I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann, recognising the need to manage in the public interest the use of the radio frequency spectrum, supports the implemenntation by the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications of the Wireless Telegraphy (Television Programme Retransmission) Regulations, 1989, pending the decision of the Courts in relation to the deflector systems when consideration can be given to any necessary review of the regulations and legislation involved."
Firstly, I am very surprised that the Opposition has put down such a motion at this time. The Deputies are fully aware of the fact that a case currently listed for hearing in the High Court is concerned with this very issue. I have answered questions in this House as recently as last week informing Opposition Deputies that the date for this case has been set for 11 January next, so I know that they are fully aware of it and of the nature of the case. Leaving aside any question there might be about the propriety or otherwise of our discussing matters bearing so closely on that case — which is of course sub judice— in this House, they must know that those matters cannot receive a full airing without the risk of prejudicing the matter before the court.
I would have thought that the Deputies would not want me to prejudice the outcome of that case. It seems however that they would like me to go further, because what I am being asked to do here is to actually pre-empt the court's judgment on the entire issue by amending the 1989 Wireless Telegraphy Regulations now. That course of action would be unwise and irresponsible, indeed I am not sure that it might not be construed as contempt of court. I have no desire to undermine the due and fair processes of the law in this way and I can only express my surprise and dismay that the Deputies would ask me to do so.
It is worth noting in that regard that Opposition Deputies have persisted in recent times in tabling parliamentary questions specifically relating to this issue, questions that are asking me in effect to either interpret the High Court's judgment to date, which they will be aware is an interlocutory one, or to pre-empt the court's judgment in the substantive case which is now listed for hearing. Such a course of action is unthinkable. I make no apologies for saying that I will uphold the law and that I will not be browbeaten into any action which might prejudice that case.
Turning to the substance of the motion itself, the first aspect I want to address is the use of the term "community TV" as liberally used by Deputy O'Keeffe earlier today. What this motion does is to set out clearly the intention of those Deputies behind it who align themselves with a specific cause. So let us look at this "cause". What exactly is it? The first thing that must be said is that this issue has been fudged and confused by those people who persist in using the ambiguous and misleading term "community TV".
"Community TV" somehow implies a civic minded, community based operation properly and lawfully providing a service without the need for Government assistance or intervention. Let us be quite clear. What the Opposition is talking about here is not "community TV" in that sense at all. Their status now is that of illegal transmission systems that are misappropriating the use of the radio frequency spectrum by arrogating to themselves whatever frequencies they choose in their own areas. The people who operate these systems are in effect advocating the abandonment of the national radio frequency plan and the abdication by Government of its responsibility for it.
Lest there be any confusion about this, I acknowledge that community television does exist, but it is not what the Deputies are referring to here tonight. Community television, properly so called, is in operation on a number of cable systems throughout the country. It consists of local people, in what is truly a community activity, producing local programming about local events which is then lawfully transmitted over the local cable systems. This provides a valuable service to the local area, including experience in programme making and other related activities, and contributes to a sense of community identity. It does no service at all to these innovative and valuable service providers to lump them in with those who, in contrast, simply pick up signals and retransmit them illegally on the deflector systems.
I would ask the Opposition here and now to cease the misuse of the term "community television". It is only confusing the issue, reflecting in turn on those activities which can be truly described as community television.
Let me now remind the Deputies of the genesis of, and the reasons for, the existing scheme for providing multi-channel television throughout the country. Let me remind them of the sequence of events which led up to the establishment of the current licensing regime. I will point out the detailed planning which went into the process and indeed the acceptance by successive Governments of the principles which underline the decisions which were made and the policies which were adopted.
It is well known in this House that the demand for multi-channel television in those areas which could not, for economic or technical reasons, be cabled was recognised a long time ago. What was also recognised from the earliest time was that such services could not be provided by means of the deflector systems about which we are now talking.
In this regard, let me quote the Fine Gael Minister for Communications. Deputy Jim Mitchell, when he said, in this House on 2 July 1985:
...the broadcasting frequencies available to this country under international agreements are not sufficient to allow the widespread rebroadcasting of television signals. Any such systems serving extensive areas would lead to unacceptable interference with other services and would inhibit the improvement of reception of existing RTE services and the development of new services.
This, as early as 1985, was a clear acknowledgment by the then Minister of the problems posed by the deflector approach, and of the type of action which is now being requested of me in my capacity as Minister. The same Minister said in the House on 6 November 1986:
I have no plans to introduce legislation to legalise television rebroadcasting systems or deflectors as they operate at present. As I have said in replies to questions on this matter on a number of occasions, these systems raise major practical and policy issues from the point of view of good radio frequency management.
That Minister not only acknowledged the difficulties posed by this issue, but also stated that deflector systems cannot be licensed. This conclusion was not arrived at overnight. The issue was thoroughly researched and the available options were fully considered, including the possibility of provision of services by deflector systems. The conclusion arrived at was that such systems were not practicable, for the same reasons which I, in my turn, have stated many times and which were summarised by the then Minister, Deputy Jim Mitchell, in a press release on 5 March 1987. I would like to quote that press release. In it the then Minister referred to deflector systems, stating that he "... could not see his way to legalise the use of such systems as they create major practical and policy issues from the point of view of good radio frequency management ...". He then went on to say "...the UHF spectrum used by existing rebroadcasting systems represents the only remaining spectrum space to cater for the improvement and development of our terrestrial television broadcasting service for the foreseeable future".
I am sure that much of this must sound very familiar to the Deputies, and well it should; I know it sounds familiar to me. That is because not only was it stated by Deputy Mitchell in 1986, but it was repeated by him in 1987 and by successive Ministers since then, including myself. It is a clear statement of the need to adopt a realistic and viable policy in relation to the provisions of multi-channel television to non-cabled areas. It is an acknowledgment of the difficulties involved in formulating such a policy and the need to have regard to the proper and responsible management of a valuable national resource, the radio frequency spectrum. It is also a recognition that deflector systems cannot be licensed. It is a policy which I have continued to uphold and to implement. It is a policy, based on sound frequency management principles, which was first stated by the Fine Gael Minister for Communications, Deputy Jim Mitchell.
In that same press release the then Minister announced plans for an alternative to the deflector systems, a system which would meet the objectives of providing real multi-channel television choice in a professional, technically competent manner and make available the same quality and continuity of service which was available in cabled areas. Let me quote him again:
On the basis of the examination carried out the Minister has concluded that MMDS is a feasible alternative to illegal rebroadcasting, and his Department is at present drawing up a national frequency plan and technical specifications for the system, as well as a regime to govern the licensing of the installation and use of such systems.
Without wishing to labour the point, the date of this announcement was 5 March 1987. The then Minister had obviously concluded at that time that the MMDS system was the only practicable system for the provision of multi-channel television in non-cabled areas that was compatible with national and international frequency management obligations. I agree with that conclusion, in common with the intervening Ministers, and I have continued to implement that policy decision with the result that significant progress has been made in the provision of such services and we are well on the way to being able to provide a legitimate multi-channel choice in all parts of the country.
At the risk of repeating myself, and possibly boring the Deputies with information, I have provided to many of them on previous occasions, I will not reiterate the reasons for that policy decision, which was stated in 1986 and again in 1987, not to licence deflector systems. The frequency spectrum is a limited national resource. The use of that spectrum must be properly managed, not only in Ireland but in all other countries. Radio transmission does not of itself respect national boundaries and so a great degree of co-operation and co-ordination must take place to ensure that the use of the spectrum can be maximised and that any possible interference can be minimised. As a result, much of the frequency spectrum use is governed by international treaty. This includes the UHF band, which is the one in which the deflector systems operate.
Under the Stockholm Treaty of 1961 Ireland has been provided with spectrum capacity in this band for the equivalent of four television networks and no more. This is after we have taken account of the need for fill-in stations and schemes for repeating the use of frequencies in different parts of the country. Having obtained this resource, its use must be carefully planned on a nationwide basis to ensure maximum benefit to the country. What we are talking about is nationwide planning. The Government is obliged to ensure equity of services throughout the country and this is an important factor in such planning exercises. Given these conditions, there are simply not enough frequencies available to facilitate a nationwide network of deflector transmitters to be established and at the same time meet other national requirements.
I will set out briefly the uses for which these four national networks are allocated. Two of the networks are allocated for RTE's requirements. RTE already uses part of these bands both for high and medium powered transmitters as well as for local "fill-in" transposers designed to improve reception in areas where it is poor. In addition, there is a need to take into account the new technology being developed in Europe and worldwide for digital television. Spectrum within the UHF band will have to be reserved for this eventuality. In particular my Department will have to make provision, sometime in the coming decade, for the simultaneous operation of the existing television networks as well as the new digital networks for a transition period of up to 15 years.
In addition, the new Teilifís na Gaeilge service will need a third of the four networks. The Government's decision with regard to Teilifís na Gaeilge would be negated if this spectrum had to be given over for other purposes. This is a very good practical example of the effect which a decision to licence deflector systems would have. Therefore, we are effectively left with UHF frequency capacity equivalent to about one network and, as Deputies will know, that has already been earmarked for any future developments with regard to an independent TV channel.
These spectrum allocations to Ireland are national assets and must be used prudently and wisely in the national interest. Any decision to licence deflectors would immediately negate this plan and inhibit future developments such as digital television. All frequency planning in my Department is done with the objective of providing equity of service to all parts of the country. These frequencies cannot be taken over and used haphazardly by those involved in deflector systems while they are already earmarked for national requirements. It is important to understand, therefore, that there is not actually a choice between deflector systems and MMDS if the non-cabled public are to be offered nationwide quality multi-channel television. The fundamental physics of frequency management, combined with the international constraints which apply, mean that it can be done only by an MMDS type system.
I notice that the Deputies have asked that the Dáil support competition between these deflector systems and the existing licence holders who are legally franchised to provide multi-channel television services — in other words, the cable and MMDS companies. Deputies may tell me that they are not asking me to abandon the existing schemes. They may say that if they are so effective, why not allow the deflector systems to compete with them. I say that they are being disingenuous. It is clear from what I have said tonight and what was said back in 1986 and 1987 that the issue here is not competition. The situation is simple: deflector systems cannot be licensed either in substitution for or in addition to existing systems.
Deputy O'Keeffe, who is a practising solicitor in Cork, mentioned that a service was not illegal; rather it was unlicensed. Let me cite a premises which does not have a publican's licence as an example. That is an unlicensed premises and it is illegal to serve intoxicating liquor in such a premises. The Deputy was being disingenuous in attempting to split the atom; this argument does not hold up.
I hear the allegation of "monopoly" being levied in relation to both cable and MMDS operators. This liberal use of the word "monopoly" is inaccurate and irresponsible. Deputies will be well aware of the economic and practical realities which underlie the decision by successive administrations to issue licences for both cable and MMDS which are exclusive within a specified geographic area.
It is clear that there is a massive investment involved in establishing the infrastructure which is necessary to ensure reliable and high quality multi-channel television services in the long term. This is the sort of investment which is now being made by the lawful franchisees, and it is one which the deflector operators would be neither able or willing to make. In order to foster this investment a regulated franchise of an exclusive nature was clearly indicated as the best solution and was so adopted. These companies, having made these very substantial investments are, as was intended, entitled to a reasonable return on them. Direct competition of the kind proposed in the Opposition motion would be inimical to the economics of the scheme at this stage of its development and would deny that return to the investors. Regulated exclusive franchise is a well tried and trusted means of procuring public infrastructural investment. There is simply no other way to bring about that kind of investment in this case except by ensuring a fair return on the necessary capital. The MMDS scheme, provided for by this House under the 1989 regulations, is now operating successfully. It is gaining in strength and it is only in those areas where deflector systems have refused to co-operate that major difficulties have arisen. It would be unthinkable that we should not stand by those companies that have invested so heavily and endured such difficulties at a time when the scheme is under threat.
Deputy Bradford mentioned by own area where the MMDS system has replaced the deflector system. Everybody is satisfied with it, in terms of the broad product range and the quality of the service. They are also satisfied that it is a more professional operation. Clearly, it is acceptable to the people I represent and to people throughout rural Ireland as people now recognise that it is a different product to the deflector system.
I would not rule out competition in the future; I am well disposed to competition wherever it is feasible and in the public interest. Such competition would also have to be technically feasible. It would have to be spectrum efficient. For example, having two competing systems in a particular area effectively halves the number of channels available on each. At this stage, and for the foreseeable future, the MMDS system makes sound economic and practical sense.
To conclude on the competition aspect, the MMDS franchisees compete with direct to home satellite transmissions. They compete with each other in the sense that people, even if their choice is limited to a particular franchisee, are aware of the standards and the charges in neighbouring areas, both on MMDS and cable, and can make their views known. Finally, the standard of service is subject to regulation by my Department, so it cannot be argued that this is an area where there is unfettered monopoly. I wish it were not necessary to repeat this, but the fact that we are addressing a motion of this kind suggests that it is.
The MMDS infrastructure has implications far beyond the provision of multi-channel television. The telecommunications industry is one which is changing rapidly and demand for sophisticated communications services is increasing greatly. In this context the entertainment industry has a role to play. The demand for multi-media services in both the business and private sectors is emerging as the concept of the "information superhighway" develops. The multi-channel industry has provided a valuable resource in the existing and developing infrastructure which can be used to provide such services. If Ireland is to consolidate its position as a centre of communications excellence and harness the great economic potential of this new market, it must have, and make good use of, that infrastructure.
To return to the original text of the motion put down by the Deputies, I would like them to be clear on exactly what they are asking me to do. I am being asked to overturn a policy decision which was made by a Fine Gael Minister for Communications and which has been upheld by successive Governments. By doing so I am being asked to pre-empt the High Court's judgment in relation to the implementation of that policy; to negate the sound frequency management principles of the country's long term plan and put into question our international obligations; to misuse a valuable and scarce national resource, that is the frequency spectrum; to disregard my obligation as Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, and this Government's obligation, to ensure that all parts of the country are treated equally and fairly with regard to the provision of multi-channel services; to restrict the scope for any further development of national television services and particularly to negate the Government's decision on the provision of the Teilifís na Gaeilge service.
I hope that the magnitude of what is being requested here is clear. I hope also that the Opposition is prepared to acknowledge and accept responsibility for the actions it is asking me to take. Indeed, I believe that they are fully aware of these implications, because it was the Fine Gael Party which was in Government when these decisions were initially made.
Fortunately, however, I am not prepared to do these things, and I object in the strongest terms to being asked to do them at this juncture. I would ask the Deputies opposite to cease this unreasonable and unproductive debate, to acknowledge the principles governing the policy which has been put in place and to allow me, as Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, to put my efforts into implementing that policy and ensuring that the objectives of that policy are met. In addition, I call on them to recognise the great potential of the multi-channel industry in Ireland's future communications industry and all the implications that has for the economic development of this country.
In so doing I call upon this House to reject the motion and to support the Government's amendment, which seeks to meet the present situation. As I have stated, the Government's amendment recognises the need to manage in the public interest the use of the radio frequencies spectrum; support the implementation of the regulations of 1989, pending the decisions of the courts on the deflector systems, when consideration can then be given to any necessary review of the regulations and legislation involved. That is the responsible and prudent thing to do. The matter is before the High Court and will be heard on 11 January next. We must await the outcome of the case and respect the fact that it is sub judice. We must examine the implications of the outcome and the view of the law as outlined in the High Court decision. At that stage we will be prepared to look at the situation in the fullness of that information and certain legal issues being clarified.
To do otherwise and to attempt to take on board the Fine Gael Party's motion is simply not on. The party knows it is not on. It appears to be a cynical exercise at this time. We are all aware that an attempt is being made to create a situation, as it continues with its negative campaigning during the by-elections. Deputy Bradford was suggesting that the motion was offering to take me off the hook. Given what has been happening in the House today, it is amusing, to say the least, that someone from the Fine Gael Party is trying to get me off the hook. They having been trying to impale me on a hook this afternoon, but thankfully without success. We have been asked to put the facts to the people while certain legal issues are clarified in the High Court. If they are genuine in seeking to meet the needs of people in that or other areas rather than playing the political trick——