Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 166:

In page 79, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “(fa) section 42 of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act,”.

Amendments Nos. 166 to 168, inclusive, are all around trying to ensure that in deciding whether an online service provider falls into the category of providers to which the online safety codes may apply, the coimisiún might again have due regard to those principles of human rights and equality. They are the same points I have made throughout. Again, perhaps by addressing them comprehensively in the powers and functions section, we will not need to address them in another place. It is, however, part of a general principle of ensuring that those considerations are there in terms of the public duty on equality and human rights, particularly with regard to the online safety codes because there is that kind of harm protection role. We know that persons who fall under, for example, the equality grounds in Ireland may be especially vulnerable. It would be important that the coimisiún would have regard to that public duty on equality and human rights when considering which providers should fall into that category.

Amendment No. 167 would insert a caveat that when deciding whether an online provider falls into the category of providers, it would have due regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD. That is very much linked to amendment No. 168. These are around trying to embed different considerations. The reason I am bringing them in repeatedly is because these are things to which Ireland has signed up but that are often not embedded or part of something we think about constantly.

I referenced the UNCRPD, which Ireland has ratified, but I also referenced the web accessibility directive, which is now law from the EU but is, again, somewhat unevenly applied. This directive sets requirements that there would be levels of accessibility in terms of online websites and providers. It started at one stage and has now moved through to phones and websites, so it is working in a wider space. It has been a phased application of the web accessibility directive. As I understand it, it should now be fully applied. Again, that means that when the commission is thinking about the safety codes, it might also be thinking about those measures. A small example of something that overlaps between safety and the web accessibility directive, which is something we will come to later, is that question of having, for example, flashing images that create effects and that may cause seizures for certain persons. It is an example of something that overlaps between online safety and the web accessibility directive. People should not have that risk to access online sites.