return to the investors. Regulated exclusive franchise is a well tried and trusted means of procuring public infrastructural investment. There is simply no other way to bring about that kind of investment in this case except by ensuring a fair return on the necessary capital. The MMDS scheme, provided for by this House under the 1989 regulations, is now operating successfully. It is gaining in strength and it is only in those areas where deflector systems have refused to co-operate that major difficulties have arisen. It would be unthinkable that we should not stand by those companies that have invested so heavily and endured such difficulties at a time when the scheme is under threat.
Deputy Bradford mentioned by own area where the MMDS system has replaced the deflector system. Everybody is satisfied with it, in terms of the broad product range and the quality of the service. They are also satisfied that it is a more professional operation. Clearly, it is acceptable to the people I represent and to people throughout rural Ireland as people now recognise that it is a different product to the deflector system.
I would not rule out competition in the future; I am well disposed to competition wherever it is feasible and in the public interest. Such competition would also have to be technically feasible. It would have to be spectrum efficient. For example, having two competing systems in a particular area effectively halves the number of channels available on each. At this stage, and for the foreseeable future, the MMDS system makes sound economic and practical sense.
To conclude on the competition aspect, the MMDS franchisees compete with direct to home satellite transmissions. They compete with each other in the sense that people, even if their choice is limited to a particular franchisee, are aware of the standards and the charges in neighbouring areas, both on MMDS and cable, and can make their views known. Finally, the standard of service is subject to regulation by my Department, so it cannot be argued that this is an area where there is unfettered monopoly. I wish it were not necessary to repeat this, but the fact that we are addressing a motion of this kind suggests that it is.
The MMDS infrastructure has implications far beyond the provision of multi-channel television. The telecommunications industry is one which is changing rapidly and demand for sophisticated communications services is increasing greatly. In this context the entertainment industry has a role to play. The demand for multi-media services in both the business and private sectors is emerging as the concept of the "information superhighway" develops. The multi-channel industry has provided a valuable resource in the existing and developing infrastructure which can be used to provide such services. If Ireland is to consolidate its position as a centre of communications excellence and harness the great economic potential of this new market, it must have, and make good use of, that infrastructure.
To return to the original text of the motion put down by the Deputies, I would like them to be clear on exactly what they are asking me to do. I am being asked to overturn a policy decision which was made by a Fine Gael Minister for Communications and which has been upheld by successive Governments. By doing so I am being asked to pre-empt the High Court's judgment in relation to the implementation of that policy; to negate the sound frequency management principles of the country's long term plan and put into question our international obligations; to misuse a valuable and scarce national resource, that is the frequency spectrum; to disregard my obligation as Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, and this Government's obligation, to ensure that all parts of the country are treated equally and fairly with regard to the provision of multi-channel services; to restrict the scope for any further development of national television services and particularly to negate the Government's decision on the provision of the Teilifís na Gaeilge service.
I hope that the magnitude of what is being requested here is clear. I hope also that the Opposition is prepared to acknowledge and accept responsibility for the actions it is asking me to take. Indeed, I believe that they are fully aware of these implications, because it was the Fine Gael Party which was in Government when these decisions were initially made.
Fortunately, however, I am not prepared to do these things, and I object in the strongest terms to being asked to do them at this juncture. I would ask the Deputies opposite to cease this unreasonable and unproductive debate, to acknowledge the principles governing the policy which has been put in place and to allow me, as Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, to put my efforts into implementing that policy and ensuring that the objectives of that policy are met. In addition, I call on them to recognise the great potential of the multi-channel industry in Ireland's future communications industry and all the implications that has for the economic development of this country.
In so doing I call upon this House to reject the motion and to support the Government's amendment, which seeks to meet the present situation. As I have stated, the Government's amendment recognises the need to manage in the public interest the use of the radio frequencies spectrum; support the implementation of the regulations of 1989, pending the decisions of the courts on the deflector systems, when consideration can then be given to any necessary review of the regulations and legislation involved. That is the responsible and prudent thing to do. The matter is before the High Court and will be heard on 11 January next. We must await the outcome of the case and respect the fact that it is sub judice. We must examine the implications of the outcome and the view of the law as outlined in the High Court decision. At that stage we will be prepared to look at the situation in the fullness of that information and certain legal issues being clarified.
To do otherwise and to attempt to take on board the Fine Gael Party's motion is simply not on. The party knows it is not on. It appears to be a cynical exercise at this time. We are all aware that an attempt is being made to create a situation, as it continues with its negative campaigning during the by-elections. Deputy Bradford was suggesting that the motion was offering to take me off the hook. Given what has been happening in the House today, it is amusing, to say the least, that someone from the Fine Gael Party is trying to get me off the hook. They having been trying to impale me on a hook this afternoon, but thankfully without success. We have been asked to put the facts to the people while certain legal issues are clarified in the High Court. If they are genuine in seeking to meet the needs of people in that or other areas rather than playing the political trick——
The Minister is not too bad at that.
——they would await the outcome of that decision.
Quite simply, it is another politically opportunistic occasion for the Fine Gael Party to turn on its head its policy in Government and then to claim consistency in Opposition. The attempts to square this circle have been pitiful. I know some of these Fine Gael Deputies have a certain view or are seeking to represent their constituents to the best of their ability. That is fine by me, but at the end of the day one cannot get away from the facts, which are as I have outlined. Certain legal issues have been raised. It is the proper right of anyone to seek remedy in court and that is being done. I respect any citizen's right to do that, but in the meantime I must hold the position as it is under regulation based on the decisions that have been taken and the broad radio frequency management system that has been put in place on foot of a great deal of consideration by successive Ministers of all political persuasions.
We must await the outcome of the court case and this Government is saying in its amendment that at that stage we will take the outcome on board and see what review, if any, is required of the regulations and the legislation. That is the logical, prudent position to adopt and it is not in any way seeking to dismiss legitimate concern that people feel must be recognised. The courts as arbiter will decide these matters in the legal area and the Government will look at the position in the fullness of that information.
Often when there is a debate in which the present Minister is involved, the tone he adopts can at times defeat whatever strength there is in his arguments. He regards everybody who disagrees with him as in some way inferior and open to abuse simply for disagreeing with him. It is regrettable that a matter of this kind cannot be debated in a somewhat calmer atmosphere.
This motion deals with a matter which is a serious problem for a great many people throughout many parts of the country. As a party which looked with some scepticism at this proposal on MMDS when it was first mooted in the mid-eighties, I believe the scepticism we expressed at that time through our then spokesman, the former Deputy Pat O'Malley, may well have been quite justified. MMDS has not worked out as a satisfactory medium of transmission or retransmission. In many areas there are a great many problems connected with it. Apart from the major problem of cost, which is a very substantial and continuing one, it is unsightly: the various masts and aerials that are a necessary part are not what one would like to see in our countryside. Arguments have also been made with regard to health considerations and, while these have not been proven, they have not been disproven either.
Certainly the community television services, as they are called, have provided a very satisfactory and adequate service to a great many people who otherwise would not have access to a variety of television programmes. I think people cannot be blamed for wanting to retain that service or get it back where they have lost it.
I looked at what the Minister had to say in regard to monopolies. He was very critical of references by some Members to monopolies — he may well have been referring to me because I have referred to the monopoly aspect of this too.
The situation today is very different from when these various services were first licensed in 1988 or thereabouts. The ownership of parts of all the franchises and of a majority interest in many of them has changed. Some people are no longer involved. The control of most of these franchises is in the hands of two or three companies. It is difficult to pin it down exactly because many of them trade through a variety of intermediate companies, all of whom seem to have different names. Unless one is directly involved in the matter as the Department is, it is difficult to trace the ultimate owners. They seem to be two or three different companies and that is very far from the intention when these licences were originally granted.
It is a cause of concern that a monopoly should be developing in most parts of the country in regard to retransmission. It is not a coincidence that one of the major companies involved, a public company associated particularly with the ownership of newspapers, claims to its shareholders and to potential shareholders that one of the areas where it will make a killing in the years to come is in the retransmission of television and other programmes. It states that it incurred a lot of cost and sustained losses in the early years but it now controls much of the market and intends making a great deal of money. Perhaps it will but it is undesirable that this kind of control should exist.
After the passage of the 1978 Mergers, Take-overs and Monopolies (Control) Act I found it necessary to bring in an order under one of the sections in relation to the ownership of newspapers and magazines because they were organs of opinion. It has been generally accepted that the making of that order was right. It requires all changes of ownership of newspapers or magazines to be approved by the Minister. This has prevented a far greater concentration of ownership. As local television is likely to evolve and develop in the years to come it seems to me undesirable that that organ of opinion should be under the control of people who already control a very large proportion of the newspaper market.
I am also concerned about the decision to allow Telecom acquire a major interest in the largest of the cable companies licensed under these regulations. That was very undesirable. Telecom made no secret of the fact that it wanted to acquire control, not because it was interested in the retransmission of television but because it wanted to prevent anybody else using the cable network for any purpose that might conflict or compete with the existing telephone network. That was entirely wrong and I said so at the time but my view did not prevail. We are not now allowed to refer to the views we held, so silly has the law become as a result of the efforts of the present incumbent of a particular quasi-political office. It is regrettable that the patent lack of competition and the deliberate attempt by the then Government and the Department to stifle competition should have led to this development, particularly with Telecom, which is certainly not a model as a provider of services at a reasonable cost in a competitive environment.
In this motion the reference to competition may be misplaced because it is difficult to envisage how we can have competition between two completely different services in respect of the same network of programmes. I do not think competition as such should simply be the objective. In areas where it is clearly the most appropriate and the most popular manner of transmitting signals, the deflector system should be allowed. There is little point in suggesting that people who currently receive a television service in parts of Connemara, for example, from a deflector system could have reception from an MMDS system. They could not. Reception in many areas is very poor and that extends even to RTE 1 and Network 2.
The Minister is rehashing the arguments of five years ago or more. He has not taken into account technological changes which were set out in some detail in a letter I received last year from a gentleman in County Cork. Deputy Hogan reiterated many of the arguments that were made in that letter and I believe they are correct. It is physically, legally and otherwise possible to have a deflector type service here without interfering with existing national services from RTE or international services coming from Britain through the BBC or ITV.
The proof that these different activities can co-exist is that for several years they have done so and there have been no complaints. There is no reason they cannot continue to do so in the years to come. People have not complained that they lose reception from some stations because there is a community television service. These things can be adjusted. Limitations on a local retransmitter can be imposed and taken into account so that it does not interfere with anything else. It seems rather arrogant to tell people they cannot do any of these things from a technical or a legal point of view when patently they can. The question is whether they may do so. The Minister says they cannot and they may not but the fact is they can and the House should decide whether they may.
We were told some years ago that anything other than what was in place would be illegal and there was no arguable case to the opposite effect. Mr. Justice Costello thinks there is a prima facie and arguable case to be made and he has given a conditional order in respect of the relief sought from him.
The efforts made by the Department over the years to seize people's property and transmitters has ceased. It is legally doubtful if they can do this. If we take the European context of freedom of information into account and the considerations there, the black and white legal scenario that the Minister, and his predecessors, tried to paint becomes much greyer and more dubious.
The changes in technology, as outlined by Deputy Hogan, are not taken into account in the approach to this but what is more important are the changes that will take place in years to come. They will be enormous and it may be that the system licensed under the 1988 regulations will be irrelevant within a short time. The Minister and the Department should have a more open mind on these matters. They should be less heavy-handed although, in fairness, they are less heavy-handed than they were but that is because the courts plucked their wings. It may well be that the courts will pluck more feathers from their wings and restrain them to a greater extent. The European Court may find it necessary to do so ultimately.
It is extraordinary that we only have access to foreign channels through a particular licensed system when in many European countries there is freedom of access and no-one tries to enforce things in the way they do here. The Minister should look carefully at a developing monopoly position. What he said tonight was unreal, that it does not exist. There has been a considerable change in the ownership of the franchises in recent years and it could be quite serious if a monopoly were to develop to a greater extent than at present.
Far more consideration should be given to the motion proposed by Deputy Hogan than was evident in what the Minister said. It is regrettable that he is so combative on every issue, even one like this that does not call for that kind of attitude. If he had an open mind and was prepared to consider matters rationally and equitably the problems which hundreds of thousands of people complain about might well be solved. I find it impossible to support the Minister's amendment because of the tone and attitude he adopted. My inclination is to support the motion even though I would not have drafted it in those terms.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Sheehan.
Listening to the Minister's speech this evening one would think he was going backwards instead of looking forward. He quoted the policy of the Government ten years ago. Did the Minister ever hear of technology? I do not think the Minister is with it when he had to refer to events which occurred ten years ago to put forward an argument in this important debate.
Longer than Wexford.
Television sets purchased here are equipped to receive VHF and UHF bands and people pay a television licence fee for both bands. The Minister said citizens of the south and west cannot use the UHF band because there is no room for the frequency. That is not true. I am sorry the Minister is not present to hear that. England, Wales and Northern Ireland enjoy UHF transmission. The Minister gave a licence for the MMDS to connect the UHF band into the SHF band for retransmission. The ordinary television receiver is not equipped to accommodate the SHF band with the result that people are asked to pay an exorbitant rental to the MMDS to convert the SHF signal to UHF by means of a black box. That is a costly black box for the people.
The MMDS are converting BBC and UHF signals from Northern Ireland to super high frequency and retransmitting that signal to the VHF band. What does the European Broadcasting Union think of that? It violates the European broadcasting system. If this was referred to the European Court the south coast community television group would win the case. The Minister cannot pull the wool over the eyes of half our citizens. We cannot all live in Donnybrook or along the east coast.
Or in Enniscorthy.
There are up to 20 channels——
Wexford): Cable television.
How can the Minister stand over not giving equal treatment to all citizens? Why is the privilege of multi-channel viewing given to the citizens of the east coast? They can receive British or German television but the poor unfortunate people living in Cork can hardly receive a proper radio signal never mind enjoy multi-channel viewing. We are restricted to viewing RTE 1 and Network 2 and at times in parts of my constituency the reception is blurred. I have made repeated requests to the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications to alleviate this serious problem.
(Wexford): Deputy Jim Mitchell will not like the way the Deputy is attacking.
The Minister should look forward, not backwards.
