asked the Minister for Communications the reason he granted a £5 licence increase to RTE and the number of licence holders.

There are two elements in the increase of £5 in the television licence fee. An increase of £3 was granted to compensate for the effects of inflation since the last increase came into effect on 1 November 1984. The additional increase of £2 is a once off increase to finance a performance improvement-cost reduction programme in RTE as recommended in the report of the consultancy examination of RTE carried out last year. The number of licence holders at the end of December 1985 was 755,095.

Would the Minister agree that the non-collection of licence fees is a cause of grave concern and that if all the people who have televisions paid the appropriate licence fees this increase would not be necessary? Will the Minister assure the House that he will make arrangements for the full collection of all licence fees due which would prevent a further increase in the licence fees?

There is some truth in what the Deputy says. The estimated evasion is at an unacceptable level, although there has been a considerable improvement in the past year. I urge that that improvement be maintained in the future. There is a difficulty in that one aspect of evasion is that many people who own colour television sets are holding licences for black and white televisions, which are £18 cheaper. The difference in the cost of the licence for a black and white television and a colour television should be phased out. That would involve increasing the cost of a black and white television licence by more than that for a colour television and well meaning people would scream about awful discrimination against the poor. Many people who own black and white televisions could be termed poor, but it should be noted that people such as old age pensioners who live alone have free television licences, so it would not affect the worst off people. This is a problem and if we try to close the gap it will have social implications which might be unacceptable.

Deputy Paddy Power.

Would the Minister be——

I have called Deputy Paddy Power.

Does the Minister realise that the public's perception of RTE is of an organisation whose eternal cure is to increase the licence fee? Would it occur to the Minister to request RTE to generate income in another way such as by collecting overdue licence fees or by tightening their belts as everybody else is exhorted to do?

That was the purpose of the consultancy report which was attacked by Deputies opposite when I announced it. I am satisfied that the RTE Authority and management in RTE are addressing themselves to this question raised by Deputy Power.

Is the Minister satisfied that the £2 element of the £5 increase is being spent appropriately in RTE? Is the Minister aware of the massive payments of golden handshakes and redundancy payments to people currently leaving RTE? As a licence holder speaking for licence holders it is objectionable that I should have to pay a £5 increase to subsidise people who are leaving RTE, receiving massive golden handshakes. I can name names if the House wants——

The Deputy should listen to the Chair and the Chair is saying that this question does not present a proper opportunity to open up discussions on the day to day working of RTE.

The Minister said that the £2 element of the £5 is to enable RTE to carry out some rationalisation programme. Is the Minister aware of and is he standing over the massive payments of golden handshakes to staff leaving RTE?

One of the differences between this and previous Governments is that we do not interfere in the day to day affairs of RTE or other bodies. They are left to run their own business. For that reason we have achieved incredible success in the State sector which is recognised throughout the State sector.

Irish Shipping.

I will not be dragged into day to day interference in any of the companies for which I am responsible.

Is the Minister standing over the payments?