Vol. 480 No. 7
16 Mr. Yates asked the Minister for Public Enterprise the Government policy in relation to the licensing of community deflector rebroadcast television groups; whether the current study being carried out by the regulator into this issue is binding on the Government; and if she will set out the varying responsibilities between herself and the Director of Telecommunication Regulation in this matter. [15057/97]
The licensing of television deflector operators is a complex issue, as Deputies on the other side know from their deliberations. The Government recognises the very strong community involvement in the deflector groups throughout the country and the desire of people in those areas to have access to the best possible service, taking account of the technical and economic realities of the situation.
The legislative position is that while I have a policy role in relation to the allocation and use of the radio frequency spectrum, the legal power to issue licences to television deflector operators pursuant to section 5 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926, was transferred, with effect from 30 June 1997, to the Director of Telecommunications Regulation appointed under the Telecommunications (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1996. Accordingly it is a legal function of the director in the first instance to address the question of licensing such operators. Any licensing regulations proposed by the director would be subject to my consent. I understand also that the director has initiated a consultancy study in relation to this matter with a view to determining the appropriate course of action. It would not be appropriate at this stage to speculate as to what the outcome of the study will be or what view the Government will take of it.
Does the Minister accept that policy in this area is the prerogative not of any regulator or consultant but of the Government and that if we are to have a dual licensing system for MMDS and for other rebroadcast systems that is entirely a matter for Government? Surely those who are waiting for such a system to be put in place find the Minister is procrastinating and avoiding the issue.
The previous Government, of which the Deputy was a Cabinet member, took an informal decision on 25 June — the day before it went out of office — and the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications indicated that he had decided not to make these regulations. It was a matter for consideration as to how the decision might be announced. That was one of the last decisions taken by the Government.
The Minister has informed me of what I know already. Does she accept that policy in this area is in her domain and that of the Government and, if so, why await the activities of the regulator when it is within her prerogative to make a final decision on what type of licensing system, if any, there will be?
I have no difficulty in stating that three months ago the Government, of which the Deputy was a member, was not able to come to a decision on this highly complex issue. I put that in context. That Government brought in the legislation, of which I thoroughly approve, which led to the setting up of the telecommunications regulator. Ms Doyle came to see me on a courtesy call. I would be keen to ensure the independence of the regulator should be observed at a distance. Clearly any decision the director will arrive at will be conveyed to me and on a broader policy matter the Government would look at it. The issue is complex and is ongoing in the courts. Therefore, my replies will be brief but to the point and containing information. The regulator is independent. I and anybody else in my job would seek to ensure that independence was preserved. Ms Doyle said she was undertaking a study which would include all advice — local, national and international. I await the results of that study.
Given that the Minister accepts she has responsibility for policy in this area, what advice would she give to householders who have had illegal rebroadcast systems disconnected and who have tried to get an MMDS service but no test signal is available because of their location in a valley? If she continues to procrastinate they will not receive a multichannel service incorporating BBC, UTV and Channel 4 in the foreseeable future.
It is interesting that the Deputy did not give his views at the Cabinet three months ago.
I am not the Minister.
The Deputy was part of a collective Cabinet decision of 25 June — if he was not in Egypt on his other duties — which decided it could do no more in that area for particular reasons of which the Deputy and I are aware. I cannot say what the Deputy wishes me to say to his constituents and others. I am aware of people's desires. It is proper that they should get reception in an economic and easily accessible way. I fully share those views in a community sense. We await the results of the study set up by the independent regulator and other matters which will develop in a legal sense within the next month.
On a point of principle, if someone cannot receive an MMDS multichannel service do they have an entitlement to an alternative form of multichannel rebroadcast system? Does the Minister accept that everyone in the country has a basic right to such a service? Yes or no?
Other fora will decide on those matters.
