Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Mar 1972

Vol. 72 No. 11

Private Business. - Wireless Telegraphy Bill, 1972: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. G. Collins)

The main purpose of this Bill is to reduce to a minimum the evasion of payment of licence fees on television sets. It seeks to achieve this in two ways, firstly by requiring television dealers to furnish information about transactions in television sets to my Department and, secondly, by increasing the fines which may be imposed on persons who neglect to take out licences.

It is estimated that there are at least 40,000 unlicensed television sets in use at present. This represents a loss in licence revenue of about £300,000 a year, equivalent to about 60 new pence per existing combined licence.

Within the last few years it has become increasingly important to minimise evasion of payment of licence fees because of Radio Telefís Éireann's growing financial difficulties. Costs have risen sharply but the growth in the number of licences and in advertising revenue has been levelling off. Indeed, during 1970-71 television advertising revenue dropped for the first time. The voluntary decision by RTE to eliminate cigarette advertisements meant a serious loss of advertising revenue.

Senators will be aware that although broadcasting licence fees were increased from 1st July, 1970, RTE showed an overall surplus of only £3,647 for the year ended 31st March, 1971. They will also recall 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. The authority's latest annual report comments on the improvement these adjustments will make to RTE's finances but goes on to call for a systematic review of licence fees at two-yearly intervals.

These considerations underline the importance of reducing evasion of payment of licence fees to a minimum. In any event I am sure that Senators will agree that it is completely unfair that viewers who pay licence fees should be subsidising those who do not.

It may be helpful if I describe briefly the Department's present methods of enforcing the payment of licence fees. Records of all licences issued are maintained in the offices of head postmasters. When licences become due for renewal reminders are sent. If the first or second reminder brings no results a statutory declaration form is issued, by registered post, requiring the person concerned to state whether he has a set, if he has a licence for it and so on. If this brings no response a visit of inspection may be made, and the offender is prosecuted only as a last resort. This is a reasonably satisfactory but somewhat expensive system for dealing with households already noted in the Department's records.

There are, however, people whose names are not in the Department's records because they never had a licence, or who were in the records at one time and disappeared from them— usually because they changed to a different address. The Department undertake special drives from time to time to catch such people and have no compunction about prosecuting where unlicensed sets are detected. In the course of these drives, visits are made to households which are not shown in the Department's records as having licences. Use is also made of a television detector van which can pinpoint a house or flat in which a television set is being used.

In view of what I said earlier it will be clear that these measures need to be reinforced if the Department are to deal effectively with the evasion problem.

The information about transactions in television sets which dealers will have to supply to my Department under this Bill will be compared with the Department's records and special attention will then be given to those households where there is good reason to believe that an unlicensed television set is held. Dealers may not welcome this additional work. It must be remembered, however, that they stand to benefit from a reduction in evasion, because the extra revenue will enable RTE to provide more attractive programmes, and this should lead to an increase in the number of sets sold or hired.

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 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 is specified in the Schedule to the Bill.

I now come to the second prong of the attack on evasion. The present maximum fine of £10 for being in possession of an unlicensed set was fixed over 45 years ago—long before any regular television service began—at a time when the radio licence fee was only ten shillings. Prosecutions for being in possession of an unlicensed set average about 6,000 a year, and the fines imposed generally are in the range £1 to £5. These fines must be compared with the present annual licence fee of £7.50. Obviously they are not an adequate deterrent.

Business suspended at 5.45 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. G. Collins)

Section 12 of the Bill proposes to increase the maximum fine for a first offence to £50 and to provide for a maximum fine of £100 for a second or subsequent offence. The latter replaces the fine of £1 per day which at present applies to a continuing offence and which is not in practice enforceable.

Section 12 also provide 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. I propose under this provision to implement the decision to abolish the ordinary radio licence fee as from 1st September, 1972.

Difficulty has been experienced in some cases in proving to the satisfaction of the courts that a defendant was in possession of an unlicensed 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. The section also provides for a similar presumption 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 statutory declaration form. I mentioned this form earlier, when describing our present procedure for dealing with people who fail to renew their licences.

The Bill also makes provision for the better control of interference with wireless telegraphy, including interference caused by wireless telegraphy apparatus—sections 5,8 and 15.

Section 7 of the Bill 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. The purpose is to secure control over certain types of apparatus which are in use in some countries but which my Department are not prepared to license. 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. Another example of the type of equipment which would not be licensed is "bugging" apparatus. Any order made under this section may, however, allow for the grant of licences permitting the manufacture of such apparatus for export only.

I do not think that any of the remaining provisions of the Bill are controversial.

In conclusion, I should like to say that I propose to introduce some amendments mainly of a drafting nature on Committee Stage. The only change of substance involved is the proposed restoration of a provision for forfeiture of unlicensed apparatus which is in the 1926 Act and which was inadvertently omitted in drafting section 12.

I am aware that Motion No. 16 on the Order Paper asks Seanad Éireann to take note of the personnel and terms of reference of the Broadcasting Review Committee. I suggest that any general discussion on broadcasting be left over until that motion is being discussed. For my part, I would be prepared to participate in that discussion shortly after Easter. I confidently recommend the Bill to the Seanad.

Mr. Russell

I suppose this Bill might be described "The Anti-TV Sponger Bill". The fact that the Minister has to introduce a Bill of this nature is a clear admission of the failure of the present methods to identify owners of TV sets who have failed to pay the required licence fee. Among the present efforts to track down unlicensed sets, as the Minister has mentioned in his speech, is the "TV sponger" feature which appears regularly on the RTE programmes. I notice that in the other House a number of Deputies criticised this particular feature and I consider that they did so with justification. It has been suggested that the gentleman who took part in this feature was simulating a pseudo-Dublin accent. Members of the other House considered this to be an inference that only Dublin people were guilty of not paying their TV licence. As far as I understand it, the reaction has been one of amusement rather than having any impact whatsoever on defaulters. I do not think that the feature was taken very seriously. Perhaps the Minister is aware of that fact: hence this Bill.

There have been special drives made from time to time on people suspected of having unlicensed sets by the TV detector van, which fairly regularly patrols residential areas. These have failed to such an extent that the Minister, in what I assume to be an estimated figure, suggests that there are 40,000 unlicensed television sets in use at present. I do not know if the Minister regards that as an accurate minimum or a maximum figure. However, if the position is as bad as it has been represented by the Minister, I would suggest that figure is probably on the modest side: the figure may be even larger. What proportion that is in relation to the total number of licensed TV holders I do not know. Perhaps the Minister might indicate, when replying, what proportion that is. These so-called pirates are defrauding the State—that is what it amounts to: defrauding the State—of about £300,000 per year, which is a very substantial sum.

I regret that the Minister finds it necessary to introduce this step. It means a further introduction of bureaucratic interference into the affairs of the wireless trader, and also into the homes of people. I am aware that there are precedents for procuring information from traders, but I think that every step along this particular line is one that should be resisted whenever possible. It should be introduced only if it is necessary as a last resort. Apart from the fact that it is an interference into the rights of the individual, it is also putting an additional cost on to the radio trader which, as far as I can see, is not going to be reimbursed to him. In addition to collecting his turnover tax and wholesale tax for the Revenue Commissioners, he is now going to fill in forms and submit information to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs under the terms of this Bill. It means that we are using our traders and shopkeepers more and more to act as agents of various State Departments. I think this is an undesirable trend but one, apparently, which is gathering momentum rather than lessening.

If the Bill is to be interpreted in the light of the Minister's speech it seems to me that it is based on several unproven premises and I should like to mention one or two. It cannot be assumed that the extra £300,000 will be collected as a result of the implementation of the section of this Bill. The Minister tends to tie up the collection of that £300,000 with the general financial position of RTE, and I think that is wrong. Irrespective of this £300,000, whether it is collected in whole or in part, the whole financing of RTE is something that will have to be looked into very closely again. In fact, I think the Minister hinted that in the other House when he was replying to some of the points raised by the Deputies there.

Secondly, it certainly cannot be assumed that the extra revenue—I quote the Minister here—will enable RTE to provide more attractive programmes. I should like the Minister to elaborate on that statement because I do not understand how it can possibly mean what the Minister says. I would have thought that the question of the attractiveness of the RTE programmes would be something quite separate from the ability to collect all or part of this missing £300,000. The Minister goes on to say that as a result of these more attractive programmes more people will buy or hire sets. Again, with all due respect to the Minister, I think that this is based on an unsound assumption.

This Bill provides for the increase of fines to a very substantial degree. As the Minister points out, the fines are now at a figure which was arrived at many years ago, and I think the fine of £5 is now the maximum fine. It is actually lower than the price of the TV licence. But there is obviously room—I think the Minister is right to bring it in if he is to make this Bill effective at all—for substantial fines. In fact, he has introduced such fines in the Bill and I do not think anybody would cavil at that.

If you are going to make the penalties as heavy as the Bill suggests every possible step should be taken to give reasonable notice to the apparent defaulters. In giving notice I mean that the notice should be printed clearly on white paper, not on the coloured cards which are issued to remind people that their television licences are due for renewal. I think it should be done—perhaps I should not quote them as an example—by the Revenue Commissioners, who bring very vividly to your attention in their notices that you are in arrears with your income tax. Any form sent out should be clear and should impress on the defaulter, if he is a genuine defaulter, that unless his TV licence is paid and paid very quickly he will be prosecuted and fined possibly a very substantial sum of money.

The Bill appears to suggest—perhaps the Minister might refute this when he is replying—that in his efforts to control the operations of wireless dealers and manufacturers some interference at least will occur in the operational activities of what are known as "ham radio operators" and persons carrying out experience in wireless telegraphy. This would be a mistake We should give every possible encouragement to amateurs, particularly young amateurs, to experiment with wireless telegraphy and broadcasting and encourage them to perhaps come up with some new ideas and innovations that might be of benefit not only to themselves but to the country generally.

On this question of control, the Minister proposes to take powers to control the manufacture of certain types of wireless telegraphy equipment. Where a manufacture is intended for export there should be no restrictions whatsoever and every possible enencouragement should be given to people to manufacture any type of sets, whether TV or radio sets, for the export market. It should be made quite clear in the Bill in its final form that this is not intended in any way to restrict the efforts of export manufacturers.

It is not quite clear from the Bill what the procedure will be in the event of the Minister's Department securing information that a set has been sold to a person on hire purchase and if that person defaults and the set is recovered in law by the seller or the hire purchase company, as the case may be, and is resold again to another person. Is this Bill sufficiently watertight to provide for a situation such as that? I know from the reply the Minister gave to one of the Deputies in the other House that if a person gives a TV set to somebody else his Department loses all contact with it.

In a further section the Minister talks about restricting the imports of certain types of wireless telegraphy apparatus. I wonder if the Minister can do this in the light of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement and in the pending free trade agreement under EEC conditions.

The position of viewers, as the Minister will know, in the south and west of Ireland is rather unique in the context of this Bill. As I understand it—I think I am correct in saying this—the Minister has suggested that the fee for a television set is intended to cover only the expenses of the programmes sent out by RTE. The other programmes which viewers in Dublin and the east coast get from Northern Ireland or from Great Britain are apparently free. It is a bonus they enjoy because of their geographical position, a bonus which people living in the south and west of Ireland do not enjoy. That puts them in a particularly invidious position. I know the Minister has set his mind adamantly against any question of the introduction of a multi-channel system in the south and the west. He possibly has very good reasons for it. This Bill helps to highlight once more the invidious position, in which some viewers are because of their geographical disadvantage in present circumstances vis-á-vis owners of television sets in Dublin and the east coast.

In the framing of this Bill had the Minister any consultations with the wireless dealers, the traders concerned in this? If so, have they given their approval to the sections in this Bill which impinge very much on their trade? Wherever possible a Minister should consult with representative bodies in any trade. In fact it has become, certainly in some instances and with some Ministers, established practice to consult with the associations that fairly represent a particular trade or undertaking or profession. I think that is a good practice and one that should be pursued and I would be interested to know if the Minister in this case has adopted that practice and has got the support—perhaps not the enthusiastic support but at least the reasonable support—of the wireless dealers who will be asked to implement the terms of this Bill.

During the course of his speech the Minister stated that the people who are paying their TV licence are subsidising the people who are not paying their licence. The logical corollary to that statement is that if everybody paid for their licence, the Minister would be in a position to reduce the cost of TV licences. I am quite certain he has no intention of doing that. Most viewers will be satisfied if the present figure holds for a reasonable time.

In case any of my remarks might be misinterpreted I am, with the Deputy who spoke in the other House, absolutely opposed in principle and in practice to anybody enjoying any benefits gratis while their neighbours are paying their way. In some cases they are much less well-heeled than those who are avoiding what is really a very small sum of money. A fee of £7.50 may sound a lot, but when spread over 365 days there is no form of entertainment to be obtained so cheaply. I should like to pay a tribute to RTE. A good deal of brickbats are thrown at them from time to time, and I have not been slow to criticise them myself on occasions, but generally speaking the quality of programme on RTE is excellent. They are not all excellent—this would be impossible— but RTE compares very favourably with television stations outside this country.

Section 10 of the Bill suggests that the defaulter or defendant, as the Minister describes him in his speech, will be guilty until he is proved innocent. This practice is creeping into legislation and this is not the first time it has been introduced. It is a wrong practice and I should like the Minister to find a way to reverse that. It is unjust and against the principles of justice that any man or women should stand branded even as a petty criminal until they are proved to be such. When the Minister is amending the drafting of the Bill I hope he will amend that section to show clearly that a defendant in the case stated in the Bill will be innocent until the Minister and his Department can prove him guilty.

I should like to reserve any further comments I have to make on the Bill until Committee Stage as the sections could be dealt with more adequately on that Stage. I should like to emphasise to the Minister that my comments are intended to be constructive and I hope the Minister will accept them in that spirit. The Bill, unfortunately, is necessary. In view of the huge number of defaulters, we should ensure, first of all, that they get fair and adequate notice of their default and, secondly, that until they are proved guilty, they stand innocent.

Mícheál Cranitch

Fáiltím roimh an mBille seo. Más maith ann é is mithid. Is é an trua ar fad go bhfuil gá lena leithéid de Bhille. Deir an tAire go bhfuil 40,000 telefíseán in úsáid faoi láthair agus gan ceadúnas ag na daoine ar leo iad. Gan dabht, is náireach ar fad an scéal é sin. Tá súil agam go gcuirfidh an Bille seo deireadh leis an mhímhacántacht sin. Gan dabht, an £300,000 a thiocfaidh isteach ar ball, le cúnamh Dé, cabhróidh sé go mór le Radió Telefís Éireann.

It is a pity that this Bill is necessary, as it shows widespread dishonesty on the part of those who keep television sets and are not prepared to pay the necessary licence fees. It is disquieting when one looks at the numbers. The estimate is 40,000. Who could imagine the number to be so great? I wish the Minister every success in his efforts to put matters right.

The Minister has stated in his speech that he has a two-pronged attack on this evasion. It is nice to note it is a two-pronged attack on an evasion rather than an invasion. Firstly, the Minister intends to be supplied with the lists of television dealers and from that he will proceed to get details of sales and so on. I hope he will get co-operation from all television dealers. It would be to their advantage to give the fullest co-operation in this matter. He also mentions the question of fines for those who persist in evading their duties and states very clearly that the fines payable up to the present time are entirely inadequate in this day and age.

I am particularly happy about one remark made in the Minister's speech. I quote:

I propose under this provision—that is, section 12—to implement the decision to abolish the ordinary radio licence fee as from 1st September, 1972.

Everybody will welcome that because transister sets seem to be increasing every day and it is difficult to remember how many of these sets there may be in one household. Section 8, subsection 1, of the Bill states:

For the purpose of conserving the radio frequency spectrum or avoiding undue interference with world telegraphy, the Minister may, from time to time, oppose such special conditions mentioned in subsection (4) of this section as he shall think proper.

That is very important because if the spectrum is not kept reasonably clear, reception becomes a nightmare. This is particularly noticeable in regard to Radio Éireann at certain times. I wish the Minister every success in this project.

I shall not detain the House much longer because, in deference to the Minister's wishes, I will not deal with broadcasting or television in general. We can reserve that for another time. There is so much we would like to say about television and radio programmes and the philosophy behind them. However, I join with Senator Russell in passing a reserved compliment to Radio Telefís Éireann for the real excellence of many of their programmes. Generally speaking, they have a very high standard in all programmes. We would like to have a better balance in programmes where discussion is the main thing. By and large the programmes are very good. I say that because very often I have criticised them unfavourably.

Mar focal scoir táimíd ag druidim, buíochas mór le Dia, le Domnach na Cásca agus guím gach rath ar Radio na Gaeltachta. Táim féin agus Gaeilgeoirí na hÉireann ag feitheamh leis. Tá súil agam go mbeidh na cláracha go rialta, go sásúil agus, thar gach rud, oiriúnach don aos óg atá ag éirí suas sa Ghaeltacht.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

Like the other Senators who have spoken I should like to welcome this Bill. The fact that we have a Bill of this type before the House appears to me an admission of failure on the part of the detection vans that we saw and heard so much about on television advertisements in the past couple of years. We were led to believe that these detection vans could find out even the make of your television set if you had an unlicensed one. It would be interesting to know how much it cost in advertising time on RTE.

One Deputy said in the Dáil that the figure of 40,000 unlicensed sets was a very conservative one. He put the number of unlicensed sets at from 60,000 to 70,000. Perhaps he was exaggerating the situation. Assuming there are 40,000 unlicensed sets with a loss of £300,000 a year, this is something that has to be considered. I agree that the only way to tackle the problem is through measures such as those taken in this Bill, that is to ask the wireless dealers throughout the country to make a return of all television sets either sold or hired out. There is not a great problem so far as hired sets are concerned because some arrangement is made in regard to the licence being paid on those sets. This is carried in some of the notices we find in newspapers advertising the hire of television sets.

There are quite a number of television licensees who must view with a certain amount of concern the facilities that those who live in certain parts of this country have in that we can have multi-channel viewing as against other parts where they are limited to one station. There was also the complaint that in many parts of the country they were receiving a very poor RTE picture. Those people are not getting much value for their £7.50 licence fee. I am not making the case that people who have a television set should not pay their licence because they do not get the best reception, but there is an onus on RTE to ensure that, if people have to pay the licence fee of £7.50, they are entitled to the best reception it is possible to give in those areas. There should not be areas in the country where RTE reception is bad or even second rate. Those of us who live in the eastern portion of the country have the benefit of two, three and in many cases four channels. That is of considerable advantage to us and we can say we are getting really good value for our £7.50 licence fee. I hope the Bill will achieve the aims of the Minister.

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. G. Collins)

I should like to thank Senators for their contributions to this Bill and for their very constructive comments. I am glad the House recognises that this legislation is necessary. Perhaps it is something we would have preferred to do without if at all possible but, as I say, it is necessary. I was pleased that there was general recognition by the contributors to this debate that this is so. Everything possible should be done to see to it that all television holders pay their licence fees so that the part of the cost of providing television programmes which comes from licence fees be equally shared by all viewers.

I am confident that, with the heavier fines the Bill will permit and the additional information coming from dealers, the problems of evasion will be reduced quite quickly. My Department's staff will still be called upon to carry on the regular work of recording, reminding and issuing of licences which is associated with the licensing system; but with the measures which this Bill seeks to provide the collection operation will be a more complete and a more successful one. The dealers will have a very important part to play in that operation. As I have already indicated, Senators have recognised there will be additional work for them in recording transactions and providing information about them to my Department. It is the intention of my Department to seek consultations with the representatives of the dealers on the ways in which the measures in this Bill which affect them may best be implemented. I confidently look forward to their co-operation in solving this persistent problem of licence evasion. There is nothing new in the principle of having information about sales and renting of television sets made known to the Department. For many years garages have been performing a somewhat similar function in regard to motor car transactions.

The vast majority of viewers pay their licence fees and their names and addresses are listed in the records of my Department. The additional information which will be forthcoming under the provisions of the Bill will enable the gaps in my Department's records to be filled more efficiently.

In regard to the principle of having information about the sale of television set transactions furnished to my Department, as proposed in this Bill, I am satisfied there is nothing whatsoever involved that need disturb anyone. This kind of legislation is already in operation in nine Western European countries, including the United Kingdom. There is no evidence of dissatisfaction with the way in which it is operating. The information will only be used for the purpose of following up suspected licence fee evasion. There need be no fears that it will be used for any other end.

I should like to assure Senator Russell that I accept all his comments as constructive but I take issue with him on a few minor points. Perhaps I may have taken him up wrongly, but it is not fair to say that the fact that we are introducing this Bill is a clear admission of failure to operate the system of collecting fees. I have given the figure of 40,000 unlicensed television sets, which was referred to by other Senators as well, and this is a calculated figure. It may be a conservative one. It was suggested in the other House by Deputy O'Leary that the figure could be to 60,000, and Senator J. Fitzgerald was inclined to agree with him on this figure. It may be, but to the best of my knowledge the figure is in the region of 40,000. This figure is about 8 per cent of the total number of television sets in the country. At the end of last year there were 474,000 television licences and the 40,000 unlicenced sets is 8 per cent of that.

Senator Fitzgerald said that the detector van and the other methods which we were using to collect fees were not as good as we were pretending. Naturally we would, if we could, pretend that they were far better than what they are. Even if we never had records from dealers, which we will have after this Bill has been passed, I should not like to be caught, knowing that the maximum fine for the first offence is £50 and that for the second offence £100. There would not be many who would gamble like this if they understood the risks they were taking. I should like to mention that 8 per cent is not very high compared with other countries, but we still consider it too high.

Senator Russell said it could not be assumed, as I said in my opening statement, that the sum of £300,000 would be collected. We might not collect exactly £300,000, but if what Senator Fitzgerald says is true, that there are more than 40,000 licence evasions, we could collect more. Whatever the amount, we have a better chance of collecting a larger sum by having the provisions of this Bill, in operation.

Senator Russell mentioned briefly the question of the general financing of RTE, which was also referred to by Senator Cranitch. As was admitted by both Senators, this is not really a topic for discussion at this particular time. Perhaps we can talk about this in the near future. I should like to assure the Senators that this particular matter is at the present time being given consideration by the Broadcasting Review Committee. When they have completed their task and are making their submissions to me I feel they will have certain recommendations on this particular subject.

Senator Russell believes it cannot be assumed that the extra revenue which will be collected in the future will be used to provide for more attractive programmes. The Senator will realise that programmes are very expensive, but if RTE have more money available to them they will find many ways of using it. In doing this I would hope we would get better programmes.

Mr. Russell

Would the Minister agree that it is not always necessarily a matter of money? The question of selection and judgement comes into it too.

Mr. G. Collins

I would agree wholeheartedly with the Senator. Quality is not always a matter of money, but the Senator will agree with me that money is a very necessary factor in the production of programmes.

Mr. Russell

I agree completely.

Mr. G. Collins

I remember hearing in this House a Senator from Cork mentioning a personal experience in regard to the amount it cost for his personal appearance on a particular programme. We realise the cost when we see what his two minutes appearance on a particular programme cost, between hotels, taxis and so on. But, of course, it could be argued that the Senator was certainly bringing quality to that programme.

Mr. Russell

Did he get in?

Mr. G. Collins

He is sitting not very far away from Senator Russell.

Professor Quinlan

I might assure the Minister I did not put RTE to that expense. I thought it was unwarranted.

Mr. G. Collins

It was suggested that the renewal notification methods used by my Department were not good enough. I believe they are and I do not think, at this stage, that it should be necessary for me to go into any great detail on the methods we use for the purpose of getting people to renew their licences. If anybody wants me to do so I can, but I assure the House that we are satisfied that the methods which we use for getting people to renew their licences are reasonably good ones. I know that we could do better but it could cost us more and, as it is, the collection costs are somewhere in the region of 11 per cent. We do our best to keep the collection costs down. If they get too high the people in Montrose say they are too high and should be lower. I try to pick the middle of the road in that regard. I am satisfied we are doing everything we can to get the licence fees in.

Senator Russell, and indeed any other Senator, need have no fear whatsoever that ham radio operators will be interfered with. I gave an assurance in the other House that they will not be interfered with and I wish to repeat it here. There is nothing in this Bill that would interfere with ham radio operators. I do not believe anyone would wish it to be otherwise. Senator Russell also expressed the fear that apparatus manufactured for export will be interfered with. There will be no interference whatsoever with any apparatus manufactured for export only.

I do not think it would be in order for me to deal at any length with the question raised by Senators Russell and Fitzgerald with regard to multichannel television viewing for the south and west of Ireland. I think we can leave that matter over for the time being. I feel sure it is a matter that has also been considered by the Broadcasting Review Committee.

Senator Russell asked if we had had any consultation with the trade. There has been consultation with the television dealer organisations about this Bill. The matter was discussed a few years ago with representatives of the dealers and they had no objection in principle to the main ideas in the Bill. It is intended to have further consultations with the trade about the manner in which the measures affecting them will be implemented.

Senator Russell mentioned some difficulties that might arise when we become members of the EEC in connection with the prohibition on the importation of apparatus. I cannot see any objection whatsoever to the provision prohibiting the sale or importation of apparatus of a kind which my Department is not prepared to licence. A similar provision applies in British legislation and the same principle arises in the case of other articles which may not be imported into the country under existing legislation. We are satisfied that this will present no difficulty.

I note that Senator Cranitch is quite pleased that radio licences are being abolished. The majority of people are pleased about this. I should like to join with Senator Cranitch in his remarks on Radio na Gaeltachta. We all hope it will be very successful. I think I have covered most of the points raised in the debate. If there are any others I shall deal with them on the Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 22nd March, 1972.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.15 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 22nd March, 1972.