Mr. John O'Kane:

Our response to this is based largely on the operational side of things and the Senator is correct in the way he characterises the relationship and also the funding model on which both organisations effectively operate. There is a delicacy in it. We would characterise the relationship in broad terms by saying that we are working towards objectives which are broadly similar at face value. There is a natural harmony, if I may use that word, between the aims of the two organisations. Their interests are not exactly the same, however. This derives from the imperative on both organisations to meet commercial targets and so on. That is why we have this licence in place. We are the NCH's largest client but it must also deal with many other clients. That forces the NCH into a position where it must engage with us as the largest client but it must also engage with many other clients who want to present their concerts in the NCH. In addition, the NCH wants to promote its own concerts. Betwixt and between those three elements there is a degree of competitiveness because we are competing in the narrowest sense of the term in the same marketplace for audiences. While I do not want to overemphasise the competitive dynamic in the relationship, our natural response when we see the provisions of this Bill is to see an opportunity to reflect the importance of RTE's relationship with the NCH. Our motivation for that stems not only from our desire to succeed as best we can in every aspect of our remit but also from our recognition that there is a common public investment, as Senator Mac Conghail alludes to, in that the NCH is funded directly from the Department of Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht, and that the orchestras are indirectly funded by the licence fee. If the ultimate goal is public benefit, then we think that there is a strong case for making the position of RTE stronger within the scheme of things.