Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

In speaking to this group of amendments, it not only confirms the concerns of the Deputies who spoke earlier but demonstrates how much worse it is than that. This was meant to be really important legislation. We have spent in committee a considerable amount of time working on a cross-party basis, probably more so than on any other legislation we have dealt with in this Oireachtas, to ensure the Electoral Reform Bill and the important and long-overdue provisions would secure cross-party support and, therefore, public support because it makes a series of major changes to the electoral system. We spent an awful lot of time on the impact of digital social media and online social media on the electoral process, not only in terms of threats but also opportunities, such as the democratising nature of social media when it is properly managed and access of first-time candidates and smaller parties to more flexible forms of promotion of their agendas, candidacies, etc. In fact, all of us expressed the strong view at the committee that the provisions of the Bill, as initially proposed, with respect to online media regulation during elections was too weak. We received significant and positive advice from some of the country's and Europe's leading experts on these matters. We are now in a position where something we really wanted is being presented to us in detailed technical form and neither this House or the other House had a chance to discuss it.

I am less concerned about the discussion. I completely agree with Deputy McNamara that we will not even have time to properly scrutinise and seek expert advice - legal, technological and advocacy advice - to ensure that what is in this text will do what we and the Minister of State would like this legislation to do. The reason this is so concerning is that the expert, the leading advocates and monitors of these kinds of technologies, told us that these technologies are accelerating at such a pace that even if what is in the Bill is okay, and I am not even sure it is, technology will have moved on dramatically. The experts and some of the country's most eminent political scientists who specialise in Irish and global elections recommended that some of these matters should be functions of the electoral commission to ensure that what it is recommending to Government is based on the most up-to-date evidence and best practice from across the world.

I will highlight a few concerns with the amendments as presented. The difficulty is that the moment I start raising questions someone who might be mischievous - not anybody in this room - might say that I am not in favour of regulating online social media platforms, tackling disinformation and ensuring the integrity of the democratic process. It is quite the opposite; we argued that we needed those measures in the Bill. However, for example, the definition section refers to "manipulative or inauthentic behaviour". Many members of the public may say this is not a phenomenon that is limited solely to online political activity. In fact, they might say it has been the bread and butter of certain types of politics since Greco-Roman times, but the definitions are incredibly general and brief and, therefore, open to wide interpretation.

I am a strong critic of micro-targeting, particularly when it happens without the consent of the person whose data have been mined to target. However, to give an example, in non-digital media there are forms of micro-targeting. We take advertisements in specialist magazines because we know certain types of people read them. On Facebook, for example, many first-time candidates and small-party candidates will use some of the boosting functions, which are open and transparent. That is a form of micro-targeting. That is not what anybody is concerned about in terms of the impact on the integrity of the electoral system. We are concerned about the Cambridge Analytica type of activity that we saw, for example, in the Brexit referendum.

Then there is "misinformation". If I read this correctly, the definition states it "means any false or misleading online electoral process information that may cause public harm..." Then there is a definition of process information, which is actually just information about the electoral process, registration, voting, candidates, etc., as opposed to wider meanings. We have not been given time to consider whether these are the right definitions. If they are not, everything else that flows from them is deeply problematic.

On the definition of "online platform", I do not understand why we are setting the bar so high in terms of applying this to online platforms of at least 100,000 unique monthly users. We know of the big platforms but we also know increasingly there are sub-platforms, small platforms or websites that may not fall within the scope of that. Are we saying, for example, that it will be wrong to engage in manipulative or inauthentic behaviour through various forms of micro-targeting and online electoral processing information but that will only apply to platforms that meet the high threshold set down in the criteria and I am free to go off and do that on my own website or through some other mechanism? That seems to be what is provided for.

The definition of "public harm", the foundation of this section, "means any serious threat to the fairness or integrity of an election or referendum". These definitions are so broad that it is hard to understand who will get to decide. Deputy McNamara is correct that this legislation will end up in the courts and some judge will have to decide. If we are being asked to simply rubber-stamp this at such short notice and without adequate scrutiny or adequate expert advice from people far more qualified than us to give us a sense of this, that is a problem.

I am all in favour of the intention behind this set of amendments. I am deeply troubled not only that the Bill is being rushed through the House but about its drafting. I mean no disrespect to the officials. I say this at this point every year and I have a slightly different take on it than Deputy McNamara. The officials are put under an enormous amount of strain by Ministers who want to be seen to get things done and demand the churning out of legislation so that they can get the photo opportunity, as Deputy McNamara said, with the Bill they have passed. I have enormous sympathy for the officials and staff in the Bills Office who have to deal with all of this stuff. I am saying that honestly. However, if all of that pressure is being place on the officials and legislation does not go through the various screening processes, we could approve something here that, in and of itself, could undermine the integrity of the electoral process. That is a profound worry.

These amendments should be withdrawn given how cross-party and collegiate Members have been. We have been having fights, not only yesterday in this Chamber but also in the committee on all sorts of issues, but we were pretty much at one on this Bill. These amendments should have been brought back to the committee. There is no reason an amending Bill could not be introduced later in the year to go through proper pre-legislative scrutiny and proper scrutiny on Committee Stage with an opportunity for amendment. We could then agree an electoral amendment Bill that everybody is happy with. We had an unholy row at the end of the Dáil stage on amendments the Minister of State did not draft and probably did not even want to see on the floor of the Dáil, and which should not have been in this Bill. Here we are again souring the end of an important and predominantly positive piece of Oireachtas work with this set of amendments. I do not want to oppose the amendments because I support the intention behind them but I am not convinced they are right. Therefore, a withdrawal at this point is the correct course of action for the Government.

See this speech in context