Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to again address the committee on the Digital Safety Commissioner Bill. There is no doubt that online safety has become one of the most significant challenges facing Irish society and, arguably, one of the most significant child protection issues of our time. We face major challenges. Many people, particularly parents, are concerned about what is happening in that regard. It is hard to blame them for that when one reads reports of predatory behaviour, harmful material and online bullying. This is an issue which legislators cannot ignore and must face up to. A policy and educational response - along with strong regulation and a statutory office with real powers and teeth - is required. It is generally accepted in most policy areas that self-regulation is no regulation. The Internet and online safety are not particularly different in that regard. Some providers have good regulatory mechanisms but others have none. Legislation is needed to ensure that all providers step up to the mark and provide appropriate safeguards. Among the primary proposed functions of the commissioner are to promote digital safety for all and to support and encourage the implementation of measures to improve digital safety, including oversight, regulation and a timely and efficient procedure for the removal of harmful digital communications.

I welcome the representatives from the various organisations, the Department and industry. I note the commentary by organisations and industry on the Bill. I welcome the fact that, at a previous meeting, Ms Sweeney and her colleague from Facebook, Ms Siobhán Cummiskey, stated that they are not opposed to the idea of a digital safety commissioner and that they see great benefit in a single office having the ability to oversee and co-ordinate efforts to promote digital safety. That view is widely shared, but we need to work collaboratively and constructively on the detail of what is involved. I approach these engagements with an open mind in the context of amendments. I am not precious in that regard. I will work with the committee, departmental officials or representatives of industry or civil society organisations to improve the Bill in any way possible.

A key point raised at the committee's most recent meeting - and which may be raised again today - relates to the need for a definition of "harmful communications". It may be appropriate for the definition to be provided by the office of the digital safety commissioner. It should not be left to providers to define it. On balance, as there is a legal requirement to be in compliance with sections 4 and 5, it would be appropriate to provide a definition. I am developing a draft definition, which will be needed. We should look to the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission which provide a description of a category of existing and proposed offences. I do not propose to introduce amendments to make such offences criminal offences under the Bill. However, those are the types of behaviours we must seek to address.

I will be making a submission to the committee and the Minister to inform the drafting of the scrutiny report. I suggest that other interested bodies should also consider doing so in order to allow the committee to evaluate all viewpoints in advance of drafting its report and the Committee Stage debate on the Bill.

The issue of freedom of expression has also been raised. I acknowledged this in my comments on the previous occasion. It is correct that we must proceed very carefully. Freedom of expression is a value we all treasure and is essential to a functioning democracy. I do not believe, however, that this is a reason to prevent us proceeding. It is not an absolute right, especially where harmful communications are damaging, hurtful or, in some circumstances, illegal. There is a consensus. We cannot simply allow self-regulation to be the only approach. We need to show vision and be ambitious and imaginative. In view of the fact that this has been done in other common law jurisdictions, there is no reason for not doing the same here. We need to do it.