I wish to outline the background to these amendments which relate to the heart of the Bill. I hope the Minister will consider amendments in this area. In his speech on Second Stage, he noted that the arbitration process was being introduced under pressure from the sporting organisations which were concerned that they would not do as well, financially, in this new arrangement. While I am keen on the Irish sporting bodies being financially well structured, my fear is that the main outcome, if we accept this section of the Bill as is, is that the satellite, non-qualifying broadcasters would have a more powerful position than we or the Minister would wish in the control of major sporting events. That is a serious concern.
The ability of satellite broadcasters to broadcast in this State and collect advertising revenue, without any real input or interest in the day-to-day aspects of broadcasting in the Republic, means that the Minister has to regulate and control their power in order to protect Irish terrestrial broadcasters. I am glad the Minister has recently indicated he is looking at ways of regulating broadcasters such as Sky, which now has 270,000 paid-up subscribers in this country and is taking advertising out of the State, without any real input or commitment to Irish public sector broadcasting. As we have seen in recent years, the tactics of those companies involves gaining sporting rights as a leverage to attract further viewers and increase their commercial activity within the State. It is not a fair trading situation because those companies pay for rights in a situation where they do not incur any cost or expenditure within the State. That gives them an unfair competitive advantage in terms of setting rates for sporting events.
That is the reason for my proposed amendments to this section. The market rate is the key issue regarding this Bill. If the arbitrator is given an indication, through legislation, that the market rate is that set by Sky, which can buy up sporting rights as a loss leader to gain greater access in this State, that is not a fair market rate. The first of my three amendments is intended to address that issue. Whereas the Minister proposes that the arbitrator should consider previous fees for an event, or similar events, my amendment provides that it should relate to previous fees paid by a qualified broadcaster. It is unfair that a qualified broadcaster should have to compete with Sky which, as I have stated, simply draws advertising revenue from within the State without any of the commitments or costs which qualified broadcasters incur. The wording could be amended further to provide for consideration of what qualified broadcasters pay in other countries. The essence of my first amendment is to assist in defining market rates for the arbitrator. The market rate cannot be determined on the basis of what the highest bidder is willing to pay. If we allow that to occur, the legislation, effectively, has no purpose.
My second amendment is, perhaps, less significant but I believe it is worthy of inclusion in the Bill in terms of recognising the estimated production costs as a factor for consideration by the arbitrator. This may, in fact, be of assistance to the sporting organisations. One could argue that if a sports event organiser is providing some of the production facilities within a stadium, as opposed to a situation where the qualified broadcaster had significant costs in setting up and covering an event, it is appropriate that the arbitrator should take that into account in deciding the appropriate fee. That may be a small issue but I believe it is an important one.
My third amendment is significant. It is valid for an arbitrator to take into account the extent of coverage the qualifying broadcaster actually provides to the particular sport involved throughout the year. We wish to have preference given to sporting broadcasters who show a genuine interest in sport, week by week, rather than one which is trying to cherry-pick major events. I believe we should steer the arbitrator and, ultimately, the High Court in the direction of taking into account how the sport is covered all year round by the qualified broadcaster and how earlier events were covered. That would lead to greater investment in Irish sports coverage, for the benefit of Irish fans, as opposed to the cherry-picking of main events. If we do not set the right conditions for the arbitrator this Bill will become ineffective, leading to a continuation of the current situation where the highest bidder could set the tone in terms of the cost of sports coverage. If the arbitrator sets a rate, it would be difficult for the High Court to overturn it. It is very important that the Minister considers these amendments, or further amendments he may bring forward that are similar to those I have proposed, so that the arbitrator in the High Court can set a market rate which is one that we want and not one that a satellite broadcaster wants.