I want to speak briefly in support of this amendment. It is not only good practice in this area in terms of the participation of youth in important decisions and decisions in areas that affect them, but it also has a strong practical purpose. Young people identify much earlier than others the new trends and what is happening in society. The Minister of State will be aware a number of our amendments, which we will deal with later, relate not only to harmful content online but harmful conduct online in terms of how v…

I will be brief. It strikes me that the amendment is already quite reasonably worded. It does not say that there must be a youth advisory panel for all eternity. In the Minister of State’s reply, he mentioned a particular “moment in time”. We are at a particular moment in time when a wide range of new actors are going to be regulated for the first time. In that context, a youth advisory voice is important. The amendment, as I understand it, simply says that within one year of its establishment, the commission would…

I move amendment No. 56: In page 29, line 15, to delete “shall” and substitute “may”. I will begin by saying-----

It is relevant because it relates to this section and effectively as well to this amendment which also involves consultancy. You described, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, the intersection of amendment No. 55 with section 19. Again, this does not impose, it gives the power to the commission, with the consent of the Minister to determine costs.

The freedom to make that determination and whether there would be costs sits with the commission and with the Minister. This is an issue we need to examine at the Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Oversight because of the recent inconsistent rulings. This amendment is very important. It might be inadvertent in its wording because the way it is phrased at the moment is that the commission may hire a consultant or specialist to look at a particular area, but then it says, "The Commission shall have regard to …

I am going to reflect on the Minister of State's response. I am not fully convinced. I can see scenarios where I would be disappointed that advice was not properly considered, but I can also see scenarios where what we have sometimes seen-----

I am considering as I speak. Certain consultant bodies manage time and again to have disproportionate influence on the actions of public bodies. I am going to withdraw the amendment for now and reserve the right to reintroduce it. I may look for that explanation or opinion in writing from the Department. It would be useful.

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 clar…

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…

In that case, I ask if the Minister of State might consider the amendment I have tabled. If that is the intent, why not include the amendment that simply clarifies that nothing in section 21 should be seen to affect section 159E. If that is the intent, there is no harm in putting that in. It would certainly be clear to me.

Again, I have amendments that are deletions. I also have this amendment, which is simply to add a clarification. Is there any argument not to include that clarification? Besides saying they are different, there is nothing in the Bill that says they are different.

I will withdraw.

I move amendment No. 58: In page 29, to delete lines 39 and 40, and in page 30, to delete lines 1 and 2.

I move amendment No. 60: In page 31, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following: “(12A) 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 move amendment No. 61: In page 31, lines 28 and 29, to delete “(including money in a currency other than the currency of the State)”. This amendment relates to the power to borrow and is a response to a concern about a provision on page 31 of the Bill that allows for the commission to borrow money, including money in a currency other than the currency of the State, for the purposes of performing its functions. It is an area of some concern. We believe that, where the commission borrows such moneys, it would be be…

As I will not be able to speak on the other amendments in this group after I make my decision on No. 61, I would like to respond quickly to the Minister of State, if I may. I accept the point he makes in respect of amendment No. 63. His analysis is fair and I realised that as he spoke. The thrust of the other amendments was about trying not to erode the independence of the commission but to preserve it. Many of these amendments were taken from legislation in respect of IHREC, in terms of the idea of having a separa…

I move amendment No. 62: In page 31, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “(2) Before giving their consent, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and the Minister for Finance shall consult with and seek the views of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform and Taoiseach.”.

I move amendment No. 65: In page 34, line 42, after “Minister” to insert “and the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media”. Amendment No. 65 amends section 29(1). It provides that when preparing a strategy statement, as well as submitting it to the Minister, the commission would also share it with the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media. Amendment No. 66 inserts a new subsection. Again, these are core things when setting out the strategy. These are not…

Yes, I have moved amendment No. 65. However, I am still speaking to it.

On amendment No. 65, I understand, accept and welcome that the intention is to ensure language in terms of relevant committees will be inserted by a Government amendment on Report Stage. I accept that the title of the relevant committee may change at a certain point. However, it is important that there would be that parliamentary oversight or engagement in terms of the strategy and not solely Executive or Government engagement. I welcome the fact that there would be engagement with the relevant committees. In regar…