Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Higgins. I understand the purpose of amendment No. 60 is to ensure there is sufficient distinction between the levy under the new section 21 of the Broadcasting Act 2009, as inserted by section 7 of the Bill, which will be used to meet the expenses of the commission incurred in the course of discharging its regulatory functions set out in the Bill in the Broadcasting Act 2009, and the levy made under section 159E, as inserted by section 53 of the Bill, which will be used to fund any content production scheme established under section 159F.

On the basis of my Department's engagement with the Office of the Attorney General, I believe there is sufficient distinction already provided through the legislation between the two levies, which is achieved in particular through the wording of sections 21(12) and 159E(8), which, when read together, clearly delineate where the Bill is referring to the industry levy or content production levy.

The effect of amendments Nos. 57 and 58 would appear to be to remove the obligation on the commission to have regard to its expenses incurred in a given period when imposing the industry levy. This could lead to the commission being unable to levy a higher amount from the industry than is needed to meet its operating costs. This would be against the intention of the Bill to require regulated entities to fund the cost of their regulation. The purpose of regulation as a general principle is to mitigate the negative impacts caused by these businesses as a matter of supporting the public good. Providing an coimisiún with unlimited revenue raising powers would not encourage efficiency and effectiveness in pursuit of this principle. The new section 21(11) of the Broadcasting Act 2009, as inserted by section 7 of the Bill, would still provide that any surplus would in any case be rolled into subsequent years to be offset against future levies or refunded to any providers levied. This is in congress with the proposed amendment, which would lead to a lacuna in the legislation. Accordingly, we do not propose to accept any of these amendments.