Ms Sinéad Gibney:

On behalf of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, I thank the committee. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission is Ireland's independent national human rights institution and equality body. In this role, we hold a specific mandate to keep under review the adequacy and effectiveness of law and practice relating to the protection of human rights and equality, and to examine any legislative proposal and report our views on any implication it has for human rights or equality.

Our written contribution, already provided to members, focuses on a number of specific issues, primarily the role and functions of the media commission, the definition of "harmful online content" and "age appropriate content", and the accessibility of services for people with disabilities. Most fundamentally, we are clear that any proposed legislation must satisfy the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality.

There can be no doubt this is significant legislation from a human rights and equality perspective and that it can be strengthened through stronger and more consistent reference to human rights and equality standards. Protecting people from online harmful content and conduct is a requirement under international human rights law, but it is necessary that such measures be balanced against competing fundamental rights, including the rights to freedom of expression, privacy and freedom of assembly.

We have covered the issue of disability access, informed by the work of our disability advisory committee and our role as the independent monitor of Ireland's compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, CRPD. However, we strongly recommend that, on issues of disability access and in line with the CRPD principles, the committee invite disabled people's organisations to speak to it about their direct experience and understanding.

Regarding the establishment of a media commission, it is important this legislation includes a specific statutory requirement for the commission to have due regard in the performance of its functions to the need to eliminate discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and protect human rights. This requirement is one incumbent upon all public bodies as part of the public sector equality and human rights duty. Given the breadth of responsibility of the new commission, though, an explicit statement of this obligation is an important addition.

Legal definitions of concepts that are central to the effectiveness of this law in practice need to be articulated more explicitly. For example, the definition of "harmful online content" needs to be clear and sufficiently precise. Terms relating to hate speech, such as racism, sexism, and ableism, should also be clearly defined under the proposed legislation. I will invite Dr. Michael to contribute during this part of our discussion.

We would further question why the definition of online harm does not include material that violates other legal regimes, for example, defamation law, data protection, privacy law, consumer protection law or copyright law. The fact a statement is defamatory or in breach of data protection or copyright law does not necessarily mean it may not also be a form of harmful online content. This clarity is in the interest of delineating freedom of speech as well as providing adequate protection for affected groups.

For these and other reasons, we are clear the Bill is sorely needed, but it must be designed and defined in ways that make it truly effective, and it cannot be a stand-alone measure. Legislatively, it must fit hand in glove with the draft hate crime legislation that is also being prepared by the Houses and combine effectively with the eventual publication of a national action plan against racism.

Beyond legislation, to ensure an overarching, effective and human rights-compliant framework for online safety, media regulation and tackling hate speech and hate crime, there must be a broader societal conversation beyond criminalisation and prohibition, one that includes education, counter-speech and the promotion of pluralism.

Dr. Michael and I are happy to take members' questions.