I remind Senators that they may speak only once on Report Stage, except for the proposer of an amendment, who may reply to the discussion thereon. Each amendment on Report Stage must be seconded. I welcome the Minister of State to the House.
Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, line 42, after "television" to insert "and digital radio mondiale".
I am happy to welcome the Minister of State back to the House and regret I was not present on the previous occasion. I spoke extensively on Second Stage and tabled many amendments, which my colleague Senator Henry moved on my behalf because I was detained at a symposium in Trinity College.
I am being helpful and in this regard I have tabled one amendment on Report Stage as a test case to provoke debate. I hope the Minister of State will take on board and include in his speech the point that, but for the Seanad, the radio broadcasting element might not be included in the legislation. It was certainly not in the Bill until the amendments were tabled. It is very important that we have the most efficient and technically advanced form of broadcasting for our citizens abroad, who also include deaf people. The radio system is very important. The BBC, for example, would probably consider the radio broadcasts of the BBC World Service to be at least as significant and powerful as the television broadcasts, and probably more powerful in terms of altering public opinion.
My remarks concern a kind of conflict between the digital audio broadcasting, DAB, system and the digital radio mondiale, DRM, systems. I must be open and lay my cards on the table in that I am simply not technically proficient in this matter. I am therefore putting on the record of the House what I have been advised about the broadcasting systems and what may be regarded as the advantages of the DRM system over the DAB system. The first is that DRM is a cost effective solution delivering free-to-air digital community radio. There is particular value in reviewing this option to create affordable opportunities for small-scale service on digital platforms, especially for targeted audiences. The DAB system is 25 years old and is really designed for large national services. It has not been available to small-scale community stations because of its prohibitive cost and its multiplex nature. This means that coverage for a single service is difficult to target effectively.
My advice indicates that many in the industry regard the DAB system as already out of date. As I am sure the Minister of State and his advisers are aware, what we used to call "wireless receivers", in other words, radios or "trannies" or whatever they are now called, are not equipped for DAB1 and they certainly will not be equipped for DAB2. They will not get the updated system, as has happened elsewhere. DAB1 has already been replaced by DAB2. The two systems are not compatible and new receivers are required for the latter, which is now coming on stream.
DRM is an energy saving upgrade for the medium, long and short wave bands, giving near FM sound both day and night. It complements DAB rather than competing with it. DAB2 is more efficient and allows better sound quality and more stations. Like broadband, DAB creates a deficit for those who live away from large towns. I presume this makes a significant difference to a scattered population abroad and implies that its receiving capacity is reduced.
DAB carries many stations grouped on a multiplex and transmitted from a common mast. A centralised mast is remote from existing target areas of small stations. DAB duplicates in that each station's programme is carried into the service areas of others to uninterested listeners, thereby producing a scatter effect. Many rural areas have too few stations to form a group and fill a multiplex so they cannot be served by DAB. Does this imply that to receive DAB, one must create a group and subscribe or be near a re-broadcasting system? Does it mean isolated people will be excluded under DAB?
I am also advised that if DAB is to be used in Ireland, it should have broadcast quality at least equal to FM, which is not the case in the United Kingdom. DAB2 will improve fidelity. RTE's FM signal is three times stronger than that of our UK neighbours and this will make it very difficult to convince the public that DAB1 is relevant at this late stage. It other words, it is being suggested that we leapfrog and go straight to DAB2. However, we must tell consumers that their receiver equipment is out of date.
Radio Denmark has advised would-be DAB radio purchasers that DAB2 has been adapted by the world DAB body. Existing radios now being sold in Ireland will not work with this new system. Micro-power DRM, using near CB channels, can provide a solution. In other words, provision could be made for small-scale stations. It would be important for RTE as a public-service broadcaster to inform its listeners that existing DAB radios do not meet the new standard and will be obsolete in future years.
The Minister of State should acknowledge the problem. Let me refer to a quotation by the Australian Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, who I am glad to see is both a Senator and a woman.
Imagine that.
Imagine that. Could it happen here? It might even be Senator O'Meara, if she manages to squeak into Dáil Éireann.
Then she will not be a Senator.
She will not but she could be quite effective in the Lower House. One never knows; Tipperary, look out.
The Honourable Helen Coonan——
Hear, hear.
——Australian Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, states:
Let's face it, adoption now [this is the Australian view of what we are doing] of a standard that is already 10 years old and may well be superseded, for implementation in another 2 to 3 years, would, in my view, be irresponsible.
About what standard is she talking?
She is talking about the DAB standard.
Senator Mooney should leave the Coonans alone.
We will have no frivolity, please. Senator Norris without lewd interruptions from what should be his own side of the House.
Senator Norris without interruption.
The Danish have had experience in this matter. A newspaper, Politiken, quotes Mr. Paul Samsøe, the head of engineering from the Danish equivalent of BBC Radio — or Danish state radio:
[W]hen asked whether owners of DAB receivers would have to replace their DAB radios in five years time, Paul Samsøe replied: "Yes — just like you'll also have to get a new television set and a new mobile phone." ... Denmark is the only other country in the world apart from the UK where DAB has actually started selling — like in the UK, DAB has started selling only due to heavy advertising — so with someone like Paul Samsøe saying this, and taking into consideration that previously he's been a big supporter of the DAB system, it makes you wonder about whether everybody will have to buy new DAB receivers in the UK as well.
In other words, by taking this system, virtually every radio in the country is rendered obsolete.
The Minister of State has a well-satisfied little smile playing at the corner of his lips. Perhaps he has just been passed the full, complete and definitive technical answer to this, and I look forward with some interest to his reply. Could he confirm something that came not just from me and the Independent benches, but from other colleagues on this side of the House? There was significant interest on the Government side as well. The Government tabled its own amendments, but only after I had tabled those amendments in the first place. The Minister of State might, perhaps, because he is a gracious man, acknowledge that the Seanad has played a significant role in ensuring that not only television images, but also radio broadcast material is made available to the Irish diaspora.
I second the amendment. Senator Norris has eloquently set out the case for it. Towards the end of his address he indicated the desire and intention, as provided for in the Bill in terms of television, to ensure that the Irish abroad have full access to what is available, using the technology. We should now use the opportunity contained in this legislation to extend this through the radio as well as the television network. In that regard, I am happy to second and support the amendment.
At least Senator Norris did not have to distribute most of his contribution because we already have it. We all received what he got and what he said.
I acknowledge that I was briefed and that, to a certain extent, the technical material is beyond my capacity.
Senator Kenneally, without interruption.
Senator Norris was speaking about being interrupted, but it did not take him long to start interrupting somebody else. I realise he did not have the benefit of being in the House on Committee Stage and hearing what the Minister of State said. He indicated, and Senator Norris is saying, that this would not have come about as regards radio broadcasting were it not for the amendments tabled by him and others. That is not the case, however, because the Minister of State made it quite clear that it was not necessary to put it into the legislation since RTE already has a remit to broadcast——
It is no wonder the Government tabled those amendments to cover the situation.
Senator Kenneally, without interruption.
He is off again. RTE already has a remit to broadcast and is already doing this on long wave. However, the Minister of State agreed — and Senator Norris is correct in saying this suggestion came from all sides of the House — that he would include it in the legislation. The Minister of State came forward with the amendments on Committee Stage, as agreed by the House.
The Bill is not concerned with digital radio mondiale, DRM, versus digital audio broadcasting, DAB. It is not technical legislation as such. It enables RTE to do certain things as regards television and now radio. The Minister of State quite clearly made the point on Committee Stage that if this were to be included in the legislation, it would basically force RTE or whoever into broadcasting only through one particular mechanism. I am not sufficiently technically minded to be able to say which is the correct one. None of us knows whether in two, three or five years' time any of these systems might be obsolete. However, if we stitch it into the legislation now, we are stuck with it. It would mean the legislation would have to be changed again to be compatible with the technology of the day. That is the point the Minister of State was making, above all else, on Committee Stage, and I believe the legislation would be better if it were left out.
Senator Kenneally put it very well what the Bill is about. I share his disappointment that Senator Norris was not in the House for what was a very interesting debate on all sides.
I understand that it is pestiferous and in violation of the rules of the House to refer to a Member's absence. I am sure my elderly colleague, Senator Mooney, and my even more elderly colleague, the other one whose name I have forgotten, will remember this in future.
That is quite correct. Senator Mooney, without interruption.
It was not meant with any sense of malice. It was just that it was unfortunate that there was not an opportunity. I am sure the Senator had perfectly good reasons for not being in the House. I said this because I do not believe it is fair to the House to go into all the arguments again. Senator Kenneally has pointed out that in the context of the amendment tabled by Senator Norris, it is not a case of either-or. The question arises as to the motive behind Senator Norris tabling an amendment specific to a particular type of radio technology which Mr. Enda O'Kane, through his very active lobbying of all sides of the House, has been promoting when there is no reference in the Bill to the alternative type which the Senator has been very much against.
To try to sum up matters, more than 800 radio stations in Europe operate the DAB system. On the references in the documents to the Danish engineer, my information is that at the highest level in Radio Denmark there is no question of DAB no longer being used. RTE's position is that it is attempting to have what is generally referred to as the industry norm. It does not want to be out of step with the European norm, which in effect means that more than 800 stations operate the DAB system.
As Senator Kenneally has said, and it bears repeating, we are moving in a technological environment that is evolving very quickly. There is no guarantee that even what is referred to in Senator Norris's amendment will be the industry norm in three, four or five years' time. Mr. Enda O'Kane has focused to a large extent on the question of community radio somehow being terminated. In other words, if there is the adoption of a particular technology, community or local radio will not be available. We must remember that the Bill refers to the setting up of various structures. There will be a new Broadcasting Authority of Ireland which will be responsible for regulating both the introduction and maintenance of the spectrum as well as the regulation of radio in this country in the digital age. To suggest at this point, in line with the doomsday scenario being put forward, that the existing radio service will no longer be available because of the adoption of a particular technology, which is not in the Bill anyway, is mischievous. I do not for a moment doubt the motives of Mr. Enda O'Kane. He is a former distinguished member of RTE's engineering staff and knows what he is talking about.
I will share with Senator Norris the fact that I do not always know what I am talking about in terms of technology. This is real technical stuff. I would love to be eavesdropping on all the so-called techies when they talk about the benefits of DAB1, DAB2 or DRM. However, in last week's Radio Times, the British equivalent of the RTE Guide——--
It is the other way around. The RTE Guide is the Irish equivalent of the Radio Times. It existed long before the RTE Guide. The Senator should not be parochial.
I was only attempting to put on the record what it is.
I know that is the attitude here.
I still believe the Radio Times is the British equivalent of the RTE Guide.
The Senator has got it the wrong way around.
Senator Mooney, without interruption.
A letter was sent by a listener from Watford in Hertfordshire, whose name I will not put on the record. She wrote:
I've heard that current DAB receivers won't be able to decode the new standard for DAB transmission (AAC+) [which I point out to Senator Norris is another new technological name that I have not come across previously, although it is explained; it confuses the matter even further] being adopted in various countries. In three to seven years' time, will DAP receivers on sale in the UK today be obsolete, or will we simply need an adaptor?
It is a moot point. The answer given by the technical side of the BBC states:
In November last year, WorldDMB, the organisation that defines the standards for digital audio broadcasting, announced that the current DAP digital radio system was in the process of being upgraded to adopt the new AAC (Advanced Audio Coding) system. The new digital radios will have better transmission quality and the capacity for more channels. Although the new DAB+ radios will be able to decode ordinary DAB broadcasts, the old radios will not be able to decode the new broadcasts [This is the point on which Senator Norris touched.]. It's too early to say which stations will broadcast in DAB+, but don't panic just yet. A spokesperson for the BBC's digital stations tells RT: “There are over three million receivers in use in the UK that can only decode signals conforming to the original coding standard, and this number is growing rapidly. The BBC is committed to ensuring its services continue to be broadcast in a way that is compatible with these receivers. Listeners can be confident that, at whatever stage they buy a DAB radio, they will always have access to a varied range of services.”
In the Irish context, my understanding is — although I stand to be corrected on this — that there are no DAB radio receivers in this country capable of receiving DAB broadcasts and there are no DAB broadcasts currently but there will be in a few weeks' time. RTE is involved in pilot trials in this respect.
The standard here is the FM frequency. RTE generates approximately €40 million a year from its radio services. Will RTE abandon the FM frequency and spectrum at some point in the future? It would defy commercial logic for it to do so unless it is certain it will maintain the services to which its listeners have become used and will demand from a public service broadcaster.
I do not wish in any way to diminish Senator Norris's valuable contribution but this matter goes back to a point Senator Kenneally made. We are waiting to hear what the Minister of State has to say on this issue. He is the most important person here——
Even more important than the Senator.
——given that it is to him Senator Norris directed his amendment. However, I suggest that, irrespective of the merits of DAB versus DRM or whatever, the debate on this Bill is not where this argument should be taking place.
Before I call the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, to reply, I am sure he and the Members would like to join me in welcoming the Right Honourable Andrew MacKinlay, MP, from the House of Commons. I welcome him to the House and hope he enjoys his stay here.
Hear, hear.
He is very welcome.
I am only too pleased to acknowledge the contribution made by Senators on the Second Stage debate here. As Senator Norris pointed out, a strong recommendation and argument was made that the proposed legislation should require RTE to provide this radio service as well as a television service to Irish communities abroad and, as a consequence, section 3(1) was amended on Committee Stage to require RTE to provide such a service.
Primary legislation in the main outlines principles rather than specific technologies needed to support such principles. As a consequence, the amended wording sets out the principle that RTE must provide a radio service to Irish communities abroad but does not specify the broadcasting technology to be used in delivering such a service. In essence, the Bill entrusts RTE with the task of considering the most appropriate technological and financial means of addressing the broadcasting needs of Irish communities abroad and, importantly, to account for the public funds expended in such provision.
The amendment, as proposed by Senators Norris and Henry, would tie RTE to using the digital radio mondiale standard. This amendment might prove to be unnecessarily restrictive in terms of current and future technology solutions and, as such, I am unable to accept the proposed amendment.
With regard to some of the issues raised, DAB1, DAB2 and DRM are all fine choices but we should give the broadcasters the flexibility to let them best decide how to reach their audience. New radio sets would be required to listen to DAB and DRM. There are 200 types of DAB sets available ranging in price from €50 upwards. DRM sets are only coming on stream and are priced at €220 upwards.
The current text of the Bill allows RTE the flexibility to use both DRM and DAB. RTE's current position is that the DAB is the preferred digital alternative for national FM coverage and the DRM may be a digital alternative for its international long-wave services. RTE is upgrading its long-wave transmitter in Meath and will begin night-time DRM transmissions for RTE Radio 1 later this year.
We did not specify in the legislation covering the setting up of RTE in 1960 the technology that was to be used at that time. Therefore, I consider this amendment to be unnecessary.
Is the amendment being pressed?
I understand that as the proposer of the amendment I have the right to make a brief reply. I thank the Minister of State for his reply which was gracious and generous, unlike that of the first spokesperson for the Government whose contribution reflected the usual snotty dog in the manger Government attitude.
I did not realise the Senator was so offended.
On the other hand, it was refreshing to be patronised by my old friend Senator Mooney. It took me back to the old days and I felt that I was really at home.
I shall explain myself and why I did this. I was not in the House at the time as I was chairing a symposium in Trinity. The Senator on the other side of the House knows only too well that one goes where the voters are.
That is true. There was no reflection on the Senator.
There are not that many voters here. There are one or two but their votes are already sewn up. I went where my voters were.
The Senator was right. There was no reflection on him.
I was perfectly right. We are going to save a planet so that the Senator's old airwaves can go whizzing through it.
Is that where the Senator was throwing a Frisbee?
Allow Senator Norris to continue without interruption.
To be a little bit more serious, I say this because I show respect for this House. I originally tabled an amendment, which did not get on to the yellow list of amendments but appeared on the white list that came out during the holidays, simply because I spotted that provision was not made for sound broadcasting. I accept absolutely that I am not technically proficient and I received briefings. Subsequent to my tabling of these amendments, I was contacted by Mr. O'Kane and he gave me a great deal of technical information. The Government then tabled its amendments, which was a good move. I agree with what the Minister of State said in the sense that he is offering a series of options and that this proposal would narrow and restrict them. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable, logical and non-exclusive answer.
In response to the attitude I got from the opposite side of the House, I tabled only one amendment. If I wanted to be difficult, I would have tabled 258,000, but I knew that would be aggravating, stupid and a total waste of time. I wanted to table this amendment because although I had an idea about what the Minister of State said because I glanced through the documents, I had received a second briefing, having sent the Official Report of the proceedings to Mr. O'Kane. Out of deference and courtesy to a man to whom Senator Mooney, who is involved in the radio business or profession or whatever he wants to call it——
No, that was a gracious comment.
I thought the Senator was sulking because I deprecated his trade. After all we are in the duke's ballroom so we will not have any trade here.
Rough or otherwise.
He is involved in the profession. I tabled that amendment. I note that while a large number of stations use the DAB system, the Swedish Minister for Culture recently turned down a proposed extension of this system in Swedish radio.
The Seanad has done a good job in opening up this area of radio broadcasting. We collectively as Members of the Seanad should say we did a good job, we took on our brief and this is one of the things Senators are supposed to do. I am glad we did it. We also put on record some of the concerns of people who are more technically proficient than I am. I make no apology for tabling one sample amendment, getting the updated information on record, having the opportunity to hear what the Minister had to say and getting his detailed reply to the amendment.
Is the amendment being pressed?
No it is being graciously and well-temperedly withdrawn.
In the Senator's own inimitable fashion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 13, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
"(d) the principal British television broadcasting services which are free to air as of the enactment of this Act.”.
This amendment is a replica of an amendment I tabled on Committee Stage. The other amendments were graciously accepted by the Minister, but I was very unhappy with the response to this particular amendment. I did not press the amendment because I wanted to give the Minister an opportunity to look at this important issue.
Among other things, this Bill will bring about the end of analogue, which will mean the end of what is known as the spillover whereby the signal of British channels is received by a significant number of Irish households, especially on the east coast. The ending of analogue and the arrival of digital in a short two-year period will mean that this spillover will end. Those who currently receive British channels free-to-air will no longer receive them on that basis, as it is the Minister's intention to have the first multiplex that contains Irish stations only. The Minister stated that there will still be some spillover in the Border counties, but the rest of the country will have to pay for British channels.
This amendment asks the Government to be generous and to create an equality throughout the country based on what is currently available on the east coast. The whole country should receive the main British channels free-to-air in a multiplex which could be simultaneously available with the first multiplex. When he was before the House, the Minister made it clear that it would be possible for two multiplexes to be rolled out simultaneously. The Government might regret not doing this as consumers would soon see that it is effectively charging people for something that they currently obtain for free. From a political point of view, that would not be positively received.
I second the amendment and the proposal articulated by Senator O'Meara. She mentioned the east coast, but once the community television deflector system was abolished, many people in rural Ireland could no longer receive transmissions from British channels. We are now going down the road where we must pay for everything in this country, but those community groups provided an excellent service at a minuscule cost. Companies such as Chorus were charged with providing this service, but they have failed to deliver in many parts of rural Ireland. I would like the Minister of State to address that issue when he replies, but I am happy to second the amendment as well.
I have some sympathy with the amendment tabled by Senator O'Meara regarding the British broadcasting services. A great part of the country in the Border region and along the east coast benefits from this spillover. However, the Bill refers to the national television broadcasting service, including TG4. We have some control over these services in this country and we can legislate on them. I do not know how we can legislate for another country's television service. We are talking about British television. We are a sovereign nation in charge of our television output and what emanates from Ireland. Senator O'Meara's amendment deals with output that emanates from a different country. While I accept that it will be a big loss to people when it comes about, I do not see how we can legislate on something outside our control.
I share Senator Kenneally's views when he expresses understanding and sympathy for the motives behind this amendment. He is also correct to state that we cannot legislate for what goes on abroad. However, I raised a number of possible scenarios on Committee Stage that might help to address this.
If one wishes to view British television channels, one can do so by subscribing to Sky, Chorus or NTL. However, these are not free-to-air services, which is what Senator O'Meara's amendment is about.
They are not capable of providing a service to large parts of rural Ireland either.
Senator O'Meara referred to large parts of Leinster, but I would like to point out that we are also talking about all of the Border counties. As a child, I often used to read with great amusement about how deprived we were in County Leitrim, even though we received BBC Northern Ireland and UTV long before they came to Dublin. We were well aware of what was going on and it was wonderful to understand the culture and the British way of life. This may have informed my views of the relationship between the two islands as a result. We were able to receive the UK stations from a young age.
However, the digital footprint will ensure that this will be heavily emasculated, as Senator O'Meara correctly pointed out. We are moving into a serious television environment and I am glad that this Bill is being brought before the House as it is about free-to-air digital television. It is not about being charged for watching every five minutes of television, which is the environment we have sadly moved into over the past five years. Anybody who follows this issue at a cursory level will notice Sky TV trumpeting the fact that its subscription base in this country has been increased. The company has made millions of euro, often because people cannot get the stations on a terrestrial basis, as Senator Coonan stated. They have no choice but to use satellite television. It is even becoming more difficult in my part of the country.
I suggested something on Committee Stage that I will also raise at the next plenary session of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body. It is somewhat fortuitous that a distinguished Member of the British House of Commons is in this House tonight, namely, my honourable friend Andrew MacKinlay, MP. He has a tremendous interest in all things Irish and we have discussed this before. I hope to persuade him to table a question on this issue in the House of Commons. Following the Good Friday Agreement, the British and Irish Governments agreed that a transmitter should be located in Belfast to transmit TG4 primarily to the Nationalists in Belfast and its environs. This was done under a cultural dimension, so there was no technical difficulty with it. However, there are large parts of Northern Ireland where one cannot receive RTE television.
I will propose that an amendment be made to the BBC charter to allow the corporation to transmit BBC Northern Ireland across the island of Ireland, and that a reciprocal arrangement be made to allow RTE to be transmitted in all parts of the island. I do not suggest such measures would address the specific issues which have been raised by Senator O'Meara. It is possible, given the close relationship between the two islands, that progress could be made in this way. The United Kingdom agreed in the cultural dimension of the Good Friday Agreement to allow TG4 to operate in Northern Ireland, which is within its territory. An argument could be made, therefore, for RTE's services to be transmitted in Northern Ireland, with a reciprocal arrangement that would allow the BBC's services to be transmitted here. The Minister of State might be able to give us some hope that RTE will be in a position to negotiate on the rights issue after the multiplex has been set up.
Senator O'Meara knows this is a question of rights, rather than technology. Perhaps RTE will be given the resources to negotiate on the rights issue in order that the British stations can be included on the multiplex which will be transmitted free to air. I have every sympathy with, and understanding for, the Senator's position on this matter. I cannot say I would readily agree to accept this amendment if I were the Minister of State. I have a great deal of sympathy for the argument that has been made.
Senator O'Meara, who has moved amendment No. 2, is concerned about the reduction in the overspill of UK analogue services from 2008. The decision to switch off UK analogue services in that year has been made by the authorities in that country — it is not within the control of the Irish authorities. Irish television viewers, who have benefited from the overspill of UK television services in the past, do not have an automatic entitlement to that overspill, which results accidentally from the analogue transmission process. UK television services are available in a number of ways to Irish viewers, who can avail of cable, satellite and MMDS services. A limited amount of UK digital overspill may be available in the future to Irish viewers in Border areas. A number of UK channels may be received by some Irish viewers as a result of overspill from UK satellite services. As the provision of UK television services in Ireland is subject to commercial and legal implications, UK channel providers can make decisions on service provision in Ireland, whether free-to-air or as part of a commercial offering on cable, satellite, MMDS and, in future, on the digital terrestrial platform.
This Bill seeks to put in place a framework which will create opportunities for the establishment of a number of multiplexes. It is likely that the mainstream UK channels will be offered on at least one of these multiplexes. While I recognise Senator O'Meara's concerns about the availability of UK broadcasting services to Irish households, my primary aim is to create a legislative framework for this country's broadcasting services. Therefore, I cannot accept the proposed amendment. This Bill will not end the overspill of UK services — that is the subject of a decision being taken in that jurisdiction. We cannot force the UK channels onto Irish digital terrestrial television. We can create such an opportunity, however, which is what we are doing.
Senator Mooney spoke about TG4, which is available in Northern Ireland for cultural reasons, as he said. I empathise with his proposal that BBC Northern Ireland be made available here. I understand that such a decision could come about only on foot of a major change of the BBC charter. I do not think any such change is planned at present. Given that Senator Mooney intends to raise this matter at a higher level, I am sure it will be discussed further.
I thank Senator Mooney for his generous, creative and broad-minded approach to this issue. It contrasts with the Minister of State's narrow and limited view of the issue, unfortunately. I appreciate the acceptance of this amendment would pose many challenges to those working in this area. We face challenges every day of the week as we go through life — that is what we are here for. Governments, in particular, are in the business of facing challenges. The aim of this amendment is to ensure services which have been available for many years are continued. While it may be an accident that such services are available, people have got used to them.
Like Senator Mooney, I grew up in the midlands, where BBC channels were not available. When I was a child, I went to Arklow, County Wicklow, to visit my uncle, who had a range of BBC channels. By viewing those channels, it was possible to experience a similar but different culture. The availability of the BBC channels broadens one's mind, engenders a sense of closeness to Ireland's nearest neighbour and allows us to participate in the wider community. I do not suggest such experiences will not be available in the future, because people will continue to buy cable and satellite services.
This legislation gives the Government an opportunity to be generous by extending to the rest of the country the services which are available to many people on the east coast. While it would not be easy, it would be a generous gesture. If they put their minds to it, it is not beyond the capacity of the officials in the Department or the Government to address the many issues which have to be dealt with. It is clear they are not minded to do so, however. That is regrettable because this Bill represents a great opportunity for them to do something about a matter that will be a source of trouble in the future.
I am sure the Minister of State recalls the controversy some years ago about television deflectors. Senator Coonan mentioned the problems which arose when people who were used to being able to view a set of channels were no longer able to do so as a result of changes in broadcasting legislation. People were very upset when services started to be provided by legal operators like Chorus and Horizon. I remember well that it was a big issue in the 1997 general election. I am surprised the Minister of State, as a politician, cannot see that his failure to act in this regard will lead to trouble in the future. It is a pity there is a sense of denial in this regard.
There is no point in blaming the UK authorities for taking away these channels by moving them from analogue to digital, when we could play a role in that process. As Senator Mooney said, there is considerable co-operation between the British authorities and their counterparts here. There is no reason people cannot sit down, roll up their sleeves and reach agreement on this matter. I am disappointed with the Minister of State's narrow and limited response to my proposal. There may be trouble in this respect in the future.
I understand Senator O'Meara's suggestion, which was seriously considered before it was decided that it is not appropriate for the Minister to take into account the accidental availability of UK services when making decisions about what makes sense in terms of Irish broadcasting policy. Under the legislation, four multiplexes are available to provide lots of channels within the Irish digital terrestrial television platform. We need to accept that the charge in the BBC charter is a commercial one. Having given serious consideration to this amendment, we have decided it would not be appropriate to accept it.
I do not think there is any point in pressing the amendment. I have said what I needed to say about this matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, and the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, for their attendance in the Seanad throughout the passage of this Bill. I thank the Members of the House for the consideration they gave to it. I was not casting any aspersions on Senator Norris when I pointed out earlier that he was not present for the Committee Stage debate.
I am sure he is not too upset.
I understand why he could not be in attendance on that occasion. I agree with his comments. This legislation has been improved as a result of the comments and consideration of Senators. It is now a very good Bill. I thank the Minister of State, his officials and the Opposition Senators for their co-operation.
I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, and my colleagues on the other side of the House. I apologise on behalf of Senator Finucane, who has dealt with this Bill on behalf of Fine Gael but is unable to be present this evening through no fault of his own. I thank the Minister of State and his officials for the manner in which they have conducted this Bill through the House.
I too thank the Minister and the Minister of State for the high level of co-operation on this small but important piece of legislation. Good work has been done once again in this House and it remains to be seen how it will fare in the other House.
I thank Senators for their interest in the Bill. I am sure they will agree that this legislation is vital to the future of broadcasting services in Ireland. It will ensure that Irish citizens can enjoy the benefits of free-to-air digital broadcasting services in the future.
The debate was wide-ranging and interesting on a number of broadcasting issues. I thank Senators for their well-informed contributions to the debate. They made positive suggestions throughout and proposed amendments. I would like to think the Government has captured the spirit of these proposals in the Government amendments now made to the Bill.
I join Senators in welcoming Mr. Andrew MacKinlay, MP, to the House. I am sure he has listened to some interesting points of view.
Question put and agreed to.
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.