Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Apr 1997

Vol. 478 No. 3

Ceisteanna — Questions. - Television Transmission.

Robert Molloy

Question:

3 Mr. Molloy asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications if he will place in the Oireachtas Library the terms of each contract awarded for the transmission of television signals of MMDS schemes in relation to recently announced proposals to provide for a short-term UHF multi-channel television licensing scheme; whether the principles of fair competition will be met if it is proposed to allow MMDS operators and cable relay operators to apply for deflector licences in areas where they already hold MMDS or cable relay licences; the reason it would take six months to draft the required regulations; whether the United Kingdom authorities can exercise a veto on the issuing of licences for this new scheme on the UHF band, using analog technology; when it is expected that RTÉ 1, Network 2. Teilifís na Gaeilge and TV3 will be operating on an all-UHF basis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11111/97]

Noel Treacy

Question:

4 Mr. N. Treacy asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the date on which legislation will be published for the ultrahigh frequency retransmission television schemes in order to provide multi-channel television programme services to all parts of Ireland on an equitable basis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11009/97]

Mr. Dukes

I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together. As I indicated to the House on 15 April when I announced the introduction of a new UHF multi-channel television licensing scheme, my officials will now start drafting the legislative basis for it. I envisage that regulations drawn up under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926, will be necessary to allow for the operation of the scheme. I regret I cannot be precise as to when these regulations will be published but I am due to take Questions Time in the House next month, so perhaps the Deputy might ask me again at that stage when I might be in a position to give him a definite answer.

Mr. S. Brennan

This is the Minister's last Question Time.

Mr. Dukes

I am confident it is not nor is it the last occasion I will have the pleasure of addressing the Deputy from this side of the House.

Deputy Molloy is mistaken in inferring from my statement to the House that it would take six months to draft the regulations. The import of what I said was that despite the substantial amount of preparatory work that would have to be done I was hopeful that it would be possible for applications to be received by the autumn. I am now hopeful that date might be brought forward.

In addition to drafting the necessary regulations, there is a range of other preparatory work to be done. One major task will be the need to prepare and publish a comprehensive national frequency list to help applicants in their selection of frequency channels. The selected channels must not cause interference to the national programme services which is why the frequency list is of importance. Work has already commenced in my Department in preparation for the operation of the scheme and it will be completed as soon as possible.

I made it clear when I announced the scheme that it will not operate as a nationwide one. I am surprised, therefore, that Deputy Noel Treacy is raising the question of nationwide coverage. I will repeat what I said in my statement:

The new systems will be licensed to operate in those parts of the country where appropriate frequency space can be identified by suitable applicants. Because of the shortage of frequency space the UHF scheme is not intended for, and will not provide, coverage to all parts of the country.

Thus I can give no guarantees that sufficient frequencies will be available in all parts of the country for which there is an intending applicant. The areas to be covered by the scheme will depend on applicants who meet the criteria set out in the scheme being licensed.

Deputy Molloy should know that contracts have not been awarded for the provision of multi-channel television by MMDS. What have been awarded are licences to operate MMDS. The actual licences are not public documents and are considered to be confidential to the licensees concerned and to my Department. The format for each licence is contained in the schedule to the Wireless Telegraphy (Television Programme Retransmission) Regulations, 1989.

I intend to see that the principles of fair competition will be observed in the award of licences under the new scheme. I do not accept the inference that these principles would be better served if I excluded MMDS and cable relay operators from participation in it. The essence of competition is a large number of participants. I cannot see how it would be fair to exclude potential participants.It is not the case that cable relay operators or anyone else will be licensed to provide service under the scheme in cable relay areas as these areas are expressly excluded from the scope of the scheme. I made this point perfectly clear in my statement to the House on the matter. In contrast, all non-cable areas of the country are licensed for MMDS service.

There is no question of the UK authorities exercising a veto over the award of licences. The point I tried to make in my statement in plain non-technical language is that there are complex co-ordination rules and procedures in place under international agreements which make it incumbent on Ireland, with all other parties to these agreements, to co-ordinate the use of frequency assignments with neighbouring countries.

That is how the UK comes into the picture. If applications are received with proposed frequency characteristics which fall into the category of those which require co-ordination, it is only right that I should make applicants aware now of Ireland's obligations in that regard. The co-ordination process can be lengthy and there is never a guarantee of a successful outcome. There is nothing new in that.

Deputy Molloy should also know that Teilifís na Gaeilge has been operating on an all-UHF basis since its inception. Likewise, although it is not yet on air, TV3 intends to operate only on UHF. While RTE has submitted a proposal to move its remaining VHF high power stations to UHF, in respect of the broadcasting of RTE 1 and Network 2, I have not taken a decision on that yet. This decision will be taken on the merits of the proposal and with due regard to the furtherance of national broadcasting policy rather than retransmission policy which is the subject of the new scheme.

Mr. N. Treacy

Does the Minister propose to introduce primary legislation or secondary legislation by regulation? Will he tell the House what he meant when he said in his statement of 15 April that the new scheme which he will bring forward will be a basic secondary service?

Mr. Dukes

I will repeat what I said in my statement.The legislation which I will bring forward will be regulations drawn up under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926, which is secondary legislation.The scheme I propose will be for a secondary service. For the reasons I made clear in my statement, I must give primacy to our national broadcasting services. That means their needs for UHF frequency channels must receive the first priority. Therefore, any other service provided, such as the new one I propose to license, will have to fit into the available space and will be a secondary service, as proposed by the consultants appointed to advise me on Cork community television's application.

Mr. N. Treacy

If all that is required are regulations, why is there such a delay? The Minister said in response to Deputy Séamus Brennan and in his statement of 15 April that he has given this matter long and detailed consideration. Now that we know regulations are required, why is there a delay in introducing them? Although the Minister gave a commitment to this House on 15 April, we have not yet received the EBU consultants' report on this matter.

Mr. Dukes

The fact that we are procedding by way of regulations rather than primary legislation does not mean it is easier to draft the legislation. The regulations will contain a number of complex issues and a number of matters must be settled and finalised before the regulations can be brought forward. Had it been possible to bring the regulations before the House last week or earlier, I would have done so. Last week and again today I set out in some detail the volume of work which needs to be done before this can be brought into operation, something which the Deputy should not underestimate.

Mr. N. Treacy

Why have we not seen the EBU consultants' report?

Mr. Dukes

It is not an EBU report but one carried out by three independent consultants nominated or suggested——

Mr. N. Treacy

They were EBU consultants.

Mr. Dukes

They were not EBU consultants but were suggested by the EBU whose advice we took. The EBU is not engaged in any way by the report and has not given any imprimatur to it. We asked for its advice on consultants because it was probably in the best position to offer that advice. I hope the report will be in the Oireachtas Library by the close of business tomorrow. I do not know why the Deputy is shaking his head. It is taking time because I have to remove certain sections confidential to South Coast Community Television and we are checking with them that information confidential to them has been taken out.

Mr. S. Brennan

The shredder will be working.

Mr. Dukes

The Deputy is grinning. He does not believe what he says. It might interest the House, especially Deputy Brennan, to know I was asked by South Coast Community Television not to publish that report. It might comfort the Deputy to know that not only do I not take his advice from time to time, I did not take South Coast's advice on that matter either. However, I felt it incumbent upon me, to the extent that the report includes matters confidential to that company, to delete those from the report before putting it in the Library.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am taking the reply to Priority Question No. 4 in the name of Deputy Noel Treacy in ordinary time. It is enjoined with Priority Question No. 3 in the name of Deputy Robert Molloy. Therefore, I can also take supplementary questions to that question in ordinary time.

Mr. O'Malley

Why does the Minister continue to subscribe so assiduously to this appalling, ridiculous culture of secrecy in refusing to publish the terms of the contracts for licences? These are licences to broadcast on the public airwaves and, in so far as anything is public property, they are public licences for public activity. Why not publish them? In most countries, matters of this sort would be published. Why not here? I did not deduce from the Minister's long reply why it takes an estimated six months to draft the necessary regulations for what is now proposed.

Mr. Dukes

These licences have always been considered to be confidential documents between the licensee and the licencer. That has been the case and, while I know that is not a reason for it to continue, until a different decision is made, that is the approach I will take.

Mr. O'Malley

Will the Minister make a different decision now?

Mr. Dukes

No. Legislation recently passed by this House may make us take a different view and, if that is the case, I will be happy to conform with that. Until that is established, I will stick with the existing practice.

Mr. O'Malley

The Minister is very conservative.

Mr. Dukes

The Deputy is wrong in deducing it will take six months to publish the regulations. I did not say that. I said the scheme will be based on regulations which will be based on the provisions of the 1926 Act. There might be a hiatus in the work of drafting the regulations. There is nothing I can do about that. I will enjoy the hiatus and will be back here afterwards. The regulations will be published as soon as possible but much work must be done before they can be finalised. It will take some time after the regulations have been published to put the licensing system in place. It would be unrealistic to make decisions on applications before the regulations have been made available to all potential applicants.

Mr. N. Treacy

The Minister is in breach of his ministerial and constitutional duties to this House. On 15 April, he gave a commitment here he would lodge this document in the Library. It is still not there and he said it will not be until tomorrow at the earliest. Any Minister who gave such a commitment to this House was obliged on that day or the next to ensure the documentation was available. There is something seriously wrong when this is the position. It is obvious the Minister rushed out this document in response to Deputy Brennan's statement of 14 April.

Mr. Dukes

He rushed out a transparent smokescreen.

Mr. N. Treacy

I want to know why the Minister has put a 31 December 1999 time limit on the licences which he proposes issuing to the deflector operators. Is he aware legal experts say he cannot do this? Is there a time limit on the licences of existing MMDS operators?

Mr. Dukes

I cannot do anything about Deputy Treacy's propensity to fantasise about these things. I said why I was not in a position to immediately lodge that report in the Library.

Mr. N. Treacy

The Minister said that on 15 April.

Mr. Dukes

I am anxious to ensure it is lodged there and that information a company and potential applicant for a licence regards as confidential is deleted from it. I must respect the wishes of that company although I do not respect their full wish in the matter.

I do not know what legal experts are informing Deputy Treacy. We could entertain each other for a long time swapping stories about legal experts but I will forego that temptation. I clearly explained on 15 April that I put an indicative termination date on the licences because, by the time we reach the year 2000, developments in the use of the UHF band by national services, the migration of RTE from VHF to UHF and the consequences of the advent of digital television will make it necessary at that time to have a complete review of the licensing system.

That is linked to the last part of the Deputy's question. Most existing MMDS licences date from 1991 and 1992. Strictly speaking, those are annual licences which can be renewed up to nine times, so there is a ten year cycle. The first of those licences will come to the end of that cycle in 2001 and the bulk in 2001 and 2002. A natural break will then appropriately occur during which we can fundamentally review how we organise the provision of television services. It is for that reason the new licences I will award will last up to that point. I cannot anticipate what the content or direction of that review will be. Neither should I say anything which might prejudge decisions on licensing in the light of that review. That is the reason I prescribed that time limit because it is important anyone entering this area should know what is facing them.

Mr. S. Brennan

The Minister knows well his scheme will not be implemented.

Mr. Dukes

I guarantee the Deputy it will be.

Mr. S. Brennan

It will not come to this House until next autumn and then might be examined next year. It is a device to get the Minister past the election. A key part of this issue is the advice from the Attorney General's office. Since the Minister cannot release that advice, will he paraphrase it and tell the House what it said about the issue of deflectors and compensation?

Given that the Minister's scheme does not start until autumn or perhaps 1998 or 1999, will he estimate for the House the number of blank screens there will be in the summer when the High Court cases shut down the deflector companies? If these were shut down in Donnybrook or Ranelagh, people would protest outside the House and considerable pressure would be applied. That it is happening in rural Ireland is no reason to ignore it. What has the Minister to say to those who will no longer have multi-channel television?

Mr. Dukes

The Deputy has tried to characterise this scheme as a means of getting past the election. I am appalled that a man of his experience should make such a silly charge.

Mr. S. Brennan

Exactly.

Mr. Dukes

If I had been in a position to do this on 4 December 1996, to announce a scheme on 15 April which could have been in place overnight, or if I knew I would be Minister for another three or four years, I would do the same. The Deputy, who apparently is allied with another party which talks about cynicism in politics, is playing to a gallery and encouraging the kind of cynicism which his putative partners profess to feel oppressed by.

Mr. S. Brennan

I obviously touched a sensitive chord.

Mr. McGinley

The Deputy's party brought it in.

Mr. Dukes

I will not publish the Attorney General's advice. Deputy Brennan may not have noticed when he was in Government — I am inclined to the view that he did not notice as there is a lot which he seems to have missed — that Governments do not publish or paraphrase their legal advice.

Mr. S. Brennan

That is going in the shredder.

Mr. Dukes

The Deputy is a master of pulling the longbow about dates. I have said I hope to publish these regulations quickly. I hope to be in a position to issue licences this autumn.

Mr. S. Brennan

It will not happen.

Mr. Dukes

Anything the Deputy tries to pretend to the contrary is nothing but a tissue of pretence.I am delighted the Deputy asked about blank screens. This is an important issue. The Deputy knows I am the first Minister to try to resolve this problem.

Mr. S. Brennan

The Minister has made a mess of it.

Mr. Dukes

Fianna Fáil never tried it because they did not have the bottle.

Mr. S. Brennan

The Minister dodged the issue. He put it off until October. He kicked it into the autumn.

Mr. Dukes

Deputies Brennan and Treacy know as well as I do that any injunctions granted which put deflector systems off the air will be as a result of actions taken by people outside this House. No Member of this House, especially not the Minister, has any hand, act or part in it.

Mr. N. Treacy

A brother of a member of the Government is involved in an injunction.

Mr. Dukes

I will not proceed against any deflector system between 15 April and the closing date for applications for licences. There are two reasons screens may go blank during that period. First, deflector systems may have injunctions issued against them. No one in this House has any control over that. In such cases they will have to obey the court and close down. Second, for their own purposes, those against whom injunctions are not issued will decide, for what they consider to be political reasons, to close down. If they do so the responsibility is entirely theirs. Some of them will do so at the instigation of Members opposite.

Mr. N. Treacy

That is unfair. That is a disgrace.

Mr. Dukes

If I get any evidence of that I will put it in every newspaper and on every television screen that is still active.

Mr. S. Brennan

That is a silly charge.

Mr. N. Treacy

Typical Fine Gael.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

Is it not disingenuous for the Minister to say that it has taken him so long to remove the confidential contents and put this report in the Library given that, a month ago, the Taoiseach indicated on the Order of Business that he was to discuss this matter with the Minister?Ten days after the Minister's announcement it is still not in the Library.

Mr. Dukes

The Deputy missed my explanation.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

The reason the Minister tackled this problem is that the Taoiseach said in Carrigaline, before the by-election, that he would grant a temporary licence on entering Government.Two years later this has not been done and now an election is looming.

In relation to South Coast Community Television, are we getting the worst of both worlds? How can the Minister defend the removal of the court's protection from the company? Can Cable companies now take legal action against it and close it down?

The Minister has indicated that the quality of reception will deteriorate up to 1999. Is he concerned that, for people to obtain a licence before then, they will have to get their affairs in order? This group has been involved in a costly High Court case. The other difficulty it faces relates to royalties. In effect, the company——

An Ceann Comhairle

This question is becoming rather long.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

Will the Minister accept that, in those circumstances, it will be almost impossible for companies such as South Coast Community Television to come on stream and meet all the criteria laid down?

Mr. Dukes

Deputies opposite have been carping about this scheme since I announced it on 15 April. On that day Deputy Brennan said he did not think it was a good idea. He deducted from what he heard a week before that he would be left behind and that he should issue a statement. There was a meeting of the Fianna Fáil Front Bench on the Wednesday of the previous week because they were afraid I was going to move.

Mr. S. Brennan

The statement was out before the Minister's. We flushed him out.

Mr. Dukes

The Deputy made a statement after that meeting which I quoted in the House that day. That statement pre-empted what I was going to do. However, when I said so, the Deputy called it a smokescreen which magically became transparent afterwards.

Mr. N. Treacy

We cannot even get a transparent report.

Mr. Dukes

Deputies opposite have been running as fast as they can to keep up with this issue. It is about time they stopped carping. Are the Deputies in favour of this scheme, even if I am the first to introduce it? That probably sticks in their gullet because they never got around to introducing it.

Mr. S. Brennan

It is a lousy scheme.

Mr. Dukes

Would the Deputies prefer me to do nothing? If they keep on carping we can only conclude they are against licensing deflector systems.

I have had lengthy discussions with representatives of South Coast Community Television. I had to refuse the application which was the subject of the court hearing. That was the legal advice given to me. If I had delayed the decision any longer to give them the continued protection of the court, I might have laid myself open to legal action. I had no option but to refuse the application for reasons which I will not go into now.

That decision removes the court's protection from South Coast Community Television. It is worried about the situation but I have no control over the matter. I am not a principal, party, instigator or defendant in any of those proceedings. Deputy O'Keeffe and South Coast Community Television know this is the situation.

Deputy O'Keeffe also referred to my remarks that the quality of picture will tend to deteriourate. That is true. We are dealing with a finite resource so that the more of the spectrum used by the national services, the less there will be available for others and the more they will be prone to interference. Deputy Batt O'Keeffe and South Coast Community Television know that. I have good grounds for saying that they are probably better placed than any other deflector operator to take measures to protect themselves against interference in their operation.

Then the Deputy complains about the other measures accompanying this provision, such as the payment of royalties, and the requirement to get their affairs in order. Is he telling me that I should not regulate these matters, that I should not require that people pay royalties? Is he telling me I should continue a system under which I give people licences to rebroadcast television services without paying those who produce the programmes?

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

Because of the regulations this is a total sham.

Mr. Dukes

Is the Deputy telling me I should not require these people to have their tax or planning affairs in order? He is doing what his party always has done, and what Deputy Séamus Brennan has been trying to do ever since 15 April — run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. Between the two of them they have no credibility whatsoever.

Mr. McGinley

I am sure Members opposite will agree that this is a problem with which we have been endeavouring to grapple over the past eight or nine years. The Minister almost found himself in a legal straitjacket because of the exclusive contracts signed by Deputy Raphael Burke when he was Minister.

Mr. N. Treacy

Did Deputy McGinley ever hear of Deputy Jim Mitchell?

Mr. McGinley

Deputy Jim Mitchell was not Minister in 1988 or 1989. I must compliment the present Minister on tackling this problem and his predecessor on inviting consultation.

Since there are approximately 50 such deflectors in Donegal — some parts of the county are in a unique position in that deflectors are also used to transmit RTE 1 and RTE 2 — will the Minister bear that in mind and meet the Donegal group to discuss the problem with them?

Mr. Dukes

The Deputy is correct to draw attention to the fact that, in some areas of Donegal, RTE has entered into specific agreements, which is perfectly in order, with certain deflector operators to ensure that its signal is carried in areas it might not otherwise reach.

On the second issue raised by Deputy McGinley, I had a long meeting last evening with the national representatives of the deflector groups in the course of which I suggested to them that, if they found it useful, I would organise a series of briefing sessions with officials of my Department who could go into the details of my announcement of 15 April. Any group wishing to have a briefing session of that kind arranged need only notify me and I will happily oblige.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

Obviously we would expect that any regulations would be adhered to. We have no problem with that——

Mr. Dukes

Good.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

—— but does the Minister accept that a major difficulty is being encountered by companies which may make it impossible for them to operate, given the back money required for royalties and the other commitments they will have to honour?

With regard to the legal advice the Minister received from the Attorney General, was he conscious that, prior to the Attorney General taking up office, he had acted in a legal capacity on behalf of the multi-channel cable television system?Was that factor taken into account in the advice given the Minister or did he seek separate advice, given that former commitment of the Attorney General to the cable company?

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us be careful not to reflect on the character of the State servant referred to.

Mr. Dukes

I am delighted to note that Deputy Batt O'Keeffe accepts that it is right and proper for me to provide the conditions I have.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

No, I said that the regulations must be adhered to.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us hear the Minister's reply.

Mr. Dukes

The Deputy either accepts that we will have a level playing field or he does not. He either accepts that the people who produce television programmes are entitled to payment for them or he does not. If he accepts it, then he has agreed with my scheme in those elements.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

At the end of the day they will be unable to operate, so it is merely an election ploy.

Mr. Dukes

That is rubbish which will not hold any water.

I told the representatives of the deflector groups last evening that, while I will be specifying an entry fee — I envisage imposing a small charge of approximately £50 for an application — I will not be requiring any deflector group to pay an amount in the same order of magnitude as the £20,000 which each MMDS licence applicant had to pay. I told them I envisaged an annual fee, comparable to the 5 per cent of gross turnover the MMDS operators pay by way of annual licence feet to my Department. I am delighted to assure the Deputy that there did not appear to be any great fues about that fairly reasonable provision.

I should warn the Deputy in the most friendly spirit possible that it is very unwise of him to give any credence or support — given the fact that he appears to be so friendly with South Coast Community Television — to what we are reading about intentions to seek back money. He might sometimes find that silence is golden.

On the matter of legal advice, the Attorney General is very meticulous about how he carries out his duties. In this case he was absolutely meticulous. The advice obtained for me was not advice that came directly from the Attorney General but arranged by his good offices through a totally separate track. None of the issues involved has been discussed by me with the Attorney General.However, with his good offices, I have obtained as much legal advice as possible.

Mr. S. Brennan

Will the Minister tell the House where that legal advice came from?

Mr. Dukes

No.

Mr. S. Brennan

Was it obtained from the Attorney General's office or by way of outside contract?

Mr. Dukes

Outside.

Mr. S. Brennan

The Minister will not tell the House the names of the lawyers involved?

Mr. Dukes

No.

Mr. N. Treacy

Can the Minister assure the people of rural Ireland they will receive a proper, equitable television service similar to that available in urban areas and the date on which he expects to issues licences in 1997?

Mr. Dukes

The purpose of the scheme I announced on 15 April is to give people in rural areas a choice between subscribing to an MMDS system on the one hand or to a licensed deflector system on the other, a choice between a system which can provide them with up to 11 channels or another which, in most cases, will provide them with a maximum of four channels at a correspondingly lesser cost. I will do that as soon as I can, as soon as I can bring in regulations which will allow applicants apply for a lcence in the proper manner, have them examined and decisions taken thereon. It is not within my compass to do that today, tomorrow or before late summer or early autumn at the earliest.

I hope I will be back in this House in a position to announce that this scheme is coming into operation.That is my intention and the absolute maximum I can do. In the meantime, I am not taking any legal action against deflector systems now in operation nor am I a party to any legal action that might be taken during that period.

Mr. N. Treacy

Professional procerastination at its best.