Vol. 403 No. 1
19 Mr. J. Mitchell asked the Minister for Communications if he will accept Fine Gael's proposals in relation to the phasing in of MMDS and the phasing out of deflectors; if he will meet a group representative of deflector providers and deflector receivers with a view to negotiating a transition arrangement; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I refer the Deputy to my reply to Questions Nos. 209, 210, 211 and 212 on 24 October 1990, columns 203 and 204, volume 402, No. 1 of the Official Report for that day.
As I indicated then, it is not my intention to take action against deflector operators until an alternative legal system — whether cable or MMDS — is available.
While I have no objection to meeting groups who are affected by the closure or potential closure of illegal systems — indeed both I and my Department have already done so — it would be inappropriate for me to meet deflector operators, given their illegal status.
Would the Minister not accept that the transition from deflectors to MMDS is a very vexed question in all parts of the western and south-western seaboard? Furthermore, would he not agree that this problem could best be addressed and assuaged by his agreeing to meet the representatives concerned?
As I have said to the Deputy, meetings have taken place at official level. I have also met groups affected by the closure, or potential closure, of illegal systems but I do not think it would be appropriate that I — no more than the Deputy when he was in this position, and rightly so — should meet pirate radio operators. These are illegal operators providing a facility the public have requested. For that reason there is no question of putting them off the air pending the availability of an alternative, but it would not be appropriate for me to meet such illegal operators. I can assure the Deputy — and I know this to be his concern as it is of Members all around the country — that where people have a choice at present that choice will not be interfered with pending the availability of a legal alternative.
Would the Minister not agree that there is a key difference between the illegal deflector systems and the illegal pirate stations in that the receivers of the deflector system signals have paid for that system already and that many thousands of people on the western and south-western seaboard are being asked to pay a second time for a service they have already received? Furthermore, would the Minister not agree there is need for some transitional accommodation for such people?
I have already said there is a transitional arrangement in place, that nobody who is in receipt of an existing service will be interfered with pending the availability — by way of either cable or MMDS — of a legal alternative. Surely the Deputy is not suggesting that because pirate radio stations were on the air and dependent solely on advertisements and the support of the general public that, in not meeting them, I was incorrect? Surely the Deputy is not suggesting that I, or any Minister, should meet illegal deflector operators who have accepted money from the general public for an illegal system? Surely he is not suggesting I should meet them?
The Minister should give the same service to the west as he gives to the east.
