Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I believe in the free market economy and have grave doubts about anything that interferes with it. When the Bill came into my possession, I checked whether other countries had done something similar and discovered that some have done so. I then checked the record of Denmark, which decided not to do this because it did not wish to interfere with the free market economy. It was thought that if a sports organisation created such a demand for its product that people would want to pay for it, it should not be restricted.

I am an enthusiast of Gaelic sports. The Minister will be pleased to note that I attended the all-Ireland final in 1957, which was won by Louth. I have a colleague in the office, Mr. Damien Carolan, who comes from the same town as the Minister and dates everything from 1957. If one mentions 1967, he will say it was ten years after Louth won the all-Ireland final.

When I started thinking about the Bill, I was in two minds about it. I have no doubts about its popularity or the genuine feeling that gave rise to it, particularly in the aftermath of the FAI and Sky Sports deal last year. Any follower of the Irish soccer team over the past ten years or more will have felt short-changed by that deal and that his or her rights were taken away in some way. However, the notion of rights to look at a soccer match for nothing must be examined carefully. For instance, nobody suggests that we should be allowed go to a game for free. If we accept that we have to pay to enter a stadium, whether the game is soccer, rugby, Gaelic football or hurling, why are we saying we should see it for free on television? Nobody would argue that television rights to international games should be given away for nothing.

The problem arises when we allow the market to dictate the terms on which an event is televised, which is what is happening. If we allow the market to decide, it automatically means that the winner will always be the highest bidder. In today's circumstances the highest bidder will almost always be a television provider which makes money by selling access to programmes by way of a subscription channel. The problem is that the providers which provide free television, TV3 and RTE in this case, will always be the losers.

As a result of this system, viewing of events is restricted to those prepared to pay for them, either by taking out a subscription to the relevant channel or by going to a pub where they can pay for them by buying drinks. If we leave the emotional dimension aside, it is hard to see this as anything but the free market economy in action. Experience tells us that it is wise to interfere with the operation of the free market only when it is necessary to avoid an outcome that is definitely not in the overall public interest. That is clearly what the Minister is attempting to do.