Vol. 408 No. 4
15 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications the total amount outstanding in licence fees owed by television cable companies to his Department at the latest date for which figures are available; the progress which is being made in reducing the amount outstanding; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I refer the Deputy to the answer given to a similar question on 5 July 1990, columns 447 to 449, volume No. 401, No. 2 of the Official Report for that day.
The total arrears outstanding as at 31 December 1990 are estimated to be £431,123. At this stage 13 licensees are in arrears. Of these, four companies owe less than £1,000 and a further five owe less than £5,000. Most of the money outstanding is the subject of agreement with the individual companies concerned and there is no reason to believe that this part of the arrears will not be paid over the next few years.
The Department initiated legal action against one particularly recalcitrant payer with the intention of using experience gained in this case against other such companies. However, before the case was heard in court, the arrears were paid in full. The Chief State Sollicitor has been asked to initiate legal action against another company.
My Department will continue to collect outstanding amounts through routine follow-up action of individual cases; legal action; refusal to consider applications for consent to increase charges unless outstanding licence fees are addressed in a satisfactory way and refusal to consent to the transfer of licences unless my Department are also satisfied with regard to outstanding licence fees.
Would the Minister agree that there has been no great improvement in the position since 5 July, almost a year ago? At that stage the amount outstanding was £500,000 and it is now £431,000 which is a modest improvement. Given the needs of RTE for funding they should not be satisfied with the method by which the funds are being collected. Will the Minister do all in his power to guarantee that the remaining £431,000 is collected immediately as against payment being phased over two to three years?
I have put on the pressure and I propose to keep it on. Of the 13 licensees involved only one is not responding to efforts to collect the arrears. The other 12 are responding fairly satisfactorily at present.
Has the Minister any plans to collect the licence fees through, for example, the ESB or any other agency?
The Deputy may be confusing the matter. We are talking about licence fees owed by television cable companies and not about television licence fees. On this subject I would say to Deputy Byrne that 75 per cent of the £431,000 is owed by one company and we have now reached an agreement that the money will be paid over three years. My advice is that that is the best that can be achieved.
I am aware that the bulk of the money is owned by one company. Can the Minister explain why, if this money has already been collected, it will not be paid for two to three years? Will the Minister name the other company who seem to be refusing to make their lawful payments?
All I can do is reiterate my full commitment to getting in every penny of this £431,000 as soon as possible. Sometimes if one pushes too hard one ends up getting less — I am just speculating with that comment.
Bearing in mind that these debts have been outstanding for much longer than three years, would the Minister not agree that he is effectively giving this company an interest free loan for three years? This is giving the company an advantage over their competitors.
I take the Deputy's point but that is not the intention. Some companies have been very slow in paying but we have tracked them down. We have narrowed the problem to one company in particular and an agreement has been reached on a professional basis with that company. However, if the House feels the matter should be considered again I will certainly agree to do so, but my advice at this time is that that is the best deal that can be achieved.
Is the Minister prepared to name that company?
I would prefer not to do so in the House at this time.
Would the Minister agree that the people who refuse to pay their cable television charges on time are cut off rather quickly and are not given two to three years to make their payments? It is the consumer who is being given a raw deal. As has been said, the Minister is giving an interest free subsidy to the company, and indeed the company should be named in the House. Any interest due should be forthcoming. Will the Minister agree that any interest which would have accrued on the money still outstanding will be made good by this company?
There are many detailed questions there. We are getting the amount outstanding down, we have narrowed it to one major company and an agreement has been reached in that case. I have undertaken to the House to see whether those terms can be improved from the point of view of the State, which is the most reasonable approach at this stage.
