Dr. Karen McAuley:

I thank the Chair for inviting the Ombudsman for Children’s Office, OCO, to appear before the joint committee today. I would also like to convey the Ombudsman for Children’s apologies that he is unable to attend today’s meeting due to a prior engagement. As members of the committee are aware, the OCO is an independent statutory body which was established in 2004 under the Ombudsman for Children Act 2002. Under the 2002 Act, the OCO has two core statutory functions, namely, to promote the rights and welfare of children up to 18 years of age and to examine and investigate complaints made by or for children about the administrative actions of public bodies, schools and voluntary hospitals that have or may have adversely affected a child.

The OCO’s engagement with developments that have given rise to the current general scheme, and with the general scheme itself, has focused on proposals for the establishment of an online safety commissioner and, as such, on Part 4 of the current scheme.

In a new general comment published in March this year, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recalls that while the digital environment is playing an increasingly important role in many aspects of children’s lives, it was not originally designed for children. As the UN committee notes, and as we all know, alongside the opportunities the digital environment affords for the realisation of children’s rights are the risks it poses to their violation or abuse.

The proposals set out in the general scheme to establish a regulatory framework for online safety to address the spread and amplification of harmful online content, represent a significant opportunity to strengthen the protection of children from such content. This is not to suggest, however, that the proposals do not require further refinement. In this regard, our submission to the committee identifies elements of Part 4 that we believe require further attention. They include the proposals relating to categories of harmful online content and to a systemic complaints scheme.

The OCO’s work is underpinned by primary legislation. Therefore, we understand how important it is that legislation is enabling. The prospective authority, credibility and effectiveness of the proposed media commission are largely contingent on the statutory framework that is ultimately put in place for it, as well as on the resources allocated to enable the commission to discharge its functions, including in respect of online safety.

The online environment is constantly evolving and expanding. Therefore, it is foreseeable that, once enacted, this legislation will be subject to future amendments. This being the case, we would suggest that work to develop and progress the current legislative proposals may benefit from a focus on getting the fundamentals right, so as to ensure that the commission is placed on a sound statutory footing and can get off to a good start.

In relation to the prospective work of the online safety commissioner specifically, this will involve making sure that the regulatory tools available to the commissioner have the potential to be effective, that the provisions made about the online content and material that fall within the scope of the commissioner’s work are rights compliant, understood and workable and the complaints scheme put in place upholds the right, including the right of children, to an effective remedy.

I thank the committee again for the invitation to meet it today. I am happy to take questions, if required.