I wish to share my time with my colleague. Deputy Liam Burke.
Private Members' Business. - Television Programme Transmission Licensing: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Hogan on Tuesday, 25 October 1994:
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.
Debate resumed on 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 implementation 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."
—(Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications.)
I am sure that is satisfactory. Agreed.
It is evident that the ordinary television receiver is equipped to accommodate the SHF band, but unfortunately the Minister does not realise that. As it is important that people have equal rights why, while people living on the east and north coasts may receive up to 20 television channels, do the inhabitants on the south-west and western seaboard not have that privilege. They are treated as second class citizens: let there be no mistake about that.
Why is the Minister afraid to introduce competition against the MMDS? Surely he is aware that competition is the life of trade. MMDS charges amount to approximately £150 per annum to each customer whereas the deflector system such as that operated by South Coast Community Television gives an equal, if not better service for £30 to £40 per annum. Will the Minister confirm or deny that special terms were offered to the ten MMDS franchises throughout the country for a fee of £20,000 each, giving a total gift sum of £200,000 to the MMDS company? The only other payment required is an annual renewal fee of 5 per cent of gross revenue, excluding installation charges and VAT.
Apparently the Government has reneged on its promise to the electorate during the last general election campaign when Fianna Fáil and Labour TDs and Senators gave a public pre-election pledge that they would support a campaign for the licensing of community television. Why was that pledge not honoured? I will note the Deputies who vote against this motion. They gave a pledge to the electorate and are refusing to honour it. I would be pleased if the Government honoured its commitment. I remind the Minister that one can fool the people once, but not a second time. The people of Cork South Central and Cork North Central will shortly give their verdict on this controversial issue.
We look forward to it.
South Coast Community Television has no option but to report to High Court action to seek justice for its hundreds of thousands of patrons and, if forced to do so, it will appeal its case to the European Court of Human Rights. Does the Minister understand what he is doing by giving a monopoly to one firm? Monopolies are bad in any area. They are to the detriment of the State. I have criticised monopolies since I first entered public life and my attitude has not changed since then. I appeal to the Minister to let common sense prevail. Surely he does not wish to make second class citizens of the people of Cork city and county, Kerry, Waterford, Limerick, Tipperary, Clare, Galway, Mayo, Donegal, Sligo and Leitrim. The Donegal Deputies will soon be judged on this matter. I see one very affluent Deputy from Donegal in the House and I hope she will have the sense to vote for our motion tonight to ensure that justice prevails and there are no second class citizens in this country.
Community television is a very important question for the Cork area. It is well known that South Coast Community Television has for many years operated a very good quality, cheap service for a large section of the Cork population. In spite of the many applications to the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, South Coast Community Television remains an unlicensed operator. This company's operation has not interfered with any other service in the frequency band in the Cork area. It is difficult for the local people to understand why a licence cannot be granted in this case to allow South Coast Community Television to compete with the existing licence holder in the area. Cork Communications and South Coast Community Television should be allowed provide a top class service as cheaply as possible. It is through competition that the customer will get the best deal. Fine Gael is determined to give the Cork public that choice. It is up to Fianna Fáil and Labour Deputies to decide on the matter — unfortunately I see only one Fianna Fáil Deputy in the House and there is no Labour Deputy.
There is.
Not from the Cork area. I am disappointed with the attendance here tonight from the Cork area. I notice Deputy Mulvihill has just arrived.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Coughlan, Mulvihill, Batt O'Keeffe and Kemmy.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
This is, and has been for many years, a burning question within my constituency. I am frustrated at the lack of progress in responding to the legitimate demands of South Coast Community Television and community television groups particularly in Carrigaline. These groups are bona fide operators whose aim is to serve the public, particularly people on low incomes. It is not acceptable to close down these operations and impose an alternative system. As the elderly and people on the dole have been receiving a good service at low cost for the past ten years I do not think we should tell them they must accept an alternative system.
The Deputy has not got his figures right.
The people of Cork pay enough for the service, as the Deputy knows.
The motion tabled by the Fine Gael Party does not call on the Minister to grant the licence to a particular person or group; it refers specifically to the need for competition. This ambiguity derived from the fact that the Fine Gael Party found itself locked into this matter when in Government. Successive Governments have operated the exclusive licence system which some of us find unacceptable.
Times and technology have changed.
A former director of the company which sought the licence has now changed tack.
If the Deputy wants to throw it, we can do likewise.
That is the reality.
(Interruptions.)
I would welcome a contribution from Deputy Jim Mitchell tonight. I would like him to repeat——
Order, this is a limited debate and Members are sharing time. Time is of the essence. Let there be no interruptions.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Burke should please desist.
Like a number of other Fianna Fáil Deputies in Cork, I was put under pressure by Cork Communications Limited. A Fine Gael candidate in Cork South Central is now trying to make a meal out of this issue because of the impending by-election. That is what this motion is all about.
Hypocrisy.
Deputy Burke should please desist.
I would like to know if, when he was a director, he approved the policy of that company to have the community television service closed down.
I requested the closure six months ago.
Did Fine Gael approve of the policy to put pressure on Government backbenchers to get Ministers to lay off? Community television services are still available because of the persistent pressure exerted by Government backbenchers on the Government. If one examines the judgment in the case involving the Carrigaline group in which it was granted an injunction one will see it was made on the basis that the plaintiff had been allowed to continue to operate and that the Minister decided he should wait until the substantive issue was resolved by the courts. That is an important point and the basis on which the Minister decided to grant a licence to the community television group.
Tell that to the people of Cork.
I would be the first to admit that we were not successful in getting the Government to change its mind but I have always made, my position clear. I will do everything I can within the Government party to persuade people to change their minds. We succeeded, however, in getting the Government to allow the services to continue to operate. When raids were made by departmental officials pressure was exerted once more on successive Ministers to prevent a total shut down of these services.
I support the efforts of the community television group in Carrigaline and other groups throughout the region. I would be the first to admit that the matter has not been helped by the haphazard manner in which Cork Communications Limited endeavoured to introduce cable television — and now MMDS — in the first instance. To say the least the company has been found wanting.
The Deputy should let his feet do the talking.
It has made hamfisted attempts to suppress the community television group. I would like to know the role played by former directors in this regard and if they agreed that pressure should be exerted on Deputies to get Ministers to back off. With other Deputies, a former Minister of State and I were berated by directors of Cork Communications Limited because the community television services were still operating in Carrigaline. We were told that we should implement the law and put the people concerned off the air. These directors were closely associated with the Fine Gael Party.
Name the people.
It is a bit much to have to listen to this hyprocrisy. This is about the impending by-election and nothing more.
The Deputy cannot have butter on both sides of his bread.
I accept the bona fides of Deputies Burke and Sheehan—
(Interruptions.)
This matter is before the courts and we await its decision. Private Members' motions will never change anything; they are political instruments to embarass the Government, particularly in the run-up to elections. I rest my case.
We are trying to embarrass the Government into providing people with a proper service.
Cosúil le gach duine anseo, tá gach Teachta nó Seanadóir ar an dtaobh seo faoi bhrú mar gheall ar an bhfadhb seo. I agree that, with 42 deflector systems between Malin Head and Laghy in County Donegal, all Members of the House are under pressure. I agree with my colleague from Cork — we do not always have good North-South relations on this issue — that these community television networks would have been closed when licences were granted if it had not been for the efforts of Government backbenchers. Like all Members. I am anxious to ensure that a proper service is provided to everyone. That is the reason the deflector systems were provided by community groups in County Donegal in particular where an adequate service was not provided.
One of the main concerns of those who receive community television services in County Donegal relates to the cost involved. They are also concerned about health hazards but, unfortunately, unless there is conclusive evidence one cannot come down on either side of the argument.
We have to await the court's decision. I am glad that Government backbenchers had an opportunity to insist that the Minister accept this decision and make any necessary changes. If I can be given a categoric assurance that MMDS operators will provide a similar service to every household in County Donegal then the people of County Donegal might consider accepting it. It should be borne in mind that the MMDS system is based on direct line frequencies. As a consequence, because of the height of Mount Errigal, reception may be poor.
One of the problems is that people do not have a choice. I accept, however, that we have to meet our obligations under international agreements and that it was a Fianna Fáil Government which introduced this system. Successive Governments have struck to the number of frequencies available. Caithfidh mé a rá freisin, tá muid ag fanacht ar Theilifís na Gaeilge. An bhfuil páirtí Fhine Gael i ndáiríre mar gheall ar Theilifís na Gaeilge? Ní bheidh Teilifís na Gaeilge ann má bhíonn MMDS ann.
It is unfortunate that is the position but I am very supportive of Teilifís na Gaeilge. Many people living in Gaeltacht areas have deflector systems and would like to receive Telefís na Gaeilge, but we cannot have it both ways.
My constituents are concerned about the cost of the MMDS system. Given that we come from a fairly mountainous peripheral area and that MMDS technology is dependent on the line of sight, we are not satisfied that we will get what we deserve in County Donegal.
In my short time in Dáil Éireann I have seen some dishonest motions come before the House but this Fine Gael motion on the availability of multi-channel television takes the biscuit. This cannot be called honest or genuine. On the contrary it is a trick to fool the public into thinking that Fine Gael is in favour of alternative television choices for people living in areas the cable and MMDS systems have not reached. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was a Fine Gael Minister, Deputy Jim Mitchell, who originally introduced the cable system about 12 years ago.
The Deputy is looking back and not to the future. That is the Labour Party policy.
He proposed that the country be divided into various regions and cable companies be given a licence to supply multi-channel television to certain areas. This basic arrangement is the real cause of the mess we are in now, thanks to the Fine Gael Party.
The monopoly was created by Fianna Fáil.
The cable companies were only interested in cabling cities and big towns with large populations. The rest of the country was ignored and left to fend for itself. As a result people living in urban areas were able to enjoy the full range of multi-channel programmes but people outside these centres had to settle for RTE 1 and RTE 2.
Tell that to the people of Bandon and Carrigaline.
It was and still is a denial of the democratic rights of these viewers. The original Bill was badly flawed and had not been thought out seriously by the then Fine Gael Minister, Deputy Jim Mitchell.
The Deputy's party had some contribution to make as well.
Deputy Mulvihill, without interruption.
Apart from the denial of the rights of the people to watch television programmes of their choice there is also a hidden and more sinister aspect. While various companies were awarded licences to cable different parts of the country, slowly but surely all of these companies have been bought out or taken over by one major company. To the best of my knowledge only two of these independent companies have not been acquired by this firm and it appears that their days are numbered. It is like trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. This situation should never have been allowed to happen. The original legislation allowed it and a monopoly has been created under the nose of successive Governments.
To make matters worse the shareholder with the controlling interest in the company is also the largest player in the Irish newspaper industry. As well as controlling many of our newspapers, national and local, this person has control of the vast majority of companies supplying multi-channel television. This is not good enough and I see no reason why the Government should not intervene to put a stop to this monopoly. We have heard nothing from the Fine Gael Party on this matter during the debate since as Fine Gael allowed this to happen in the first place.
I know more than most about the problems of people who were left without multi-channel television. The Cork East constituency is a far flung area with a number of medium-sized towns.
Has the Deputy spoken to his friends in Ballydehob?
Deputy Sheehan should obey the Chair or take the alternative and leave the House.
The treatment of these people has been most unjust. I and many of my colleagues in the Labour Party have tried our best to help them but without success. The provisions of the original Act have been the main stumbling block. Some of my colleagues have been threatened with injunctions and other forms of legal action for challenging the existing monopoly. In desperation representatives of the victimised people have been forced to take legal action against the Minister on the terms of the original Act in order to assert their right to multi-channel television. The matter is now sub judice, as the Fine Gael Party knows. This is not a genuine motion but a smoke screen to fool people outside this House. There is no merit in this motion and it will do nothing to help the victimised people. I have no hesitation in disclosing this deception.
Last night I listened with interest to Deputy Bradford's contribution. His speech was nothing more than a transparent example of cynical opportunism. I am disappointed because I thought he was made of better stuff. He found his voice to express his views on this issue but he hardly had a word to say inside or outside this House during the Irish Steel crisis. I would not mind if he believed in what he said but it was clear to everybody that he did not believe a word of it.
I am afraid the Deputy has a lot to learn.
I too am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I have a long memory and I remember when we had no television and some of my friends in Garryowen in Limerick, a great soccer area, would travel to counties Waterford or Wexford to watch matches on BBC television. They were denied the opportunity of watching soccer on television at home.
It has become unfashionable to say anything good about Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien. I recall that when he was Minister for Posts and Telegraphs he went to various urban areas trying to sell the concept of multi-channel television. He received a very critical reception because many chauvinistic people who felt we could do without multi-channel television opposed him bitterly. He got very little support in this House and was left on his own. He was a visionary and he felt it was more democratic that people should have access to multi-channel television. I recall attending a meeting in Connolly Hall on O'Connell Street, Limerick when he got a hotter reception than Deputy Mulvihill got tonight, with people trying to shout him down when he was advocating the rights of people to enjoy multi-channel television. Everything my colleague, Deputy Mulvihill, has said is true. It is correct that Jim Mitchell was Minister for Posts and Telegraphs when the licences were given to various companies. I remember it very well.
What about the partnership?
There is no point in shouting me down. It is a measure of the weakness and the transparency of the Fine Gael case if they cannot listen. At that time I am sure that Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan and John Mulvihill, who was then not a Deputy, could not have foreseen the monopoly that would be created and that one company has been able to buy up all but two others. That company is the major player in our newspaper industry. It was a flawed Bill and denied the right to community television.
Surely the Deputy's party was part of that Government.
I am not talking about deflector systems but about people making television programmes at local level and feeding them into the national grid. Anybody can put up a deflector but genuine community television and broadcasting could have been made possible. Not once during the debate did Members on the other side of the House refer to the original Bill that caused all the trouble. Deflector systems should not be taken off the air because that denies people outside urban areas the right to watch the same range of television programmes as their friends and neighbours in urban areas. We are democrats and we feel that people have the right to watch television. That is our view and all the shouting in the world will not change it. It is also true that the people involved in the deflector system have taken the case to court and the matter is now sub judice.
They were forced to do that.
The people in Fine Gael know that the motion before the House is merely a puff of smoke — it means nothing.
The people of Cork North Central and Cork South Central will tell the Deputy that shortly.
Put up or shut up.
Sound and fury signifies nothing. Fine Gael does not intend to act on this motion. Its backbenchers can rant and rave to their hearts content. All they can do is shout and roar at the top of their voices but there is no substance, intelligence or logic to their argument.
This matter is before the courts and is therefore sub judice. I do not know how the courts will decide but I am most unhappy about the provision of television services to people in the main urban areas. What has happened is a scandal and a scheme and it was not envisaged by the people who conceived the Bill. They did not have sufficient foresight to see that one company would take over those smaller companies — with the exception of two, as Deputy Mulvihill said. We now have a monopoly similar to that in the national and local press. I do not know what will happen about that.
During the debate Fine Gael speakers did not exhibit any knowledge of this area.
Deputy Kemmy was not here last night.
Fine Gael speakers displayed the most narrow, parochial attitudes. We are on the verge of a major breakthrough in satellite television. By the end of this century people will have 30, 40 or 50 television channels at the press of a button.
Nobody will watch the Labour channel.
The people who have taken over those satellite television companies might be invited to sell them back to the State or some other institution for a large profit.
I am concerned about what has happened to the provision of a multi-channel service here. It is totally undemocratic and wrong but we do not hear any answers from the people on the opposite side of the House.
The Deputy can correct it.
They tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the people in their own constituencies for narrow and dishonest reasons. If they were really concerned about the provision of multi-channel television service, they would have altered the terms of the Bill brought in by then Minister, Deputy Jim Mitchell.
Supported by the Deputy's party.
They should have foreseen the development of a monopoly. However, now they come in here tonight and cry crocodile tears.
The Bill was brought in by the former Minister, Deputy Ray Burke.
Deputy Kemmy's time is very limited. He should be allowed utilise it without constant interruption.
He is aggravating us with incorrect statements.
If Deputies feel they are unable to listen to what Members say here, they have a remedy.
Thank you for your protection, a Cheann Comhairle, but it would be a sad day for me if I could not come into this House and hold my own against the motley crew on the opposite side of the House.
(Interruptions.)
I would be a very weak Deputy if I wilted in front of those people. I do not need protection from anybody; I am well able to hold my own in a robust debate——
(Interruptions.)
——but this debate was a travesty of intelligence. Worth-while views have not been put forward and I am disappointed with some of the Members here tonight who highlighted the transparency and dishonesty of their arguments. They had very little to offer other than to shout down the younger Members but they will not shout me down. I wish to share the remainder of my time with Deputy Batt O'Keeffe.
How very appropriate. Deputy O'Keeffe is a decent man.
Crocodile tears do not suit Deputy Kemmy.
Deputy Sheehan is a seafaring man also.
In dealing with this matter we must be conscious that MMDS was legalised by a Fine Gael Minister, Deputy Jim Mitchell.
It was legalised by Deputy Ray Burke. The Deputy should get his facts right.
The Member in possession has only four minutes to make his contribution.
On a point of order——
No, Deputy, I will not hear a point of order. It is clearly an attempt to erode the time of the Member in possession.
We are wasting time.
The former Minister, Deputy Mitchell, introduced the system——
Not so.
——and a candidate from Cork South Central in the forthcoming by-election — this is why the motion is before the House — was a major investor in Cork Communications. He invested money in it but when the issue became a political hot potato he sold the shares.
Sounds like somebody else.
That person believed so much in the MMDS system that he was willing to invest large amounts of money in it. This Fine Gael motion is an exercise in opportunism in the run up to the Cork by-elections. However, the candidate for Cork South Central continues to believe that MMDS is the best system.
That is not true and the Deputy knows it.
Deputy Burke must listen to the Chair.
The former Minister and the candidate who is running for Fine Gael in Cork South Central continue to believe in the system and I wonder who Fine Gael think's it is codding? It is certainly not codding the people.
The Deputy is running scared.
I can terminate this debate quite quickly.
We are all concerned about community initiatives and would like the deflector system legalised, but why have successive Governments not done that? In regard to the contracts awarded and the licences issued by the then Minister, Deputy Mitchell, I wonder why he did not feel it necessary to change the system or opt for an alternative system. Was it because of Fine Gael influence on the major investment in the company that they went along with awarding those licences? That action under Deputy Mitchell's ministry should be investigated.
Deputy Ray Burke issued the monopoly licences in 1989 and the Deputy knows it. Does Deputy O'Keeffe deny that?
This case is before the High Court. Deputy Martin, Deputy Mulvihill and I live in an area where the deflector system operates. The High Court judgment will take into account that successive Governments allowed the deflector system to continue even though it was unlicensed. The case is due for hearing on 11 January and if the Minister changed the licensing arrangement, the Opposition would ask how he and his Department got it so wrong if it resulted in the Department having to pay out large sums of compensation to this company.
Why did Deputy Ray Burke issue monopoly licences.
If the Minister changed the licensing system now, what view would the courts take of that? They might decide that he was in contempt of court.
Why was it not brought before the courts?
It is important, therefore, that we allow the judicial process to continue. If the courts decide to allow rebeaming, the issue will have to be considered again by the Minister. If the judgment is otherwise, however, the position will be somewhat different.
This Fine Gael motion is opportunistic but on 10 November the day of reckoning will come.
Judgment day.
The people who introduced MMDS licensing——
The people of Cork North Central and South Central will give their answer.
——included as major investor the person now a candidate for Fine Gael in the Cork by-elections and the people will have to decide if they believe in him.
The Deputy will not fool the electorate.
The Deputy tried to do it.
The Minister Deputy Treacy did not get the job this time.
Deputy Hogan will never get it.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Sargent and McGinley.
That is satisfactory and agreed.
As many speakers said, this motion is on the agenda tonight because there are two by-elections in Cork. There is nothing wrong with that. It is in order that an issue of concern to those in Cork should be debated in the House and that those who will vote in the by-elections will know the views of the political parties and of Members of the House.
They must know the facts as well.
That is what democracy is about.
The Deputy should not lecture me on democracy.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy in possession without interruption, please.
All this talk about the matter being before the courts is nothing more than a smokescreen to bide time until after 10 November. Why did the Government insist on abdicating responsibility for such an important issue to the courts? Surely there is an obligation to legislate on the matter and issue licences particularly since both parties gave firm commitments during the last election that community television and methods of distributing television signals would be licensed.
Television is a powerful cultural, entertainment and educational medium. The television signal and choice of channels available to viewers is important. Last year there was a dispute in Dublin between Cablelink and the television companies. There was a loss of Sky and other television channels on the network and there was an outcry among the people about that. I understand the strength of feeling among people who depend on other systems of distributing the television signal. In many areas of Munster, particularly in Cork, the signal is distributed by community organisations at a reasonable cost. There is understandable fear that the system will be replaced by a more costly one which may not distribute the signal to many areas, particularly mountainous regions, for the reasons stated by Deputy Coughlan. There is also concern about the health and environmental implications of MMDS masts.
Debate on this issue is long overdue. The only reason the motion is before us is Fianna Fáil and Labour did not honour the commitments given in the last general election. There was ample time for the Government to deal with the issue. I agree that the legislation introduced by Deputy Jim Mitchell contributed to our sorry mess but that was in the mid-1980s. Communications technology has changed dramatically and it is strange that Members should want to lock themselves into a framework agreed ten years ago.
In the lifetime of this Government thousands of jobs were sacrificed on the altar of competition in Aer Lingus and Telecom Éireann and more are about to be sacrificed in the ESB, all allegedly in the interests of competition and consumer benefit. Where is the concern for consumers when we talk about receiving television signals? They are entitled to the benefits of competition which, when it comes to shedding jobs, seem to be the favourite words of the Government. The Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications was disingenuous in the way he attempted to define community television as solely the production of television programmes by community groups. That is a form of it but the television signal is distributed by many groups — this is the case in Cork — and subscribers are the democratic participants. That should be encouraged.
I agree with the warnings on monopoly voiced by Deputies Kemmy and Mulvihill. The danger of a monopoly developing in communications is in evidence particularly in the print media where one person owns 60 per cent of the print media and has a large hold in the area of radio and television. Power and ownership are concentrated in the hands of a few. While we have the technology which should, in theory, give the public a greater degree of choice, in practice they will have less choice than at present. We will have the classic case of 57 channels with nothing on them. In many respects television production and distribution is reduced to a choice between Beavis and Butthead. The public must be given a choice. Competition and the tendency towards a monopoly are matters which deserve to receive more attention in the House than they have to date.
Bamhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Teachta Gilmore as ucht a chuid ama a roinnt liom. There is a number of aspects to the motion before us. The technical side of the television broadcasting system we are debating is important but there are also health and environmental issues to be considered. However, the most emotive aspect, given its importance locally and nationally, is community democracy, what it stands for and if it has any meaning in the eyes of the Government. A number of community groups have stood their ground and are witnessing a trend by the Government which amounts to a form of oppression which does not find expression with tanks in the streets but amounts to the Minister telling them what they want and what is good for them in spite of their experience and other advice available to them. The group in Carrigaline has decided to challenge the issue in the courts and not wait to be told by the Government what is good for it.
While the imminent by-elections in Cork have focused our minds on the problems in these areas, it should not be forgotten that this is a national problem. The map of Ireland showing the MMDS broadcasting waves is like a rug covered with coffee stains. Although awareness of the problem associated with this system is greatest in Cork, no area has escaped.
The Government must deal with the technical aspect of this issue. A number of very misleading statements have been made by Ministers about the MMDS system, the various clichés used do not stand up to scrutiny. The beam bender rebroadcasting system is not independently monitored. Instead the Government gives us figures and states what is happening. When one takes its reputation into account, this is not reassuring. In the Cork Airport site the MMDS signal is very low in deference to aircraft. This has a different impact from other MMDS signals and the people of Cork would like to know more about its unique effects. This matter has not been properly addressed by the Government.
I have been informed that, unlike community television, the MMDS system does not allow a viewer to videotape a programme on one channel while watching a different programme on another channel. One could say that such viewers are receiving a disservice, not a service and this is a good argument for not forcing the system down their throats.
The Government refers to point-to-point transmission as if it were an easily achievable goal. However, we are not living in the Netherlands and given obstacles such as mountains with which we have to deal, point-to-point transmission cannot be guaranteed. Unfortunately the Government is not telling the whole truth when it refers to the introduction of point-to-point transmission. For example, beam bender rebroadcasting equipment would have to be installed, and this would give rise to other problems. There should be more independent monitoring to these areas.
Is the Government prepared to face up to the legal challenge posed by the policy of MMDS operators which does not comply with international conventions? The people of Carrigaline are very clear that the Government's policy in this area is not in line with international conventions. In my area of North County Dublin the feeling is that Cablelink and, in particular, Cable Management, need to be properly monitored. The Government should monitor existing operators rather than throwing out the baby with the bath water by imposing a faulty and questionable system which will not meet people's needs.
In the Malahide and Portmarnock areas cable television is being offered to the public. Today I spoke to a constituent who told me he paid £120 subscription fee for six channels and a further £120 for Sky Sports One in which he is very interested. He read in the newspapers a commitment to providing Sky Sports Two but he is unable to receive it. He has had the frustrating experience of watching part of a programme on Sky Sports One and being unable to see the rest of the programme as it is shown on Sky Sports Two the following day.
The Government is taking its eye off the ball, forcing its questionable option down the throats of people and allowing companies which provide a faulty service to go unpunishable. These companies should be properly monitored and brought to justice. This injustice is compounded by the Government's failure to monitor this area. If the Government is serious about democracy and properly representing people it should stand back from its grandiose scheme, talk to people and help them to realise their objectives. This would ensure the provision of a proper system with the support and co-operation of local communities. It would also enable the Government to retain some popularity, which it is fast losing as a result of its bad management of broadcasting policy.
A blatant attempt is being made in this debate to rewrite recent broadcasting history. Having listened to Deputy Kemmy and Deputy Batt O'Keeffe one would think that the MMDS system was imposed by Deputy Jim Mitchell. I was a Member of the House when the 1988 Act, which inflicted this system on people, was introduced by the then Minister, Deputy Ray Burke, and when, in 1989, he awarded ten franchises at a cost of £20,000 each. No one can say that this system was introduced, imposed or thought up by Deputy Jim Mitchell or anyone else in Fine Gael.
We have been led to believe that this motion would not have been tabled if there was not an imminent by-election in Cork. This is a relevant motion to the people in Donegal whom I represent and there are no by-elections in that county. It is also relevant to people in Galway, Mayo and many other rural areas. It is a coincidence that the by-elections will take place in Cork in two weeks' time. I want to put the record straight on these points.
Donegal is very well catered for in terms of a television service by the 50 community based operators who provide excellent signals to the remotest parts of the county. This has been achieved by local communities who took the initiative to fill a vacuum which had existed for many years. Urban areas, particularly the east coast, had access to cross channel television stations for many years through the cable link system. However, rural Ireland, particularly the west, including Donegal, was left without access to cross channel stations. Only through the industry, ingenuity and skills of local community groups was that gap filled. The first community television system in Donegal was established without State help to provide television transmission to many areas not then covered by RTE. It was subsequently developed to transmit cross channel stations. An effective economic non-profit making safe system was devised through community effort and co-operation. It was within the financial reach of even the poorest families. Community television is an excellent example of community co-operation at its best.
As a result of the Wireless and Telegraphy Act, 1988, we are forced to jettison and abandon community television in favour of this new MMDS system. It is a disgrace that community television is being blacked and replaced by a suspect system enjoying a huge monopoly in its functional area. Will the Minister even at the eleventh hour, pause and reconsider? Where is the sense in replacing an efficient system of transmission with a suspect and much more expensive one? Each subscriber to the proposed MMDS will be obliged to pay a connection charge of up to £300 and an annual charge that can vary from £80 to £140. In addition the television licence fee has to be paid.
The companies granted the franchises are commercial concerns with monopoly status and can fix charges to ensure maximum profit. This will mean very expensive television viewing in the future. MMDS is outside the control of the local community unlike community television which is controlled by community groups and operated on a voluntary basis on behalf of the community. Charges can, therefore, be waived for the elderly and less well off. No such charitable flexibility can be expected from a commercial concern. The poorer sections will have to pay the huge increases or else survive without cross channel stations and, in some instances, native stations.
The effectiveness of MMDS can also be questioned. It was primarily designed for the plains and prairies of the United States and Canada. To receive microwave transmissions, the recipient must be in line of sight with the transmitting mast. The topography of Donegal and the west would not be suitable for such a system. Many people who receive television reception from community television will not and cannot be served by the microwave system and may be left without any reception.
Furthermore the technology of telecommunications is changing and developing almost on a daily basis. Satellite television has revolutionised the availability of a huge number of channels and fibre optic technology is coming into its own. What is the sense in imposing a prohibitively expensive technology on this country when it may well be obsolete in a few years. This is the time to pause and look at what else is available. It is certainly not a time to push a system that may have to be replaced by a more modern, effective, efficient and more economic one in the near future.
Another aspect of MMDS which needs clarification is safety standards and its possible health hazards. There are conflicting views and reports on this. According to the Department of Energy, Transport and Communications and the franchise companies there are no dangers or risks involved. However, many authoritative sources are concerned about a blanket cover of microwave radiation in the environment if the proposed system is developed. The international radiation and protection association has guidelines on safe limits of exposure to microwave radiation. These guidelines are regularly reviewed as knowledge on the effects of microwave radiation became available. No other country will have the blanket cover of microwave radiation that will prevail here when the full microwave system is in operation. No studies could, therefore, have been carried out on the long term effects of such exposure on human beings but the limited knowledge available indicates clearly that exposure to microwave radiation should be avoided. The international radiation protection association guidelines on safety limits also say it is prudent to avoid unnecessary exposure to microwave radiation. There is no safe level of radiation. The question must be asked whether we should allow ourselves and future generations to be exposed to microwave radiation for a television system we do not want or need. I do not wish to cause undue alarm and anxiety about this complicated matter. However, we are entitled to a comprehensive and independent assessment of the dangers of microwave radiation.
We simply cannot cast aside a system that has served us well for many years in favour of a new one with so many questionable features. The motion asks the Minister to amend the Act so that community television will continue its proud record of providing its excellent services to remote areas. Granting a monopoly to a new united system cannot and should not be tolerated. In the interests of services to the consumer we must maintain a place for community television. A simple amendment to the Act would enable this to be maintained. That is the essence of this motion. I hope it will be sufficiently supported in the House so that we can continue with a system that has been devised and controlled by local communities for local communities throughout the country.
Mar fhocal scoir, ba mhaith liom tagairt a dhéanamh do Theilifís na Gaeilge. Ní shílim go gcuirfidh sé isteach nó amach ar Theilifís na Gaeilge. má tá MMDS againn no nach bhfuil. Rinne Teachta eile an pointe sin sa Teach le gairid. Ní shílim go bhfuil fírinne ar bith sa ráiteas sin. Is cuma cén chóras atá againn, beidh muid ábalta Teilifís na Gaeilge a chur ar bun, mar atá beartaithe.
(Laoighis-Offaly): I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this worth-while debate. However, I cannot accept Deputy McGinley's assertion that it is purely by chance it has been timed for this week, in advance of the Cork by-elections. During the past year and a half along with members of all political parties I have attended public meetings in my constituency. The members of Deputy McGinley's party in my constituency would have been well aware of the problems associated with MMDS and would have had ample opportunity to raise them before now. I do not wish to get into history, whether writing it or rewriting it. We are dealing with a situation created by a number of circumstances during the past few years. While I accept that it was not Deputy Mitchell who introduced the 1988 Act or introduced the franchises in 1989, I recall that was the period during which his party, through the Tallaght strategy, was engaged in tacit support for the Government.
He did not join them altogether like the Deputy.
(Laoighis-Offaly): I support the amendment by the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications. I am pleased, following the determination of the case before the courts, that it allows an opportunity for review and improvement because that is needed.
My constituency colleague, the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, will be aware that a variety of multi-channel systems operate in the Laoighis-Offaly constituency and that there have been problems because of loss of service in areas which previously had access to the deflector systems. The Minister and I receive frequent complaints from people about the quality of the cable service. People wonder if they can connect to the MMDS, but they cannot because they are linked to a cable system which is an exclusive licence. Other areas have direct access to multi-channel signals from the North and areas which previously operated under the illegal deflector systems have lost that service, unlike parts of Cork.
There are a number of serious faults with the MMDS which need to be addressed. Although the land in my constitutency is relatively flat the Slieve Bloom Mountains prevent many people from receiving a proper service. We also have a problem with encoding by companies who have the franchise for the MMDS. Encoding means extra charges are levied on the subscribers who have to rent additional equipment to decode the signal. That is an unnecessary imposition on them. We also have the problem of cost. There are a number of MMDS operators in our area, one of whom charges a reasonable fee with an easy pay method and another who charges a very high fee and insists on people paying a lump sum. Those issues need to be examined by the Department, regardless of the outcome of the court case.
I am perturbed by the monopoly position referred to by other Deputies. Initially the franchises for MMDS were given to a number of companies but only two of them are under the control of one group, the same owners of a large part of the print media. That policy matter needs to be addressed urgently by the Government.
On Deputy Sargent's comments on community democracy, he may not be aware that a number of genuine community services are available on some of our cable networks and local people participate in making and producing programmes for their areas. I welcome that development. Having regard to the progress on the issuing of additional community licences, it is obvious the Government is committed to the involvement of people in broadcasting and the print media in their areas. I look forward to further developments not only in radio but also in the television sector.
People in my area have access to a number of systems, namely, cable, direct signal, former deflector systems, and MMDS. People are not very concerned about the technical niceties of this matter, they must be considered by the Department. The Government has a responsibility to ensure that the air-waves, which are owned by the public, are used in an effective and legal manner. The consumer is concerned about three basic matters, namely, cost, quality and service. Whether the system is cable, MMDS or otherwise, the Government has a duty to ensure the cost is within the grasp of the majority of people, the operators have easy pay systems, the quality of service is adequate and that service is available to people promptly and efficiently. Unfortunately, that is not the case at present, not alone in respect of MMDS operations but also in respect of cable companies. Following the determination of the court case the Minister should address those serious issues.
I thank the Members who contributed to this important debate, Deputy O'Keeffe from Cork South-West, Deputy Bradford from Cork East, Deputy Sheehan from Cork South-West——
The by-election spokesperson.
——Deputy Liam Burke from Cork North Central, Deputy McGinley from Donegal South West and Members from other parties who supported the motion, namely, Deputies O'Malley, Sargent and Gilmore. From listening to Deputy Gallagher's contribution it appears he will also be supporting the motion.
(Laoighis-Offaly): The Deputy must not have been listening attentively. I indicated my clear support for the amendment.
The Deputy muddied the waters.
With forked tongue.
I am very disappointed that the Fianna Fáil and Labour Government rejected the Fine Gael motion to support the need for competition between community television and existing MMDS licence holders.
This is hypocritical by the Government in view of the specific commitments given before the last general election by both Government parties. On 13 November 1992, prior to the last general election, the then Fianna Fáil Minister for Transport, Tourism and Communications, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, promised that Fianna Fáil would arrange for the examination of the monopoly position of MMDS operators under competition legislation.
Not to be outdone, the Labour Party stated in its campaign literature that in Government it would "license community television throughout the country". All that has changed since then is that both Fianna Fáil and Labour are now in Government and in a position of power to do something about this, but are refusing to honour those election promises.
The Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Cowen, attempted to imply that Fine Gael is seeking to represent and legalise all illegal transmission systems that were, in his words, "misappropriating the use of the radio frequency spectrum". He further stated that the people who operate systems illegally are in effect advocating the abandonment of the national radio frequency plan.
I support the Minister in stating that the radio and television frequency spectrum is a national asset and that it must be controlled by a Government Department. However, this does not give the Government the right, particularly in the context of European Union deregulation directives, to grant exclusive rights to particular companies in a monopolistic way and in a defined geographical area.
This is a strange statement coming from the present Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications when one considers what he had to say regarding the issue of competitions and the role of the State in this House on 4 March 1994 during statements relating to the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. As reported at column 1760 of the Official Report of 4 March, the Minister stated:
... the State owned companies have found that they are not immune to the pressure for change that is sweeping the world. The cosy security of operating a Government granted monopoly is coming under increasing threat in a single European market that seeks to deregulate and open up to competition every sector of service that was traditionally supplied by way of a public utility. No longer can a utility expect to be granted protection from market competition in return for providing certain public and social services.
Furthermore the Minister stated at the opening of Intelevent 1994 in Dublin recently that "a more competitive environment was vital to ensure the rapid adoption and diffusion of new technologies at lower costs and promote consumer choice".
Surely these statements of practical political philosophy uttered by the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications confirm his agreement with the spirit of the Fine Gael motion before the House? It was pathetic to listen to the Minister quote a Fine Gael Minister in 1985 to justify his policy stance on this issue nine years later, considering that it takes a mere week to change a document. It is particularly pathetic when one considers that it was his own colleague, Deputy Ray Burke, as Minister for Communications in 1988, who introduced the necessary regulations to give effect to the policy. The present Minister, Deputy Cowen, had no problem with the policy at the time. The Minister will be the first to admit that rapid technological change is taking place that will allow competition and co-existence of community television with existing licence holders.
In his statement last evening I hope the Minister was not advocating a closed shop policy on this issue in respect of local community groups coming together, taking the initiative to provide a good quality, cheap service to subscribers while not interfering with any other radio or television stations in their respective areas. Deputies Kemmy and Mulvihill warned the House of the dangers of having advertising, local radio and television, local media in the hands of a few powerful individuals. Perhaps that is the Minister's wish. When one reflects on the changes that have taken place in the media world in recent years there is plenty of evidence that smaller media operators are rapidly going out of business or being taken over by other operators to the detriment of a competitive environment. All of us, particularly those in the local media, are very aware of this important development. There is no doubt that there is a vested interest involved in seeking to ensure that the majority shareholding of existing MMDS licence holders is well protected by a few powerful individuals. What the MMDS transmission system can offer in the future in terms of local advertising is a powerful incentive to those people with large amounts of money to become involved.
The Minister was correct in quoting Deputy Jim Mitchell nine years ago when he stated that the technological base did not exist at that time to allow for the legislation of community television. That is no longer the case. If local competition to MMDS is allowed by the Minister, all that needs to be done is to set transmission standards. One such technological development has been the advent of digital compression which has rendered the transmission of high quality digital television a reality. In future it will be possible to transmit multiple high quality television signals on a much smaller frequency band through compression. In other words, the technological base will be available to allow the Minister to grant a licence to community television groups while not interfering with existing operators or international treaties.
The Minister spoke at length about our international obligations when he correctly quoted from the International Telecommunications Union documentation, from the Treaty agreed in Stockholm in 1961. Is any licensed or unlicensed operator at present interfering with the requirements of those international treaties? The Minister failed to address that question. The answer is "no". Notwithstanding the fact that there is technological development taking place, there are community groups who have organised themselves in recent years and filled the vacuum the State failed to fill by providing a low cost, high quality, retransmission service to local communities. We have heard of many examples in Cork, Waterford, Donegal and south Kilkenny. Many communities operating with low cost equipment, imposing a low charge on the consumer, have been providing a very effective, high quality television service over the years. Only within the context of MMDS licence holders coming on stream has the Minister availed of the opportunity to take those people off the air, deeming their operations illegal. That will be the case no longer if we accept the spirit of the Fine Gael motion.
I regard it as totally unreasonable that the general public should be deprived of choice within their local area by ministerial diktat. Many people, particularly the elderly, who have come to rely on community television over the years, will be unable to afford the costs imposed by a monopolistic company. All of us are aware of the costs of multi-channel viewing. When one compares those with some of the successful community television operations, one immediately sees the huge discrepancy in the charges imposed on subscribers. If community television is terminated the chance of multi-channel viewing will be eliminated for many people. Community television would not be in operation today were it not for the fact that communities had to take up the challenge themselves. The State is required to meet the public demand by adopting the new technological arrangements now available. Competition between MMDS operators and community television represents the best and most effective way to go about it.
I suggest that the model of licensing local radio adopted by the Independent Radio and Television Commission could be adopted for community television when, if ever, the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications decides to open his mind to new developments in this area rather than hiding behind a court case not likely to be heard until 11 January 1995. It is not acceptable that the Minister should not give some indication of whether he is prepared to review the present legislation, irrespective of the outcome of court cases initiated by community groups against the Minister and the State and existing MMDS operators in Cork.
Some people have been very concerned in recent years about the existence of MMDS transmitters in their areas and the potential hazard to health. Various scientific views have been advanced by MMDS transmitter operators indicating that they are safe, while other scientific evidence has been offered by local communities indicating the contrary. I made a reasonable suggestion to the Minister on many occasions, that the Radiological Institute, an independent body, should be charged with responsibility for monitoring the emissions of non-ionising radiation from these transmitters so that people who live in those areas, at a considerable distance from the centre of power where such decisions are taken, will be afforded an opportunity to be informed on the contents of those studies, their relevance to their general health and the risk.
The Minister has indicated that he will await the outcome of the court action taken by South Coast Community Television against the State, the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications and Cork Communications Limited before reviewing his policy on this issue. That is a total "cop out". I appeal to Fianna Fáil and Labour Deputies, who gave specific commitments before the last general election, to take the honourable course and meet those commitments to the people who voted for them in good faith, believing that they were prepared to support the licensing of community television. They received significant votes on the strength of that commitment. In order to retain their credibility and honour their election commitments I ask them to support the Fine Gael motion.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 33.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Bruton, Joan.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Flood, Chris.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Derek.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Power, Seán.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Owen, Nora.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Sheehan, P.J.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Browne(Wexford) and Ferris; Níl, Deputies E. Kenny and Boylan.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.