Vol. 431 No. 5
10 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications if, in relation to community TV, he will publish details of the MMDS franchise granted in the Cork area so as to facilitate public scrutiny of its terms; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
MMDS licences are issued subject to the terms of the Wireless Telegraphy (Television Programme Retransmission) Regulations, 1989 (S.I. No. 39 of 1989). The Regulations have been lodged in the Dáil Library, reference PL 6311, and may be inspected by the Deputy in the Library at any time. The form of the licence is specified in the schedule to those regulations. Each licensee is obliged to comply with technical conditions established by my Department in Specification No. R82 of April 1988 entitled, "Technical Conditions relating to the establishment of a Programme Retransmission System (Microwave Multipoint Distribution System) (MMDS) in the band 2500 to 2686 MHz". I will forward a copy of Specification R82 to the Deputy if he wishes.
Cork Communications Limited, has been awarded the franchise for Cells 25, 26, 28 and 29 the coverage area of which includes all of County Cork and west Waterford.
Would the Minister agree that the figure of £20,000, agreed in 1989, for an exclusive licence for the entire of County Cork and west Waterford was a paltry sum?
The sum referred to is an initial fee required in respect of each franchise. A licence may be renewed nine times except that the Minister may renew it a further ten times and continue to agree to renew licences if he considers it proper to do so. I do not agree with the Deputy's contention.
In view of the fact that an exclusive licence had been granted for the sum of £20,000 in 1989 which had the effect of putting community television off the air how was the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, able before the election to commit herself, and her party, to an examination of the role of deflector systems in the provision of multi-channel services?
If, as a lawyer, the Deputy wishes to condone the illegal activities of unlicensed operators from whom I cannot even get £1 let alone £20,000 perhaps he will explain which side of the fence he is on. The licence granted to Cork Communications Limited was in accord with the regulations which are available for inspection in the Library. If the Deputy has any queries I would be prepared to answer a separate question. In relation to MMDS, I suggest that consumers are satisfied with the service although it is more expensive than the deflector systems which are providing a signal illegally. In the same way as we cannot have public houses without intoxicating liquor licences we cannot have illegal deflector systems. I will seek to expand MMDS and eliminate the deflector systems.
Does the Minister propose to make the public aware that, having considered MMDS, other countries have decided that it is unacceptable as a transmission system on health grounds having regard to the fact that radiation is emitted? Does the Minister propose to have an environmental impact statement prepared in respect of further MMDS installations?
I will have to contact the Deputy on the question of whether an EIS is required. My Department does not accept, as has been claimed in the campaign against MMDS, that it can lead to health problems. I come from an area where MMDS is available and I am not aware of any increase in the incidence of sickness as a result.
(Limerick East): What power does the Minister's Department have to control the price charged by those who provide an MMDS or a cable service on a monopoly basis, to ensure that the service is up to standard and is not subject to frequent breakdowns which seems to be the position in respect of some systems?
Any price increases required in respect of cable have to be approved by me. One of my powers is to grant approval for price increases but in considering applications for such increases I have to balance the requirement for customer service with charging a fair price for it.
How does the Minister square the hard line approach he is adopting to community TV with the approach adopted by his predecessor prior to the general election when his own party agreed to a request that the then Minister for Communications would examine the role of deflector systems and the provision of multi-channel services, with a view to having community TV licensed? Members of his party and the Labour Party made specific commitments that legislation would be introduced to legalise community TV. How does he justify his hard line approach to community TV in the light of the approach taken prior to the election?
I am not seeking to promote a hard line approach but I will not condone illegality in the way the Deputy would like to condone it. As Minister I am not prepared to do that. The MMDS system was introduced by his party colleague, Deputy Jim Mitchell, when he was Minister for Communications.
A bad day's work.
It has been licensed since 1989.
The euphemism "community TV" is being used to validate an illegal deflector system. The term "community TV" seems to indicate it is legal but it is not. It is my job as Minister to provide the MMDS system on an expanding basis throughout rural Ireland, and I intend doing so. In doing so I will seek to have the system in place while simultaneously dealing with the people who are not providing any revenue to the State, who have no licence to provide the service, who are under no control and are providing an inferior service to the one we are prepared to provide under a proper licensing regime.
Will the Minister state the position clearly? Is he finally slamming the door in the face of all those communities in the south-west and west who provided through community TV a similar service to that available in the east? Is there no question whatever of examining the role of deflector systems in the provision of multi-channel services as was promised by Deputy Máire Geoghegan-Quinn prior to the election?
Any examination will show that this is an inferior service to the MMDS system. I intend to promote the legally licensed service and I am not prepared to acquiesce in the Deputy's condoning of illegality.
So much for election promises.
So much for lawyers.
