Brendan Ryan (Labour)

I read the Minister's script twice and I listened to what other speakers said on the matter but I am none the wiser. What will be the position of the 29% of the population who currently have free-to-air access to a range of channels, including the British channels because of their geographical location? It is not clear from the Minister's script whether they will have that access from 2009. It would be great if the Minister were to at least tell us what he thinks will happen.

Is it not misleading people to pretend that if our digital multiplexes are going to retransmit British channels that they can ever be provided free? The only reason people in the Border counties and on the east coast can watch British television channels is that they happen to overspill. Will they have to buy a set-top box? As the range of a digital signal is shorter than the current system the overspill will drop dramatically. We should at least know what the Government thinks will happen. If commercial agencies are to operate four of the six multiplexes they will have to make money. That is not an attack on them; it is a fact. Who will operate them? The current cable service providers will not want to operate them because that would undermine their entire capital investment. RTE cannot operate them. I hope there will be providers.

It appears the inevitable consequence of digital terrestrial television in this country and in our neighbouring island is that people who currently have free access, particularly to the British analogue channels, will have to find an alternative. Unless the Minister has a wonderful trick up his sleeve they will end up paying for their television viewing. Governments have been threatened with losing their positions over lesser issues. A total of 29% of the population will be affected. I am glad attention is being paid to electronic programming guides. I would hate the programming guide for public service broadcasting to be determined by Senator Norris's bête noire, whose name I will avoid mentioning. I do not think one should bother with such matters. Nevertheless, I hope it happens.

ComReg is involved. In terms of consumers of services, ComReg must be the least consumer friendly of all the regulatory bodies in comparison to the Director of Corporate Enforcement who fights consistently and with considerable vigour on behalf of consumers. ComReg appears to be totally transfixed with the joys of technological changes and so on. I cannot get a straight answer to a simple question from ComReg. Why is it that NTL in Dublin, which is owned by the same company that owns Chorus in Cork, charges less for a greater number of digital channels in Dublin than for a smaller number of digital channels in Cork? I do not necessarily want it to beat NTL into agreement but I cannot get a rationale from ComReg. If the regulator does not have a rationale, I must assume none exists.

Essentially that is what consumer protection is about. It is about finding information for and informing the consumer. Handing over the regulation of this to an agency that sees itself far more significant in the area of technology than in the area of mere consumers is not the most wonderful idea, unless ComReg gets its act together and begins to see that its primary function, like that of all regulators, is to look after consumers. Related to that primary function is the need to move beyond a blind belief that as long as we can get plenty competition, the consumer will be looked after.

The terrifying views of the Competition Authority about the health service in the face of the evidence of the United States, that somehow we should have more competition in the health service, are enough to scare anybody about the stupidity of a blind belief. Blind belief in any kind of ideological position is always daft because what works is what works and sometimes things work.

The move to digital terrestrial television is overdue but I would like to hear the Minister elaborate on the position of the 29% of people who may end up discovering they have only three or four channels in two or three years' time. I am glad to see a passing reference to high definition television but I am not sure it makes an enormous difference. I have walked around television shops in my home city inspecting televisions. I am fairly technophilic but I cannot see the difference between the images on high definition television and the current system.

Technology does not end with digital terrestrial broadcasting, it is moving on and the great buzz word, as the Minister is aware, is convergence. In the rest of the world there is much talk about convergence between high speed broadband, high speed wireless Internet and current television broadcasting. That will not be a problem in Ireland given the state of our broadband system. Assuming that sooner or later we catch up with the world, there are all sorts of interesting issues about what digital terrestrial television broadcasters will be broadcasting in 25 years' time if every house has high speed wireless Internet access capable of handling images of the quality of high density television without ever having a television. There are all kinds of issues there and I would like to believe somebody is thinking about them but I have no evidence of that.

I am glad the Minister mentioned radio broadcasting but I am not concerned about it. In our new confident self, I suggest we follow the French example of TV5 and consider a worldwide, deliberately publicly funded, television service. A huge number of people around the world have a passing interest in Ireland. Instead of tokenism and attempts to get commercial platforms, let us be like the French and assert ourselves and say we believe there are enough people in the world who are moderately interested in what is taking place.

It is a great pity that in the interests of education, the regulator does not require all cable operators to carry a few channels in other European languages. In Cork, despite the presence of 65 channels on digital TV, it has dropped TV5 and there is no channel in either Spanish, French, Italian or German. That is a dreadfully isolationist and insulationist way to proceed. I refuse to believe that Animal Planet or one or other of the subordinate channels available have a broader interest base than channels such as that. I have no idea of the reason for this. TV5 does not charge a great deal, is free-to-air and is not scrambled. There are areas where effective regulation is not simply a matter of leaving it to competition but is a matter of kicking the asses of people who are a little dim about what may be of interest to the public.

The basic contents of the Bill are welcome and we will support it. However, I would like to hear about the 29% of people who may well end up discovering they have only three or four channels in two or three years' time.