Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am a little concerned by that because I am looking to the language in subsections (1) and (2) referred to in section 21(12). All that subsection (1) says is that:

(1) The Commission may make an order (a ‘levy order’) imposing a levy on any of the following: (a) providers of audiovisual media services;

(b) providers of sound broadcasting services;

(c) providers of designated online services.

All that subsection (2) says is that "A levy order shall specify the period in respect of which a levy is imposed". I do not see how that safeguards anything. That is, in fact, quite wide. It simply says a levy order relates to these kinds of actors, which are the actors covered by the Bill - that is nothing - and that a levy period is the period when the levy is imposed.

I do not, therefore, see how that is any insurance in terms of the concern I have about the levies in respect of European works. I am concerned because, in fact, it is not the goal that the commission should only be making levies in respect of its operation. As I understand it, the audiovisual directive also empowers a proactive making of levies on audiovisual media services and similar bodies that can then be channelled towards the production of European works. Again, that is part of that obligation in terms of diversity of content and diversity of voice within our audiovisual landscape.

It certainly should not be the case that any scheme in relation to European works is simply a kind of small subfunction of the commission's operation. It is, in fact, a power that goes beyond operational costs. It is something that represents instead a proactive role. As the Minister of State described it, again, that is the part that is getting focused on. I have not heard something that addresses my concern in terms of really being assured this commission will be able, for example, to say it wishes to put a 2% or 5% levy or whatever it might be on audiovisual services which it wants to be channelled into all of those more diverse forms of cultural participation and product such as are set out in the scheme for European works under section 159F.

I would accept that subsection (5) has some caveats in terms of "calculating the amount of a levy under any paragraph of subsection (1)". Subsection (5) has some caveats but, say, something like subsection (11) around the surplus of income and subsections (1) and (2), which were referred to by the Attorney General, do not distinguish that the constraints in this section shall apply only in respect of the operational costs and levies in terms of operational costs. I have not heard, in fact, an argument as to how these will not constrain levies in respect of the European works. I listened, and apologies if there is something I missed in the answer, but the answer as I heard it, however, kind of looped around itself in that it referred right back to this section.

As I said, I see some language in subsection (5) that seems potentially useful in terms of constraint, but again, the provisions in terms of subsection (11) simply just say a "levy period". The levy period is simply the period in which a levy is imposed. It does not say a levy in respect of the workings of the commission or a levy in respect of operations. I am sorry to labour this but I am excited about the positive potential of this legislation as well as the protective and promotional role. I just do not see it. Again, perhaps I need to have it outlined clearly to me.