Noel Harrington (Cork South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome each of the people to the committee. We have heard interesting, positive and different testimonies from each. The position is evolving with a new broadcasting household charge from the old television licence. While it might not make much difference to a household in terms of pounds, shillings and pence when it comes to paying for the television licence, there is a difference in that the charge will be levied at the same rate on every household from Malin Head to Mizen Head. I am keen to touch on a related issue. Some households will get far more from this than others if the household charge is divided as has been suggested. How do the deputations propose to address that? For example, Dr. Brennan referred to a local fund that would be more or less spent where it is collected as well as an all-Ireland fund, both derived from the one household charge. Frankly, someone could feasibly benefit twice as much in an urban area because far more funds would be raised in that area for a local fund by comparison with a corresponding local service to a more rural area. For example, the practicalities of the area I represent mean this simply would not happen there. We would not get any quality of service to households. I am keen to hear how that could be addressed.

Each of the deputations has mentioned the extra dimensions they bring, not only in broadcasting but in service, training, employment opportunities and so on. They have broadened out the picture to include the benefits they provide to communities and the State. Each of the witnesses might have a different observation on my question. Is it appropriate for the broadcasting charge fund to be used to fund training, even if it remains the same as the fund collected for the television licence? Is there duplication of funding? Why not have links to the Dublin Institute of Technology through various organisations or links through the Department of Social Protection to other funding mechanisms? These could be better targeted by the Exchequer to deal with exactly what the witnesses are trying to achieve rather than use a broadcasting charge fund for the same purposes. What is the risk of a duplication of effort? Could a station access one particular stream of Exchequer funding for one purpose and then expect the household to supplement that through another fund? The witnesses may have observations on that.

I conclude by wishing Mr. O'Reilly every success with what sounds like a very exciting commercial business. I have a little difficulty, however, in terms of where he sees a public service component in it. It seems to be more commercial than CRAOL and the general community television model. How does he see public service funding fitting neatly into the package he is proposing? At the same time, I acknowledge that it would be a not-for-profit endeavour which would support wages and salaries. That, of course, is good. My question is about how any public service funding might support its activities. I acknowledge it is a broad question. For example, if Mr. O'Reilly's business were to receive additional funding from the broadcasting charge, would it go towards paying salaries and meeting administration costs rather than actual pure broadcasting content and the pure technical support required to that end?