[cma-l] Top slicing the licence fee - CMA policy

[Two Lochs Radio]

Jaqui and co
(cc SCBN)

If it 'isn't CMA's policy at this point in time to campaign all out for use
of part of the current licence fee for community media' then I think it's
all the more important that we sieze the opportunity of the election to each
do it on our own behalf, and if necessary propose also setting up an
independent advisory body to be responsible for equitable distribution of
the funds.

I agree with Bill that there is huge merit in 'one-on-one' lobbying of local
MPs and candidates, with better prospect of follow-up, but this is
somethign that could be made much easier with the wholehearted
practical support of the CMA to coordinate and support this, and also
to do similar lobbying at a higher collective level.

I wouldn;t approach this from the point of view of bolstering the
Community Radio Fund. It  has several deficiencies, the greatest of
which of course is that it is woefully underfunded, but also it has problems
in that it does not cover the pioneering community-owned radio sector in the
Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and, most serious of all, it is very much
competitive application and one-off project-based.

I see no reason why there shouldn't be a presumption in favour of
core funding for all community-based/not-for-profit broadcasting stations
that meet a basic test of continuing to provide the public services they are
committed to providing under their respective licences. That is exactly what
the licence fee does for the BBC, just on a different scale.

I differ a little from what Steve said in that I think it *is* a good idea
to be concerned at this stage about where the funding will come from (ie
top-slicing licence fee). There are several reasons for this, and these
would form the core of my lobbying of MPs and prospective MPs:

a) it simply makes sense - the licence fee is a 'predicated tax' - it is
collected for and used for supporting public broadcasting, and unlike most
predicated taxes it has continued to be used almost wholly and exclusively
for the purpose intended

b) politicians are deluged with appeals for funding causes of varying
degrees of worthiness. A proposal that comes with a clear idea of where the
money could come from, without causing any additional tax raising or cuts
elsewhere must surely be in a stronger position, all other things being
equal.

c) the amount available in the licence fee fund is accurately known several
years ahead, and at present it is being collected well in excess of what is
committed to its major purpose.

d) the principle of 'top-slicing' this fund for other related purposes has
already been accepted and put into practice, eg with the Digital switchover
help scheme (which has been dramatically underspent), and does not need
further primary legislation. Indeed, the Government and Ofcom already
propose to top slice the licence fee to subsidize ITV companies in meeting
their licence obligations on news output. It is about to fund three two-year
pilots for £47m (although I believe a marginal majority of responses to
consultation opposed the proposal to fund it from the licence fee, and the
DCMS has just said the long term plan needs more consideration, and the
Conservative party has spoken against it).

So, while I agree that in principle it would be better to win the argument
as to the case for additional public funding of this sector on its own
merits, before wondering where the funding would come from, for all the
pragmatic reasons above it seem sensible to me to at least suggest that this
would be a proper and available source of funding.

Similarly, I think a proposal might even have a better chance of being
considered if it had some realistic proposed figures and distribution
scheme - here are some suggestions for shooting down...

The previous suggestion of 10% was clearly wildly excessive, and could cause
a proposal to be treated with contempt - 10% would amount to an average of
around £1.5m per station! I would suggest a more realistic bid for 0.7%,
which is about the amount proposed to be spent on just three pilot ITV news
consortia, and would average about £100k per station. If we got even
one-half of that it would make a tremendous difference to all the stations.

The fund should be distributed as core funding (just as with the BBC), and I
would suggest something like a flat rate minimum payment of, say, £50k per
year, plus a population related element, say a sliding scale from £0 to
another £50k for populations ranging from under-5,000 to over 50,000.

The balance of the central fund could be used for several common purposes,
such as:
-supporting the operation of collective representation boides (eg CMA, SCBN,
HICBF)
-funding a central audience research and advertising sales house
-funding a central national/regional news service (probably in conjunction
with the IFNCs if they exist!)

Maybe that is way too much detail for this stage and could be a hostage to
fortune, but nonetheless I think it is worth a concerted campaign arguing in
favour of public service funding of not-for-profit, community-owned
broadcasters with the funding to come from a small share of the current
licence fee 'top-up'.

I really think the CMA and, in Scotland, SCBN are in the best position to
coordinate an all out campaign on the this front to coincide with (but not
to end with) the general election, and I would urge the forthcoming council
meeting to consider this as a matter of urgency.

Regards

Alex

cc SCBN