Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

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 day-to-day but rather three-year strategy periods and broad strategy statements for three-year periods. This amendment provides that when preparing these strategy statements, the commission would consult the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, the Data Protection Commission, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media, Screen Ireland, which is an important voice in this respect, and any other persons or bodies the commission considers appropriate. In setting out its strategy for each three-year period, each of these bodies has a very specific expertise that is of value and of use to the commission in its work.

Due to the fact there is a remit of equality and human rights and a specific remit in terms of inclusion and participation for the media commission, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission obviously offers a useful input in that regard. Due to the fact there are provisions in its operation that relate to areas of data protection, data management and privacy, the Data Protection Commission has an expertise. For example, we know that one of the areas that is being much discussed in terms of harmful conduct and content is how special categories of personal data are used to create microprofiles and enable microtargeting.

The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media also has a particular role. Regarding this amendment, I am open to having the committee mentioned separately because I am conscious the others in this list are public bodies. Therefore, if it is felt appropriate to accept those bodies but not the joint committee, I am happy to put forward a revised version of this amendment on Report Stage.

Screen Ireland is something that will represent the audiovisual sector in terms of that kind of positive content role, which is part of the role of the new media commission and part of the remit of the audiovisual directive. It would help to address the issue of Irish-related content and generate assurance that we have a plurality and diversity of content represented in our online media provider spaces. Each of those would add something very concrete to the development of strategy, and none of them is prescriptive or requires sign-off. It simply requires and suggests the commission would consult them.

Amendment No. 67 is an alternative to amendment No. 65. It just words it in a slightly separate way to say that when preparing the strategy statement, it should consult the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media. It may be that I may submit in future iterations a version of amendment No. 66 that does not include the committee and lists the committee in a separate amendment.

The Bill at the moment allows for the commission to consult persons under subsection (4). Amendment No. 68 simply states that where it consults such persons as it considers appropriate, a record of such consultation should be kept, deposited with the Minister and laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. The key point here in terms is not so much where they should be deposited or laid but that the record should be kept. For example, if the commission is engaging in consultation with large online media service providers in the development of a strategy, it would be very important that there would be a record of that. If one of the major media companies that may be affected by the regulations in the strategy has a meeting with the commission around the development of the strategy, it would of course be very important that would be recorded. Again, this is addressing some of the concerns there have been. There is a perception of very big and wealthy media actors and online media actors being in a position where they have had quite a high level of access and meeting in terms of political decision-making. It would be very important it would be clear exactly what their engagement might be in relation to the commission’s strategy and actions.

I apologise for being quite lengthy. My last amendment in this grouping is amendment No. 69. I suggest a slightly different wording because, as it stands, the Bill reads, in relation to the commission's operations, that, “The Commission shall, in preparing each strategy statement and each work programme, have regard to the need to ensure the most economical and efficient use of its resources.” I am worried this directs the commission towards a minimalist approach. “The most economical and efficient use of its resources” could direct it towards a position whereby a light-touch regulation approach becomes the most economical and efficient way to approach an issue. What might be "economical" and might even be “efficient” in the classic sense of the word , that it is quicker and shorter, is not necessarily the most effective. They are different things. Efficiency and effectiveness are not the exact same thing. The absolute priority of the commission, surely, in its operation and strategies should be that it is effective. I am concerned that “efficiency”, in terms of minimising what it does, and “economy”, in terms of spending as little as possible, could lead to a commission that only does the absolute minimum rather than that ambitious role we hope it will play. We have seen that the under-resourcing of the Data Protection Commission had very negative impacts in terms of Ireland reputationally. Similarly, if we have a minimalist approach to the operation of a new media commission, where Ireland will be one of the major regulators, that will also reflect very poorly on us and will have consequences down the line.

I suggest the wording “sustainable and efficient use of its resources, while ensuring that such resources are directed towards maximum social and cultural benefit to the public”. However, I am happy to come back with another single-word amendment to add the word “effective”. Perhaps my version of amendment No. 69 might be a little bit too visionary around what we would hope for around this maximum cultural and social benefit to the public. I am conscious that is quite interpretable. Perhaps I will bring in an amendment on Report Stage that simply says “economic, efficient and effective”, or perhaps, the Government may bring such an amendment.