Mr. Noel Curran:

Yes, there will be. There is a continual review because the commercial income did not meet our expectations last year. We are continually reviewing it. The Deputy will have seen that in the statement we made concerning Raidió na Gaeltachta as well.

In terms of premium, I said two years ago that it was an important service for us to provide internationally. I felt we should be providing it internationally. It is not absolutely within our control. There are elements of this in terms of public value tests and other tests. I would hope that we will be in a clearer position in the next three to four weeks to know, not what our plans are because we know what they are, but whether we can move towards some kind of an announcement in that regard. I would reiterate that this is and has been a priority for us.

I agree that more can be done and will be done with Saorview. We have not had the marketing budget and have been constrained financially in linking the Saorview platform with platforms like Freesat in any overt way such as through combination marketing. We believe that the combination of Saorview with some of those satellite services is a potent service, but we have been restricted in how overtly we can say that. However, we have plans in that regard. I have talked about Saorview being connected and we have other marketing plans. I accept the findings of the recent BAI report from Ono, but it highlighted that Saorview and FirstView homes were 160,000 and may reduce.

I felt very strongly that they completely ignored the second television phenomenon. Having the Saorview platform in 700,000 homes, be it in regard to the first or second television, gives us a marketing tool that we need to expand on.

I will ask Mr. Eamon Kennedy to address defamation. A specific question was asked on whether we are crying wolf in some respects. Perhaps that is not the language that was used. If the "Saturday Night Show" conversation — I am not judging the rights and wrongs to some degree — had been on the Jay Leno show, there would not have been a question of a defamation case. The first amendment, the actual malice criterion and a range of other measures would have applied. Had the conversation been in the United Kingdom, with its new changes to defamation law, the requirement that serious harm must be proven early on might have had an impact. Certainly, we need to wait to see what legal precedents arise from the UK application of honest opinion. I do not know whether Mr. Kennedy has a different view from me on that. What I have expressed is as much a personal view as anything else. Mr. Kennedy is free to contradict me.