Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 27 and 30 in this grouping. Amendment No. 27 relates to the digital age of consent, which as it stands offers very little protection to children and young people, despite the fact that Recital 38 notes that, "Children merit specific protection with regard to their personal data as they may be less aware of the risks, consequences and safeguards concerned." Article 8 of the GDPR provides very little specific protection for children.

We are talking about a matter of contractual capacity rather than child protection. By lowering the age of consent we are setting the age far below the age we would expect young people to be capable of making informed decisions about their safety. Instead, we are allowing them to enter into an agreement with companies, which in turn will monetise their data and online activity. I believe most people would find that unacceptable. By raising the age we are placing the onus on the companies to introduce more robust age verification procedures and ensuring that parents retain a right to play a role in their children's online activities, however limited that role may be. There is a role for parents in the giving of contractual permission, and it should be retained, in my view, up to the age of 16.

The issue of the harvesting of children's data is much more important. It is covered by amendment No. 30. As the Minister will know, the Article 29 Working Party has clarified that the GDPR does not place an outright prohibition on the use of profiling tactics on children.

Recital 38 of the GDPR notes that specific protections should be put in place to protect children when their data is used for the purposes of marketing. Despite this, neither recital materially affects the text of Articles 8 or 22. We believe this is a significant failing of the GDPR, which should be addressed through our own domestic legislation.

The amendment that I have tabled today aims to achieve the same outcome as those submitted by Deputies Ó Laoghaire, Clare Daly and Wallace. However, Deputy Catherine Murphy and I have chosen to specifically prohibit profiling activity rather than all processing of data to ensure the scope of the amendment is tightly focused. I am not sure how practical it is to talk about prohibiting the processing of data. The other amendments in this regard talk about the processing of data. Data is processed for lots of different reasons and, therefore, there is a need to be more specific, in terms of this legislation, in outlawing the profiling for specific marketing and commercial purposes. That is what this amendment seeks to do.

It is noteworthy that in replies to parliamentary questions that the Minister has consistently stated that the Children's Rights Alliance favours setting the digital age of consent at 13. The group has called for the age limit to be introduced in conjunction with the statutory prohibition on the use of children's data for marketing purposes, which is an important point. We may argue about whether the digital age of consent should be set at 13 or 16 years of age but the more important issue is whether companies can target children's data for the purposes of marketing. The Children's Rights Alliance has been very clear about the matter. It believes that there needs to be a statutory prohibition on the use of children's data in this way. I note that this morning the Ombudsman for Children, Mr. Niall Muldoon, in an interview on "Morning Ireland" made exactly the same point. He argued for the age of consent to be set at 13 years but he said that the profiling of children and harvesting of their data for commercial purposes should be prohibited on a statutory basis.

I draw attention to the fact that the Irish Heart Foundation has called for a ban on the marketing of junk food to children to address the wholly inappropriate level of access, which online companies have through their media platforms. Last month, Mr. Chris Macey attended a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Children and Youth Affairs. On that occasion he made a very strong plea when he said:

Junk food brands have achieved a wholly inappropriate proximity to children, pestering them relentlessly in school, at home and even in their bedrooms through their smart phones. It is called "brand in the hand" and it gives marketers constant access to children. Junk food marketing involves the world's best marketing brains in the biggest agencies relentlessly targeting children every single day. The damaging impact of overselling their products has created a market failure that the State must resolve. We know voluntary codes do not work. Sadly, the State's response has been feeble to date.

The Irish Heart Foundation has a specific concern about the relentless targeting of children for the promotion of junk funds. However, many brands and products are promoted. I think that the vast majority of people find it repugnant that online companies can target children in this manner. It is for that reason that the amendment proposes to outlaw the harvesting of children's data up to the age of 18.

The GDPR acknowledged that this sort of marketing is a real issue. In light of the text of Recitals 38 and 71, I believe that this amendment is fully in line with the intent of the GDPR and would significantly strengthen child protection measures in this Bill. I urge the Minister to support my amendment.