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

In the first instance, I would suggest that amendments Nos. 179 and 180 would be more appropriate to amending section 139M of the Bill, rather than amending section 139K. Amending section 139M already provides for a range of matters that an coimisiún must have regard to when preparing online safety codes.

On the intention behind amendment No. 179 and, in the first instance, the proposed inclusion of section 42 of Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014 is a matter which must be considered by an coimisiún in the preparation of online safety codes. As I noted before, this would appear to duplicate provisions already in law. 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 would already be subject to the provisions of that Act. Similar to other UN conventions that have been ratified and entered into, the State is legally bound by the obligations set out in the treaties. I do not see the rationale for specifically referencing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in context of making online safety codes. Further to this and regarding the web accessibility directive, as I said, this directive only applies to public bodies and, therefore, its legal relevance to the making of online safety codes is unclear. Therefore, I do not intend to accept amendment No. 179.

On amendment No. 180, in the first instance, I note that under the amending section 139(1)(b) that an coimisiún shall consult with any person it thinks appropriate in advance of making an online safety code. While, in practice, this will be a matter for an coimisiún, I would see this as covering the persons referenced in the amendment. In addition, I would see it as inappropriate to single out persons with expertise in a limited field who must be consulted. This may give rise to the impression that the views of those persons should be held in higher regard than those not explicitly referenced. It would also be impractical and quite difficult to provide for an exhaustive list of such persons who must be consulted in advance of making an online safety code. Generally, however, it is the expectation that there will be a strong culture of consultation with relevant persons and stakeholders when it comes to the creation of regulatory codes. Accordingly, I do not propose to accept amendment No. 180.