Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Mar 1998

Vol. 489 No. 2

Adjournment Debate. - TV Deflector Systems.

Mr. O'Shea

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for giving me the opportunity to raise this important issue, which is of grave concern to my constituents.

Since early January many people in east Waterford and surrounding areas have been without British television channels. This is particularly hard on senior citizens and children and it is extremely inconvenient for the general public. It is all the more galling in view of the fact that deflector systems, similar to those which were closed down by court injunction in east Waterford, are operating in other parts of the country.

Since January, people in the east Waterford area have been awaiting the outcome of the review being carried out by the director of telecommunications regulation into the future delivery of televised services in Ireland. The recently published report is a discussion document and comments on it have been requested to be submitted by 15 April 1998. While this process is taking place the people in east Waterford remain without a multichannel service and, worse still, there is no indication as to when, if ever, the service will be restored. Pending the outcome of the consultative process, temporary licences should be granted where people are without a deflector service.

There is an alternative MMDS service available in some, but not all, of the area affected. The service is considerably more expensive, particularly when there is more than one television set per household. There is also difficulty if a customer wishes to watch one station while video recording another. To make matters worse, the Kilmacthomas based deflector service group was forced off the air two weeks ago. This means that a large part of County Waterford has been denied its television deflector service.

The Minister has chosen to ignore this situation. That is unacceptable. People are being penalised in a basic feature of modern life. The Minister, in the first instance, owes my constituents clarity with regard to TV deflector services. She must further explain why TV deflector systems operate in some parts of the country and not in others. I demand equity for my constituents in this regard. Is the law being enforced in some areas and not in others?

Pending the conclusion of the process currently taking place in the office of the director of telecommunications regulation, will the Minister introduce a system of permanent or, at least, temporary licences or instruct the director of telecommunications regulation to introduce such a system? The State and its agencies are failing to meet the wishes of many of my constituents. They are without the service they desire and for which they are willing to pay.

Will the Minister publish a copy of the contract between her Department and Cablelink in the Waterford area? In this era of transparency and accountability, my constituents deserve to have full knowledge of the agreement which regulates the provision of multichannel television in their area. The Minister must take urgent action to rectify this sorry situation and have service restored. Furthermore, will the Minister outline her legislative plans in this regard?

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government (Mr. D. Wallace)

I wish to apologise for the unavoidable absence of the Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke.

The Government recognises the strong community involvement in deflector groups throughout the country and the desire of people in the areas concerned to have access to the best possible service taking account of the technical and economic realities. The key issue is the service provided throughout the country, particularly in rural and remote areas. The Government favours access to a quality service for all at reasonable rates.

As the Deputy will be aware, the legislative position is that, while the Minister for Public Enterprise has a policy role in relation to the allocation and use of the radio frequency spectrum, the legal power to issue licences to television deflector operators pursuant to section 5 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926, was transferred, with effect from 30 June 1997, to the Director of Telecommunications Regulation appointed under the Telecommunications (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1996.

The first director, Ms Etain Doyle, was appointed in May last year. The director's powers under the 1996 Act, including the power to licence deflector systems under section 5 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926, were transferred on 30 June 1997. It is, accordingly, a legal function of the director to address the question of licensing such operators. Any licensing regulations proposed by the director would be subject to the Minister's consent. To implement a licensing scheme, regulations would have to be brought forward by the director under section 6 of the 1926 Act prescribing the form, duration, terms or conditions, fees, etc. for such licences.

As the Deputy will be aware, the director initiated a consultancy study of this matter with a view to determining the appropriate course of action. The purpose of the study was to provide information on future options for the delivery of television services in the context of the development of digital technology. The director has recently issued the report on this study with a view to opening a public debate on the issues involved. I understand the director intends to finalise the consultation process in April with a view to coming to final conclusions towards the summer.

Given the importance of the director's independence and the perception of that independence to the successful development of the telecommunications sector, it would be inappropriate for the Minister to speculate on or be seen to attempt to influence in any way the proper discharge of the director's functions.