Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1990 > Committee of Public Accounts > Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1988

AN COISTE UM CHUNTAIS POIBLÍ

(Committee of Public Accounts)

Déardaoin, 25 Deireadh Fómhair, 1990

Thursday, 25 October, 1990

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

Members Present:

DEPUTY G. MITCHELL in the chair

Mr. P. L. McDonnell (An tArd Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.

VOTE 37 — COMMUNICATIONS.

Mr. B. McDonagh called and examined.

Chairman.—The Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Éireann is this morning examining the Secretary of the Department of Communications in his capacity as Accounting Officer for that Department, in the resumed examination of the Appropriation Accounts, as audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, for 1988 The only paragraph arising from the 1988 report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is paragraph 54. This paragraph deals with the failure to collect cable television licence fees payable under the Wireless Telegraphy (Wired Broadcasting Relay Licence) Regulations, 1974 as amended. The paragraph reads as follows:

Subhead H.—Appropriations in Aid.

Reference was made in paragraph 51 of the 1976 Report to the granting of licences under the Wireless Telegraphy (Wired Broadcasting Relay Licence) Regulations, 1974, as amended, in respect of the provision of cable television service in defined areas and to the failure to collect licence fees prescribed under the regulations. The regulations provide for the payment by a licensee to the Minister for Communications on the last day of each quarter, of a fee equal to 15% (5% with effect from April 1988) of the gross revenue, excluding installation charges and VAT, paid to the licensee in that quarter in respect of the relay service provided and a licensee is required to furnish annually an audited statement of such gross revenue received. The regulations also provide for inspection by the Department of licensees’ records.

In the course of audit it was noted that substantial arrears of fees were oustanding and that a number of licensees had not furnished up to date audited statements — the Department estimated some £1m as being due at 31 December 1988. I inquired as to the steps being taken to ensure that the audited statements and fees were received by the due dates and when it was expected to have the arrears collected. I also inquired as to the number of departmental inspections of licensees’ records carried out since 1985 in order to establish the amounts due.

The Accounting Officer explained that there had always been a difficulty in collecting cable licence fees from some licensees. Over the years legal action had been initiated against thirteen licensees for the recovery of licence fees owed and for the provision of audited statements, but legal action had been cumbersome and largely ineffective. In a number of instances, as the legal process was approaching finality, offers of arrangements to pay were made which the Department were legally advised to accept. However, in some instances licensees subsequently defaulted on the arrangements and the process had to start again.

The arrears problem was at its worst during the period 1986/87 when, because of the existence of illegal broadcasting systems receivable in cable areas and the high level of the licence fee, all except three companies effectively boycotted the Department as regards payment of fees.

Legal action had been initiated by licensees seeking to declare the licence fee null and void and seeking compensation for loss of revenue as a result of the activities of illegal operators. This matter was resolved in late 1987/early 1988, but by then the licensees partaking in the boycott had built up substantial arrears of fees and the Department had no option but to agree to instalment payments or effectively bankrupt most of the companies.

The level of arrears at September 1989 was estimated at £770,000 of which £415,000, approximately, was owed by one company which was refusing to pay fees and had initiated a High Court action against the Department seeking damages for loss of business due to the existence of illegal rebroadcasters. However, it was expected that the balance owed by other licensees would be cleared in the near future on the basis of agreements already completed or through court action.

The Accounting Officer stated that the Minister has power to suspend or revoke licences where breaches of the Regulations occur, but that, in the Department’s view, use of this power would do little to hasten the payment of fees or the production of information. While recent years had been extremely difficult with regard to the collection of licence fees, the Department was confident that the underlying problems could be resolved and that in general the arrears problem would be eliminated in the foreseeable future. The Accounting Officer also informed me that no Departmental inspections of licensees records had been carried out due to a lack of suitably qualified staff.

During the course of audit, substantial arrears, estimated at £770,000 in September 1989, had not been collected. The Accounting Officer, when he appeared before the Committee in May, last undertook to provide an updated report on the arrears. That report has been furnished. It is on that report which we now commence the examination. Does the Comptroller and Auditor General want to make any introductory comments?

Mr. McDonnell.—You will recall that the substance of the paragraph was the difficulty in collecting these fees and the problems that the Department was having. There were two basic problems which the Committee discussed the last day. They discussed the furnishing of audited accounts by the cable companies and the inspection by the Department of the records of the cable television operators. The Committee, as the Chairman has said, have received a note from the Accounting Officer since the last meeting and it seems to me, on my reading of it, that the Department are getting on top of the problem. There certainly has been an improvement.

Chairman.—Mr. McDonagh, have you any comments to make?

Mr. McDonagh.—My letter of 16 October sets out the position at that date. In fact, the progress continues, further moneys have come in and we are hopeful that further moneys will arrive within a matter of weeks. We would hope that legal action will not be necessary.

Chairman.—On your last visit there was £770,000 outstanding. According to your letter that is down to £500,000.

Mr. McDonagh.—Yes.

Chairman.—What would it be down to now?

Mr. McDonagh.—We are now down to £448,000.

Chairman.—Progress was slow.

Mr. McDonagh.—The bulk of the amount outstanding relates to one company. We have concluded an agreement with them over a three-year period and they are meeting the terms of that agreement. If you take account of that, the progress in the other areas has been quite good.

Chairman.—Let me come to the last paragraph of your letter to the Committee, Mr. McDonagh, which stated: “Any company which does not make a satisfactory response to the Department’s demands will be referred to the Chief State Solicitor for court action between now and the end of the year.” How long would it take to prosecute if that were the case?

Mr. McDonagh.—That would be a matter for the Chief State Solicitor. All the companies have now responded and most of them, as you can see from my letter, have updated their accounts. Most of them have made arrangements to pay. I do not at this stage envisage prosecutions between now and the end of the year. The conduct of prosecutions, as you will appreciate, would be entirely a matter for the Chief State Solicitor’s Office.

Chairman.—Is there any other penalty you can apply, such as withdrawing the licence?

Mr. McDonagh.—I think we went through this at our last meeting. While on the surface withdrawing the licence appears to be a reasonable sanction, in practice that is unlikely to be an effective sanction because what it would do is create an additional illegal broadcaster and would not necessarily improve either the submission of accounts or the payment of moneys outstanding. The legal sanction is the most effective one we have.

Chairman.—On page 2 of your report you talk about a recalcitrant payer and that he indicated he will pay all outstanding arrears by the end of October. Has he paid?

Mr. McDonagh.—We are told that he is due in on Friday.

Chairman.—Will interest be charged on these outstanding amounts?

Mr. McDonagh.—No, he will simply pay what is outstanding.

Deputy Flood.—Why would an interest charge not be levied for late payments? It is a loss to the State. The Revenue Commissioners, as I understand it, have built in an interest charge for late payments because it is a loss to the State. The same applies in this case. Is there no system whereby your Department could make up the loss to the State on late payments?

Mr. McDonagh.—As I understand it, there is a legal provision in the Revenue Acts enabling interest payments to be made. As far as I am aware there is no such provision in the legislation governing the payment of cable levy. One other thing to bear in mind is that the origin of some of these payments was a dispute which took place about three years ago, between some cable licensees and the Department, about the efficacy or otherwise of the Department trying to secure for them the terms of their contract and the elimination of illegal broadcasters. That issue would also have to be taken into account if one were to get into this area. I have little doubt that — I think it was Deputy McGahon who raised the point the last day — that issue would be raised if we were to get into an argument about interest payments. I would stress that here we are involved in trying to achieve a settlement of a long, outstanding dispute. It is not just simply a matter of arrears of payments, there was a dispute. People, it is fair to say, still have strong views about this.

Deputy Flood.—I do not think we should simply accept the situation as it currently stands. Some recognition of the views of this Committee regarding late payments and the appropriate interest penalties to be levied because of late payments I believe should be taken into account. The matter should certainly be looked into. Otherwise, of course, there is almost an inbuilt incentive to those who have a duty to pay and who do not pay and delay payment, to lodge the money in a bank account to earn interest for the company concerned until such time as sufficient pressure comes from the Department to make the appropriate payments. Therefore, that matter should be taken up. A final point I would like to make is in regard to transfers — reference is made in these reports to, I presume, the transfer of a licence from one party to another. Is it a condition of the transfer that before it is authorised all outstanding payments are made?

Mr. McDonagh.—It is.

Deputy Flood.—I mean made and not promised to be paid.

Mr. McDonagh.—It is a condition that they be paid.

Deputy Flood.—Before the transfer is approved?

Mr. McDonagh.—That is why in one major outstanding case where the question of transfer comes up in the next fortnight the Department is insisting that the moneys be paid before the licence is transferred.

Deputy Connor.—One has to acknowledge that a lot of progress has been made in bringing things into line. I notice that while the position in the majority of companies is much better in a number of cases it is worse. I am speaking about the position as reported by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the position now, for instance in Emmett Electrical, K.C. Cable Vision and so on. What is happening in such cases?

Mr. McDonagh.—In the case referred to above we expect the arrears to be cleared by the end of October. In the case of the others any increase is fairly marginal. We are pursuing them. In some of these cases the increase relates to the fact that satisfactory records were not produced and we were operating on estimates. When the records and accounts were produced we revised our estimate of the amount outstanding. That explains, one of the major increases, why that happened.

Deputy Connor.—That would be in the case of Portlaoise Cable where the amount of money is not great but in percentage terms the increase is very large.

Mr. McDonagh.—That is the case.

Deputy Cullimore.—Given the large amounts of money that are still outstanding, are the companies that owe money to the State compelled to furnish their yearly accounts as regards profitability?

Mr. McDonagh.—They are compelled to furnish audited statements of revenue and can be compelled to furnish audited accounts.

Deputy Cullimore.—Are you satisfied from their accounts that they are not in a position to pay the amounts outstanding immediately.

Mr. McDonagh.—Yes. In some cases they were slow in coming forward with the accounts. We checked the accounts and found that they were not in a position to pay but where transfers and the sale of the cable system are involved, we insist on full payment being made in advance of the moneys being paid over to the owners of the systems.

Deputy Cullimore.—Would most of those companies be in a profitable position on a yearly basis?

Mr. McDonagh.—A lot of the smaller companies are not making significant profits.

Deputy Cullimore.—Would the big ones, for example, Cork Communications?

Mr. McDonagh.—Cork Communications is now in a profitable position but the amount of profit is relatively small given the size of the investment in the Cork system.

Chairman.—In Cork, and probably elsewhere, they have community television which is run on a local basis. Is that a matter for the Independent Broadcasting Commission or your Department or is a matter for the companies themselves to take on that facility?

Mr. McDonagh.—In Cork there are a number of illegal braodcasting stations which transmit television programmes.

Chairman.—Cork Communications do a local television news type programme which I presume——

Mr. McDonagh.—Cork do half an hour a day and that has been sanctioned by the Minister.

Chairman.—It is a matter for the Minister?

Mr. McDonagh.—Yes.

Chairman.—If somebody wanted to do that in Crumlin, say for argument’s sake, they would apply to the Minister to use the system for half an hour a day for local news?

Mr. McDonagh.—They would obviously have to have an agreement with the operator.

Chairman.—Yes. Are there any other questions?

Deputy Dennehy.—About the illegal broadcasting stations in Cork——

Mr. McDonagh.—There are a number of illegal broadcasting stations around the country and this has been a matter of some comment in the media. The Department’s view is that we will use our endeavours, as systems become available, to remove these stations from the landscape.

Deputy Dennehy.—This matter came up in the context of discussing the difficulties with Cork Communications Limited. I presume that everything that is being done by Cork Communications is legitimate.

Mr. McDonagh.—Cork Communications are operating in accordance with the law.

Deputy Dennehy.—The Chairman touched on a point that maybe we should look at. These stations are providing an excellent community service. Such television broadcasting is unique. People elsewhere might look at the Cork scene and learn from it. I am pleased to hear that Cork are totally legitimate and paying up their arrears.

Deputy Connor.—Perhaps Mr. McDonagh might explain the relationship between the Department and the microwave distribution operators who are coming onstream now in relation to the collection of fees and that kind of thing.

Mr. McDonagh.—The Department licensed a number of operators to supply a microwave television service. As you are probably aware, we had 29 cells identified to serve the country and these were licensed to about eight operators — Cablelink, Cork Communications, Westward, Suir, Nore, People Newspaper Limited, Drogheda Independent and Cable Management of Ireland. They paid the Department a fee of £20,000 per licence and they are in the process of providing a service. The same level of levy, 5 per cent, will apply on the income of those companies as applies to the cable systems.

Deputy Connor.—Obviously one of the difficulties which arose in relation to the cable systems was that the Department were not in a great position to keep track of the accounts of these companies. Can the Committee be satisfied that under this new system better arrangements will be made?

Mr. McDonagh.—I expect that the systems which are now in operation and working reasonably satisfactory in relation to cable will also be applied in relation to these new operators. One of the problems with cable systems was that you had a fairly large number of systems and the bulk of them were relatively small operations — some of them were one man operations — and it was difficult to ensure that you were able to maintain contact. The operators who have been licensed for the MMDS service are relatively large organisations and I expect there will be no undue difficulty in establishing and maintaining contact with them and with appropriate payment schedules.

Deputy Connor.—In relation to the MMDS service, how widespread is resistance to it now that most areas are told it is coming onstream?

Mr. McDonagh.—I am not in a position to——

Deputy Connor.—I accept it is not an accounting question.

Mr. McDonagh.—It is not. There is some resistance but most of it appears to be related to areas where illegals are currently in operation. There are other areas where people are very anxious to see the MMDS system up and running because currently they have no service. The number of people involved with illegal operators is very small. Some of the illegal operators are very anxious to get out of the business and some of them have already done so. The Department would hope in due course that, as has happened on the radio front, the illegal operators will fade away and leave the field to the properly licensed and supervised operators.

Deputy Connor.—You dismiss completely the resistance based on health hazard, as claimed by some people.

Mr. McDonagh.—The facts are well known to the public. They were given yesterday in a letter by the Minister’s Press Secretary. In the case of Galway you will be aware that two reputable scientists attached to UCG have given their opinion. One of them has conducted tests at a range of sites around Galway, quite independently of the cable operator, and has issued the findings in public. All this material was also presented to the planning authorities and to An Bord Pleanála. All of the scientific evidence has been examined and I believe the MMDS system is no different from any other broadcasting system and that the effect are similar to those of any other broadcasting system, as we have radio and television at the moment.

Chairman.—Can we note this paragraph for now? We will keep the situation under review. Under subhead D.3 — Independent Radio and Television Commission — Administration and General Expenses — £151,000 were voted by the Dáil. Presumably they have substantial income from fees from applicants as well.

Mr. McDonagh.—Yes. In the initial stages when the commission was set up the Dáil voted £500,000 to enable the IRTC to get off the ground. As well as that, 3 per cent of the income of all the stations is paid to the IRTC. They have been getting income from the stations currently operating. The £150,000 was part of the £500,000 to which I referred; it is the first instalment and the balance of the £500,000 was paid in the following year.

Chairman.—What annual budget has the IRTC now?

Mr. McDonagh.—Their annual budget is around £300,000.

Chairman.—Would you agree that it is desirable that bodies such as the IRTC should have some form of parliamentary accountability? Commercial State-sponsored bodies are monitored by the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies but bodies of this kind, created by the Dáil and given independence, do not have any form of accountability.

Mr. McDonagh.—I suggest that this is a policy question which is one the Dáil should——

Chairman.—The Dáil has devolved that area of accountability to this Committee. The creation of the Debt Management Agency gave rise to the appointment of an Accounting Officer for that body. Undoubtedly there is a substantial amount of money involved there, but the principle is still the same. I do not know how Members of the Committee would feel but I would like to suggest that you and the Department of Finance should consult to see if it is desirable for an Accounting Officer to be appointed for the IRTC to account for financial control in the normal way.

Mr. McDonagh.—That is a question which arises in relation to all non-commercial State bodies and I would have thought that any action would be taken on a general basis and not specifically focus on the IRTC. I have no reason to believe that the IRTC are not being properly run. As I understand it the Comptroller and Auditor General is the auditor of the IRTC.

Mr. McDonnell.—Yes. I audit the accounts of the IRTC. The audit of the first accounts is in its final stages and will be reported on shortly. Like the accounts of many other State-sponsored bodies, the accounts of when certified are presented to the Minister and will be laid on the table of the House. I do not have the Act in front of me but I presume that that normal provision applies. I take your point in regard to accountability thereafter. There is no process of examination by any Committee of the House but that is the present position in relation to all non-commercial State-sponsored bodies — there is no forum at which the accountability exercise is completed.

Chairman.—Some are less independent of the Minister than others and he might be more involved in some of them but the IRTC is very independent as, for instance, is An Bord Pleanála. I would like to suggest that you consult the Department of Finance to see if there is a role for an Accounting Officer from the IRTC. Has anybody any views on that?

Deputy Flood—I am inclined to go along with you on that. We are not just singling out the IRTC. It has been shown over the years that this Committee has, in the taxpayers’ interests, made a very significant contribution through our meetings. Our approach is completely on a constructive basis. The views which we expressed last May with regard to fees have in no small way helped to bring about an improvement in the reports from Mr. McDonagh. There is no difficulty in the Committee of Public Accounts becoming more closely involved in the financial matters relating to the IRTC and its reports, and the other organisations, we are not just singling out the IRTC.

Deputy McGahon.—I would support that.

Chairman.—I would like to point out that the Committee in its special report asked for this to be extended to all similar bodies. Perhaps you would consult with the Department of Finance and let us have a note on that in due course. The note should come from the Department of Finance.

Deputy Connor.—In relation to the grant to Radio Telefís Éireann, which is almost £44 million, and was collected in television licences, there is a lot of criticism about the number of television licences that remain unpaid. Can you put a figure on the level of non-payment of television licences? Is there a guess within the Department in regard to how great the default is?

Mr. McDonagh.—There is, in fact. I gave figures on the last occasion I was before this Committee. It was recorded that the position was improving on a year-to-year basis. I have a record here going back over a number of years showing the numbers of licence fees paid and the progress that has been made.

Deputy Connor.—Perhaps we might not involve ourselves with the details, but you are happy that the situation is improving?

Mr. McDonagh.—Yes. At the beginning of each year a target is agreed between An Post and RTE for its licence fee collection. In the last five years those targets have been met or exceeded. In the first of those years they were met. They have been exceeded in each of the following years. In the current year An Post has a computer file of all the households in the country. It also has a file of all the licence payers, so it is in a position to identify very quickly the non-payers. In 1985 there were 750,000 licences. That figure, on 1 January 1990, was 781,000 plus; there were some 80,000 overdue. In 1986 An Post detected 76,286 unlicenced sets; in the next year 115,149; in 1988 it was 133,484 and in 1989 it was 112,048. An Post take people to court on a regular basis. In general these prosecutions are successful but I saw some disturbing reports of a court case in the last week where there is a problem about evidence which mytifies me. An Post has been working very hard. In 1989, it sold 861,000 licences; the total number of households eligible to pay a licence is about one million. An Post say the evasion figure is now below 14 per cent — that is the total evasion rate. Even though they take people to law on a regular basis the number of people they find who have to be taken to court twice and three times is amazing.

Deputy Connor.—Yes, and some famous people too. You pay over £5 million to An Post for this service. Is that not a lot of money when most of it is just simple collection?

Mr. McDonagh.—Some of it is very simple collection and the rates of pay there are very low. At the top end of the scale when you get beyond 750,000 you are into very difficult collection; you are into repeated visits and legal actions. This is not cheap and one of our problems is that if people paid when they got their licence reminder, this cost would inevitably be kept down. If people have to be visited a number of times and actions brought to the courts then collection cost escalates.

I have the figures in front of me for targets and sales. In 1985 the target was 750,000, sales 750,000; in 1986 the target was 770,000, sales 771,000; in 1987, the target was 795,000, sales 795,175; in 1988, the target was 827,500, sales 840,105; in 1989, the target was 852,000, sales 861,723. It can be seen from those figures that An Post have been making a very commendable and successful effort on a year to year basis. They have shown considerable improvement over the period of their existence in the efficiency of their licence fee collection.

The last 15 per cent of licence fee collection is, of course, the most difficult and is fairly expensive. I wish the situation the Deputy described was the one which obtained and that all An Post had to do was wait at the counter for people to come in to pay their licences. Regrettably for a portion of licence payers this is not the case.

Deputy McGahon.—Obviously, it is a lucrative agency for them. A sum of £5 million is a lot of money for a task 80 per cent of which is very simple. You are concerned about the remaining 20 per cent. The reason they cannot locate those is that thousands of televisions have been smuggled in and were not notified to An Post. I referred before to the duplicity of An Post who some years ago advertised the attractions of an electrical company is Newry and exhorted Southern people to go to Newry and buy a television set there. There would be no requirement to notify that set to An Post. That is an each way bet. I fully agree that people who do not pay for their television sets should be brought to court but the second fine apparently is of £1,000. That is crazy at a time when a man who entered a rector’s home in Wicklow this year and took his life was given a sentence of eight years in jail. It is ridiculous to fine a person £1,000 because he has not paid a television licence. It is crazy. Is it just another item on the Statute Book or are people actually fined £1,000 for a second offence?

Mr. McDonagh.—I am not in a position to say. The prosecutions are taken by An Post and I am not in a position to say what levels of fines are imposed by the court. On the question of the level of the fines, all I can say is this is in legislation passed by Dáil Éireann and I am not going to comment on it.

Deputy McGahon.—It is a reflection of the crazy situation in relation to law and order. The cost of a life is eight years in jail and the cost of not paying a television licence is £1,000. Where are we going?

Deputy Dennehy.—It is logical to use An Post to collect licence fees. There has been a lot of argument about An Post over the past few years. It must be said in fairness to them that the biggest weakness they face is this kind of attitude that you cannot fine people because they have unlicensed television sets. The same people who were complaining about the number of unlicensed sets are now complaining that fines are too high.

There was a total lack of support for An Post. The level of fines was ridiculous. It paid people not to take out a licence, yet people came in to this Committee complaining and bitching about the level of licence fee avoidance. For the first time, An Post are playing with a reasonable set of rules which, if implemented, will help them. They can provide the best possible service because they have an outlet in almost every town and village. They are a State body and are perfectly positioned to work with the other bodies involved to collect these fees. I strongly support the case made for leaving the franchise with An Post. Incidentally, if I can get a plug in for an area which, outside of Tallaght, is the fastest growing area in Ireland. I am told that Mahon in Cork has not got a post office and it would be handy if we could have one there to collect licence fees.

Up to a few years ago targets were not set and people complained about the level of unlicensed sets. Now, however, realistic targets are set. These targets are being reached and exceeded almost every year as far as I know. It is a businesslike approach instead of the previous hit and miss approach with politicians criticising the people who were given this job to do. Has any decision been made on the future allocation of the franchise? I know there is a 12 month extension during which An Post would continue to collect these fees and it is to be reviewed after that. There is a lobby that maybe An Post are not the proper authority to hold the franchise for collection. Bearing in mind the figures we are getting today from the Secretary, I think the case for An Post to be allowed to continue to collect these fees is being strenghtened. What we do not want to see is any weakening in the legislation, particularly where fines are involved. If the fine is less than two or three years’ licensing fees then they are not going to bother licensing a set. That is a simple fact of life. We need to give An Post support from the legislation point of view. As I said, they have the outlets.

On the business side, the targets set need to be practical and achieveable. These are being set and reached. If all of that is done it is fairly logical to continue to have a State body like An Post collecting these licence fees for us. I totally support that. I would like to know if any decision is made. I appreciate it is a policy decision but a decision has to be made whether to leave the collection with An Post.

Mr. McDonagh.—An Post has met the targets that have been set and no decision has been made to remove the agency from An Post.

Deputy Allen.—In relation to page 154, work——

Chairman.—Could we just finish this item? Is your question related to broadcasting? Is it on the same item?

Deputy Allen.—You are on Vote 37.

Chairman.—We are on the collection of licence fes. We will just finish on that. There has been a lot of discussion on that item here this morning. In terms of the European percentage collection we are now more in line that we were when the Committee last spoke to the Director General of RTE, for instance. There is just one point that I want to make. Obviously there is no difficulty for people if they delay paying their licence because if you wait three or four months you do not have to pay an extra £5 or whatever, so perhaps there should be some graduation before it gets to the courts. It is very difficult for those of us who can afford to pay our TV licence to explain to somebody who, perhaps, has £40 or £50 a week, fixed income, and who is being threatened at Christmas time with being cut off, and with prosecution, that he is going to have to pay the money or go to court, because it is an enormous percentage of his income.

In my personal experience I have found An Post compassionate in terms of giving people time to pay. I would not like anything we have said here this morning to indicate that the Committee would not wish An Post to be compassionate or not to give time to pay where people have a very small, fixed income. I should put that on the record because, particularly coming to Christmas, there can be difficulty for people on very limited incomes.

Deputy Connor.—For the record, as the one raised An Post’s role here, could I say that in no way was I making the case that the agency should be lost to An Post or that An Post should do anything about their methods of collection? I just made a comment that I felt they were well paid for their collection.

Deputy Dennehy.—One of the worries I have is that the licence fee is becoming too high for everybody, not picking any group. I would be very hopeful with the efficient approach now being taken, that if everybody is paying we could lower the licence fee for everybody. That should be our objective and that is why I would like to see us taking a positive approach to the whole matter of unpaid fees. We are heading down that road and as the collection figures improve we should be in a position to look for a lowering of the licence fee. It should be our objective to try to get that as low as possible by getting 100 per cent collection or thereabouts.

Deputy Cullimore.—I would agree that An Post is the vehicle to collect licence fees. One criticism I have is that they are failing to respond to the demand in new built-up areas for the provision of new post offices. We can all give a number of examples but I will not localise the matter but it is a real criticism. I would like to see a quicker response to the demand for local post offices in built-up areas.

Deputy Allen.—In relation to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, the year of appointment was 1977, and the money spent to the year ending 31 December 1988, was £11,389. Could I get an idea of how this money was spent? I know that may be just a matter of detail but on a term basis principle how many complaints were received by the commission? How often do they meet and in view of the extension now of radio service, especially in the area of private radio, local radio, will the Broadcasting Complaints Commission be extending its powers of operation or its jurisdiction? Will it be in a position to take complaints in relation to content of programmes on local radio? What steps are the Department taking to ensure that all the local radio stations will be balanced fair and responsible? What level of monitoring is there, because, especially at times of elections, I am not sure — of course I have no evidence — that there is any question of imbalance. I am not confident that there is adequate monitoring of programme content throughout the country.

Mr. McDonagh.—In relation to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, the annual report of its activities are laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. As it happens, I do not have a copy with me. The Broadcasting Act, 1988, provides for the extension of the ambit of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission to commercial radio and television, and that is being done. It will be possible to bring a complaint before the Commission in the normal way as, indeed, has happened heretofore, in relation to RTÉ. Again, under the legislation the Dáil passed, monitoring is done in the same way as RTÉ is monitored. In other words, those who feel they have reason to complain, bring a complaint to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Exactly the same operation will apply. I have to say, and being mindful of where we are at the moment, that as Accounting Officer for the Department I do not see my function as one of getting involved, in particular trying to ensure an even field between the parties.

Deputy Allen.—I did not mean——

Mr. McDonagh.—Under the legislation broad guidelines have been laid down. My understanding is that the IRTC has issued a directive, or a note, to all the stations suggesting how they might approach the coming presidential election, suggesting the way in which things could be balanced, and I presume that if there is a major cause for concern that would be brought directly to the IRTC, which under the legislation is primarily responsible for supervising the commercial broadcasting sector.

Deputy Allen.—I was just giving an example of my concern. Has the level of complaints increased with the advent of local radio stations? I am concerned that when we had a small number of radio stations it was easy to monitor them and ensure a balance, but with the growth of so many stations throughout the country it is not acceptable to say that it is up to individuals within the community to lodge complaints. There should be a greater level of monitoring to ensure that there is balance over a long period of time, rather than just leaving it to individuals. There is an inherent danger that if that is not done there maybe temptation from time to time, human nature being what it is, to have some imbalance.

Mr. McDonagh.—All I can say is that the legislation was passed by Dáil Éireann and the provisions in relation to objectivity on programming are in the legislation. There is nothing I could do at this stage to alter those provisions. It would be a matter for Dáil Éireann in its wisdom if it decided to do so to alter those provisions. We have not been made aware of any significant volume of complaints. There is no significant volume coming to the notice of the Department or the Minister. The general public would not be slow to come forward if they felt that there were major departures from generally acceptable standards by any of the broadcasting organisations.

Deputy M. Ahern.—Were there many complaints and what was the cost per complaint?

Mr. McDonagh.—I do not have that information with me but I can provide it. It is presumably in the report of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. I will send you a copy of the report.

Deputy McGahon.—Is there a code of conduct in relation to broadcasting, both radio and television?

Mr. McDonagh.—There is provision in the legislation for the IRTC to draw up, among other things, codes of conduct. I am not certain what they are exactly.

Deputy McGahon.—I suggest they have been set aside in recent years by RTE who seem to be totally preoccupied with sex. One programme in particular is beamed out every morning and there are variations on that theme every week. Not everybody accepts or wants that.

Deputy Taylor.—Have you made a complaint to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission?

Deputy McGahon.—I know someone who has. I know several people have done that and, like most organisations which examine themselves, their complaints are put to one side. I can understand certain subjects rearing their heads from time to time but now we are on a diet of them. I feel that they overstep the mark and there should be a rein put on certain programmes.

Deputy Dennehy.—Possibly they are trying to cater for the clientèle Deputy McGahon said were indulging in this practice.

Chairman.—That concludes the examination. We will note the Vote. Apologies for the cramped circumstances of the meeting, Mr. McDonagh but because of the broadcasting changes the room we normally use is occupied. That concludes the examination. That concludes the public session.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.