Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 11 May 1982

Vol. 334 No. 4

Adjournment Debate. - Kiltimagh (Mayo) TV Equipment Seizure.

Mr. O'Toole

I wish to thank the Chair for giving me the opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment to point out that I intend to apportion the time available to me with my colleagues. The issue concerns the transmission of signals in the Kiltimagh area carrying programmes originating from outside the country. No doubt the Minister will point the finger at me and say I am condoning a breach of the Act. I am not doing that and, as I develop my argument, I hope the Minister will accept that.

The Act was framed substantially in 1926 and it belongs to its own time, long before any of the mind-boggling developments of modern technology were heard of. The confiscation of equipment in this case took place under section 8 of the Act. The Act and that section must be looked at in the light of Articles 34 and 37 of our Constitution. Indeed, there is also a large question mark hanging over the action of the Minister in seizing the equipment.

I should like to know if the Minister is prepared to accept that all citizens of this country should be treated equally. He knows that for many years people along the east coast, because of an accident of geography, have had available to them programmes originating form outside the State. He knows that RTE are the official licensee and that no other agency within the State enjoys that status. Many years ago I was told that State monopolies could be justified in cases where essential services could not be provided, or be expected to be provided, by the private sector or where the State in the national interest had to take over. There are many examples of this. Hence, it was decided that RTE would be the soie agency through which licences could be granted.

In the case of TV signals, the requirement of private sector inability is not fulfilled in this case. In fact, the reverse is the case. We have a situation where in the case of Mayo only two towns, Castlebar and Ballina, could hope to be given a service that included programmes originating from outside the country through the present RTE licensing set-up. Smaller towns and the whole rural region cannot expect this service to be provided by RTE simply because it would not be economically viable. Does the Minister think we have not reached the stage of mental and emotional development where our innocent minds can be safely exposed to the so-called dangerous influence of the BBC or UTV? If he does, let him say so; but he will find we are not as innocent as he thinks we are. Here is a case where the private sector can provide the service much more efficiently and at a lesser cost than would be provided by the official agency, RTE.

In the case I referred to in Kiltimagh a man, using his imagination and technical skill, provided a service for the community. This man did not set out to make large sums of money on the provision of the service. In all cases the consumers were queueing up to pay what they regarded as a reasonable sum for this facility. Here was a classic case of self-help. The Minister is aware that in the west we have been accused in the past of the béal bocht, of looking for hand-outs from the corridors of power. In this case a community was prepared to pay for the facility, using the imagination and the technical skill of a member of their own community. Yet, the Minister comes along and pulls the plug and deprives people of what they had provided for themselves, without one cent cost to the Department or the Government.

Why this area, why this man? Is the Minister aware that at the moment there are at least 30 such operations, both in the west of Ireland and in other parts of the country? One can take Donegal, Sligo, Mayo, Galway, Clare, Kerry, Roscommon, and, would the Minister believe, a large conurbation west of this city that happens to fall within the confines of the constituency of Dublin West. There are many cases of this particular operation and the Minsiter so far has failed to take action. He has singled out a man living in an area that has been deprived of the facility through the official agency. As has been said by the Minister of State, he has applied the law in this case. I am not condoning breaches of the law but if the law is to be applied let it be applied with equality and let natural justice be seen to be done.

Why was the directive given by the Minister in this case when at the same time very many areas in the country have similar operations? The Minister cannot deny that. His officials know that is so. Within the jurisdiction of his own Department there is a range of activities that can be deemed to be illegal. For example, illegal telephones are being installed. People can purchase these telephones off the shelf and provide for themselves extensions in their homes and businesses without permission from the Minister. Is the Minister aware that radio telephones in this city are being operated illegally? Does he know that throughout the country a whole series of pirate radio stations are operating? Indeed, many of his colleagues have availed of the opportunity to go on air on these stations to propagate their message at election time. There is a whole range of illegal activities taking place under his nose. What about videos? Are they not in breach of this Act? I assume the Minister will say that is a matter for the Minister for Justice.

I ask the Minister to apply the law with equality. I am not seeking vengence in respect of other stations operating illegally under the Minister's terms of reference. What I am asking is that the equipment seized be returned, that the Act be amended to ensure that a service equal to that available along the east coast will be provided to every man, woman and child who needs it, and that knowing the difficulties and delays in having Acts amended, in the interim a temporary licensing system should be applied and licences issued to these people so that they would be brought within the law, and that the whole matter would be looked at and tightened up. Then nobody would find himself in breach of the unamended Acts.

These are resonable proposals and, as has been said elsewhere, I cannot see any social, economic or political justification for what the Minister has done.

Mr. Kenny

I thank the Chair for giving me a few minutes to endorse what has been said by Deputy O'Toole. Since 1948 the Minister's name has been enshrined in the hearts of the Mayo people because he was one of a small band of 15 who inflicted a defeat on us on a different field. His decision to have this equipment confiscated, and the way in which this was done, has inflicted his name on our minds again, and not to our liking — and I do not mean that in a personal sense.

This equipment was confiscated under section 37. Whether the statute is constitutional is something I am not in a position to decide. If the Minister attended a meeting in any part of the region which was served with that facility, he would find he was in a most unpopular position. At a meeting last night, attended by 700 people, some of his party members and Dáil colleagues named him as being the person with responsibility for this matter and the only person who could rectify the situation and grant the terms of the resolution which had been sent to the Department as a result of several meetings in the area. The Minister's action was taken to protect RTE who, because of their inefficiency, were unable to provide a system and a range of facilities that are available by geographical location and history to the people on the east coast. Because of the inventiveness, motivation and self-help attitude of several people in the west, they were able to bring this facility into the homes of many thousands of people at a very reasonable rate, and at no profit. As a result of the Minister's irresponsible and dastardly action they are now deprived of this facility.

I do not stand here as a nationally elected representative and condone something that is illegal. I do not think the method of retransmission has interfered in any way with the signals or with the material in those signals. In fact, it is helping the wavelengths on their way while providing a facility which has not endangered the culture of our western people.

The survey carried out to decide whether we should have RTE 2 or the rebroadcasting of BBC to the west was conducted almost in its entirety on the east coast and the people there with their five channels, decided what channels should be given to people in the west. As I said, due to the inventiveness and motivation of certain people in the west this facility was made available but it has now been denied us by the Minister's action. If the Minister carries on like this, he must also take to task the pirate radio stations which are springing up every day and which cannot be taken off the airways and he must take similar action in every other county where a similar facility exists. This decision was not taken in justice.

I want the Minister to tell us that he is looking at this as a matter of extreme urgency, that he is prepared to have the equipment returned to the mast in Kiltimagh which will allow the signals to be sent over the airways into the homes of those who want it and that, as soon as possible, he will make an amending order to the relevant Act to make this matter legal. This will not interfere with the vested interests which were given to contractors in many towns for piped television. The Department's decision to allow piped television contracts in towns like Castlebar is a blind for RTE's inefficiency because by the time that happens, with rights of way, cost of cable at £1 a foot, satellite television will be available for every town and community. Piped television in rural Ireland is not on; it is only for urban areas because any house a short distance into the country cannot avail of it.

The Minister's action is deplorable because he has deprived ordinary progressive people of a facility of which they availed for some time. There are more important things for this Government to do than take away a service which provides television reception for many people. PRSI used to mean pay-related social insurance; it now means Please Return Signals Immediately.

Mr. Kelly

No one on this side of the House condones or approves of pirate stations. I strongly disapprove of them, although I have very often been invited to speak on pirate stations and have always refused. Having said that, I disapprove of them because I do not believe in people taking the law into their own hands and I believe in statutes being obeyed even where the statute itself is questionable.

I put down a question to the Minister which will soon be on the Order Paper. I will give him a preview of my views on this subject. While everyone disapproves of people breaking the law, the Minister should be willing to defend that law if it is restrictive of people's rights, and must be willing to defend it by criteria which the law and the Constitution recognise as adequate for supporting a restrictive code. This legislation restricts two ordinary rights. It restricts property rights in as much as it purports to cut down the right of the Deputies' neighbours to conduct the business of retransmitting signals. This legislation, on which the Minister relies, even if it is ostensibly adequate for that purpose, cuts down the right to do business. It also cuts down the right of free expression which must imply the right to transmit and retransmit and pass from one person to the next opinions and expressions which do not amount to an opinion — a joke is a form of human expression and a song, let it be ever so banal and base, is an expression as well — covered by the constitutional guarantee. If restrictive legislation in these areas is to be justified in a country like this — Britain is another matter — with a Constitution which has a Bill of Rights built into it, it must be able to point to social or economic values of a kind which the Constitution recognises as adequate to support a restriction of that kind.

I do not believe that those grounds or values exist. I will be waiting with interest when the question is reached on the Order Paper to hear the Minister tell the House what these values are. My suspicion is that the value, when all the verbiage and flummery are stripped away, is nothing more than preserving the financial position of RTE. Whatever little authority I have in this area of expertise, I am willing to stake on this assertion. Preserving the monopoly of RTE so as to maintain their revenues is not a value capable of supporting or justifying a restriction either of property rights or of the rights of expression of the citizens.

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. Wilson)

I thank Deputies for their contributions. I listened with interest to what they said about the seizure by my Department of free broadcasting equipment in Kiltimagh. I know Deputy Kelly has impugned the statute and I look forward with some interest to hearing what he has to say about it later on. He said the statutes will have to be defended until they have been struck down. The statutory position is that it is an offence to be in possession of wireless telegraphy apparatus without a licence issued by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. In this case my Department had reason to believe that unlicensed wireless telegraphy apparatus was being used for retransmission of television programmes in contravention of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926. Deputy O'Toole mentioned that it was section 8 of that Act we were relying upon. He was right in that.

I hope to meet a delegation from Kiltimagh shortly. I have been in touch with Deputy Morley and Deputy Calleary and I told Deputy O'Toole today when I was talking to him that I will be meeting people from Kiltimagh shortly to explain the position generally to them and to hear whatever representations they may wish to make in the matter. The equipment was seized on 5 May 1982 on foot of a search warrant issued under that section of the Act which was mentioned and which was impugned by Deputy Kelly. I want to put it on the record of the House that in press reports the value of the equipment confiscated was variously given as something between £7,000 and £10,000. My officials assure me that the list price of the equipment as of this morning is £965 approximately, plus VAT.

I cannot refer to the details of this case for obvious reasons, but I should like to put on record the fact that my Department published notices in provincial newspapers recently warning operators and potential subscribers to these systems that the Department would seize such equipment and that the operators would be liable to prosecution. Unlike what Deputy O'Toole said, the Department have done this before and have done it successfully. It was not taken any further than the court in the first instance, so Deputy Kelly's contribution does not come into consideration her. In Waterford and in Leighlinbridge we prosecuted successfully before this, so it is not a question of picking out one place for selective treatment.

Apart from these systems being in breach of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, my Department are also advised that a breach of the copyright protection afforded to the BBC and IBA against the re-broadcasting of their signals under the Copyright Act, 1963, and the Copyright (Foreign Countries) Order No. 2, 1978, also arises. I wonder whether Deputy Kelly will have any comment to make on that aspect of it.

Mr. Kelly

Is the Minister enforcing the Copyright Act or the Wireless Telegraphy Act? Has he the right to enforce the Copyright Act?

Mr. Wilson

I am simply mentioning the fact that we have international obligations in this regard as the Deputy very well knows.

Mr. Kelly

It has nothing to do with the Minister's Department.

Mr. Wilson

I know my Department are not the enforcing Department, but surely the Deputy is not so selective in his attitude to the law that he thinks one Department should not be concerned with the law which is the direct concern of another Department.

Mr. Kelly

If the Minister is purporting to use the Department's resources to enforce the Copyright Act he is misspending the State's money.

Mr. Wilson

I do not believe that is so, and I do not believe the Deputy has such disrespect for the law as to maintain that it is.

Mr. Kelly

The Minister is quite wrong.

Mr. Wilson

Before the question of legalising these systems could be considered, the operators of re-broadcasting systems would have to provide evidence of BBC and IBA permission to re-broadcast their signals. If the Deputy would read the Constitution he would know that we have selective responsibility.

Mr. O'Toole

He has read the Constitution.

Mr. Wilson

I know that and he has written about it. That is why I am surprised. Furthermore, it would be necessary to carry out a detailed technical study of the implications for other users of the spectrum and also to draw up a detailed spectrum plan for these systems, all of which would take considerable time, particularly since it would be necessary in many instances to secure international agreement for the use of particular frequencies.

I should like to take this opportunity to comment on and indeed to deplore the general trend towards lawlessness in relation to wireless telegraphy matters in recent years. This is reflected particularly in the proliferation of illegal radio stations throughout the country. Deputy O'Toole has referred to this.

Mr. Kelly

On which the Minister's party have advertised frequently.

Mr. L'Estrange

And spokesmen. The Minister mentioned selective responsibility.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister without interruption.

Mr. Wilson

My antennae are too sensitive. As I said, this is reflected particularly in the proliferation of illegal radio stations throughout the country, the attempts which have been made to establish illegal television stations and this phenomenon of re-broadcasting stations. The operators of all these systems appropriate any frequencies and operate at any powers that suit themselves, in total disregard for national and international law and of other users of the frequency spectrum.

As Deputies will be aware, the radio frequency spectrum is a scarce natural resource which is used by a multitude of services in every country in the world at sea, in the air, and in space. In order that these various services may co-exist without harmful interference with one another, there must be international agreement and regulation regarding the use of the frequency spectrum. Ireland is bound by the International Telecommunication Convention which lays down that all stations must be established and operated in such a manner as not to cause harmful interference to the radio services of other countries which are members of the International Telecommunication Union.

Mr. O'Toole

It is being contravened.

Mr. Wilson

The radio regulations under the convention provided that no transmitting station may be established or operated by a private person or by any enterprise without a licence issued by the Administration of the country to which the station is subject. Against this background of international agreements, the operators of illegal broadcasting stations in particular have placed this country in an embarrassing position vis-à-vis the other members of the International Telecommunication Union. Within the State — I am not saying this happened particularly in Kiltimagh — there have been numerous complaints of interference caused to various authorised radio services by the many categories of illegal users of wireless telegraphy apparatus. Re-broadcasting stations have been offenders in this respect.

If no attempt is made to apply the law, the consequences will be chaotic for orderly frequency spectrum management and usage.

Mr. O'Toole

It should be applied equally. It should be applied in Dublin West before 25th of this month.

Mr. Wilson

In this regard it is my intention shortly to introduce the Independent Local Radio Authority Bill which will provide an orderly framework for the development of local radio services here. It is also my intention to introduce concurrently with the Independent Local Radio Authority Bill the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Bill which will strengthen the powers of my Department to deal effectively with unlicensed broadcasting stations and other categories of unlicensed wireless telegraphy apparatus. This Bill was on the Order Paper of the Dáil at its dissolution in May 1981 but was not re-introduced during the term of the Coalition Government.

I regret any inconvenience caused to the people of Kiltimagh. I look forward to having a frank discussion with them when they send their delegation as soon as a meeting is arranged. There is one possibility I feel I must mention. There is a statutory order which exempts from the licensing requirement Cable TV systems with fewer than 100 subscribers. I understand there are fewer then 100 subscribers in the Kiltimagh area. It is worth considering. Kiltimagh was first brought to my attention at school in the poem which says: "Go Coillte Mághach rachad, go ndéanfad cuairt miosa ann, agus beidh fáilte romham, Tá cairde agam ann."

The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 12 May 1982.