Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

On amendment No. 28, I know that the issue of the maintenance of a register was discussed in the Seanad. The Minister made some good points about the limitations of our proposal. We thought it was an alternative in dealing with the limitations mentioned in the Seanad about the Data Protection Commissioner being the person to maintain a register. That proposal was shot down on the grounds that the commissioner might not have the expertise to do so. Children being able to access relevant and important preventive and counselling services without parental consent is important, particularly for vulnerable children in cases where the parent is the abuser. We have to take this into account because, in that context, if we do not define what they are and have a register, a devious, abusive parent could come down heavily on a service provider or a child might not be able to access information that would otherwise be useful.

Will the Minister have a look at this? Is there another way we can come up with some type of register that would give protection to children? We will withdraw the amendment for now but I call on the Minister to look at that aspect of it.

Deputy Shortall made a point about profiling and processing with regard to our amendment. We have to be clear on this point. The word "profiling" has a particular definition under the general data protection regulation, as distinct from processing. In particular, "processing" is the word used for analysing, that is to say, using data for a particular process. In other words, we use processes in order to profile rather than starting with profiling. That is why it is important that the word "process" is used. It is for legal reasons and it gives far greater protection in that regard.

We have proposed amendment No. 29. I am unsure about the level of protection of rights under the GDPR. The regulation refers to the rules being equivalent and an obligation on member states to apply rules consistently. I am unsure. We cannot state categorically that what we have put forward will guarantee that the legislation goes beyond the GDPR. Certainly, there is a risk that it could possibly so do. If it were too onerous, some companies could say it does, but there is no guarantee that it will.

Deputy Ó Laoghaire's point is a little rich because the Government is taking far greater risks with things that are clearly not compatible with the GDPR, but he does not have a problem with them. Yet, now he is saying that this measure goes beyond it. That does not really wash with me.

People are confusing different issues. Deputy Wallace read out a letter. The key point for the committee to register is that these 13 experts and organisations have circulated their views online. It is almost unprecedented. The Ombudsman for Children said that we are making a mistake. People are conflating issues rather than understanding them. Deputy Sherlock comments represented the best example. It is a pity he is not here because I would have no problem saying it to his face. What he was proposing and looking for simply does not add up. He talked about WhatsApp going to 16 years. That simply makes what we are proposing, a digital age of consent, easier to maintain. It has nothing to do with it. The last line in the letter from the experts refers to how the digital age of consent is a data protection issue and not a child safety issue. Using data protection law to achieve an online safety effect is misguided. Almost every expert in the area of child protection is saying as much and we cannot be blind to that.

This goes back to the point I made earlier. The other example given by Deputy Sherlock is utterly ludicrous and irrelevant. Facebook has begun to make a change for people under 16 years. That is exactly what we should be encouraging. Setting the age of consent at 13 years is irrelevant for those purposes.