Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 8 Nov 1978

Vol. 309 No. 3

Private Members' Business. - RTE Licence Fees: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Deputy O'Toole on Tuesday, 7 November 1978:

That Dáil Éireann deplores the decision of the Government to authorise RTE to increase licence fees.

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"takes note of the decision of the Government to allow an increase in licence fees to provide for the second television service.".

—(Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.)

Mr. Corish

Last night I spoke about advertising as a source of revenue for RTE and some other methods whereby increased moneys could be made available rather than by increasing licence fees. I was surprised to discover recently that only 77 per cent of advertising space was sold. I should like to know the reason for this and the Minister of State might give some explanation. Possibly the rates are too high or people have not been canvassed. If advertising space were filled to the extent of 100 per cent it should reduce licence fees. I am conscious of the fact that there is a limited time allowed for advertising on RTE which is 7½ per cent. I advocated that the Government should establish a community or local radio which would be another source of revenue.

We should look at the pattern of financing in RTE in recent years. I have extracted some figures from an RTE publication for the year ended 31 March 1973. Licence fees represented 41 per cent of revenue and this amounted to £3.4 million. In the same year advertising on radio and television was £4.4 million or 53 per cent of income. I submit there has been a fairly dramatic change in the ratio between the moneys paid to Telefís Éireann by way of licence fee and by way of advertising. On 30 September 1978 the income from licence fees was £10.3 million. It was 47 per cent of the total revenue whereas on 31 March 1973 the amount received from licence fees was 41 per cent of total revenue. We have then the figures for advertising. For the year ended 31 March 1973 advertising stood at £4.4 million and was 53 per cent of total income. On 30 September 1978 advertising stood at £9.6 million and was only 43 per cent of income. That is why in my contribution last night and here now again I emphasise the fact that advertising has not been fully exploited. The rates have not been adjusted upwards to mitigate what is now a burden on the holder of a television licence. Perhaps the Minister of State would comment on these figures and tell the House why the proportion of moneys received by RTE has dropped dramatically since 1973.

As far as licensing fees are concerned, in 1977 the income from that source was £10.3 million. In 1973 it was £3.4 million. That was an increase of 203 per cent in the amount received for licensing fees between 1973 and 1977. Again we see that advertising was not making the same sort of contribution that it made in 1973 because in 1977 revenue from advertising was £9.6 million and in 1973 it was £4.4 million. That means advertising revenue increased by 118 per cent from 1973 to 1977 whereas, as far as licence fees were concerned, they increased by 203 per cent in the same period. I would like the Minister of State to comment on these figures because it appears to me that, if advertising were fully exploited, the increase now proposed in the licence fee would not be as big as it is. Perhaps the Minister might say at the same time why there has not been a steady ratio between licensing fees and advertising.

Minister of State at the Department of Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. T. J. Fitzpatrick

, Dublin South-Central): The important thing is to find out first of all what exactly we are talking about and what this increase is designed to cover and thereby get the matter into proper perspective. Some Deputies seem to be under the impression that some of these moneys are required to finance the entire RTE budget. Let me be explicit about this. The increases are designed to finance a completely separate service, RTE 2. RTE 2 is not an extension of the present television service. It is a new additional service. That is what we are talking about and it is within that context we should address our remarks. It might be argued that the increases are too large for this particular new service, but that is a matter of opinion.

Let us dwell briefly on why it was necessary to have this second channel. It is impossible for any broadcasting company to give a proper service with only one channel. Away back in 1971 the idea of a second channel was mooted to enable the RTE Authority to fulfill the purpose of a national broadcasting company. The question of the control of the second channel was discussed at length. Should it be under an Irish authority or should it be, as some Government Ministers sitting on these benches then argued, a re-transmission of BBC in its entirety? That debate took place over a considerable period in 1974 and 1975. In 1975 a survey of a cross-section of the community was taken and it was decided by a substantial majority that the service should be under the control of the RTE Authority. The Coalition Government of the day then decided to go ahead and establish a second channel. Had some of the Coalition Ministers had their way we would not be here speaking about RTE 2 tonight. The fact that we are is something of which I am proud.

Will it be worth the money? Will it be worth the additional £4.50 and £7? I believe it will justify this increase. RTE 2 gave an undertaking that they would pick the best available from the multi-channel areas, from BBC 1, BBC 2 and ITV. I believe the Authority will live up to that undertaking. I also believe that those living in the single channel area, such as Limerick, Mayo and elsewhere, are entitled to the best that can be got from the multi-channel viewing available. But we must be practicable about this. I am convinced that the majority of those in the areas affected would not hesitate for one moment to pay the additional charges required.

It is expensive to run a high quality television service. That is what we hope to have. That is what I expect from the second channel. In a recent statement RTE have undertaken that 20 per cent of the programmes will be of Irish production. Hopefully at some time this may be more. When I say that I do not mean we will have a cheap Irish production. I expect it to be of high quality, employing Irish artists of the highest standards, Irish producers and musicians. If we are to employ those people, instead of having them emigrate to England or America enticed by high salaries, it is important that we be in a position to be able to get the best for that 20 per cent that will be of Irish production. These are the things we are talking about when we speak of these increases. These are the opportunities RTE will now be in a position with the additional channel to offer Irish people using the resources we propose here for that type of production. It is easy to put on a cheap canned programme of low quality. RTE could fill the hours with such programmes if they wanted to. I do not believe people in the single channel areas or in the multi-channel areas who will also watch RTE 2 would wish that. I hope we shall never see RTE revert to low standards due to the fact that this House deprives them of the necessary revenue to put on programmes of the standard people are entitled to.

Within the Authority an additional 200 people will be employed. If any factory were established in Mayo, Galway or Limerick employing 200 people, I should like to see what the grants per job created would be from the IDA. That is worth considering in relation to these increases. I have no doubt that the figure would be in the region of £4,000 to £6,000 per job created. This is a rather exclusive type of job creation. We are speaking of creative artists, writers and so on, of whom there are not a great many in the country. I am confident that, if one canvassed opinion in any part of the country and explained exactly what is involved in these increases, people would have no hesitation in saying they agreed to the increases proposed.

It is important to put the matter in its proper context when criticising the increases that have taken place. We are talking of £4.50 per year for the black and white licence. RTE give a service 365 days of the year, something which very few service industries offer. In my calculation the increase represents about 1.53p per night for black and white. We talk of a £7 increase for the colour licence but if that is divided by 365 it is less than 2p per night of an increase for a service that a person or a family can have in the sitting room for four, five or six hours' viewing especially during winter nights. It is an amount one would not give to the paper boy as a tip; that is what we are talking about, a penny halfpenny motion. If it were realistic, I would not say that.

I can see the service and the benefits that will accrue for the increase of less than 2p per night for colour. Not only that, but the structure of RTE will be strengthened. We are now in the European Community and we must be sure of one thing. While I favour economic, monetary and political co-operation, no member of the Community will ever demand that we lose our identity. But the pressures are there and we shall be depending on our own teachers, newspapers and broadcasting authorities to ensure that we keep our culture to the fore and ensure that it will not be submerged in Europe among the strong cultures of Italy, France and others who will see to it that their own cultures will survive. This is what we are talking about when considering this miserable 2p per night increase for the broadcasting of a second channel. Even if it was one channel I would not consider the increase excessive but the fact that we have a distinctly new programme on the air since last Thursday night will make it very difficult in my opinion for anybody to criticise except a few Deputies in this House. I would have no hesitation in going to any part of the country and publicly debating that type of performance and explaining what we are offering the people for this nominal extra charge per night.

There was reference in Deputy O'Toole's remarks last night to the RTE monopoly that I think what the Minister, Deputy Faulkner, said in reply to a parliamentary question should be clarified and put in proper context. It would appear that Deputy O'Toole got the impression from the Minister's reply that it had been decided that the RTE monopoly would continue indefinitely. The Deputy must have misunderstood the Minister. The relevant part of the Minister's reply to the parliamentary question by Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy O'Donnell on 1 November is as follows:

Under existing legislation only RTE can be given a licence to operate a broadcasting station. Whether there should be any changes in that position is one of a number of aspects of broadcasting to which I am giving consideration.

That is what the Minister said.

Mr. O'Toole

The Minister misinterpreted my interpretation. I was referring to the commitment on monopolies on page 7 of the Fianna Fáil manifesto.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin South-Central): The Deputy referred to the Minister's statement of the previous day.

Mr. O'Toole

I quoted a section from the manifesto.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister of State is in possession.

Mr. O'Toole

The Minister of State misinterpreted what I had said. It is clarified now.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin South-Central): I read the Deputy's speech of last night. The Deputy quoted from the manifesto and then said that he took the view from the Minister the previous day that this was to continue.

Deputy O'Toole also mentioned last night that RTE were surprised with the increases they were granted.

Mr. O'Toole

They were pleasantly surprised.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin South-Central): I do not know where the Deputy got that information. The position is that RTE proposed increases in fees which would produce an extra £2.3 million in the financial year ending 30 September 1979. It was estimated that this amount would be needed to bridge the gap between extra advertising income and the running costs of RTE in that period. The increased costs of the licence that will come into effect from 1 December were designed to yield this amount in the ten months ending 30 September next. It is ludicrous to think that any Minister or Government would grant more than was asked. Deputy O'Toole left the impression that RTE were given more than they requested. Did the Deputy ever hear of an employer saying “I will give you more than you ask”? That was a ludicrous statement containing no substance.

Deputy O'Toole criticised the increases as being excessive. If we refer back to the increases which took place under the previous administration it will be obvious that Deputy O'Toole did not do any research into them. Deputy O'Toole said that the increase in the cost of licences represented a 24 per cent for black and white televisions and 22 per cent for colour televisions. I know the Minister dealt with this last night but there are a few points which I will go into before dealing with other aspects. As the Minister stated, the Coalition Government were well aware when they decided in November 1975 to entrust a second channel to RTE that this would involve a substantial increase in licence fees. The previous June RTE published a booklet containing estimates of the cost of the second channel, at 1975 prices. After deducting £750,000 for extra advertising revenue from 1979 onwards, the cost of RTE 2 was shown as £3,914,000. The booklet also said that if the cost was to be met by increasing the cost of licences the additional requirement would be £7.10 per licence. From the number of licences current at the time it appeared that the £7.10 was to apply to all licences. The licence fees at that time were £12 for a black and white television and £20 for a colour television. It is clear that at that time RTE envisaged an increase in the licence fee of 60 per cent for a black and white television and 35 per cent for a colour television. It is possible that the Coalition Government intended that if the licence fees were to be increased to provide for RTE 2, a smaller increase would apply to black and white televisions and that a larger increase would apply to colour television, increasing the 35 per cent increase just mentioned.

Although at least a 35 per cent increase was envisaged in 1975 the actual increase is a 24 per cent increase. If Deputy O'Toole had researched these figures he could not be sincere when he says that these are astronomical increases for the service given and the second independent channel. These are the kind of contradictory statements we get from the Opposition. These figures were available to the Deputy. They were contained in the booklet issued by RTE.

Deputy Corish in his speech wondered why RTE did not rely more upon advertising. In several of RTE's annual reports RTE give it as their view that they have been relying on advertising for too high a proportion of income and that this is both undesirable and unsound. They point out that experience has shown that advertising revenue is acutely sensitive to external economic conditions and they consider it too volatile a basis for forming such a significant proportion of broadcasting finance. RTE's latest report shows that advertising was responsible for 44 per cent of their total income. Deputy Corish also asked if advertising rates had been increased recently. I understand that in the present decade advertising charges have been increased almost every year. The National Prices Commission have been consulted on each of the last six occasions when rates were revised.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has five minutes left.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin South-Central): In relation to the cost of advertising, Deputy Corish mentioned that only 77 per cent of advertising was taken up over the past 12 months. RTE determined, with the approval of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, that the total daily time for broadcasting advertisements and the maximum period to be given to advertising in any hour on television should be 10 per cent of the total daily programme subject to 7½ minutes in any one hour. RTE says that the figure of 77 per cent which is quoted in their annual report for 1977 represents the average annual amount of advertising time sold in their financial year ended 30 September 1977. In their financial year just ended advertising time sold represented 82 per cent of the total time available for advertising. In practice, during the viewing period 6.00 p.m. to 11.30 p.m., outside the summer months of July and August, over 90 per cent of television advertising time has been sold. In November it was as high as 98 per cent. At other times of the day it is difficult to sell advertising except at much reduced rates. Advertisers are interested in reaching the maximum number of viewers for the minimum cost per viewer. This attitude is reflected in RTE's rate card structure. For example, the cost of a 60-second advertisement on RTE 1 television between 6 p.m. and close of transmission at midnight is £693. The same commercial would cost only £234 before 6 p.m. It is obvious that afternoon programmes do not represent an attractive advertising medium in terms of audience size and RTE are satisfied that if charges were set at an even lower rate for this period the additional advertising which might be attracted would not result in an increase in total advertising revenue. Under the Broadcasting Authority Acts the RTE Authority has the function of determining the amount of broadcasting time to be allocated to advertising, subject to the approval of the Minister. Over the years an average of 40 per cent to 50 per cent of RTE's income has come from advertising. RTE say there is a limit to the amount of advertising available and, indeed, a limit to the degree that RTE would wish to be dependent on advertising. It has been the long-standing policy of the Authority to keep RTE's dependence on advertising income within reasonable limits. Over the years the rates were increased substantially. There was an increase in advertising each year between January 1972 and January 1978 varying between 10 per cent and 30 per cent. That could not be increased any further without diminishing the number of advertisers. For that reason there were very few places where the Authority could find revenue. We now have a new channel and it is important to bear that in mind. For that reason the increase is not excessive. The new programmes will create employment for about 200 artists and others. Many people would like to see the Chieftains, our musicians and our orchestras on television but it costs money to include them in such a programme. It is important that a national broadcasting corporation can do that. I am convinced that our people will willingly pay this amount for the additional service they will receive.

Mr. Deasy

I am not going to dispute all the points made by the Minister of State. I am sure some of the statements are facts but he has a nerve to deny that these increases are extravagant. We have a very limited television service here but we are asked to pay £38 for a colour television licence in comparison with £21 in Great Britain. That is a great discrepancy.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin South-Central): They have 80 million viewers.

Mr. Deasy

We will be paying £23 for a licence for a black and white set while in Britain they will be paying £12. I do not believe the comparison between the population is the whole story. The Minister should look a little deeper into the running of RTE and ask if it is top heavy with staff and if they are being extravagant. Do we have to send our commentators to report on the European Ice Skating Championships in Zagreb or to the gymnastic championships in Strasbourg? In my view those expenses could and should be avoided. On the other hand, do we have to bring the discomfort of advertisements into our homes every few minutes? The better the programme on RTE the greater the frequency of advertisements. The Minister should look at this problem.

The main point in our Constitution is that all citizens be treated equally but when it comes to television reception we have a class society. Almost two-thirds of our population can receive RTE 1 and 2 and a variety of BBC and ITV channels. Some people can obtain as many as six different channels but most can obtain four. On the other hand, the remaining one-third of the population receive RTE 1 and 2. There is a great lack of privilege there. In my view there is an onus on the Government to see that everybody gets the same treatment in this regard. It is in their power to see that all sections of the country get the same type of service as those living on the eastern seaboard and those in the northern counties. I believe Fianna Fáil made a pledge to that effect before the last election but they reneged on it.

Half of County Waterford can only receive one channel and last week I was told in this House that the remaining half of the county cannot hope to get RTE 2 until 1980. However, those people are expected to pay the increased licence fee in common with everybody else. Is that justice? I do not believe it is. I understand that the technical problems involved in bringing the new channel to that part of the country are not great and are easily overcome. Why has this not been done, particularly when the fees are being increased? There are parts of County Waterford and County Kerry where it is not possible to receive any channel on television. If it is very frosty or stormy those people get no reception. This has been admitted by Ministers when replying to questions which I tabled. In Ballymacarbery in the Nire Valley they are dependant on weather for television reception. Surely that is a travesty of justice; we are asking those people to pay £38 for periodic television reception. That is what I mean by having a class society among television viewers.

Many years ago we were promised that this problem would be rectified but we are still waiting. We have been told that 90 per cent of the country can receive RTE 1 and 2 but I should like to dispute those figures because many more people cannot get RTE 2. The figure is a lot less than 90 per cent. The Minister has referred to the cultural aspect of the home television service and I do not wish to dwell on that subject. We would all like to see more home-produced programmes but television is a very severe medium and unless one is very professional at one's job one will be shown up in a bad light on that medium. The fact is that we do not have the talent to substantially man our television services. We do not have the artists or the performers. We would have a second-rate service if we were to rely on too many home-produced programmes. The majority of programmes must be imported.

We hear the expression being used "imported thrash" but generally speaking the best programmes on RTE are imported and are of a very high cultural and artistic value, be they crime, westerns or whatever. Generally speaking they are very professional productions. Some of the home-produced programmes are extremely poor, very amateurish; one would not believe they were produced by professionals. It would be erroneous to think that we could produce an enormous number of home-produced television programmes. We cannot. The number and type are quite limited. Of necessity we are limited in our range because we have not got the talent. There is also the factor that we seem to produce these programmes at enormous cost. Quite often it seems much cheaper to produce a superior product from abroad. I make my comparisons on the same type of subjects.

Some of us listen to RTE radio, watch RTE television, we read the local newspapers and we see references to programmes and individuals of whom we have never heard. We are the underprivileged group—the people who live in the one-third area who do not get multi-channel reception. We hear of programmes such as those of Dave Allen, Starsky and Hutch and others but we have no knowledge of what they are all about. We feel we are out in the cold. Now we learn we are likely to lose two of our best performers who are being attracted to Britain where obviously they will be paid a better fee. The best of luck to them. But it means that people in the one and two channel areas whom I represent will be deprived of outstanding artists, people like Mike Murphy and Gay Byrne if this week's newspaper reports are true. Is it fair that we should have to watch limited talent, people with not a great deal of artistic ability while two-thirds of the country has at its disposal the choice of four or perhaps six different channels? I do not think so, but the picture can be changed almost with the stroke of a pen. In that connection I might refer to a letter written by the Minister of State, when shadow Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in May, 1977, when he gave this promise to a group representing that underprivileged section, the Cork multi-channel TV campaign committee:

Further to my recent letter I wish to inform you that Fianna Fáil will make whatever legislative changes necessary to permit the re-transmission of multi-channel signals accepting of course your assurance on the question of copyright, financing and trade union agreement.

We all know it is easy to make pre-election promises when it costs one nothing. The election is over—you were successful—and I should like to know why he did not live up to that promise. He did qualify his promise by saying that the question of copyright, finance and the views of the trade union movement would have to be taken into consideration. But the House would like to know did the Minister of State ever enquire whether those problems could be overcome—not to my knowledge or to that of the Cork multi-channel campaign committee. Was the present Minister of State totally dishonest in order to gain votes? I think he was.

Last week I tabled a question to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs asking if he would consider amending existing legislation to allow for the replay of TV signals by microwave and other links. The bland answer to that question was "No".

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have allowed all Deputies a lot of latitude in dealing with television. I would remind the Deputy that the motion before the House deals solely with the increase in television fees. He has not even mentioned that yet.

Mr. Deasy

I am getting very close to the bone, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and I appreciate that you would want to put me off course.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That sort of statement has been made in the House before. As I said previously, the Chair's bones are fairly tough. The Deputy is not getting a bit close to them. The Chair will give every Deputy his fair due but is very anxious that the Deputy keep to the motion before the House.

Mr. Deasy

I know it is not a popular thing with the other side of the House but I am quoting from a letter written by the present Minister of State, when shadow Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. I am referring also to an answer to a similar question I posed in the House last week. The two are quite contradictory. We did not even have an explanation of the contradiction. We are entitled to one, as are the Cork multi-channel committee. Indeed, the public in general are entitled to an explanation of why the Taoiseach, in a letter to that same multi-channel campaign committee in Cork two weeks ago, stated that people who were relaying television signals from Britain were leaving themselves open to prosecution. That is quite a change—from a pre-election promise of saying they would allow such to happen after consultation with the unions and in regard to copyright. Now they threaten with prosecution. the same people, the same system and people who operate that system.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is really making an Estimates speech. The Chair doubts very much if the money being raised on television fees has anything to do with outside broadcasting or television.

Mr. Deasy

The Chair has reminded me of something I had forgotten. I think I am making a speech of conscience, on the difference between what was promised and what was not delivered.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is anxious that the Deputy make a speech on the motion before the House.

Mr. Deasy

The increase in the colour television licence is from £31 to £38. If one lives in Dublin one does not get such a bad deal with four or perhaps six channels, I reckon that is value for money. I would not complain too much if I lived in Dublin city and had a choice of six channels for £38 a year. I would say that was fair dues. Let us examine the position of somebody living in Waterford city. One pays £38 for receiving RTE 1 and RTE 2. They are getting it there but we are not receiving it in the western part of the country. However, if one wants to get the channels the people in Dublin are receiving one has to connect up to the local cable vision company's receiving apparatus. The annual fee for that is £21. Therefore, that person's television licence for the year, for all practical purposes, is £59 in Waterford city.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin South-Central): The Deputy must not be aware that there are charges for cable connection in Dublin.

Mr. Deasy

There are some, yes.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin South-Central): Not some.

Mr. Deasy

They are being relayed by the Minister's Department, not by the cable vision company as in Waterford—that is a private company—but the method is the very same. It is ironic that the Department are stopping people from relaying them in other parts of the country—such as from one part of Waterford to another and from Waterford to Cork—while they do it themselves in Dublin. It is downright dishonesty. The man with a television in Waterford city pays £59 for much the same service as his counterpart in Dublin who pays £38, whereas a man in Cork, Kerry or Limerick pays £38 for a substantially lower quantity and quality of television service.

Those points are very relevant. The Minister is being dreadfully dishonest, as is the Taoiseach, by threatening to prosecute the people to whom they promised the same thing before the election. I am not issuing threats. However, I am telling the Minister that if the threat which was issued two weeks ago that those people would be prosecuted for relaying this message is carried out the Government will have a revolution on their hands in Waterford.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should really get down to the motion. We are dealing only with the increases in television fees. The Deputy has gone over the whole field of television and the Department's activities.

Mr. Deasy

I thank you for your indulgence.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am very indulgent tonight but the Deputy is leaning very heavily on it.

Mr. Deasy

This is a localised matter. In West Waterford we depend on a transposer at Mount Stuart, Dungarvan, which goes out of action about once a week at peak viewing times. I know it is not the Minister's fault and it could have happened with Senator Cruise-O'Brien when he was Minister. He would have got a lot more criticism than the present Minister because he is a more prominent national figure. I am not blaming the Minister.

Mr. Killilea

He was Minister for all Departments.

Mr. Deasy

He did it very well.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should really get back to the motion. The Deputy is raising matters which should be raised by way of question or on the Estimate.

Mr. Deasy

I will not quote the Minister's letter to the multi-channel committee. I am letting him off the hook perhaps but I am not a very hard individual. Is it fair to the public that in West Waterford they have to put up with that standard of technology? It is deplorable that this transmitter goes out of action so regularly and it can take hours and sometimes days before it is repaired. We are paying for a very inferior service and the further west one goes in the country the more inferior the service becomes.

Mr. Moore

As my time is very limited I will not try to discuss either the merits or demerits of RTE.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has 20 minutes.

Mr. Moore

I thought the time was shorter. I will not emulate the last speaker who wandered all over the place. His speech was not so much in support of the motion as a type of Bord Fáilte Discover Ireland speech. He took us all over the country without even referring to the matter before the House. This motion breeds cynicism among the people towards the Oireachtas. It is an insult to their intelligence to suggest that the Opposition are sincere about this matter. Their policy in relation to RTE licence fee increases is on the record. They hope that the people will forget that record and believe they never increased the fees. We all know that they increased television fees. While nobody wants to pay extra money for any service, at least on this occasion when the increase has been sanctioned people will get extra service for what they will pay. Before this they got nothing extra. They simply had to pay the increased fees sanctioned on many occasions by the previous Government. If the Opposition had any sense of justice or responsibility they would not have put down this motion. They gave very little thought to it but they hoped they would get a bubble reputation for opposing price increases. This motion will not do anything like that. It will make the Opposition look very foolish in the people's eyes. The motion reads:

That Dáil Éireann deplores the decision of the Government to authorise RTE to increase licence fees.

It reflects on them because they permitted increased fees. The speakers I have heard so far have not added anything to the critical statement in the motion. We all know that RTE, like any other service all over the world, have their problems with prices and everything else. When the Minister's Estimate comes along we will have more to say about the failings or merits of RTE. Tonight we are discussing a motion by the main Opposition party deploring the Government's decision to increase the licence fees. If they had a clean record one could say they were doing their job properly but if we go back over the record we find that their hands are not clean in this respect. They not alone gave increases but they ignored the National Prices Commission on one occasion and gave a greater increase than the RTE Authority had asked for. How can they justify themselves tonight when they think of that record? Is there any sincerity left in public life when we have this kind of motion? The people are not fooled by it. They are well able to judge on this issue.

I believe that the people will deal harshly with the Fine Gael Party who put down this motion not because they want to pay more fees but because they have insulted the people's intelligence by suggesting that they are sincere in opposing the Government's decision to allow price increases. We should, for the sake of democracy, be very jealous of what goes on in the House because democracy all over the world is taking a hammering. It is this type of thing which makes people become unconcerned about what happens to democracy and which tarnishes this House with the smear of being hypocritical.

Mr. O'Toole

I object to being called hypocritical.

Mr. Moore

I repeat the charge.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Nobody made a charge against Deputy O'Toole of being hypocritical. If I understand what Deputy Moore said, he said that people outside the House were charging this House with being hypocritical. He did not mention Deputy O'Toole.

Mr. Moore

I did not mention any names. I will go further. I brand all the Deputy's party with being hypocritical in regard to this motion. I state with all sincerity that the Deputy's party are being hypocritical, whether they like it or not. Deputy O'Toole seems to be taking this to heart because there is some hope for him if he takes it to heart.

Mr. O'Toole

I appreciate the Deputy's concern.

Mr. Moore

I am very concerned for the Deputy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Moore on the motion.

Mr. Moore

The Deputy accepts so well and I am not unhopeful that he may be saved yet from his own folly. The Coalition Government increased fees many times and shed no tears over it; and the people had to pay. At least we are giving an extra service, an extra channel which was never there before. People criticise RTE 2, and RTE 1 for that matter, but at least an effort has been made here to give something for the extra money. I do not know if it will be possible to give another channel when the next increase comes.

When Fianna Fáil were in opposition they had to fight an effort by the then Government to hand over control of the second channel to another country.

Mr. O'Donnell

That is not so.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Donnell will have the right of reply.

Mr. Keating

Deputy Moore is talking about anything but prices.

Mr. Moore

They tell us it did not happen, but it did happen. The Minister wanted to hand over to a foreign country the control of the national broadcasting service.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin South-Central): That is so.

Mr. O'Toole

That kind of statement has nothing to do with the motion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Moore on the motion. He is much more in order than the last speaker.

Mr. O'Toole

On a point of order, that is an irrelevant statement. We are now dealing with Deputy Moore and I suggest that he is not in order in mentioning that. We are talking about prices.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin South-Central): We are talking about the second channel.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are talking about increasing television fees and it is in order to talk about what that increase or the money that comes in for television is being used for.

Mr. Moore

I suggest that Deputy O'Toole is suffering from illusions or hallucinations. He says that what I say is not true. He goes further. He assumes the role of Ceann Comhairle; he thinks he is the host here.

Mr. O'Toole

The Deputy's horizontal hold has slipped.

Mr. Moore

Deputy O'Toole is a new Deputy. Of course I do not hold that against him.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Moore on the motion. The Chair will look after this end of it.

Mr. Moore

If Deputy O'Toole is looking for guidance he will have to listen and learn.

Mr. O'Toole

There is little guidance I will look for from Deputy Moore. There is nothing much I can learn there.

Mr. Moore

The last Government did seek to hand over the national broadcasting service, or one channel at any rate, to a foreign country. The people by way of survey showed that they did not want that to happen. Now this present Government have given them a second channel for the increased money. We have made a better hand of it than the Opposition, who increased fees four times without giving anything extra. We are not handling out largesse but for the extra fees the people are getting an extra channel.

Mr. O'Donnell

You are handing out largesse and we are paying for it.

Mr. Moore

We all share the national service but we are far more prudent in our approach in asking people to pay.

Mr. O'Toole

Ask Deputy O'Donoghue about that.

Mr. Moore

We do not ask the people to pay for nothing. They are getting the extra channel. The Opposition delayed and prevaricated so long on the question while we battled with them to keep broadcasting from falling into alien hands.

Mr. Keating

Have we got pirate radio at the moment?

Mr. Moore

I did not have the pleasure of listening to Deputy Keating on pirate radio.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Keating on pirate radio has nothing to do with this motion.

Mr. Moore

I did not raise pirate radio. I have heard of it but I have not heard it.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin South Central): He is doing Angela McNamara and helping people out.

Mr. Moore

I would not say that. That is unfair to that lady. I think she is far better than that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely Angela McNamara has nothing to do with an increase in television fees. Deputy Moore on the motion, please.

Mr. Moore

I want to be more chivalrous than Deputy Keating is. I would not mention the lady's name.

Mr. Keating

I did not mention anybody's name. The Deputy is being quite juvenile in a lot of ways.

Mr. Moore

Deputy Keating may wish to emulate that lady. When pirate radio goes he will be a great loss. To get back to Deputy O'Toole's concern, I can see what happened. Deputy O'Toole did not bother to read his own motion or give it much thought. If he had he would never have dared to come into this House tonight with this motion in his name and that of Deputy O'Donnell. Deputy O'Donnell is by far the more experienced Deputy of the two and I do not know if he led Deputy O'Toole astray. I do not think Deputy O'Donnell is the type of person to do that. They did not give much thought to the motion. They said that an increase was coming, and what would they do? They would put down a motion deploring the increase. They did not stop to ask what they had done. The Coalition Government increased fees four times. Surely they are hypocritical in deploring the action of this Government in authorising increased licence fees.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin South Central): They rejected the advice of the National Prices Commission on a previous occasion.

Mr. O'Toole

The Government did not seek the advice of the NPC.

Mr. Moore

On one occasion of an increase they said, "No, boys, that is not on. We will seek a bigger increase". They were encouraging RTE to seek increases. At least when the present government decided to allow an increase in fees they gave an extra channel. I see a look of surprise on Deputy O'Toole's face when I say that. He must have heard of RTE 2 by now. I suggest to the Fine Gael Party that they should not put down resolutions like this when their own record is not clean.

Mr. O'Toole

Is the Deputy denying the right to put down resolutions?

Mr. Moore

I cannot deny the right but I appeal to them to be more careful in future.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Moore on the motion without interruption. There is a limited time for this debate.

Mr. Moore

I think I should be allowed injury time for the interruptions from over there.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There will be no injury time in this game.

Mr. Moore

I am trying to be realistic with a very unrealistic motion.

Mr. O'Toole

The Deputy is getting off the motion.

Mr. Moore

The previous speaker took us on a tour of Ireland and by accident he mentioned this motion once. This is a serious issue. There must be increased fees which none of us like to pay, but at least on this occasion the people are getting something for them. The Opposition cannot deny that. RTE 2 exists now. People may bewail the fact that they must pay increased fees, but at least we do not charge more than anybody else does and there is something extra for the increases—RTE 2.

Mr. Keating

Big deal.

Mr. Moore

The Deputy may not like it. I am not sure that I do either.

Mr. O'Toole

I am confused about the manifesto commitments. There is a problem.

Mr. Moore

It is manifest that the Deputies opposite have made a hames of this thing tonight by putting down this motion. I believe that Deputy O'Donnell and Deputy O'Toole would withdraw it at this moment if they could. The more they go on the more ridiculous they seem.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Moore

I did not table the motion. Here is criticism of a Government who increased licence fees and gave an extra channel from a Government who increased fees four times and gave nothing extra.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin South Central): We increased fees on only three occasions in 12 years.

Mr. O'Toole

The country knows about the increase and has seen through the bluff.

Mr. Moore

The Opposition should criticise the Government on surer grounds, if they can find some. They should withdraw the motion. If a free vote were allowed, many members of the Opposition would vote against their own motion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Moore has two minutes in which to conclude.

Mr. Moore

I am sorry I have only two minutes in which to conclude and I am sure that Deputy O'Toole will share my sorrow because he was learning something from me tonight. After a while I had a willing pupil.

Mr. O'Toole

As a teacher, I do not agree with the Deputy's method.

Mr. Moore

Deputy O'Toole will never again be a party to such a ridiculous motion.

The Coalition Government increased the licence fee four times during their short term in office. They would have continued to increase the fees if the people had not told them to go. Whatever success the previous Government had, it was certainly not in the field of broadcasting. I conclude by thanking those who showed that they did not want our television channel handed over to a foreign power. They showed good sense in backing the efforts of the then Opposition party.

Mr. O'Donnell

In the brief time at my disposal I want to reiterate the right of any Member of the House to raise an issue of public importance. My party and I offer no apology for regarding the recent substantial increase in television licence fees as a matter of public importance and worthy of discussion in this House. I would remind the Minister, the Minister of State and Deputy Moore of the principle of public accountability of State-sponsored bodies. RTE are a State-sponsored body, accountable to the public and Dáil Éireann through the Minister. We are justified in questioning the decisions of State-sponsored bodies, particularly decisions which affect the public. When we talk about the recent increase in licence fees we are not talking about X pence per day in the simplistic way in which the Minister of State tried to interpret it. We are talking about a substantial increase of 22 per cent to 24 per cent in television licence fees. As RTE are a State-sponsored body, their decision should be questioned and efforts made to ascertain the reasons for it. What we are more concerned with is why the Government merely blueprinted the application by RTE for the increase. We brought the Minister into the House to find out if an assessment and examination was carried out by the Minister and the Government into the reasons for these substantial increases.

There is another good reason for questioning this increase. When the Minister's party were in Opposition they gave priority to emphasising inflation and price control. They assured the people that prices would be stablished if they were elected. We will continue to bring the Minister into the House in relation to any substantial increases. We will remind the Minister and his party of their undertakings prior to, and during, the last general election.

In the Ministers' speeches I detected a certain element of annoyance at the audacity of the Opposition in bringing in a motion of this kind. I can assure the Minister and the Fianna Fáil party that there will be many motions of this kind. The Minister, the Minister of State and Deputy Moore conveyed the extraordinary impression, in the typical fashion for which Fianna Fáil are noted, that this matter related to the selling out of a television channel to a foreign power. Before the election the Minister of State was not slow to sell out for the sake of votes, particularly in the undertakings which he gave to the Cork multi-channel group. Deputy Molloy, the Minister for Defence, gave similar undertakings to the people of Galway. They told them that multi-channel reception would be available in those areas. Preserving our control of the second channel is irrelevant to this debate.

Opposition Deputies are faced with a serious problem—this does not apply only to RTE—in trying to obtain information on the affairs of semi-State bodies. I had hoped the Minister and the Minister of State would have availed themselves of the opportunity given by this motion to spell out objectively and analytically the problems which had led to the decision to increase the licence fee by 24 per cent. It is information the public at large are seeking. However, the Minister took the simplistic attitude of telling us that the increase was necessary because of the advent of RTE 2. The Minister should have had more respect for the intelligence of Deputies and the public than to expect us to swallow an excuse of that kind.

The Minister's effort last night was feeble after Deputy Corish had asked about the relevance of advertising to total revenue of RTE in assessing the reason for the increase in the licence fee. In assessing revenue and expenditure in RTE one must, of course, take into account increased costs of the overall administration, but one must also consider the efficiency of the station, its productivity and the question of advertising revenue. Our motion was prompted by a desire and a hope that we could encourage a discussion on these matters. It is the type of information the public at large require.

In a recent RTE annual report we were told that the total amount of revenue loss by licence fee evasions was more than £1.5 million. We are entitled to some explanation as to the reason for this and the bearing it has on the recent decision to increase the licence fee. One does not have to be a mathematician or an economic animal to reckon that if evasions involving such a high amount of money could be remedied there would not be a need for this increase in the licence fee. We are entitled to an explanation as to why this £1.5 million loss in revenue occurs.

Another point of the utmost importance in relation to RTE financing was referred to by Deputy Corish last night and again this evening. It is that only 77 per cent of RTE's advertising capacity is taken up, leaving a gap of 23 per cent which is not taken up. It is hard to understand why it should happen in a monopolistic situation that almost a quarter of the advertising capacity of RTE is not taken up. My point is that if RTE were to fill that quarter of their advertising capacity and if they were to get rid of licence fee evasion there would not have been any necessity to increase licence fees.

There is one other aspect of this issue of the licence fee increase which I had intended to go into in more depth, but I do not think it is necessary. Our main aim in tabling the motion was to obtain information. There is very strong adverse reaction to this increase and we have not been able to extract from the Minister or the Minister of State anything like a credible explanation for the increase. They left too many questions unanswered. It is understandable and natural that the public would react adversely to any increase in prices, and it is understandable that people in certain regions of the country whose reception of television programmes is intermittent and in some cases non-existent should show resentment at the increase in the licence fee. There is an enormous regional imbalance in TV reception. Deputy Begley spoke of the whole south-western area which is not receiving RTE 2 at all. There are other areas where set owners are not even getting RTE 1.

All these factors have to be taken into account. It is not only the level of the licence fee that causes resentment but the value one gets for money. I suggest that this regional imbalance in regard to reception should have been taken into account and that people in certain regions should not have had the increase in the licence fee imposed on them.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 65; Nil, 47.

Tá

• Ahern, Kit.
• Allen, Lorcan.
• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Sylvester.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, Seán.
• Callanan, John.
• Cogan, Barry.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Connolly, Gerard.
• Cowen, Bernard.
• Cronin, Jerry.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Farrell, Joe.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Filgate, Eddie.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin South-Central).
• Fitzsimons, James N.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• French, Seán.
• Gallagher, Dennis.
• Gallagher, James.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Herbert, Michael.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Keegan, Seán.
• Kenneally, William.
• Killeen, Tim.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lemass, Eileen.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leonard, Tom.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Loughnane, William.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Morley, P.J.
• Murphy, Ciarán P.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Connor, Timothy C.
• O'Donoghue, Martin.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond.
• Power, Paddy.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Smith, Michael.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael J.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Barry, Richard.
• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Luke.
• Bermingham, Joseph.
• Boland, John.
• Bruton, John.
• Burke, Joan.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• D'Arcy, Michael J.
• Deasy, Martin A.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Donnellan, John F.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan).
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hegarty, Paddy.
• Keating, Michael.
• Kenny, Enda.
• L'Estrange, Gerry.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Clinton, Mark.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlon, John F.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Cosgrave, Michael J.
• Mannion, John M.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Brien, William.
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Toole, Paddy.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Ryan, John J.
• Spring, Dan.
• Taylor, Frank.
• Timmins, godfrey.
• Treacy, Seán.
• Tully, James.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies P. Lalor and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies McMahon and Begley.

Amendment declared carried.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.45 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 9 November 1978.