Vol. 482 No. 6
11 Mr. Yates asked the Minister for Public Enterprise if her Department has ever carried out a study into the proportion of households in the country which will be unable to receive MMDS service; and if she will give details of the information she has in this regard. [18721/97]
My Department has not carried out such a study. The MMDS system was chosen as the system best suited to provide for the nationwide retransmission of television services in non-cable areas to a standard equivalent to that provided by cable relay.
MMDS is a line of sight system and it is to be expected that difficulties can arise in some cases in the provision of television signals due, for example, to the signal being blocked by a topographical feature. However, I am confident that in most cases there are technical solutions, such as the use of beambenders, which will overcome the difficulties and facilitate the provision of service.
The legal function of licensing television retransmission systems is now a matter for the Director of Telecommunications Regulation, Ms Doyle. It will be a matter for her to monitor the degree of success achieved by MMDS in maximising access to multi-channel services.
As this matter relates to the period prior to the Minister taking office, I ask her to objectively reflect on the answer she has given. In the 1980s a decision was taken to give exclusivity to the MMDS retransmission system. Before making such a decision, the first question which should have been asked was whether MMDS could cover every household in the country. I have received technical assessments which state that between 25 per cent and 30 per cent of households which are not within cable areas cannot receive MMDS. In other words, the beambenders for topographical problems will not produce coverage.
I have also met the director who told me policy matters are the remit of the Minister. People who cannot get MMDS are without multi-channel television and they look to the Minister to provide the service. Will the Minister consider a dual licensing system, especially in areas where MMDS technology cannot be received, to provide for licensed community deflector groups and licensed MMDS operators?
There was a recent court case about this matter which received wide coverage in the newspapers. The judge is due to give his decision and that could lead to another court case. We await his decision. I will not comment on the matter pending his decision. The regulator will conduct a study which will take into account all the matters being debated here now as well as future developments in the system. She expects that report early in 1998. Two events will come together: the judgment on the court case which may or may not lead to a second court case and the comprehensive report which the Director of Telecommunications Regulation will issue. Both events will provide a framework for what is to happen.
I am aware of what the Minister said. Is she aware that people who are part of community deflector groups received legal letters requesting that their masts be taken down? They complied and asked for service from the MMDS licensed operators who said, following a test signal, they could not provide a service. Does the Minister, who has responsibility for policy in this area agree, in principle, that everyone should have a right to multichannel TV in one form or other and that if MMDS cannot provide it, other alternative means should be looked at? The Minister's predecessor in the previous Government tried to do something about this but the Department of Finance refused to sanction it. Given the positive financial position, if the Minister was able to come to grips with the issue and make it known she agreed in principle that people have a right to multichannel TV and had conducted a technical study to see whether MMDS could provide it, that might indicate to everybody the Government was giving leadership on this issue? Will she consider conducting such a study and giving leadership on the issue?
I reject the implication that Deputy Dukes was not a strong Minister. He would have been well able to deal with the Department of Finance. The terms of the Government decision were such that he felt unable to recommend it. I understand the point made by the Deputy. It is not that I would not take a stand or make a policy decision. That is not the matter at issue. The matter at issue is that it would be totally incorrect for me to take a stand. We are awaiting a judge's decision in a case. It will be made in a matter of weeks, either before or immediately after Christmas. We are also awaiting the study being carried out by the regulator. Where two influential matters will emerge within a matter of weeks, it would be inadvisable to pre-empt those decisions.
