Time to change the TV licence?

Elmo

watty wrote: »

I said they were old. Also the method for UK and Ireland is different (Nielsen vs BARB). I sceptical that the Irish figures reflect UK watching correctly.

You mean Irish viewers watching English Stations?

In away I agree, I think they may be high but not much high then what is suggested in those figures provided by TAM Ireland.

I think that UTV have been hit hard by TV3, this is due not only to their similar prime time schedules but also in part by the reduced viewers for soap opera, while they are still the most watch shows Coronation Street and Fair City have got less viewers since 2001, while EastEnders and Emmerdale have both had increases this is due to the availablity of Emmerdale on TV3 and also RTÉ decision to buy the right to EastEnders, but over all trends sees the demise of Soap Opera

The English Channels have also been effected due to the fact that they are competing with other "extra" channels and you would be surprise by the number of people who really only regard the BBC, ITV and C4 as simply extra channels.

You will note that extra channels are increasing year on year from 2001, while most other channels have seen decreases, this includes the Irish channels. The biggest loser was UTV from being the second most watch channel in ROI to now dipping below 5% point, however how many Irish viewers are watching ITV1 from England and Wales or STV from Scotland on Digital?

Sorry for going of the topic, also why would you assume that BARBs is correct?

watty

I'm sceptical about accuracy of all of it.
But since IN Ireland and IN the UK are measured differently, we can't reliabley make comparisons.

TV3 / UTV/ITV/STV = ITV for shows that are the same. It's only Unique shows where TV3 viewing means anything. i.e. how much would UTV/ITV/STV benefit or much would BBC/RTE/C4/TG4 benefit if TV3 vanished.

IMO it's a waste of bandwidth and resources. You'd be better with a pan-Ireland UTV doing regional Munster/Lienster/Connaght as well as Ulster.

The Gazillion channels has fragmented viewing. The Main commercial channels thus have less money to make decent programs and the other channels are virtually parasites that overall add nothing.

Elmo

watty wrote: »

I'm sceptical about accuracy of all of it.
But since IN Ireland and IN the UK are measured differently, we can't reliabley make comparisons.

TV3 / UTV/ITV/STV = ITV for shows that are the same. It's only Unique shows where TV3 viewing means anything. i.e. how much would UTV/ITV/STV benefit or much would BBC/RTE/C4/TG4 benefit if TV3 vanished.

I think you can make some comparisons (I would be sceptical of all statistics). If you look at the viewing figures for Sky, Setanta and Virgin Channels you get similar viewing averages in both ROI and UK, the only difference lies in the Irish Channels but then they are 4 extra Irish channels which have more access to most homes then the English Channels.

TV3's Unique shows really don't do as well as their ITV shows, without their ITV shows TV3 really has nothing when it comes to viewing figures, At the bottom of their top 20 you are talking about 160,000 for it's 13th show, the top 13 are made up of simulcasts all reach above 250,000 viewers.

UTV would gain greatly if TV3 lost ITV's shows. That is if no other Irish channel was to provide them. ITV could lose the current TV3 contract and begin an Irish opt-out service for boxer, if they made a deal to take UTV away from BOXER EPG, ITV would be in a win-win situation.

Anyway this takes us way of topic. Appoligies.

DePurpereWolf

axer wrote: »

The licence applies to a television or equipment capable of receiving a television signal - not to whether you watch RTE or not. My point is also even if you do not watch RTE - we still have to have a national broadcaster and RTE don't just have a tv station they also have radio etc. Money has to come from somewhere to fund such a national broadcaster thus those who have tvs are the most likely choice for this source of funding.

If you do not want to pay for a tv licence then do not own a television or equipment capable of receiving a television signal.

I do agree with you that there is a need for an Irish public broadcasting station. However, there are now three media you can watch their shows on. Internet, TV and radio. Soon enough, there will be a forth, you'll be able to watch shows on your cellphone.

My problem with the TV licence is the stupid method of paying 'tax' for it. If we see it as part of the culture and heritage of this country. Why than not just add it to the income tax. It's just ten times easier to implement. I think that there are less than one in a thousand working people who don't own either an Internet computer, radio or a TV.

In fairness, 160 euro is not a large amount of tax compared with the rest of tax that we're paying. And think about the money that'll be saved by not having to pay for those commercials and An Post to hunt people down.

Another positive side is that it will become part of the Irish budget and therefore will have a more democratic input as to how much should be spend on it.

snaps

Im not 100% sure about the TV licence. RTE has commercials unlike the BBC, so surely thats income for them?

axer

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

My problem with the TV licence is the stupid method of paying 'tax' for it. If we see it as part of the culture and heritage of this country. Why than not just add it to the income tax. It's just ten times easier to implement. I think that there are less than one in a thousand working people who don't own either an Internet computer, radio or a TV.

It is linked to the item you are using i.e. you do not need a licence if you do not have a TV capable of receiving a signal. So some people that do not own a TV should not have to pay the tax and that is the way it is now.

snaps wrote: »

Im not 100% sure about the TV licence. RTE has commercials unlike the BBC, so surely thats income for them?

There is a massive difference in audience numbers and amount of people paying TV licences in the UK compared to Ireland thus RTE need both revenues.

DePurpereWolf

axer wrote: »

It is linked to the item you are using ....

This is my whole point. Why is it linked to a device (a TV). I've been reading this thread and I read that RTE is not just having a TV station, it is also radio, it is about creating high standard non-profit based programmes that relate to the Irish society. If we didn't have RTE we would not see many shows made for and by Irish. Which is a pity. It is also important for the dissemination of national news.

I'm not against the tax, I am against the method.

There are so many cultural subsidies provided by the government which we all pay for, but few of us actually benefit from.

With TV it is the other way around, the large majority benefits from this. Yet the money has to be collected separately, in a weird way that requires people to suspect and investigate houses. It has huge overhead, causes irritations and money is lost. Because there is time in between a person buys a TV and pays for the TV licence.

Richard

snaps wrote: »

Im not 100% sure about the TV licence. RTE has commercials unlike the BBC, so surely thats income for them?

They do, but there's no way they could sustain the amount of Irish programming they do without the licence fee income. When I lived in the republic, I rarely watched RTE, yet I didn't really mind paying for it because Ireland needs a public service broadcaster. Maybe Gerry Ryan could be paid less, but that's another issue.

axer

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

This is my whole point. Why is it linked to a device (a TV). I've been reading this thread and I read that RTE is not just having a TV station, it is also radio, it is about creating high standard non-profit based programmes that relate to the Irish society. If we didn't have RTE we would not see many shows made for and by Irish. Which is a pity. It is also important for the dissemination of national news.

I'm not against the tax, I am against the method.

What should it be linked to?

In Germany you have to pay the tax if you have a radio (including a car radio) or a TV. Many there, like here, try and avoid paying it.

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

There are so many cultural subsidies provided by the government which we all pay for, but few of us actually benefit from.

They are still needed whether you think they benefit you directly or not.

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

With TV it is the other way around, the large majority benefits from this. Yet the money has to be collected separately, in a weird way that requires people to suspect and investigate houses. It has huge overhead, causes irritations and money is lost. Because there is time in between a person buys a TV and pays for the TV licence.

A TV is seen as a luxury thus those that do not have one dont pay for this luxury.

Elmo

axer wrote: »

A TV is seen as a luxury thus those that do not have one dont pay for this luxury.

Is radio, is the concert orchestra etc etc which funding from the license fee comes from?????

DePurpereWolf

A TV is seen as a luxury thus those that do not have one dont pay for this luxury.

A TV was seen as a luxury, now it is seen as an integral part of our society. A way of providing political, cultural and social information. A luxury item is not owned by 99% of the population. This might have been different in the 70's, but not anymore. TV's have become very inexpensive.

This is the whole contradiction. People on one side are saying you are paying tax for having an Irish broadcasting station that provides a service to the nation. On the other hand you have people saying that it is like a tax on a luxury item.

But is it luxury or necessity?

I would be inclined to say it is a necessity. So it should be taxed as such, just take it out of my income tax.
It's easier for the people and for the state.

Elmo

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

I would be inclined to say it is a necessity. So it should be taxed as such, just take it out of my income tax.
It's easier for the people and for the state.

Neither FG/FF want to raise Income tax, which would be need should the exchequer have to foot the bill. Should RTÉ get exchequer funding they would be under the rule of the ruling political party.

Lets not forget Ray Burke.

Apogee

927. Deputy Jim O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the details of his proposal to prevent the imprisonment of persons who are fined for failure to pay television licences. [12221/09]

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Eamon Ryan): The issue of imprisonment of persons who have failed to pay a court imposed fine is a matter that will fall to be addressed in the first instance by my colleague the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the forthcoming Fines Bill. However, I have introduced two new provisions in the Broadcasting Bill 2008, which I anticipate will reduce the necessity for criminal proceedings in respect of the payment of the television licence fee.

The first provision in section 149 of the Bill proposes an on-the-spot fine mechanism to be deployed at the option of the television licence collection agent. In essence this mechanism provides that if a person buys a television licence within a set time period and pays a penalty equivalent to one third of the annual television licence fee then no court proceedings will be taken, thus reducing the necessity for court proceedings.

The second provision which is proposed in section 150(3) empowers the television licence collection agent to pursue as a civil debt an amount owing in respect of a television licence fee.


928. Deputy Jim O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if his attention has been drawn to the situation in other countries as to the process for collection of television licence fees; and his views on the system, such as in Greece, where the licence fee is collected on an instalment basis with the electricity bill. [12222/09]

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Eamon Ryan): I am aware of the process for collection of television licence fees in other countries, including Greece to which the Deputy refers. In that country, as well as in some other European countries, the licence fee is a levy calculated as a percentage of the electricity bill which is then added to the bill. While such a system may have an advantage in terms of a reduction in collection costs and possibly evasion rates, I am of the opinion that there are a number of disadvantages to this model, including the linking of the funding of public service broadcasting output to electricity consumption. Our model does share an element in common to these other systems, however, in that it does allow for the payment of the licence fee on an instalment basis.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=DAL20090324.xml&Node=H15&Page=59

Mike 1972

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Eamon Ryan) wrote: »

I am of the opinion that there are a number of disadvantages to this model, including the linking of the funding of public service broadcasting output to electricity consumption.

Funny I thought a tax linked to electricity consumption would have been just the sort of thing that Mr Ryan would advocate

Elmo

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Funny I thought a tax linked to electricity consumption would have been just the sort of thing that Mr Ryan would advocate

I would disagree with a precentage being added to your monthly/bi-monthly bill. Rather a fix rate would be more suitable. I.e. 13.33 PSB Levy each month or 26.66 PSB Levy for bimonthly bills. This would avoid fluctuations in the amount of money going to RTÉ, you may not use the TV or Radio but use a lot of Electricity. Fixed price is better. And it would be as much of a hassel to pay.

Apogee

Greece uses a percentage of electricity consumption up to a set maximum amount.

Greek law charges a licence fee for ERT to every natural and legal person in possession of an electricity meter. The licence fee is calculated in relation to the value of the electricity consumed, with a ceiling. It is included in and collected at the same time as the sum for electricity consumption, which represents a saving in running costs unlike the usual licence fee systems.

http://www.ebu.ch/union/publications/pdf/publications_dif_3_99_22.pdf


It doesn't require a huge leap of the imagination to incorporate the 'payment by installments' scheme, as advocated by Ryan, with the Greek approach and charge a fixed amount per month onto the electricity bill. And you straight away reduce evasion rates, reduce the costs of collection, and most importantly, end the stupid and expensive practice of sending people to jail for not paying their licence fee.

Bill aims to cut jail sentences over fines

CAROL COULTER, Legal Affairs Editor

Tue, Apr 21, 2009

MINISTER FOR Justice Dermot Ahern has published a Fines Bill, aimed at reducing the numbers imprisoned for non-payment of fines.

It will allow for the payment of fines by instalments, will provide for the indexation of fines and include provision for assessment of a person’s capacity to pay. It will also give the courts power to impose a community service order for non-payment of a fine by the due date.

It will also give the courts power to make a recovery order, that is, to treat an unpaid fine in the same way as the non-payment of a civil debt (a personal debt).

However, there are no proposals to end the practice where people can be imprisoned for the non-payment of a civil debt, despite calls from Opposition parties and the UN Committee on Human Rights to end the use of imprisonment to enforce civil debts.

This provision runs counter both to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Government has been urged to change it. It is being challenged in the courts at present, where the Irish Commission on Human Rights has been granted permission to appear as amicus curiae (friend of the court).

The Fines Bill 2009 provides for the indexation of fines imposed by the District Court. Where a fine is not paid, the courts will be able to appoint a receiver to recover the fine or its equivalent value in property.

Mr Ahern, said: “I want to reduce, as far as possible, a dependence on imprisonment for default on payment of fines. I must emphasise that while very few persons are in prison at any one time solely for non-payment of a fine, I am determined through this legislation to further reduce those numbers.”

He said that a new provision for “equality of impact” provided the courts with the powers to inquire into the financial circumstances of a person and take into account the impact of those circumstances on the person or on his or her dependants before determining the amount of a fine to impose.

The Fine Gael spokesman on justice, Charlie Flanagan, welcomed the publication of the Bill, but said that it came a full two years after an almost identical Bill was published by Fine Gael but ignored by successive justice ministers.

He said an overhaul of fines legislation was urgently required because people were under increasing pressure to meet their debts in the downturn, and it was costing the State a fortune to jail those who fail to pay fines.

“For example, last year the State imprisoned 276 debt defaulters for failing to repay creditors. Fifty-four people were locked up for failing to pay their TV licence fee. The average sentence in these cases was 20 days, meaning it cost the taxpayer circa €1.3 million to jail debt defaulters and over €250,000 to jail people who didn’t pay the TV licence fee,” he said.

The Labour Party spokesman Pat Rabbitte described the Bill as “a modest step forward”, but what was really needed was a Sentencing Bill which would deal with consistency in sentencing, fines and the issue of imprisonment for civil debt.

© 2009 The Irish Times

He'll probably ignore it, but what the hell : eamon.ryan@oireachtas.ie.

Sponge Bob

Plenty more to write to Eamon about now.

Eamon is shortly about to order that a PC with Broadband renders the owner liable to the TV licence , even the iPhone could be enough .

Read

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055556309&page=1

Elmo

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Plenty more to write to Eamon about now.

Eamon is shortly about to order that a PC with Broadband renders the owner liable to the TV licence , even the iPhone could be enough .

Read

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055556309&page=1

Hand Held TVs require a TV License very hard to enforce.

An Electricity fixed price levy is the best root by far. It avoids all complications. Those who are entitle to a refund i.e. OAPs would have the SFA inform the EBS, Airtricity or Bord Gais that they do not require the levy.

DePurpereWolf

Elmo wrote: »

Hand Held TVs require a TV License very hard to enforce.

An Electricity fixed price levy is the best root by far. It avoids all complications. Those who are entitle to a refund i.e. OAPs would have the SFA inform the EBS, Airtricity or Bord Gais that they do not require the levy.

That's the problem with Ireland, all these hidden costs, extra levies, etc. etc. It is just not clear to the public what they earn, what things cost, and where the tax is spend on.

Having to pay you electric company to fund RTE is just weird.

If it is part of the income tax it would be more clear to people what is done with their money.

In the end people will have spend the same amount.

Elmo

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

That's the problem with Ireland, all these hidden costs, extra levies, etc. etc. It is just not clear to the public what they earn, what things cost, and where the tax is spend on.

Having to pay you electric company to fund RTE is just weird.

If it is part of the income tax it would be more clear to people what is done with their money.

In the end people will have spend the same amount.

Not if you specifically called the Levy the TV license Levy, which should not be administered by the government for reasons already outlined in this thread.

People wouldn't have to pay another TV license.

Most people aren't aware that 30% of the TV License goes to private companies under the law. (Some even goes towards TV3's programming) but this is a very very transparent fact.

DePurpereWolf

Ray Burke 'fcuking screwed' RTE when the TV licence was in place, it is not evidence for the right of existence of the TV licence, but just another example of bad politics. It can happen in both cases. I am not suggesting that Brian cowen decides which programme to air, Bones or Lost, but how much money should go into RTE, just as how much money should be spend on culture, roads, etc. etc.

Some European countries have switched to what I am suggesting, so I am not completely stupid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_licence#Countries_where_the_TV_licence_has_been_abolished

It might have some downsides, but what I like about it is that it is not complicated or hidden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_licence

Elmo

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

Ray Burke 'fcuking screwed' RTE when the TV licence was in place, it is not evidence for the right of existence of the TV licence, but just another example of bad politics. It can happen in both cases. I am not suggesting that Brian cowen decides which programme to air, Bones or Lost, but how much money should go into RTE, just as how much money should be spend on culture, roads, etc. etc.

Some European countries have switched to what I am suggesting, so I am not completely stupid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_licence#Countries_where_the_TV_licence_has_been_abolished

It might have some downsides, but what I like about it is that it is not complicated or hidden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_licence

You can suggest that the License Fee is abolished but who pays for PSBs? As you rightly point out Ray Burke was able to mess with RTÉ during his reign as Minister for Justice and Communications, he did this by trying to get RTÉ to reduce Century Radio's Network costs to RTÉ NL, put a hold on the Licence Fee where it remained at about 70 euro for 10 years, and capped RTÉ advertising.

It is far harder to mess with the TV license if you are the Minister because it is far to transparent i.e. the License fee goes directly to the PBS, unlike money from the exchequer which can be reduce either due to economic reasons and worse political pressures.

The TV license is currently very transparent and indeed changing the collection method wouldn't adversely effect the transparency or the political pressures that a State Broadcaster can suffer.

The Flemish broadcaster VRT is now funded from general taxation.

Income tax like the Health levy or road tax that is put into roads ????

The tax was added to electricity bills, and the amount paid depended on the size of the home. By the late 1990s, it was abolished due to pressure from private radio and TV broadcasters. CyBC is currently funded by advertising and government grants.

Cyprus government could collect 100% of tax and leave CyBC with only 50% of the tax. Levy that is directly paid would be better and more transparent.

Effectively this means that funding for Magyar Televízió and Duna TV now comes from the government through taxation.

Again not very transparent it is just Exchequer funding, how much tax is given to the state broadcasters? and when does the government reduce the funding and how?

Public television in the Netherlands is now funded by government subsidy. In order to pay for public television from government funds, income tax was increased.

Income tax won't be increase, perhaps 1% income levy should be given to RTÉ.

the licence fee was finally abolished in New Zealand in 1999, partly because the administration costs to collect the tax relative to the level of revenue was unviable, and also because the TV channels had become commercial revenue generators for the government with hardly any public service obligations left.

Overtly commercial model can't be good for PSB TV.

The radio licence fee was instituted in the early 90's to fund the public radio channels which are advertising-free, and is charged through electricity bills under the name "Taxa de Contibuição Audiovisual" (Portuguese for Broadcasting Contribution Tax). The radio licence fee is approximately €20.52 per year (€1.71 per month).

See very transparent and on your electricity bill.

Mike 1972

Hand Held TVs require a TV License very hard to enforce.

Actually in Ireland TV licences are only issues in respect of addresses or vehicles. Anyone in mere possession (nevermind actual use) of a television set anywhere else is commiting an offence. (Even if they are bringing a new TV set that they have just bought home from the shop)

The fact that nobody is ever prosecuted for this "crime" is pretty irrelevent really. A law which is virtually impossible to comply with is a bad law that should have no place on the statute books.

Sam Russell

Elmo wrote: »

............

See very transparent and on your electricity bill.

It is the only way. Cheap to collect, difficult to avoid, transparent, and free of government interference. If you have an electricity account, you pay, if you don't, you don't.

At the moment, if you have equipment that is capable of receiving the signal, you must have a licence - even if it is only a card plugged into a laptop, and you do not use it. 'We've heard all the excuses, and none of them work.' to quote someone or other.

DePurpereWolf

I think we differ on the meaning of transparent.

I do not mean it in the sense of 'clear where the money is meant for'. I think that it is already clear that the TV licence is for Irish TV. It would actually be less clear if it went through the electricity company (what? My Electricity company owns RTE?)

With transparent I mean what is done with the money. Currently we give RTE a blank cheque every year. We can't stop paying them money if they are doing a bad job, we can't stop if they charge us more. Similarly, if they do a good job, they won't get more money. They can pretty much do whatever they want. (to a level)

In a good democracy, politicians listen to the people, every couple of years the performance of RTE can be reviewed. In this case we won't be writing a blank cheque to a couple of monkeys every year.

This is already happening, the amount of the TV licence is controlled by the government. So I am not changing anything here. Only the collection method.

The government has nothing to do with what goes on in a hospital. Yet every year their funding gets reviewed. It won't change radically from year to year because that would spell complete mayhem if we start and stop hospitals on a yearly basis.

RTE is a government business, just like hospitals and whatnot. So lets have the government collect the money without a middleman.

Elmo

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

With transparent I mean what is done with the money. Currently we give RTE a blank cheque every year. We can't stop paying them money if they are doing a bad job, we can't stop if they charge us more. Similarly, if they do a good job, they won't get more money. They can pretty much do whatever they want. (to a level).

It is very transparent as to what RTÉ do with the licence fee. Their Annual Reports are very detailed. You can find out if you read the RTÉ Annual report.


Weather they are doing a Bad job is really a matter of opinion how do we define good television? Viewership? TG4 produce allot of terrific programmes but get few veiwers.

There are issues surrounding payment to big names in RTÉ which I think should stop. RTÉ show very clearly were they put the money that they get from the license fee.

RTÉ's Annual Report 2007

They also give 5% to the Sound and Vision Fund provided to the BCI. They also breakdown the License fee by division e.g. News and Current Affairs gets nearly 60million per year, used across Radio, TV, Internet and Aertel.

The other question is how transparent can they get?

Elmo

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

In a good democracy, politicians listen to the people, every couple of years the performance of RTE can be reviewed. In this case we won't be writing a blank cheque to a couple of monkeys every year.

This is already happening, the amount of the TV licence is controlled by the government. So I am not changing anything here. Only the collection method.

RTE is a government business, just like hospitals and whatnot. So lets have the government collect the money without a middleman.

Hospitals are not government business they are completely different to other areas of Economics you can not compare the HSE (a public body) to the VHI (a semi state company). However I was comparing the Health Levy and Road Tax as in do they actually go into Health or Transport. I know that Motor Tax is not fully used for the roads, but it should.

The amount is controlled by the government but we can really see very transparently how Mr. Burke was able to abuse his power when dealing with RTÉ and the Licence fee, this would not have been as transparent with the use of the Exchequer.

Elmo

DCERN also carry out a performance review

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/Broadcasting/Television+Licence+Fee+Reviews/

They are very very transparent. IMO

Elmo

Also details of the Sound and Vision fund can be found on the BCI website

http://www.bci.ie/broadcast_funding_scheme/index.html

The BCI carry out reviews of advertising times across all broadcasters. The BCC takes complaints from the public for all broadcasters. These will soon be merged into one ultimate organization called the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) which will also remove the RTÉ authority from its current position. The BAI will carry out all of the reviews listed above, in the name of Transparency and Democracy.

Sam Russell

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

I think we differ on the meaning of transparent.

.......

RTE is a government business, just like hospitals and whatnot. So lets have the government collect the money without a middleman.

One issue is how the money is collected. ESB Networks is a government business, and would be able to act as a government agent to collect fees for a second government business, RTE. This is the current situation, as done by an Post, another government business on behalf of RTE.

What RTE does with the money is a political/social/economic issue. It should never be a party political issue where one parties uses the funding issue to derive political advantage, as in the Burke situation, where RTE were forced to surrender funding to Century Radio (if anyone can remember them).

RTE are heavily controlled by the Broadcasting acts to be impartial, or as fair as is possible. I think they do very well.

Funding is one issue, how it is collected is a second one.