Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 9, to delete line 2 and substitute “ ‘commercial communication’ shall be interpreted as including advertisement;”.

This is a concerning factor and leaving aside what areas we believe should be regulated the question is advertisement itself being regulated. Section 2 is clearly about advertisements yet the other sections we will move on to include sections on advertising and later we will go on to sections on matters like the media service codes. A concern I have is that it may be possible on the current reading of the Bill that advertisement is not being covered by the media service codes and is only being covered by the narrow and specific provisions in section 46M. The reason I have for that concern relates to the definitions in page 9, including: " 'advertisement’ includes a commercial communication;". I know commercial communications need to be referenced in the Bill because they are referenced in the AV directive but commercial communications as set out in this definition are a subsection of advertisement. They relate to matters like product placement and the sponsorship of a segment within a programme.

I am concerned about the section on media service codes and many of the NGOs have concerns which we have heard about. All of the codes the commission may develop only apply to commercial communications. The danger would be that we will only have codes on a small subsection of advertising with most advertising being free to do whatever it likes. For example, there could be ads for conversion therapy as I said. There could also ads on trans-fats, acids, salts or sugars because section 46N(5) on the media service codes states that it: "may prohibit the inclusion in programmes of commercial communications relating to foods or beverages". We will come to the question of whether it should be "shall" or "may" later and that is a different debate.

The key point at the moment is that the commission is not being empowered to regulate advertising, only particular sponsorship of particular sections. We know that advertising is one of the massive concerns. In between the programmes and in the case of online and targeted advertisement - and we will come to questions of harmful conduct later - there is a question in terms of the content of advertising and there are also real questions on how advertising is targeted and directed. Who receives what ad and is it somebody who will be particularly vulnerable and who has been profiled as being vulnerable to that advertising? We will have discussions down the line on the many amendments from Senators on this Bill around advertising but I am concerned that the way the Bill is worded takes all that off the table. That is why I have tabled a few amendments to this section and these are my attempts to address that. I suggest “ ‘commercial communication’ shall be interpreted as including advertisement;” or I am open to the Minister's definition that "advertisement shall be treated in the same manner as commercial communications for the purposes of this Act". That is another way it could be approached. We do not want a definition that basically takes advertising off the table and creates a free-for-all where whoever has money can say whatever they like about anything, be it harmful content or anything else.

Amendment No. 99 mentions "The inclusion of advertisements under subsection (1)". This is an attempt to build a bridge from the advertising section, 46M, to the media service code section, 46N. I suggest: "The inclusion of advertisements under subsection (1) shall be subject to such restrictions and regulations as may be set out in the relevant media service code." I am trying to include the right to have media service code regulation in the section on advertising. That can also be done the other way but that was an attempt to make it clear that advertising comes under the code because we have largely voluntary codes on advertising. We are putting these restrictive measures in place in certain areas where there is no "may" and it is all very "shall" in terms of the political purpose and religious uses but we are not even leaving the scope for "may regulate" in other areas of advertising that are of significant concern. I could list them all but we are going from breast milk substitute advertising to gambling, cryptocurrency advertising and conversion therapy, which I mentioned before. There is a long litany of groups that are concerned about the impacts harmful advertising can have so it would be a disservice to them if this Bill fell short. I hope that can be addressed in a simple way by the definition or maybe it requires insertions into section 46M or section 46N. I have a number of other similar amendments where commercial communications are referenced and where I reference "advertising or" or "advertisements and".I seek to ensure that in multiple points in the Bill where commercial communications are being referenced, that advertising would come under that same remit.