Rebecca Moynihan (Labour) | Oireachtas source

Most issues have been covered by previous questions, but I will make an observation on the Bill. From the perspective of the social media companies, Liz Carolan, who was in front of the committee last week, and academics such as Dr. Jane Suiter, the one issue that comes across is that the Bill is, perhaps, too limited and too prescriptive. We need a dynamic electoral commission, involved and able to keep up with technology and the different methods more nefarious actors involved in online advertising will be able to exploit going forward. In that respect, the heads of Bill are perhaps too limited. As Deputy Ó Broin stated, it is quite a conservative change. I am not sure it will be able to keep up with the changing face of online political advertising.

I agree with Facebook when it states the Bill is not fit for purpose, but perhaps not for the same reasons.

Within the longer submission supplied, there was talk of privacy concerns about identifying natural persons. Last week, we questioned the deputy Data Protection Commissioner who said he considers that the definitions involved in that do not give rise to any privacy concerns. Perhaps Mr. Ó Broin can outline why he thinks that is the case. I am not sure if he saw the representatives from the Data Protection Commission.

In terms of aligning this legislation with the European Commission's regulations that are coming down the road, what parts do the witnesses think we should include in the Bill? Can they suggest a type of electoral commission that is outside the terms of this Bill? What principles would they prescribe in the Bill for an electoral commission? I ask because people across the board have identified the necessity for the electoral commission to evolve as opposed to how it is in this legislation.