| Title: Impact Assessment on new funding arrangement for S4C IA No: DCMS035 Lead department or agency: DCMS Other departments or agencies: Cabinet Office |
IMPACT ASSESSMENT (IA) |
| Date: 13/09/2011 | |
| Stage: Final | |
| Source of intervention: Domestic | |
| Type of measure: Primary legislation | |
| Contact for enquiries: Ade Ojo 020272116014 | |
| Summary: Intervention and Options | RPC: RFC Opinion Status |
| Cost of Preferred (or more likely) Option | ||||
| Total Net Present Value | Present Net Business Value | Net cost to business per year | In scope of One-in, One-out? | Measure qualifies as |
| (EANCB on 2009 prices) | ||||
| NEG. | —£70m | £20m cost | No | NA |
What is the problem under consideration? Why is government intervention necessary?
S4C is a public sector broadcaster, delivering a Welsh language service that receives Government funding. This service would otherwise be underprovided, in terms of what is politically desirable, without intervention. The existing arrangements links S4C's funding to the Retail Price index (RPI). The Government is seeking to make the funding of S4C more flexible and to allow the Government to fund S4C in line with wider spending constraints, while ensuring that S4C continues to receive sufficient funding to meet its statutory duties. The Government propose to facilitate this by removing the funding formula for S4C and replacing it with a funding duty by including clauses in the Public Bodies Bill to amend the Broadcasting Act 1990.
What are the poticy objectives and the intended effects?
The policy objectives are to secure a strong future for S4C and Welsh language broadcasting; ensure S4C receives maximum funding stability and tong term reassurance; to ensure that SC4 is able to offer the best possible Weish Language Service to its audience; and to help the Government to reduce the fiscal deficit by reducing the level of public funding to S4C by 24.4% in this spending period.
This will be affected through breaking the automatic link to the RPI for S4C funding from 2012 and giving the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport the duty to secure sufficient funding for S4C by making payments himself or by making arrangements with another person or organisation to do so.
What policy options have been considered, including any alternatives to regulation? Please justify preferred option (further details in Evidence Base)
1.Option 0: Keep the funding the same (Do nothing option)
This option is included to serve as a theoretical baseline against which to assess the impact of Option 1—which is the Government’s preferred policy option.
2.Option 1: Remove the RPI link (Preferred Option)
The preferred option involves removing the RPI funding link, the government to pay a portion of S4C's funding over the spending review period and for the SoS to enter into an agreement with another person (the BBC) to secure S4C's funding during and after the spending review period.
As S4C's funding is enshrined in legislation, these changes can only be affected through legislation. Non-regulatory measures will not produce the intended outcomes.
| Will the policy be reviewed? It will be reviewed. If applicable, set review date: 04/2015 | |||||
| Does implementation go beyond minimum EU requirements? | N/A | ||||
| Are any of these organisations in scope? If Micros not exempted set out reason in Evidence Base. | Micro | < 20 | Small | Medium | Large |
| No | No | No | No | No | |
| What is the CO2 equivalent change in greenhouse gas emissions? | Traded: | Non-traded: | |||
| (Million tonnes CO2 equivalent) | N/A | N/A | |||
I have read the impact Assessment and I am satisfied that, given the available evidence, it represents a reasonable view of the likely costs, benefits and impact of the leading options.
Signed by the responsible Minister:
A personal signature appears here
Date: 8-12-11
