<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18904"><!--[if !mso]>
<STYLE>v\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
o\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
w\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
.shape {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
</STYLE>
<![endif]-->
<STYLE>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</STYLE>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="2050" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US link=blue bgColor=#ffffff vLink=purple>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Darren and Phil</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>We have obviously fallen at the first hurdle in
making the case clear as you have both referred to taking money from the
BBC, and in Phil's case to 'dismantling of the licence fee
settlement' which is simply not my proposal. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>The BBC makes good use of the money it gets
(leaving aside the odd slip-ups that around to occur in a £34bn business), and
there is no need to propose and eroding of that as part of our proposal. At
present funding from the licence fee does not have to mean reducing the BBC's
effective settlement - in past decades it might have meant that, or an increase
in the fee, but right now it does not, and that is an opportunity to be
grabbed.There is £803m pounds in the 5-year settlement that was ring-fenced to
be spent only on Digital Switchover and in the event that it is not spent on
that, the Secretary of State has to decide what should be done with it. It is
not the BBC's money and has no impact on their budgets. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I have always thought that properly
managed and purposeful community-based/non-profit radio should be core funded
from the licence fee, but in past times this might have meant either an
additional real-terms increase in the fee or a cut to the BBC budget,
neither of which is inherently desireable. But with more licence fee
being collected that has been allocated to the BBC's own budgets, we have a
window of opportunity.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>You might say it is wrong in principle to come up
with a scheme to use money just because it is there, and I might ordinarily
agree, but that is precisely what the DCMS and Ofcom have done with their
proposal for spending £47m from this windfall over two years (0.65% of
annual licence fee) on a pilot project subsidizing ITV. In Ofcom's own words,
this would be to 'restore the profitability of the ITV licences'. I would
contend that if the ITV news subsidy scheme with an identified benefit of
supporting private profit is seen by DMS as a reasonable proposal,
then core funding of community radio certainly is.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>You say the percentage figure has no evidence of
need, and then promptly calculate that need to be of a similar
order as the figure being bandied about! I worked on a basis of 240 radio
stations (to inlcude the not-for-profit Highlands and Islands stations and the
addional CR licences likely to be granted in the next few
years). Multiplied by £81,000 brings you to about 0.6% of the licence
fee. With thoughts of some development and basic admin activity as well, I
suggested an initial target of 0.7%. I can see the merit of going for a
simple figure such as 1% as a campaigning platform, but realistically maybe
ending up with two-thirds of that.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I too think that there is a lot of value in local
tackling of MPs and candidates, but not as a substitute for a concerted
approach, rather as a ground laying reinforcement. If the matter comes up at a
national level. One MP is unlikely to do much to push such a thing through,
but if it then comes up centrally and they each one can say
'ah yes, I know about this, and I think it's worth looking at', then the
chances of success are magnified dramatically.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Yes, a USP would be good and very useful, but it
would have to gloss over the fact that the broad church of community
radio has several selling points some of which are more relevant in some
areas than others (for a start some stations are geographic community, some
community of interest, some major on training and access, others on providing
services to rural and isolated areas, etc etc). If we could come up with one USP
that encompasses the broad spectrum that would be excellent - but it's a tough
call.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Alex</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>