Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

We believe that digital safety should not be about creating a nanny state and should be about empowering young people to be aware of the pitfalls and the downsides as well as the benefits of the online world.

One can tell young people not to have sex, not to drink alcohol or use prohibited drugs, but we are more in favour of educating young people about these matters rather than telling them what they can or cannot do. We will be supporting the Government's section 30 which sets the age of consent of child in relation to information society services at 13 years of age. We think this is the right way forward. We, as were all the committee members, very impressed by Dr. Geoffrey Shannon when he appeared before the committee. Let me remind people of what he said at that meeting. He said that Ireland should take the opportunity now to designate the lowest permissible age, namely 13, as the age of digital consent for this jurisdiction. This lower digital age of consent has also been recommended by children's organisations, such as the Children's Rights Alliance.

He also said that prior to the committee he took the opportunity to discuss the issue with the Ombudsman for Children who supports his view that the age of digital consent should be set at 13 years of age. I know that Deputy Shortall has raised points around that but members will see from amendment No. 29 in the names of Deputies Clare Daly and Mick Wallace that we have dealt with the harvesting of children's data, which has been raised.

A variety of competing children's rights and practical realities support the argument that the appropriate age, having regard to the permissible age range delineated by the GDPR, should be the lowest age possible. He went on to say that the right of the child to participate and be heard in proceedings concerning him or her is a fundamental principle of international children's rights law and is enshrined by Article 12 of UN convention on the rights of the child. and in Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. He states that the importance of the voice of the child and the child's right to participate in all matters have been promoted recently in this jurisdiction when the Irish people voted in a referendum on children's rights, which must mean something. He also states that freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are very important. The right to freedom of expression is a human right that is not confined in its remit to adults. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNCRC guarantees a child's enjoyment of freedom of expression in Article 13. Further related rights under the UNCRC include the right to access appropriate information provided in Article 17 and the freedom to assemble peacefully, such assembly may take place in the context of an online environment. We need to realise that the world has changed and that these basic human rights are as relevant in the online world as they are in the world to which we are accustomed. That needs to be acknowledged in our legislation. These rights are often exercised by children through their use of information and communication technology.

We have tabled three amendments to this section. Our amendment No. 28 proposes that Tusla maintains a register of preventative or counselling services for the purposes of section 30 of the Bill. There is a later related amendment, No. 246, to amend section 8(1) of the Child and Family Agency Act 2013.

Section 30 relates to the consent of a child in relation to information society services, which is clearly a positive thing. Information society services are essentially online shops, live or on-demand streaming services such as Netflix or Spotify that need to be paid for. So-called preventative or counselling services are exempted here, these might include Childline, the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children or groups that offer advice to children about mental health or drug or alcohol abuse. Under the GPDR, data controllers do not need to get the consent of parents or guardians when they are processing a child's data, when that data is related to preventative or counselling services offered directly to the child. This amendment is proposing that to prevent abuse of this exemption, Tusla should maintain a register of such preventative or counselling services to safeguard against abuse of the exemption. One concern in the Bill is that it does not provide a definition of preventative or counselling services. Is it safe therefore not to have a register of such services? The amendments that we are proposing, that Tusla maintains a register of these services, seems like a sensible provision.

In amendment No. 29, in the name of Deputy Claire Daly and Wallace, which is similar to amendments tabled by other Deputies, we are repeating the wording of an amendment tabled by Senator Lynn Ruane in the Seanad. I respect and accept the opinion of Dr. Geoffrey Shannon on setting the digital age of consent at 13 years and I think the age of consent should remain at 13 years, as stated in the Bill. I understand and appreciate some of the arguments for raising the digital age of consent to closer to 16 years, that certain Senators and Deputies have made, however, including a prohibition on profiling and direct marketing to children under 16 years would surely go a long way to addressing the fears that people have on the digital age of consent being set at 13 years. This is not an unreasonable request. It should not be possible and legal to track a child's progress online and be able to create a detailed digital profile of that child and then specifically micro target him or her based on the profile created. This kind of digital marketing is incredibly powerful and it would surely be a progressive step to shield children from it. The parents of Ireland would thank us for doing that.

In the second part of amendment No. 29, we propose to insert a new subsectrion (4). This adheres to Senator Ruane's Seanad amendment and is a reasonable attempt to protect parents being profiled and targeted via their children's online activity, though arguably Articles 6 and 9 of the GDPR prohibits this kind of profiling. Will the Minister clarify that issue?