Mr. Michael O'Keeffe:

I thank the Chairman and members for inviting us here today. We welcome the principles contained within the proposed Bill, which we believe will be of benefit to the public, commercial and community broadcasting sectors in Ireland. A number of the heads, including the specific wording of a number of proposed sections, require further consideration and clarification and we envisage assisting the committee and the Department as this goes through the legislative process. I will comment on some specific heads concentrating on some more than others because they relate to us.

There are three elements to head 2 covering working capital arrangements for the BAI, the potential extension of the levy order to section 71 contractors and a proposal to allow the BAI to be part-funded from the licence fee. The BAI has sought the element relating to working capital for some time and it strongly supports the proposal. It is somewhat complex and relates to when the BAI was first established and the fact that the levy is payable in arrears. It left us short of working capital at the very beginning. We have addressed that thorough a borrowing facility every year. As this proposal would remove the requirement to go through a borrowing arrangement every year, we would welcome it. We see it as a minor amendment that will be of benefit to us.

We welcome the proposal to include section 71 contractors within the levy order provisions. We understand the background. In respect of the background to excluding them back in 2009, the idea was to encourage new entrants into the marketplace. We did not have many new entrants based in this jurisdiction and the provision was designed to encourage those. It is important that we still have that provision. This is why it is important that the discretion and flexibility within the proposed section 33(4)(A) of the head are maintained because there will be a different mix of broadcasters. We might have potentially larger broadcasters from the UK coming in and it is certainly appropriate that there be a levy provision on those but, hopefully, we will see the development of smaller, niche, minority broadcasters. It would be difficult for these broadcasters to become established if we were to impose significant burdens on them. We welcome the fact that it is happening but we think the flexibility the Department has put into the head makes a lot of sense and we very much support that.

The BAI notes the potential for up to 50% of the levy funding to be provided from the licence fee. We welcome the principle of reducing the financial burden on the commercial and community broadcasting sectors and TG4 under this proposal. We would express a concern around RTE in respect of this because there is potentially a net loss through this proposal. RTE does pay us a levy as well. If the money is taken from the licence fee and there is no recompensing mechanism, there will be a net loss to RTE on that.

The BAI, in its annual reviews of RTE funding over the past few years has recommended small increases in that funding but if this was to be implemented without there being some mechanism to offset it, be it through the increase in tackling evasion or an increase in the current level of the licence fee funding that goes to them, the principle would go some way to addressing it. We agree with the principle and it is very valuable from our point of view that there is funding given to the broadcasting sectors, public, commercial and community, because they are challenged. We would caution, however, that before it is implemented to the extent envisaged the question of how the net loss that RTE would suffer would be addressed.

Head 3 addresses the lacuna in the current Act around the section 70 contractor, which is TV3. We support the principle that every service transmitted should operate with a licence whether provided in Ireland or another EU jurisdiction. We welcome the principle under this head.

I have captured many of my points about head 4 in my response to head 2, which concerns the safeguarding of any loss of income that would arise from RTE as a result of that. The timing will be important in respect of how and when we introduce the new levy provisions.

We have no current role in the matters envisaged in head 5 and I do not envisage the Department will give us a current role and we are happy with that. We endorse everything the Department has said about, and any initiative that supports, tackling the high levels of licence fee evasion but we do not particularly want the task.

We strongly endorse the provisions under head 6, the bursary for journalism in the community sector. It is intended that this will be done through the broadcasting funding scheme. It does support our objective within the Act of sustaining independent and impartial journalism. It has the potential to support the sustainability of local community radio sectors which have obligations around news and current affairs and I think this will help to support those, particularly local radio services which provide strong commitments to news and current affairs. It also should support increased diversity for audiences. There are several reasons for seeing this as a very positive development and we strongly support the provisions under head 6. The issue of copyright addressed under this head is not currently within our remit. We would like to reserve our position and explore the proposal further before taking a formal position on this.

Deputy Ryan asked me about the retransmission fees last week. I have not changed my view in the week. We support the principle of platform operators being charged retransmission fees which would recognise the value of the content being created by the public service broadcasters and other free to air broadcasters. The content provided by these services is a key driver of consumer support for the packages provided by platform operators. In a time of funding challenges for broadcasters under existing models, it would appear a legitimate mechanism for the provision of additional funding to support content creation. We do think, however, as do our colleagues in the Department, that there are strongly held views among the platform operators in opposition to this proposal. We suggest that there may be a requirement for further analysis, for example, international comparators or perhaps an impact assessment of what the proposal might entail. This might be undertaken in advance of any decision being taken to amend the legislation. I emphasise that we support the principle of charging retransmission fees. We are happy to answer any questions the committee may have.