Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

This is a group of amendments that has attracted a lot of interest. In some ways, that is disappointing. Issues are being conflated. To me, the concentration on the digital age of consent is a little like focusing on a fly on the wall when there is a giant elephant in the room about which no one is even talking. All of the other provisions in the Bill are of far greater consequence. Setting the digital age of consent at 13 years is not going to do what some Deputies fear it is going to do. For example, in response to the last speaker's points about Facebook, I note that this is a proposal that has already been made by it. The Oireachtas setting the digital age of consent at 13 years will have absolutely no bearing on it whatsoever, whereas our protective measures regarding micro-targeting in amendment No. 29 would cover that point. we are conflating issues incorrectly.

It would be very remiss of us not to take the advice of people like Dr. Geoffrey Shannon, the Ombudsman for Children and all of the children's rights organisations which have stated very clearly that the digital age of consent should be set at 13 years. We fully support that advice. It is separate from the other measures and I will park that issue. I will not repeat points made on it. Deputy Mick Wallace is right. Not dealing with it is a little like the old approach to under-age sex - just do not do it - rather than the modern thinking that providing progressive sex education is better. This is the same. Educating young people and putting the onus on providers is a far better way forward. Setting the age at 16 years seems good. It sounds like a protective measure but actually it is not. As has been pointed out, it subjects young people to abusive parents, for example. It puts another responsibility on parents with which, in many instances, they may not be capable of dealing. The onus should be put on service providers. That is what our other amendment tries to do.

I will address some of the simpler amendments first just to get them out of the way. I refer to amendment No. 28. As Deputy Mick Wallace said, we know that the general data protection regulation, GDPR, exempts preventive and counselling services from the general provisions on the digital age of consent. In other words, children under the digital age of consent will be allowed to access these services without parental consent. The question is how they are identified. My fear is that a register would be needed. In the absence of a register services could deny services to a child under the digital age of consent to be on the safe side. It might be a service a child needs. In the worst case scenario a service could be taken to court by an abusive parent who finds out that his or her child has been using the service and decides to take revenge by burying it in litigation. Good services that are helping children should not be targeted in that way. We think Tusla is best placed to draw up such a register. It would not be an onerous job for it to do so. It should be quite easy for it. That would be a helpful measure and require minimal work.

I will also address amendment No. 29 which concerns the issue of protecting children, in common with amendment No. 28 in the name of Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire, amendment No. 30 in the name of the Social Democrats and amendment No. 34 in the name of the Minister, about which I would like to make a few points. This is about the micro-targeting of children. I have a slight concern that amendment No. 26 in the name of Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire might be a littletoo narrow and difficult to enforce. It is a little like the argument about the prohibition in civil legislation on groups accepting donations that the donors intend to be used for political purposes. Historically, the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, has found it impossible to enforce and has said so repeatedly. It is hard to prove a reason someone is collecting data. The amendment really just states they cannot use the data for marketing purposes. I am open to arguments, but we have a concern about Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire's wording and think ours is better. However, clearly the intention behind the two is the same. The Social Democrats' amendment is also a little similar, but I do not see the necessity of using the word "profile". The word "process" is just fine and captures everything it needs to do. Again, I think that amendment might be slightly narrow.

The Minister's amendment is about the idea of preventing children from being targeted in marketing. He is proposing a code of conduct which the commission will encourage companies to draw up. It is not bad, but our amendment is stronger. However, I am open to being persuaded. The second part of the amendment, with which Deputy Mick Wallace dealt, needs less explanation. It sets the digital age of consent at 13 years and requires parents to engage with companies and give their consent for their child to access services online. The quid pro quo must be the assurance that their data will not be harvested for something like marketing, profiling or whatever else. I know that issue is generally covered under the GDPR, but there would not be any harm in making it explicit. I will not repeat the points made by Deputy Mick Wallace, but we are taking on board the amendments brought forward by Senator Lynn Ruane in the Seanad. They strike a better balance in protecting children in their Internet usage.