(Dublin Central), Mr. Walsh, Mr. Daly and Mr. Molloy asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs the amount of money borrowed by RTE in excess of permissible statutory limits up to 31st December 1975.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - RTE Borrowing.
8.
Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick
RTE have not borrowed money in excess of permissible statutory limits.
(Dublin Central): I understand the statutory limit available to RTE is £4 million. Have they not borrowed beyond that from private sources? In the new Broadcasting Bill this is being increased considerably.
If the Deputy would tell me in virtue of what section of the relevant statute he thinks RTE have exceeded their limitation, I will try to help him. There are several relevant sections. The matter is somewhat complex.
(Dublin Central): Under the 1962 measure I think they were empowered to borrow £4 million with the permission of the Minister for Finance. I understand that under the new Bill this is being increased considerably but, in the meantime, they have to borrow from associated banks and merchant banks while awaiting the passing of the Bill through the Oireachtas.
There are three relevant sections. Section 23 of the 1960 Act provides for Exchequer advances to RTE for capital purposes, and there has been no excess there. Section 27 provides that they may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, borrow money by means of the creation of stock and so on. RTE have been given authority under that section to borrow up to £3.433 million. They have not exceeded this limit. Approval for this borrowing was given pending an increase in the present statutory limit for repayable advances under the section I referred to previously.
(Dublin Central): Could the Minister give any indication where RTE are finding the money to build the second TV channel? Under what section are they getting it? Are they borrowing it privately outside?
The Deputy is expanding the scope of the question.
This is a separate question. The Deputy's original question contained the rather serious suggestion that RTE might be in breach of their statutory limits.
(Dublin Central): I am not saying that.
There is no foundation for that. If the Deputy wants to put a further question about RTE's finances, he is, of course, at liberty to do so.
Is it not a fact that there is a section in the Broadcasting Bill at present before the House on Committee Stage authorising an increase in the limits of borrowing available to RTE, which are controlled by legislation in this House? That being so and the Bill not being passed, has the Minister for Finance authorised borrowing by RTE from sources other than from State funds, and is the cost of such borrowing——
This is a long question.
——not greater than the rate of interest which would otherwise be charged to RTE had the Bill been passed and——
The Deputy is making a speech.
——the borrowing been allowed?
That is a separate question.
(Dublin Central): That is the reason why the question is down.
The original question related to alleged excess over permissible limits.
I had not finished my question.
I will allow the Deputy a brief and relevant question.
I apologise to the Deputy. I thought he had finished.
I have one final question. Could the Minister state whether the additional cost of such borrowing has meant, in effect, a loss of possibly £100,000 to RTE?
This is an entirely separate question.
It is very important. A sum of £100,000 is involved.
It may be important but it is not relevant.
(Dublin Central): The Minister has said——
I am calling the next question, No. 9.
(Dublin Central): The Minister is——
Has the Deputy a question?
(Dublin Central): What Deputy Molloy has said is true, that RTE had to borrow through the commercial banks at a much higher rate——
Why is the Minister hiding it?
I am hiding nothing. I am prepared to reply to questions put down. The supplementaries are irrelevant to the present question.