A chara, - I feel the record should be set straight on a number of issues relating to your Editorial of July 5th, "A parsimonious increase for RT╔".
You allege that at some stage last year I suggested that RT╔ should be excluded from a shareholding in Digico but that my Cabinet colleagues did not agree. I never made any such proposal to Government. The original Government approach to the delivery of digital terrestrial television services envisaged the creation of a single commercial entity, to be known as Digico, in which RT╔ would have had a significant equity stake. RT╔, although initially supporting the Government's proposals, had difficulties with the details of the process of establishing the new entity, which involved selling the RT╔ transmission business. In order to accommodate the RT╔ concerns and to move the process forward, I proposed in June 2000 that the two primary activities of Digico - transmission and multiplexing - be separated and that RT╔ sell its transmission business subject to retaining a 28 per cent share in the new transmission entity. The Government accepted these proposals.
Turning to your comments on the television licence fee, it is simply not true to call a £14.50 increase from every licence-fee payer, which comes to almost £15 million in a full year, "parsimonious". As Minister I am not in a position to be generous with other people's money.
My intention in examining the case made by RT╔ was to neither to be generous or parsimonious; it was to be fair and objective. I am satisfied that this has been achieved.
Regarding the reference to a delay in reaching my decision, I have already made it clear that RT╔'s original application was such that it could not have formed the basis for any recommendation. It was necessary for RT╔ to provide additional material in support of its application and this in turn had to be examined and verified by the consultants I had engaged. I received their report in June.
The article also alleges that the decision inhibits RT╔ from involvement in digital services. This again is totally wrong. The Government has authorised me to emphasise to RT╔ the importance that it attaches to the station being involved in the roll-out of digital services.
Unfortunately, the plans put forward by RT╔ for new digital services in its application were not convincing and I will be asking RT╔ to present a more robust case for its proposed new digital terrestrial television channels. If I am persuaded by the case that RT╔ makes, I will ask the Government to revisit the amount that would be granted from April 1st, 2003 with a view to incorporating in it a contribution towards the costs of these services.
RT╔ is carrying an exceptional cash balance of £117 million at present. Your Editorial portrays the reducing of this balance to a more appropriate level for an organisation such as RT╔ as the road to commercial ruin. I could not stand over a situation where the licence fee payer was required to fund balances of the order maintained by RT╔ at present. Spending some of these exceptional cash reserves on maintaining the quality of existing services could not be deemed to be "frittering away" resources.
Finally, you appear to equate the exercise of care and diligence in ensuring that every element of the proposed £50 increase to be independently verified and justified as "penny-pinching". Perhaps this is not a criticism, or would you prefer me to be profligate with licence-fee payers' money and award RTE a £50 million per year increase in revenue from public funds regardless of the quality of the application? - Is mise,
Sile De Valera TD, Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Mespil Road, Dublin 4.