Seanad debates

Wednesday, 4 May 2022

Online Safety and Media Regulation Bill 2022: Committee Stage (Resumed)

 

2:00 pm

Photo of Alice-Mary HigginsAlice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

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 the advice of any consultant or adviser engaged under this section". In fact, when we talk about unduly tying the hands of the commission, we are creating a situation whereby a consultant who might be hired could effectively be in a position where he or she is inappropriately determining or shaping the policy of the commission. My amendment simply says "may have regard to the advice of any consultant or adviser engaged under this section".Since we are dealing with specialist areas, there will be situations involving the training of algorithms, the operation of particular online platforms, recommender systems for which videos get proposed next and those within the industry where the commission will seek to ask a number of consultants or advisers who are linked with, or have previously been linked with, the industry to make recommendations. It has to be at the discretion of the commission to determine the extent to which that advice is taken on board. Otherwise, consultants that have one contract with the commission and multiple more lucrative contracts with others are in a position where their advice or recommendations "shall" be strongly considered by the commission. The commission "shall" have regard to it. That is too onerous. "May" is contained in a number of places in the Bill where I believe "shall" should be inserted because the latter carries more weight. There is a reason that we have sought "shall" in respect of certain actions instead of "may". For that reason, it is appropriate in this case that, instead of a situation where the commission "shall have regard to the advice of any consultant or adviser engaged under this section", it "may" have regard to that advice. These are not members of the commission, but specific consultants who may be taken on and there will be instances - it will not always be the case - where they may produce advice that is inappropriate or seems to be overly determined by other contracts that they hold. I wish to ensure that, in such circumstances, the commission retains the discretion to disregard that advice, if it so wishes.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.