Dáil debates

Wednesday, 13 December 2017

Online Advertising and Social Media (Transparency) Bill 2017: Second Stage [Private Members]

 

5:25 pm

Photo of Mattie McGrathMattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I too am delighted to be able to speak on the Online Advertising and Social Media (Transparency) Bill 2017 and I compliment Deputy Lawless on bringing it forward. It provides for transparency in the disclosure of information in online political advertising and related matters. The word "transparency" can be interpreted differently and we need to focus on it. I am happy to make some brief remarks on the Bill. Anything that encourages a greater level of safeguards and respect online is to be welcomed not solely in respect of the political arena, but all online content and, in particular, in regard to cyberbullying and similar areas. The Bill does not go far enough in that respect but it is a start, tús maith leath na hoibre. I note that it refers to persons having online accounts under multiple names, which can offer great anonymity. As Members know, that is a method of hiding one's identity in order to convey messages or political views about which the person does not have the courage to be upfront and open. It can be very sneaky, deliberate and nasty.

All Members accept there is significant need for radical reform of how society engages online, in particular in regard to political engagement. It is not today or yesterday that legislation was needed in that regard. However, who will enforce the law? Amnesty International is currently flouting the law in regard to the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO. I welcome today's statement by SIPO, which has reaffirmed its position. The chief executive of Amnesty, Mr. Colm O'Gorman, has said Amnesty will not obey the law outlined by SIPO and by which every Member of the House, county councillor in the country and registered voluntary, political or third party organisation must abide. For Amnesty to baldly state the law is not suitable or satisfactory and it is keeping the €137,000 it got from George Soros is outrageous and an affront to democracy, the laws of the land and, in particular, to the House and Parliament. That needs to be swiftly dealt with and I hope that the Taoiseach or the Minister, Deputy Naughten, or others will make a statement on the matter. No Deputy could get away with such behaviour and rightly so. We must be accountable and there are clear guidelines that state a person or organisation may collect €100 from a donor on the shores of America or elsewhere. However, Amnesty has received €137,000 and will not pay it back. That is an outrage.

The level of anonymity afforded to people online is staggering and can be a very serious threat to personal and State security. If one wishes to buy political advertising, there is a clear obligation to be honest and upfront about the ends and aims of such purchasing. It is significant that legislation is needed to remind us of the simple truth. We get carried away with so much media and spin and so many media consultancies and agencies. We can get caught in a bubble, and often are, such that we do not know what is going on in the real world and how ordinary people are suffering and trying to fend for themselves from day to day. We get caught up in tweeting and Facebooking and God knows what kind of spin.

I, too, am hugely concerned about the €5 million of taxpayers' money sneakily taken to fund the PR machine for St. Leo, the Taoiseach, "hashtag Leo". He was unable to answer any of the questions asked of him today in the House in spite of all the media reports. He came back and clarified he was correct that the Labour Party was in Government under the then Taoiseach, Garret FitzGerald, God rest him, when community employment schemes were set up. He is entitled to the truth and the truth must be there for everyone. However, that €5 million would have gone a long way to dealing with those with cataracts or waiting for knee or hip operations or the children waiting to be seen in regard to their teeth or eyes and so on. It would have gone a very long way to dealing with the widows who are discriminated against on a daily basis in the House or, in particular, the women who had to retire from the Civil Service when they got married many years ago and are being discriminated against to the tune of between €30 and €90 in their pensions. That €5 million would have been a good start in that respect. We cannot allow such blatant naked discrimination to continue. I support the Bill, which is badly needed.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.