I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The main objective of this Bill is to reduce to a minimum the evasion of payment of licence fees on television sets. The need for new legislation to deal with this problem has been apparent for some years and has been referred to in this House from time to time. For example, my predecessor said on 19th March, 1970—column 928 of the Official Report—that a scheme for legislation to reduce the number of unlicensed sets had reached an advanced stage. I also referred to the matter on 25th February, 1971— column 2133—and on 18th November, 1971—column 2451—when introducing the Estimate for my Department, and I indicated broadly the main provisions which would be included in the new Bill.
The need to minimise evasion of payment of licence fees has become more pressing within the last few years because of the increasing financial difficulties which have been facing Radio Telefís Éireann. Costs have risen steeply and television receiver growth and advertising revenue are both levelling off. Indeed, during 1970-71 television advertising revenue dropped for the first time. The voluntary decision by RTE to eliminate cigarette advertising meant a serious loss of advertising revenue.
It is hardly necessary to remind Deputies that although broadcasting licence fees were increased with effect from 1st July, 1970, the authority's annual report for the year ended 31st March, 1971, showed an overall surplus of only £3,647.
Deputies will also remember that it was decided to increase the combined licence fee from £6 to £7.50 as from 1st September, 1971, but to abolish the radio licence fee of £1.50 as from 1st September, 1972. Because of the spread of television the number of radio licences now represents only a small fraction of the total number of licences in force. It is estimated that these licence fee adjustments will provide RTE with net additional revenue of £550,000 in a full year. The authority's latest annual report comments on these adjustments but goes on to call for a systematic review of licence fees at two-yearly intervals.
In this situation, it is important that evasion of payment of licence fees should be reduced to a minimum. Otherwise the licence fee may have to be increased again sooner, or to a higher level, than would otherwise be necessary. This apart, it is, of course, quite unfair that viewers who pay licence fees should be subsidising those who do not.
No reliable estimate is available of the number of unlicensed television sets in use. RTE's latest annual report states that an Irish TAM survey carried out in March, 1971, indicated a television set count of 529,000 private households. At the end of January, 1972, the number of current combined licences was slightly over 471,000 and about 19,000 were overdue for renewal. Even if no allowance is made for television sets hired or bought since March last by households which previously did not have a set, these figures would suggest that there may be 40,000 unlicensed sets in use at present. This number of sets would represent gross licence receipts of about £300,000 or the equivalent of about 60p per existing combined licence.
Apart from pursuing people who do not renew their licences promptly, my Department mount special campaigns from time to time. These campaigns include house-to-house visits supported by publicity in the various media, including television. The special drives have met with a good measure of success. Moreover, during the past two years the use of a new television detector van has had considerable effect in persuading defaulters to take out licences. Nevertheless, it will be evident from what I have said earlier that special measures are needed to deal effectively with the problem.
Sections 2 and 3 of this Bill require television dealers to register with the Minister, to maintain records of transactions in the sale and hire of television sets and to supply the Minister with particulars of transactions which take place after the Act comes into operation. Section 4 requires television dealers to notify the Minister of hire, hire-purchase and credit-sale agreements for television sets which are current when the Act comes into operation. The information to be supplied by dealers is specified in the Schedule to the Bill. The information obtained from dealers will be compared with the Department's records and this will make it possible to give special attention to households where there is good reason to beleive they an unlicensed set is held.
Cases have arisen where difficulty was experienced in proving to the satisfaction of the courts that a defendant was in possession of a TV set detected in his home when the defendant himself was not interviewed by the Post Office inspector. Section 10 of the Bill provides that until the contrary is shown by the defendant it shall be presumed in such cases (1) that the set was in possession of the occupier of the premises and (2) that he did not hold a licence for it at the time to which the prosecution relates. Section 10 also provides for a presumption of a similar nature in a prosecution for an offence under section 7 (3) of the 1926 Act, that is where a person fails to complete and return a special notice sent to him by registered post.
These special notices are used frequently in following up suspected licence fee evaders. The person concerned is required to state on the notice whether he has wireless telegraphy apparatus in his possession, the kind of apparatus, whether it is licensed and so on. The alternative to using the special notice is to have a personal visit of inspection made, at much greater cost. Unfortunately, some people simply ignore the notice. The new provision will make the procedure more effective.
Each year my Department find it necessary to prosecute about 6,000 evaders. The penalties imposed by the courts are obviously not a sufficient deterrent against evasion. At present the maximum fine for a first offence is £10 and fines generally fall within the range of £1-£5. These penalties are quite out of scale with the present fee of £7.50 for a television set and represent a mere fraction of the annual cost of hiring a set. When the present maximum fine of £10 was fixed in 1926 the licence fee for a radio was 10s and there was no television service.
Section 12 of the Bill proposes to increase the maximum fine for a first offence to £50. The same section provides for a maximum fine of £100 for a second or subsequent offence. This replaces the fine of £1 per day which at present applies to a continuing offence and which is not in practice enforceable because of the impossibility of proving that a person had a set continuously in his possession over a particular period.
Section 12 also provides for an amendment to section 3 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926, which will enable the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to exempt, by order, certain classes of wireless telegraphy apparatus from the requirement that they must be licensed under the Act. It is under this provision that I propose to implement the decision to abolish the ordinary radio licence fee as from 1st September, 1972. With the abolition of the radio fee the present combined licence will of course become a television licence but part of the receipts from fees will continue to be allocated to the sound broadcasting service.
This opportunity is being availed of to make provision for the better control of interference with wireless telegraphy, including interference caused by wireless telegraphy apparatus—sections 5, 8 and 14.
Section 7 is aimed at certain types of apparatus which are in use in some countries but which my Department are not prepared to license, generally because of the interference they can cause to legitimate wireless telegraphy apparatus. For example "walkie-talkie" equipment operating on the 27 megacycle band is not licensed in this country because that band is reserved for industrial, scientific and medical purposes and because this type of equipment can cause serious interference with television and radio reception.
Licences are not issued either for "bugging" devices for different but obvious reasons. The section will enable the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs with the consent of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to make an order prohibiting the sale, hiring, manufacture or importation of any class of apparatus which my Department are not prepared to license. Provision may be made, however, in the order to grant licences permitting the manufacture of such apparatus solely for export.
Some of the remaining provisions of the Bill are of a routine character. The others are of minor importance and none of them appears to be of a controversial nature. Accordingly, and as any discussion considered desirable can appropriately take place on the Committee Stage, I do not propose to comment on them now. If, however, some Deputy wishes to raise a general question in relation to any of them I shall do my best to deal with the matter in my reply to the debate.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I believe that the main provisions of this Bill are essential to eliminate licence fee evasion which is unfair to RTE and to the vast majority of viewers who pay their licence fees when they become due. I confidently recommend the Bill to the House.