Professor Gillian Doyle:

In the course of our deliberations, we looked at a variety of different models. The compulsory licence fee used to be prevalent in many countries. A number of them have moved in recent years away from it, however. While it still prevails in the UK and in some other countries, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland and so on have moved away from it in recent years.

The licence fee has an advantage for consumers and citizens. There is still a very visible social contract between those paying the fee and the provider. We all recognise that, however, in this era where people are consuming content via devices other than the television set, a device-specific charge looks outdated. The licence fee is an approach which has merits because it safeguards autonomy and editorial independence of public service media.

A problem with the licence fee is that it is regressive in that it charges the same amount whether one is rich or poor. Another issue in the Irish context that we have heard about is that there are high collection costs and high evasion rates. The main problem with it is the device-specific nature of the charge.

We have looked at a range of alternative models as well. As the link between the receiving device and fee liability does not make sense anymore, one of the other options that would make sense would be to shift the basis of liability to a household levy. That would allow one to make it a universal charge. Potentially, it could bring in more revenue and the cost could be spread differently. It could include businesses and bring in more progressive elements to it that take account of ability to pay. It would be better future-proofed. That sort of switch to a household charge was made in Germany in 2013. In an Irish context, it could provide an opportunity to create a larger fund-----