Catherine Martin (Dublin Rathdown, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators for their amendments but I do not propose to accept them.As regards amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48, section 12(13) of the Broadcasting 2009, as inserted by section 7 of the Bill, sets out what constitutes a relevant interest for the purpose of determining whether a commissioner should cease to hold office by virtue of him or her, or a connected person, which includes a family member, holding a relevant interest in a provider of communications media. Section 12(11)(i) provides that a person shall cease to hold office as commissioner if he or she acquires a relevant interest in a provider of communications media. The term "provider of communications media", as set out in section 3(2)(s) of the Bill, is a broad one. It includes not only those services that will be subject to regulation by the coimisiún but also newspapers or periodicals consisting substantially of news and comment on current affairs. A person is considered to have a relevant interest if he or she, or a connected person, holds equity with a value greater than €5,000 or debt with a value greater than €13,000 in a provider of communications media. The person may also hold a relevant interest if he or she receives gifts or benefits with a value greater than €650 from the provider or hold a directorship or shadow directorship in a provider.

A relevant interest may arise if a person or connected relative is party to an arrangement regarding land with the provider. The values for the maximum debt and equity that may be held and the benefit that may be received were arrived at in consultation with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. I believe the balance we have arrived at is correct. It fulfils the public policy purpose of ensuring a commissioner does not inadvertently cause a cessation of office by virtue of him or her, or a connected person, acquiring a small interest or deriving a small benefit while also protecting against any conflict of interest that may arise.

I understand the intention of amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48 in seeking to go even further than the Bill in addressing conflicts of interest. The thresholds also apply to connected persons, including family. However, the proposed amendments could have unintended effects. In particular, prohibiting the holding of debt or equity in providers of communications media by connected relatives could cause commissioners to cease office if a family member acquired any debt or equity whatsoever in a provider of communications media. In this regard, I am thinking of pension products that involve investments in passive or active pension funds, which may give rise to small debt or equity holdings in respect of providers of communications media. This may be wholly outside the control of the connected relative but would nonetheless require the commissioner to cease office if these amendments were accepted. As I have said, I believe we have the balance right in the Bill in tackling any conflict of interest that may arise, while also recognising that small interests in providers of communications media may be held.

I understand the intention behind amendment No. 49 in seeking to broaden the definition of "relevant interest" to encompass social media accounts. However, regarding the core principle of ensuring commissioners or connected persons do not derive benefits from the providers of communications media, I believe section 12(13)(d) of the Broadcasting Act 2009, as amended by section 7 of the Bill, achieves this by limiting the value of any benefits that may be received by a commissioner, connected person or staff member of the coimisiún from a provider of communications media to €650. This would also apply to income derived from the monetisation of a social media account, for example.

Although the Senator said amendment No. 49 was really raised for debate, I worry it could give rise to unintended consequences whereby a commissioner could be removed from office through no fault of his or her own as a result of this provision. For example, an ill-intentioned person or entity could purchase a large quantity of fake followers in respect of a commissioner or connected person with the intention of causing a commissioner to exceed the threshold of 20,000 followers. Regarding amendment No. 49, as we discussed regarding amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 41, the Bill will be amended to provide for an online safety commissioner who will be appointed to oversee the making of online safety codes and applying them to designated online services. I am conscious that this will be a demanding role and one that is likely to be controversial. I am worried that the amendment would pose a particular risk for the online safety commissioner given the role at the forefront of regulating designated online services.

Amendment No. 50, which I will not be accepting, has the same effect as amendments Nos. 44 and 52, which we have discussed.