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

These amendments would require an coimisiún to have regard to a number of legislative instruments when designating a relevant online service to which online safety codes may be applied. Amendment No. 166 would appear to duplicate provisions already in law and, as such, I do not accept the amendment.

As I stated earlier in this debate, section 42 of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014 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 already be subject to provisions of that Act. As I said only yesterday in this Chamber, I would expect that an coimisiún would not only comply with section 42 of that Act but also, in accordance with the spirit of the Act, demonstrate a culture and practice of respect of human rights.

With regard to amendment No. 167, I understand the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was ratified by the State and entered into force in 2018. Accordingly, similar to other UN conventions that have been ratified and entered into, the State is legally bound to the obligations set out in the treaties. I do not see the rationale for inserting a reference to the UNCRPD in the context of the designation process.

The effect of amendment No. 168 would be to require an coimisiún to have regard to the web accessibility directive when considering whether to designate a relevant online service. However, this directive only applies to public bodies and as such, its legal relevance to the designation process would be unclear. As such, I cannot accept this amendment.