Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

On amendment No. 65, I understand, accept and welcome that the intention is to ensure language in terms of relevant committees will be inserted by a Government amendment on Report Stage. I accept that the title of the relevant committee may change at a certain point. However, it is important that there would be that parliamentary oversight or engagement in terms of the strategy and not solely Executive or Government engagement. I welcome the fact that there would be engagement with the relevant committees.

In regard to the issue of IHREC, the Data Protection Commission and others, as this Bill moves towards Report Stage the human rights and equality duty will be really important. We had other amendments in regard to this earlier. We had some indication that the Minister was looking to them. The duty which all public bodies have in regard to human rights and equality is somewhat greater in the case of this body. It must not simply be a minimalist approach. I believe it should be very liberally interpreted. All public bodies have an obligation to promote human rights and equality actively, but this commission has more than that - coming from the audiovisual directive, it also has a specific charge in relation to inclusion, equality and participation. Those are core policy goals of the audiovisual directives which this legislation is supposed to be transposing and giving effect to in Irish law. It may not be in this section, but it is important that there is a really specific acknowledgement of that area of human rights and equality and the goals and obligations in that respect. We discussed that earlier in regard to certain other aspects of the operation of the commission. I may bring another amendment which simply reaffirms that those matters must be given due regard in the development of the strategy, separate from the question of with whom it consults in regard to those obligations. Thematically, those are core points.

In regard to amendment No. 68, the key issue is not simply the laying before both Houses of the Oireachtas. That can go by the wayside. The extremely important point is that a record would be kept. I note that we have had similar amendments put forward in regard to a number of areas of the Government’s operation, including in regard to planning, climate legislation and other areas where we have simply required that a record would be kept in regard to consultations. That is an absolute minimum in terms of transparency. We know that the decisions that the media commission in Ireland makes will have extremely significant ramifications for extraordinarily wealthy companies which have massive lobbying architecture. We need to be frank about that. There is no point in acting as though that is by the by. That is the reality. In that context for the public, not just in Ireland but also across the European Union, where in many cases regulatory decisions made in Ireland will have an impact, it is really important that there is clear transparency in regard to whom the commission meets with. That does not impact on its independence but it does mean it will be doing its job in a way that is properly accountable. The question of laying something before both Houses of the Oireachtas or depositing it with them can be left by the wayside, but the core point is that records must be kept in regard to with whom the commission meets when developing its strategy. I will be come back to this and press for it quite strongly on Report Stage. I hope that the Government may bring its own amendments.

I accept that the language in regard to the public good is there at the beginning, but the public good can be delivered in a minimalist or a maximalist way. It is not always sufficient to refer to “the most economical and efficient use of resources”. The question of the most economical, efficient and effective use of resources is a core one. If the commission wishes to explore a potential new area of regulation - for example, if a practice that is developing gets flagged by a youth panel as something to be followed up and investigated further - we do not want to indicate that it is effectively tied by telling it that it needs to be as economical as possible by doing the minimum and keeping its margins narrow. There is a danger in how it is framed at the moment. I accept that the Minister might not want to accept my wording in amendment No. 69. I am not going to press that. However I would ask that the phrasing in section 29(8) be re-examined, that the potential risks of the "economical and efficient" phrasing be looked at and that a phrase such as “economical, efficient and effective” be addressed. Similar changes have been made in other legislation.