Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I shall briefly give my views on the other amendments because I do not think I did when I spoke earlier. In respect of amendment No. 26 in the name of Deputy Ó Laoghaire, it is a bit vague to put in a reference to "for the purposes of financial gain" so I will not support the amendment. In respect of amendment No. 28, which is proposed by Deputies Clare Daly and Wallace which would limit the counselling services to those maintained on a register of Tusla, I listened to the Minister and I think he made some very valid points to the effect that Tusla could have names which do not extend outside of the jurisdiction. Because of what the Minister said I will not support amendment No. 28. In terms of amendment No. 29, my inclination was to support that but the Minister has now said that if we introduce it we will be in breach of European law because it goes beyond what is contained within the GDPR, and that it would expose Ireland to enforcement proceedings. If a Minister says that to me and that is the advice of the Department and that is the legal advice he has received, I am afraid I have to responsibly listen to that as I do not want to expose the country to enforcement proceedings which may arise. The same argument was made by the Minister in respect of amendment No. 31, in terms of changing the wording from "encourage" to "require".

In terms of the amendment to change the digital age of consent from 13 years to 16 years, I listened very carefully to the contributions and ultimately it is a political choice. We have very limited powers to a certain extent when we are bringing in the GDPR but we do have the power to determine whether we set the age at 13 or as much as 16. That is a political choice. I have not heard any real argument here today as to why the capacity of children to contract should be changed in such a fundamental way whereby now they will have the capacity to contract in respect of their personal data at the age of 13.