I move amendment No. 129: In page 53, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following: “(6A) In preparing such codes, the Commission shall have due regard to— (a) section 42 of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014, (b) the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with a Disability, (c) the need to promote the Irish language in the State, (d) the Charter of Fundamental Rights, (e) the need to support participation in art and culture in Ireland, and (f) Ireland’s national and internation…

I accept some of the points, but I note that equality and human rights have not been specified in section 7. Again, that is an area where I have indicated an intention to table an amendment. I acknowledge that I have had constructive engagement with the officials in the Department on the matter. It would be appropriate for equality and human rights to be referenced because it is not a matter of it just being in the code; it is important that it is in taken into account in the preparation of the codes. The Minister …

I move amendment No. 130: In page 53, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following: “(6A) In preparing such codes, the Commission shall have due regard to obligations under section 42 of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act.”

I move amendment No. 132: In page 55, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following: “(9A) In preparing such rules, the Commission shall have due regard to obligations under section 42 of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”.

I move amendment No. 133: In page 55, line 18, to delete “3 years” and substitute “1 year” Amendment No. 133 relates to ensuring that the commission would prepare a report for the Minister on the operation of media service rules in the form or manner the Minister specifies. I hope that form or manner would include consideration such as the public duty on equality and human rights. The report should be made not later than one year after the coming into operation of this subsection. Currently, it states three years a…

I accept the Minister's point in respect of the three years if that is specified in the audiovisual media services directive, but I believe it is important that there is engagement from her, as Minister, within her time in office. This is a substantial set of new provisions. While I am happy to accept the proposal in the audiovisual media services directive in respect of three years rather than annual reporting, I believe an interim report or some other mechanism that allows for proper scrutiny within a year to 18 …

I will withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to reintroduce it on Report Stage.

I move amendment No. 135: In page 56, line 20, after “available” to insert “, both online, on an accessible website, and physically, in a public place,”. I will withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to reintroduce it on Report Stage.

I move amendment No. 136: In page 56, line 21, after “person” to insert “for a minimum period of 30 days”.

I move amendment No. 137: In page 56, line 24, after “purpose” to insert “, which shall not be less than 30 days”.

I move amendment No. 138: In page 56, line 26, after “State,” to insert the following: “in the first instance at least four weeks prior to the period designated by the Commission under subsection (2),”.

I move amendment No. 139: In page 57, line 9, after “fit” to insert “and at least every two years”. I will withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to reintroduce it on Report Stage.

Briefly, on the section, I wish to highlight three issues with intention for discussion on Report Stage. I spoke on the consultation periods, but I also believe there should be more regular reviews of the media service codes. I will be bringing amendments requiring that media service codes would be reviewed on a regular basis in order we do not have, for example, imbedded poor practices that are ineffectual or loopholes. We should not have a situation whereby certain actors end up with far more lenient media servic…

I move amendment No. 140: In page 58, line 20, to delete “earlier or earliest” and substitute “later or latest”. Amendment No. 140 seeks to ensure that when a person is making a complaint about two or more unrelated broadcasts, they are only limited by the date of the latest broadcast, not the earliest one. This is to ensure that complainants can seek to end harmful patterns in broadcasting over time. The current wording of the Bill is ambiguous in terms of the definition of “related” or “unrelated” broadcast might…

In other parts, we talk about the fact of the impact. There may be a short video that very few people saw and was not very highly viewed. It is an unfortunate and sometimes very unfair practice where there is a lot of trawling of people’s pasts, finding something and then using it in a negative way to try to use it and frame it against them or, indeed, to frame it in a different context or suggest a new interpretation. Unlike broadcasting material, television, radio and so forth, which tends to be there and then go…

I move amendment No. 141: In page 59, lines 6 and 7, to delete “as soon as practicable” and substitute “within 30 days”. The amendment ensures that when a complaint about a broadcast has been dismissed, the complainant is notified "within 30 days". The amendment seeks to ensure that we do not see situations whereby complainants are left waiting for months to hear back about their complaint being dismissed where a decision may already have been made swiftly. It is to ensure that even if one's complaint is unsuccessf…

I thank Senator Carrigy for his support. I am happy that the Minister accepts the principle behind the amendment whereby if a complaint is dismissed that the complainant knows that and is not left waiting. Perhaps we could have an approach that simply mirrors the provisions where there is a different outcome to a complaint. That may be a way of addressing this matter as well. It is in that context that I withdraw my amendment with the leave of the House.

I wish to speak to an issue that has been ruled out of order but I will endeavour to bring back the issue in another manner. Amendment No. 144, which was proposed by my colleague and I, sought to ensure that not just harmful content but harmful conduct would be addressed. I have had some constructive engagement with the Minister's officials on this matter. There is potential for harmful content to be clarified so that it includes, for example, content delivery and that there are mechanisms around how the content is…

We had an initial discussion on this in which I highlighted my concerns regarding amendment No. 23. I said that while I knew there were concerns within the specifics of the proposal put forward by Sinn Féin colleagues, I explained the understanding and reason people have for not wanting it to be limited, but wanting to name many forms of personal data. It is from a long record of a minimalist approach to what gets shared, and that is where that very long and comprehensive definition comes in. I would perhaps urge t…

Is the Minister confident about the conflict I identified previously whereby somebody would have the right to make a data subject access request under Article 15 when seeking information about who may have made inquiries about them? Is he sure there is no danger of a clash or curtailment in that regard?