Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 57:

In page 29, to delete lines 32 to 40, and in page 30, to delete lines 1 and 2.

These amendments relate to the power to impose levies. Within this legislation, two forms of levy are discussed but they are not given different titles, per se. They are both referred to as "the levy" or "levy order". A number of restrictions are placed in respect of the levies under this section, yet there are other levies relating to European works, for example, and I am not satisfied that there is enough clarity that the constraints on the commission's power to impose levies will not have a leakage effect as regards the European works levies. I am giving them different titles, which is not the case in the Bill. They are simply referred to as "the levy".

The proposed section 21 envisages the making of "an order imposing a levy" that is designed to meet the expenses of the commission's operation. The later levies under the proposed section 159E are in respect of European works, but section 21 contains a framework of subsections and language that essentially says that any levy in excess of the operations of the commission should be returned and should not represent more than a certain proportion of the commission's operational costs.

I will go through the amendments in order. Regarding amendments Nos. 57 and 58, the Bill reads:

In calculating the amount of a levy under any paragraph of subsection (1) in respect of a levy period, the Commission--

(a) shall consider the Commission’s expenses in that period in performing functions ...

(b) shall seek to ensure that the total amount imposed by way of levy under that paragraph in respect of that period, represents a corresponding proportion of the total amount imposed by way of levy under this section in respect of that period."

The commission calculates its expenses and then ensures that the total amount of the levy represents a proportion of those operational costs.

I have taken a few different approaches in the later amendments. Regarding amendment No. 60, the Bill reads:

(11) Any surplus of income, from levies imposed in respect of a levy period, over the expenses properly incurred by the Commission in that period and its working capital requirements in that period shall either-- (a) be retained by the Commission to be offset proportionately against subsequent levy obligations of the providers on whom the levy was imposed, or

(b) be refunded proportionately to those providers.

This subsection is of concern. There are some caveats to the earlier provisions, which refer to a levy's mandate under a particular subsection. However, this subsection just refers to levy orders and the surplus of income from levies. There is nothing wrong with any of that in itself, but I am concerned by its potential implications for section 159E. Importantly, there is the possibility that the commission may make a levy order on service providers that will be used to fund European works. In later amendments, we will deal with the kinds of work involved. The levy order sets out the methods of calculation, periods involved, records, exemptions and so forth, but I am concerned that the constraints on levies in section 21 could muddy some of the planning of a levy under section 159E.

I have suggested a few removals and insertions to address the issue. In one place, I propose: "For the avoidance of doubt, this section shall not apply to levies issued under section 159E of the Principal Act and nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting such powers."I also have a corresponding equivalent amendment to insert into section 159E, but again, it is simply a clarification. There are a few of the paragraphs within that section on levies, however, where it is not clear they are only speaking to the levies on the operation of the commission. Perhaps the Minister of State could address that or some way could be found to clarify it. As I said, I will put forward one proposal in terms of clarifying it but I am very happy if the Government has its own proposals in that manner.