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

I thank the Senator for tabling these amendments. Amendment No. 129 sets out several matters to which an coimisiún should have regard when making media service codes, while amendment No. 130 sets out that an coimisiún should have regard to section 42 of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014 when making media service codes. The objective of media service codes is to provide for standards and practices that are binding on broadcasting and video-on-demand services. The Bill ensures that such standards and practices apply to commercial communications, including advertising, programming and the coverage of news and current affairs.It is important that any standards and practices set out are not overly prescriptive, to the point that they are perceived to direct what types of content should be covered or to impinge on editorial independence. I cannot accept the amendments, as they may contain the implication that media service codes may direct broadcasters or video on-demand services to prioritise particular types of content. However, I understand the intention of the Senator's amendment in seeking to draw attention to the matters set out in the amendments.

A more appropriate place for some of those provisions would be section 7, which provides for powers, functions and duties of an coimisiún. Many of the subjects set out in the non-exhaustive list suggested in amendment No. 129 are adequately captured in section 7 in a way that ensures they inform the totality of the work of an coimisiún. For example, section 7(3)(d) of the Broadcasting Act, as amended by the Bill, provides that an coimisiún shall promote and stimulate the development of programmes in the Irish language and programmes relating to climate change and sustainability. Section 7(4) provides that an coimisiún shall have regard to the policies of the Government in respect of climate change and sustainability.

As regards the reference to the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act, IHREC, 2014, in amendments Nos. 129 and 130, as I outlined previously in the debate, section 42 of the IHREC Act provides that a public body shall have regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and protect human rights. As a public body, an coimisiún will be subject to the provisions of that Act. I agree with the Senator's point that public bodies should comply with section 42 of the IHREC Act as a matter of course. I would expect that an coimisiún would not only simply comply with the Act but, as a public body, would show a culture of respect for human rights.

As regards references to international legal instruments such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, I would expect that an coimisiún will, as a public body, have regard not only to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities but all international conventions, which have been ratified and entered into force here. I am not sure of the rationale for listing some international legal instruments and not others.

Amendment No. 132 requires that an coimisiún should have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and section 42 of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014 when making media service rules. It is important that in making media service rules, the legislation is sufficiently precise as to the nature and content of the rules. The points I have made regarding amendments No. 129 and 130 would apply to this amendment. The requirement to have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and section 42 of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act is too broad for this provision and therefore I cannot accept this amendment.