Dr. Michael Foley:

We agree totally with what Ms Dunn is saying. It would be both wrong and unfair to expect commercial corporations to take action to protect Irish people from particular advertising or whatever. As Ms Dunn said, it did so to protect its platform, which is its function, but it is the role of Parliament here to make sure we have legislation that protects Irish people.

On the broader issue, what we have got to understand is that, in the whole issue around free speech, which is obviously part of this, it is important those who receive information understand its provenance. As journalists, we have always insisted that, where possible, journalists source their stories and information so that people know where they came from. That is quite central to this. It is not peripheral. Knowing where our information comes from is the context of which that information is a part.

Much has been said about unintended consequences which, as legislators, the members know more about than most people. Mr. Dooley raised the issue of having some sort of commission to look at the media. The last time there was any sort of commission that looked at the media it was a commission on the newspaper industry in 1996. I looked at the report recently. There is not one mention of technology. The only issue it feared was the undermining of Irish culture by British newspapers coming into Ireland. That is the last time we had a serious look at the media, and it did not mention technology at all. Here we are looking at the possible unintended consequences of a relatively small and simple piece of legislation. Maybe it is time we looked at the media again in its totality, which includes everything from The Irish Timesto Google and Facebook. That might be something that members of this committee might take on board for a later debate.