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

This group of amendments, Nos. 13 to 15, inclusive, deals with similar matters. My amendment No. 14 and amendment No. 13 both deal with the issue of micro-targeting of children under 18 years of age. The difference between my amendment and that proposed by Deputies Daly, Wallace and Shortall is a few words; the presence or absence of "for financial gain". I am not particularly precious about whether it is mine or the other, but I do believe that they are important amendments. The purpose is to restrict the profiling, harvesting and targeting of data on children by companies which advertise on social media. This is vitally important, perhaps more important than some other measures that are considered in the Bill, if we are truly to protect children from harmful online marketing. Deputy Micheál Martin and the Fianna Fáil health spokesperson stated as recently as Monday that they want to see children protected from such practices online. Both these amendments do exactly that. I hope that we will have the support of Fianna Fáil for these amendments.

In response to these amendments on Committee Stage the Minister selectively quoted recital 47 of the general data protection regulation, GDPR, that such activity was a legitimate activity, but he omitted that the purposes of direct marketing were superseded by the public interest and that Governments had the option to provide for the legitimate public interest in that context. I would love to hear the Minister's argument that this type of targeted and cynical direct marketing supersedes the health interests of the children of Ireland. Without the amendment, sugary drinks, for example, and other harmful items and agendas such as those that promote a particular body image could be marketed directly at children in a very exploitative way. This is in a context where the population in Ireland is set to be one of the most obese in Europe by 2030.

Currently, young people are very exposed to data profiling and targeting by commercial organisations and businesses. This needs to be tackled. There are very serious risks in this regard, especially when marketing harmful goods or products or pushing a harmful agenda, such as making young people excessively conscious of their appearance and body. We must tackle this issue, not only for children but for society as a whole. The Cambridge Analytica story shows how these strategies can be used against us all. Facebook has confirmed it has recently banned some 200 apps for that reason. It shows the scale of the risks for us all. Children, however, are particularly vulnerable. Many children will not be aware how their actions online influence the adverts that they see, and they will not be aware of the extent to which their data is being gathered, the profile that is being built up on them and the way it is being used to exploit them.

On the digital age of consent, Sinn Féin believes that 16 is a more appropriate age for young people to be in a position to make informed decisions about their safety and about the data that they are sharing. Putting the digital age of consent at 16 is not a silver bullet but it means that children, in general, will have reached a greater level of maturity when making decisions about when and how they can share their data with companies. Some commentary has intimated that perhaps the digital age of consent does something beyond that. It relates specifically to the capacity to make decisions on sharing data.

This is not a position we have arrived at lightly or without consideration. We have engaged at length with people arguing for both perspectives. I believe all concerned have the best interests of children at heart. There are expert organisations with significant weight on both sides of the argument, which we have considered carefully. On balance, however, it is Sinn Féin's view to err on the side of caution on the very important issue of the online safety of children and to favour 16 years of age as the age of digital consent.

We are conscious that this is not a silver bullet. People have expressed concerns about a false sense of security. I recognise their concerns. Some of the responsibility for dispelling any such sense falls on all of us, but that can only happen if we allow it. I urge those in the media who are covering this story not to mischaracterise it and to reflect upon the fact that much is still required if we are to ensure safety online, not only for children, but for us all. I urge the media to inform parents not to take from this a false sense of security. Parental discretion, oversight and education on social media remain crucial. We favour this issue being kept under ongoing review.

There remains the possibility of young people finding ways around this measure regardless of whether we set the age at 13 or 16 years. Age verification processes are weak and many young people will simply lie to get around them. We need to force companies to tighten up on age verification.

Sinn Féin has tabled amendments on micro-targeting of under 18s. They are supported by the Irish Heart Foundation and many other organisations. Our amendments would go a significant distance towards tackling the exploitative practices of many companies. We also want to see progress on our Digital Safety Commissioner Bill, which passed Second Stage in 2017 and is awaiting Committee Stage. In the context of the significant debate on online safety, I hope that the Government will provide a money message for the Bill if so required. It is important legislation, there is broad consensus on its proposals and it is largely supported by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment. Setting up the office would provide national minimum digital safety standards, codes of conduct and certification of platforms and websites, and create for the first time a statutory body responsible for digital safety.

In the context of a properly resourced digital safety commissioner, a ban on micro-targeting of under 18s and other measures to ensure proper online safety, we would be open to re-examining the digital age of consent, be that through a review built into statute or via other means. At this juncture, however, it is our belief that it is best to err on the side of caution. We will favour 16 years of age in the amendments.

See this speech in context