Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Molaim mo chomrádaí, an Teachta Máire Devine, as a cuid oibre ar an mBille seo. Despite lots of rhetoric and good intentions, the fact is the Government has been far too slow to address what is now apparent as a clear gap in the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020. I welcome that the Government has indicated that it will not be opposing this Bill. I look forward to working on a cross-party basis to ensure that we deliver this legislation in a timely manner.

As has been outlined Coco's Law was designed to protect people from the recording, distribution and publication of intimate images without consent. However, there is an ambiguity over whether the Act covers the creation of non-consensual intimate images generated through artificial intelligence. The current Act references images that purport to be intimate images but it does not explicitly state that generating intimate images of an adult is illegal. The Grok nudification scandal exposed this loophole that should never have been allowed to remain open. Grok, X's nudification tool as it is now being described, allowed users to upload photos or videos of real people and have their clothing digitally removed. The vast majority of the sexualised AI images produced were of women and children. This should have prompted immediate action. The Government could have brought for brought forward an immediate short and targeted amendment to close this loophole. I know there is a suggestion as to whether or not the law actually covers this. I make the point that if this was clear in law, then we would not need a minister to sit down with the companies involved. If the Minister or I were suspected of breaking the law, a Minister does not come to our house to discuss it; the appropriate powers hold us to account.

We now need to ensure that we make a move. Sinn Féin is prepared to work constructively and quickly to fix this problem but we need to see a sense of urgency from Government. Sinn Féin seeks to amend Coco's Law to explicitly criminalise the generation of non-consensual intimate images and videos and to increase the maximum penalties for those convicted. It is a straightforward but, in my view, absolutely necessary step. We are asking for all TDs to support this at every stage. If technical amendments are needed and if Government points out what it believes they are, we will be quite happy to work with it on Committee Stage. What matters now is that we work with together to fix this law without delay.

The legislation, of course, is only one part of the response. The other is accountability for the social media companies and platforms that enable or ignore this behaviour, and indeed profit from it. There is a sense that these platforms believe they are above the law. We saw the refusal of representatives of X to appear before the Oireachtas Committee on Arts, Media, Communications, Culture and Sport. These companies have to be held accountable by Coimisiún na Meán and if Coimisiún na Meán does not have the powers to hold these companies to account, then we have to give it the powers because the full weight of the law must be brought to bear on platforms that flout their obligations.

We also need to ensure that the Garda, particularly the divisional protective service units, has the personnel and the resources required to investigate and prosecute offences involving the recording, creation, distribution or the publication of non-consensual, intimate images. We have heard and we all should listen to the voices of victims and survivors about the important role that the divisional protective laws have played. We need to ensure that they are properly resourced and staffed.

A review of Coco's Law in 2024 showed that between 2021 and 2023, some 100 cases were prosecuted by the DPP but in the same period, almost 1,500 victim reports were made. That shows us that there is a significant gap between reports and prosecutions. It shows that while the law has acted as a deterrent, as I believe it has, it is still not delivering adequate justice for many victims. We also know that for far too many victims and survivors, the judicial process is too slow and in many cases is actually retraumatising them. The Justice Indicators Report published by the Law Society last week makes it clear that chronic delays in our court system are denying people timely access to justice.

The Minister and I know that there are many priorities across his Department and many areas of work that we need to address. However, I would contend very strongly that this is one of the areas where we can work together and actually deliver a solution fairly quickly. That is why I commend this Bill to the House. I welcome that Government is not opposing it. I assume that means we will have unanimous support here. Let us take this to Committee Stage, iron out whatever creases may be there and actually get this Bill into law as quickly as possible.

Donna McGettigan (Clare, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies Devine and Carthy for this very important and timely Bill. Speedy action on this is required now; not next year, not after another review, but now. During the period from 29 December 2025 through to 9 January 2026, Grok is estimated to have generated approximately 3 million sexualised images, including 23,000 that appear to depict children. Let us be absolutely clear on this, these are children. The question that must be asked is very simple: why did the Government not act immediately on this? According to Children's Health Ireland, CHI, these tools pose significant risks to children and young people, including psychological distress, loss of dignity, coercion and long-term trauma. This is real, live harm being inflicted right now. This erosion of basic societal norms cannot be tolerated. It strikes at the dignity, safety and fundamental rights of women, men and children and it needs to be sorted now.

Violence against women remains pervasive in Ireland and the digital space now plays a central role in enabling and amplifying that violence. AI has become a new weapon of abuse, humiliation and control. Perpetrators of digital domestic abuse, sexual violence and gender-based violence must not be allowed to evade accountability or to hide behind a veil of anonymity because of weak or inadequate rules imposed on platforms and digital service providers. Every day that the Government delays, these images remain available. Every hour of inaction compounds that harm and every failure to legislate sends a dangerous message that protection does not matter. The generation of non-consensual intimate images and videos through AI must be criminalised.

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The very fact that we are here tonight having this debate sickens me to my stomach. It really does. The fact that somebody in a tech company somewhere sat down and thought it would be a great idea to create a tool that will strip clothes off women and children, and to have that tool circulated online for profit makes me want to physically vomit. I do not understand that mentality. I do not know anybody who understands it because that mentality has no place in our society - none whatsoever. The companies that facilitate the circulation of these images need to be held to account. Those whose images are abused in such a way need to know that the justice system is on their side. We need to ensure that our legislation is robust enough, that justice will be served and the circulators of these images will be held to account.

This Bill is very straightforward. The use of AI nudification tools and deepfake technologies to strip women and girls of their clothes needs to stop. There can be no ambiguity in this regard. This is wrong. We need to put an end to it. The fact that this loophole exists and that the Government knew it was there but has not acted to date is shameful. However, the Minister now has the opportunity to ensure that the State protects those who find themselves in this position and holds those responsible to account. I ask the Minister to fix this law, ensure that nobody else ends up in this situation and make it clear that in Ireland digital abuse is abuse and will be treated as such.

Ann Graves (Dublin Fingal East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Violence against women in Ireland is a massive problem and the digital and social media spaces have a central role in amplifying this violence. The sharing of non-consensual photos or the recording of images is absolutely wrong on all levels and is rightfully criminalised under the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020, or Coco's Law. Unfortunately, however, the use of AI to generate deepfakes or non-consensual intimate images is not criminalised. This Government has been too slow to bring forward legislation to address what is clearly a loophole in the Act. The Government's failure to introduce relevant legislation has become clear in recent months, particularly following the Grok nudification scandal.

This Sinn Féin Bill will amend Coco's Law by making three straightforward changes. It will explicitly criminalise the non-consensual creation or generation of intimate images and videos through the use of AI. It will extend the statute of limitations from two to five years for summary offences and it will increase the maximum penalties upon conviction. These legislative changes are supported by Women's Aid, Rape Crisis Ireland, the Sexual Exploitation Research and Policy Institute and Éist, as well as by Jackie Fox, the mother Nicole Fox Fenlon, for whom Coco's Law is named. If this Government had acted promptly to introduce legislation, it would have received co-operation from the Opposition. Instead, it chose to sit on its hands and do nothing. Meanwhile, non-consensual images were generated and lives have been destroyed. In the absence of Government legislation, I ask the Minister, on behalf of the women of Ireland, to ensure that his party supports the Bill brought forward tonight.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The actions taken in recent weeks by some individuals regarding Grok AI were deplorable and a response from this House is absolutely necessary. This Bill will address the lacuna that exists within current legislation to cover the generation of intimate images through the use of AI.

Zero tolerance should mean that where new issues or threats arise or are identified, action is taken in a timely manner. This is straightforward legislation and I commend my party colleagues, Deputies Carthy and Devine, for bringing it forward. I also commend the Government for not opposing it. These events also highlight a broader issue in terms of our response. Our approach to the regulation of AI cannot simply be responsive or reactionary. We should not be waiting until harm is done before we see intervention or regulation. This legislation shows that when we are united, we can take appropriate action and do so at a pace that is comparable with the threat.

There are many issues of domestic and gender-based violence on which we are largely agreed action needs to be taken. Sinn Féin remains committed to working with the Government and Opposition parties on matters such as the establishment of a register of domestic abusers and the provision of refuge spaces in every county. These are just two of the issues that we can work on together. Let us all try to bring an enhanced pace of action to those pressing matters on which we are agreed.

Shónagh Ní Raghallaigh (Kildare South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas le mo chomrádaithe, na Teachtaí Devine agus Carthy, as ucht an Bille seo a chur os ár gcomhair. Cuirim fáilte roimh na cuairteoirí atá sa Ghailearaí. The Grok scandal has been the stuff of nightmares, showing us what a dystopian, misogynistic hellscape the Internet can be, its owners conniving villains willing to sit back and even relish the most degrading acts against women and children. Our do-nothing Government sat on its hands and watched it all unfold while continuing to pander to the tech overlords. Intimate image abuse is widespread. It disproportionately affects women and needs to be removed, root and branch. Part of that means that our Government needs to finally grow up and stand up to the platforms that are facilitating these egregious harms once and for all.

Another part of the response has to be banning the creation of deepfake intimate images. As it stands, there is an ambiguity in Coco's Law regarding the generation of sexualised AI imagery. The amending Bill before us tonight addresses this gap and would ensure that victims have recourse to the criminal justice system. To date, they have been left to suffer the consequences in silence. The consequences of this despicable offence should not be underestimated. We are talking here about people's lives being destroyed. We must not downplay cyber violence because it takes place in a digital environment and behind a supposed veil of anonymity. Our approach must be unequivocal and agile, reflecting the changing technological situation and our understanding of the harm caused. In keeping with the gravity of this offence, our amending legislation provides for increased maximum penalties upon conviction. Sinn Féin is bringing forward this legislation because the Government has failed to act in a timely manner. We have to act now to protect the women and children of Ireland. We need a step change from Government when it comes to online safety and supporting this legislation would be a strong first step in that direction.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to start by thanking Deputies Devine and Carthy for introducing this important Bill. As has been indicated, the Bill seeks to seeks to amend Coco's Law by criminalising the generation of non-consensual intimate images and videos, and also by increasing the maximum penalties on conviction. At present, it is a criminal offence to generate images provided they are then distributed and-or published. I know that the Bill has been introduced in the context of recent public concerns and considerable political debate arising from the launching by X, on Christmas Day 2025, of a feature powered by Grok to allow editing of images. This feature was used at scale to create harmful and illegal content, in particular the nudification of people, including children. I want the House to know that the Government and I share the widespread revulsion at the fact that platforms have allowed the non-consensual nudification of images, primarily of women and children. We also need to recognise that aiding and abetting an indictable serious offence is a criminal offence itself. There is a very strong view that X itself has committed a criminal offence by aiding and abetting the commission of an offence under Coco's Law.

Earlier today I brought a memorandum to Government seeking approval not to oppose this Bill and I can confirm that this was endorsed by Cabinet. As the evidence available indicates the generation of non-consensual intimate images disproportionally targets women and children, the policy intention underpinning the Bill aligns with the Government’s commitment to a zero-tolerance approach to domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, which is a priority for me and the Government. Consequently, I will not be opposing the Bill on Second Stage. While there is a comprehensive range of legislation already in place in Ireland to combat these types of harmful digital practices, which I will speak about shortly, I have been examining the extent of the current established legal framework with the Attorney General to ensure it is sufficiently robust to protect people from digital harms like these. Therefore, on the basis of this ongoing review I will not be opposing the Bill on this Stage.

I also believe it is fitting that we will be discussing the generation of intimate images using Al tools this evening as today is Safer Internet Day. We know that the use of AI to generate offensive material or to abuse or harass any individual is unacceptable. It represents a very serious violation of privacy and dignity. It promotes a culture of objectification, particularly of women, and disrespect. It is an issue the Government is taking very seriously and is taking concrete steps to address. I welcome the debate today as I am keen to ensure that there are no gaps in the legislation and that the current established legal framework is sufficiently robust to protect people from digital harms.

In this context, I would like to give a brief overview of the legislation that already exists in our legal system which is of relevance to today's debate. As has been mentioned, Coco's Law, the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act, was enacted in 2020. It creates a serious offence of distribution or publication of an intimate image without consent with intent to cause harm to the victim, attracting a maximum penalty of up to seven years' imprisonment. It is also an offence to threaten to distribute or publish such an image. The Act also provides for a strict liability offence, with a lower penalty, for engaging in the recording, distribution or publication of an intimate image without consent, with no requirement to prove an intention to cause harm.

I would like to add at this point that the definition of an intimate image under the 2020 Act is intentionally broad to include any visual representation of a person. Therefore, it will include an AI-generated image of a person. This will also intimate images which have been altered or doctored prior to their distribution or publication, more commonly referred to as deepfakes. I want to highlight that the Attorney General has confirmed this is indeed the case.

The second piece of legislation relevant to the debate this evening is the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998. It is framed so that no distinction can be made between AI-generated material and other child sexual abuse material. The production and distribution of child sexual abuse material attracts a sentence of up to 14 years' imprisonment. The creation of an image, whether or not Al tools are used to do so, that shows a child, whether an actual child or one created by Al, engaging in sexually explicit activity or that shows, for a sexual purpose, their genitals or anal region is a serious offence under the Act. It is a criminal offence at present to generate an image of a child. That is relevant in the context of the legislation being proposed this evening by Deputy Devine.

Under the Digital Services Act, the European Commission is responsible for the oversight of very large online platforms. These platforms are required to assess and mitigate risks that their services may create in relation to the proliferation of illegal content online and the protection of fundamental rights, including protection for minors. The Artificial Intelligence Act introduces legal requirements that aim to ensure a high level of protection of health, safety and fundamental rights against the harmful effects of Al systems in the European Union. Under the Al Act, certain Al practices are prohibited, and certain Al systems and uses of Al by providers and deployers are subject to legal requirements in terms of governance, transparency and responses to risks and incidents. The specific use of Al by deployers is subject to the EU AI Act. A key objective of the regulation is to protect against harmful effects of Al systems in the European Union in terms of health, safety and fundamental rights. While initial phases of the Act, including setting out rules for prohibited Al practices, are now in effect, the provisions to enable surveillance, penalties and enforcement will come into effect in August 2026 and there will be formal regulatory mechanisms available to the relevant surveillance authorities to engage with individual companies

There is also the EU violence against women directive. To a large extent, this has already been transposed into Irish law but any further transpositions will be done.

It is also important to look at the other consequences in respect of this legislation. I believe that this Bill is well intentioned and I support the general objective but it is my duty to point out some concerns I have in relation to the proposed increased penalties. Without question, it is very important to criminalise harmful behaviours in society to protect citizens and deter wrongdoing. However, it is equally important that criminal laws are fair, proportionate and justly enforced. It would be highly unusual if a five-year prison sentence were to be imposed on a person for creating an intimate image that is never spoken about and is never shared with anyone, including the victim, as could be the case under this Bill. An issue of concern that I would ask Deputies Devine and Carthy to address is that under the Bill as drafted at present, if an individual in the confines of their home decided that they wanted to use an artificial mechanism to create a nude image of me on their computer and then they deleted it - they probably laughed at it - and never sent it anywhere else, under this legislation that person would find themselves having committed an offence which could expose them to a sentence of up to five years imprisonment.

Joanna Byrne (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would; that is the point.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would. The Attorney General has advised that the proposed increase in the penalty would be a disproportionate penalty for an offence where there is no requirement to prove any criminal intent. The reason we introduced Coco's Law was because images were being created and recorded and then being published and distributed. This was clearly very damaging and upsetting for the individuals concerned. We need to look at the fact that all that is being done by this Act is that the generation of the image would be a criminal offence and there would be no requirement for it to have been distributed it onwards. Such a significant penalty for an offence where there is no requirement to prove any intention to commit a criminal offence could be problematic in the context of Article 38 of the Constitution. As I have said, the Government is taking the issue of online safety very seriously and I have listened with interest to what colleagues have said.

I will turn now to the concrete steps that the Government has taken to address the use of Grok. As I indicated earlier, under the Digital Services Act, the European Commission is responsible for oversight. On 26 January 2026 the Commission decided to launch a formal investigation under the Digital Services Act into X and its Grok Al tool. The Government welcomes this decision, and I want to highlight that Coimisiún na Meán is formally involved with the European Commission in this investigation and was instrumental in the work leading up to its launch. In addition, and as suggested by the Al advisory council, the Government is exploring amendments to the Artificial Intelligence Act to expand the list of prohibited Al practices. A lot of work is being done in this area. As I said, I welcome the Bill being introduced by Deputy Devine. I will give it serious consideration and I will work with the Opposition on it.

Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Those who are opposed to regulatory restrictions on the creation and generation of sexualised AI images argue that this an affront to free speech and freedom of expression. It is not. It is not a freedom to use without consent someone's image to generate sexualised images. It is not freedom to ask an AI tool to show a picture of somebody and to have the picture modified to remove the clothing from the image of their body. That is sexual. That is harassment. Often those who cry about free speech were not so loud or mostly were extremely quiet when it came to section 31 of the Broadcasting Act banning members of my party from the airwaves. One party member was not allowed to talk about mushrooms on a farming programme. Larry O'Toole could not speak on behalf of striking workers. I was 27 years old before I heard a member of my party being allowed to speak on national TV or radio. When we in Sinn Féin talk about these issues, we know the impact of restricting free speech and we oppose it. However, we will not allow the exploitation, bullying and the crass sexual objectification of people who provided no permission for either users or big tech companies to use their images in such a brutal way.

Five years ago this month, Coco's Law entered into force. It was and is a good and necessary piece of legislation in the ongoing battle against the distribution and publication of intimate images without consent. Within its first two years, there were 100 prosecutions under the law. While a significant gap remains between the number of reports to hotline.ie and the number of prosecutions, criminalisation of non-consensual recording or distribution of intimate images was and remains necessary. However, there is a lack of clarity as to whether the legislation covers the generation or creation of intimate images through AI. Our Bill seeks to provide clarity on that.

We have an obligation to prevent another generation of women and girls from experiencing misogyny and gender-based violence. While this amendment to Coco's Law will not solve all these ills, it will go some way towards protecting people from the frankly disgusting abuse of AI tools and their use in creating unwanted and unauthorised sexual images.

Joanna Byrne (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome this Bill. I commend my colleagues on bringing it forward. Until the latest social media controversy arose, I and many others would have thought that we had sufficient legislation to tackle social media companies propagating nudification AI. The Government has been too slow to act. That is why this Bill is necessary and welcome. Last week, TikTok, Meta and Google were before the media committee to discuss the regulation of online platforms and supports to improve online safety and participation. X was invited but refused to attend. All three companies' attendees' opening statements made assertions that their priorities were online safety, data protection and child and user welfare. They also stated that they could remove reported posts within hours during the hearing. In recent hearings on online safety, experts gave detailed testimonies on how the social media platforms were failing in their responsibilities. There was a stark disparity in what the social media companies' representatives were saying happens when complaints are made to the lived reality of people and the testimonies given by guests at the previous hearings. They are not facing up to the problems on their platforms. If they do not make actionable changes to their approaches to online safety, then the full extent of the law should be brought to bear on online platforms and service providers who try to flout the rules. This amendment to Coco's Law will help with that.

Coimisiún na Meán also needs to step up and use all the tools given to it to tackle social media companies. It is not doing that. The Online Safety and Media Regulation Act gives it the power under Irish law to issue a penalty or fine of €20 million or 10% of turnover if social media companies fail to protect children and the public from harmful, illegal content. Instead, it has stepped aside for the European Commission to conclude its formal investigation into X under the EU Digital Services Act, saying that it is associated with this investigation, and it is ready to play its part. Legislation is only useful if it in force. Behind every damning statistic that has prompted this Bill are the lived realities of victims of abuse. Some of them are here in the Gallery this evening. For them, not only does this Bill need to be passed but it needs to be enforced.

Denise Mitchell (Dublin Bay North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome this very straightforward amendment to Coco's Law. It makes it very clear that the crime of recording or distributing non-consensual intimate images of a person also extends to images and videos created by AI. Over recent months, we have seen an explosion in the use of AI technology distributing sexual abuse material, particularly of women and children. The use of AI bots to abuse people online is completely unacceptable. This has to be stopped. The way we do this is by bringing this Bill forward and putting it in place. We also need to ensure that gardaí have the resources to make sure that those who are breaking the law are held to account. We heard last month from the gardaí that they are investigating around 200 cases of sexual abuse material from the Grok AI tool alone. That is an enormous amount of work, especially when one considers that the overwhelming majority of these accounts posting this material online are anonymous. On top of investigating those who are directly creating the images, we need to see these companies that are flouting the law held to account. If we do not begin to tackle this behaviour and if guardrails are not put in place to prevent this sort of abuse, then they have to face serious crimes and the possibility of a criminal investigation.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I commend Deputies Carthy and Devine on this important amendment. It is welcome that the Government is not opposing this. The Minister and I both know that sometimes that does not mean the Government is supporting it either. I would like to see it supported. I welcome the visitors in the Gallery. Tá sé mícheart rogha duine éigin a thógáil agus é a athrú gan cead an duine. Níl sé ceart nó cóir é sin a dhéanamh do dhuine. It is regrettable that intimate image abuse is increasing. The harm is increasing. The scope is increasing. The way that images are being manipulated is becoming even more pervasive. The charge that has been levelled against the Government is that it is too beholden to big tech to take any real action. The only way that charge can be answered effectively is by the Government taking real action.

In his opening remarks the Minister said "that platforms have allowed the non-consensual nudification of images". Platforms have been allowed and that has to stop. Platforms have been facilitated because that is how it has happened. This has to stop. The generation of these images dehumanises not only women but mostly women. It is dehumanising, degrading and disgusting. This amendment to Coco's Law is designed to stamp it out once and for all. We need to get serious about this. We need to ensure not just that the Government does not oppose the legislation but it supports it, implements it and enforces it.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mo bhuíochas leis na Teachtaí Devine agus Carthy as ucht an Bhille seo a thabhairt os comhair na Dála. Cuirim fáilte roimh na daoine atá sa Ghailearaí. There is an urgent need to update Coco's Law. Coco's Law was and still is an important piece of legislation that rightly prosecutes those who share intimate images online or otherwise. Technology moves very quickly. The recent explosion of deep fake sexual images being created on social media platforms, such as X, has shocked many. Elsewhere in Europe, they have been quick to move. Just last week, French prosecutors raided the offices of X as part of their investigation into allegations of spreading child sexual abuse images. In England, the data privacy regulator has opened formal investigations into X's chatbot. We must keep pace.

I am quite flabbergasted after the Minister's speech. I am glad there are so many women in my party. Despite his protestations, I have not heard about the gardaí knocking anybody's door down for producing these images. The nonchalant way he was going on there was absolutely disgraceful.

Our Bill must amend Coco's Law to criminalise non-consensual intimate images and videos made through the use of AI. It must also increase the maximum penalties of those convicted. It will address the grey area of current legislation. However, this is only one part of the response. Holding the social media companies to account is the other part. This is something that this Government should have done long ago. It should certainly have done this since Christmas. The full extent of the law must be brought to bear on online platforms and service providers that try to flout the rules. The fines must be imposed and, crucially, recovered in full.

7 o’clock

As noted by the Teachta who was sitting beside me earlier, the Government has done nothing to ensure that these fines are paid. It has stood idly by in respect of this matter. We should be following the example of the French and ensuring that social media companies are fully held to account. The Government has been sitting on its hands for long enough. We need swift and decisive action to criminalise the distribution of AI images, increase maximum penalties upon conviction and ensure social media companies are held accountable for their complicity in this vile crime against women and children.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to share time with Deputy Lawlor. This Bill is very similar to, if not a mirror copy of, the Bill I published. It even has the same name, but we will not worry about that. The most important thing is that legislation is brought in one way or the other. I could not care less whether it is brought forward by my party, Sinn Féin or the Government.

The most important element of the Bill is its timing. We do not have time to wait. The Labour Party has the longest track record on this issue. My colleague and former Deputy Brendan Howlin was the instigator of Coco's Law, which, I acknowledge, was taken on and brought in by the Government. We identified a loophole in the legislation some time ago in that AI-generated images are not covered. As well as addressing that, we must invert responsibility for what is happening. Big-tech e-commerce companies could not care less about fines. They build them into their business planning. The only thing that will work is making them criminally liable where what we are discussing happens. It is the only thing that will work. I would love to see the EU dealing with this issue quickly but I do not believe it possible that it will do so. We cannot wait for it act. The European Commission has confirmed that there is no reason whatsoever that Ireland cannot act to deal with this issue. I did not think that needed to be confirmed but it has been.

The legislation, in whatever form it takes, must deal with AI- and computer-generated images and ensure that the law is inverted such that these companies have to adhere to Irish law rather than us having to chase them. At the media committee, of which I am Cathaoirleach, we heard Gráinne Seoige's story. It was horrendous. In that situation, people have to go to An Garda Síochána and identify the person distributing these vile images. Then gardaí have to go to the person and try to get his or her phone. If people have to go to court for a court order, the judge, having weighed up the question in terms of proportionality, may decide the phone cannot be given over in view of everything else that is on it. All of this happens, and the process goes on endlessly.

I have seen the correspondence to and from the big-tech company in the case I mentioned. I know what happened with An Garda Síochána and that it was not the fault of its members. We need to change the law in order that these companies are criminally liable where they allow their e-commerce platform to be used to create and-or distribute AI- or computer-generated images. We also need to deal with platforms like WhatsApp in respect of the sharing of these images. We must ensure we protect our children and all our citizens. It is absolutely incumbent on us to do so.

When we challenged representatives of TikTok who appeared before the committee about what was going on, the response is one that will live with me forever. The representative said the company's goal is "minimising harm". The goal is not to prevent harm but to minimise it. As the father of a 15-year-old girl and a 14-year-old boy, that scared me. These companies should not be minimising harm but 100% preventing or stopping it.

I have used the example of the process whereby pharmaceutical drugs are brought into the State to help people when they are ill. The drugs are analysed and go through a regulatory process overseen by the Health Products Regulatory Authority. We would not allow a drug into this country that would deliberately harm people or minimise the harm to them. We would not allow that scenario. Why are we allowing it in this instance? Is it because the whole virus of social media has gone so far and is so controlling? Is it because the companies are based here and we are dependent on their taxes? What is more important? Our duty as TDs in this House is to do two things: first, uphold the Constitution; and, second, legislate for what is right to protect our people. We are not doing the latter when it comes to this issue unless we bring in legislation to address it.

As other committee members in attendance here know, Meta and TikTok refused point-blank to tell us the number of accounts registered to people aged under 16. However, this goes beyond the whole debate on whether we should ban social media for under-16s. How can we trust these companies when they will not even give us basic information like that? How can we ensure they are held accountable rather than our having to chase them? We cannot wait until the European Union catches up, which I do not believe it will do. Ireland will assume the European Presidency later this year. I accept the bona fides of the Minister and the Government on this matter. This is not an Opposition versus Government issue. It is about what is right and what can be done in a timely fashion.

We must bring in legislation to deal with this matter. I am absolutely convinced of that, having dealt with the issue intimately for months. We cannot allow what is going on to keep infecting the citizens, children and adults, who are badly affected by it. We need to legislate to ensure the companies are accountable to us and we do not have to continue to chase them.

George Lawlor (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The core purpose of this amending legislation is twofold. It seeks, first, to explicitly prohibit the creation of non-consensual intimate or otherwise harmful imagery and, second, to extend the period during which proceedings may be initiated, thereby ensuring victims are not denied justice due to the often slow discovery of online offences. Coco's Law, the 2020 Act brought through the House by my predecessor in Wexford, Brendan Howlin, working with the inspirational Jackie Fox, already criminalises the distribution of intimate images without consent and addresses a large range of harmful online communications.

Unfortunately, however, gaps remain. One of the most significant is the absence of a clear stand-alone offence of the creation of non-consensual intimate imagery. As technology advances, individual facilitators such as Elon Musk and others, and, indeed, the deviants in our towns, villages, neighbourhoods and households, can fabricate intimate images using very accessible editing tools or AI-based systems, even where no original image exists. This form of abuse can be as damaging as the sharing of real images, yet the current legislation does not fully capture the act of creation itself. This amending legislation would close that loophole by making it an offence to produce, alter or manipulate imagery depicting a person in an intimate or compromising context without his or her consent regardless of whether the image is subsequently shared. We often hear of these images being used to mentally torture or coercively control.

The second major reform, extending the timeframe for initiating proceedings, responds to the reality that victims often only discover these harmful images and content long after they are created or circulated. Online material can be hidden, shared anonymously or stored on private platforms, making timely detection often difficult.

The existing six-month window for summary offences can therefore be unreasonably restrictive. By lengthening this period, this amendment would give An Garda Síochána and prosecutors greater flexibility to act, and it would acknowledge the unique challenges posed by digital evidence, delayed reporting and the emotional trauma many victims face before coming forward. Together, these changes would modernise the 2020 Act, reinforce the State's commitment to protecting individuals from digital exploitation and ensure the law keeps pace with emerging forms of online harm. They would also send a clear societal message that the creation of non-consensual intimate imagery is a serious violation of personal autonomy and that victims deserve adequate time and legal support to pursue justice. The perpetrators of these heinous, devious and cowardly crimes should have, and will have, no place to hide.

To the victims I say that what they have endured is not a small thing. Having their image or even a fabricated version of them used without their consent is a profound violation of dignity and trust. None of that is their fault. The harm lies entirely with those who chose to misuse technology and exploit their privacy. They deserve to hear that clearly. The victims are not alone in this experience even though it may have felt that way. Many people suffer in silence because shame and fear convince them they have no voice. However, their voices matter. Their stories matter. The emotional weight of discovering that an intimate or harmful image has been created without their consent can and has been overwhelming, and it is completely valid to feel anger, frustration and, sometimes, even grief. This is not a journey they should have to walk without support.

As legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure the law keeps pace with the reality of digital harm. As we all know, technology moves and evolves quickly and so must the protections that safeguard the rights of the people affected. We in this House must be committed to strengthening the law so that the creation of these images is treated with the seriousness it deserves. We simply have to work to ensure that victims are not denied justice simply because these offences often come to light after they occur. Victims must know they will not be left behind. Their experiences must shape stronger protections, clearer accountability and a legal system that recognises the depth of the harm they have faced.

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Sinn Féin for bringing forward this Bill and Deputies Carthy and Devine for the work they have put into it. I also welcome to the Gallery those people who are visiting to listen to this debate. I thank the Government for not opposing this Bill. I welcome that but it is, of course, the very least we can ask. This is a Bill that makes sense. We know Coco's Law has worked over the last number of years. This simple amendment will allow it to keep pace and add some other fixes around access to justice, which are also very important. Essentially, it builds on good law by keeping it up to pace. The Social Democrats will also be introducing legislation that looks at the copyright angle of this area and will allow people to copyright their own personal identity. At the moment, that copyright only extends to commercial activities like singing. What we want to put forward is a copyright law that will protect people's likeness, features, voices and bodies. It is legislation that is being pursued in Denmark and we believe it is another way we can respond to the crisis in which we now find ourselves.

Let us recap on that crisis and what has happened with Grok over the last number of months. An unsafe product, a nudification app, was unleashed on the market. That is the marketing terminology but the legal terminology is image-based sexual abuse, IBSA, and child sexual abuse material, CSAM. That is what this product has done. What we have seen in response from governments and regulators across the globe, including our own, is absolutely shocking. We have seen outcry and hand-wringing. I read a headline today that Coimisiún na Meán is horrified. Investigations are under way by An Garda Síochána. The European Commission is investigating the risk element. What is not happening is any meaningful results for those people who have been harmed by this product. We have had geoblocking from Grok itself, which is, first of all, too little and far too late, but is also something that anybody with VPN can get around in a minute so it is not actually doing anything. The nudification app still works. People can still abuse through image-based sexual abuse and child sexual abuse material.

Other jurisdictions have gone further. We have seen the X offices in Paris raided by the French Government, which I welcome. As Deputy Cairns said in the House a couple of weeks ago, if we had a warehouse on Pearse Street alongside the X offices here which was producing CSAM and IBSA at the same level as it is being produced online, it would have been shut down and prosecutions would have been brought forward. However, because it is on the Internet, we do not see that same response. We do not see anything that actually deals with the crimes that are being committed and with the regulatory transgressions being committed by these companies.

What is the harm that people are experiencing? It is devastating to the people who are experiencing this child sexual abuse material and image-based sexual abuse. It is a violation of their rights, dignity, privacy and autonomy. It has an immediate effect on people but it is not instantaneous because it will stay with them, follow them around, affect their mental health and their life in ways we cannot even imagine unless we are victims of this crime.

I also wish to speak to something that is under-reported, namely, the societal impact of this. Not only is this a product of the misogynistic society we are in but it is something which also fuels it. We are seeing, for example, reports that younger female teachers in schools across Ireland are increasingly experiencing misogyny from their young students. This is exactly the kind of tool and behaviour which fuels younger members of our society into thinking that it is okay to objectify and demean women, and to dehumanise them in this way. It is exactly this behaviour that fuels the epidemic of sexual and gender-based violence which we know is such a problem in this world. Yet, what do we do? We see our governments wringing their hands and, again, talking about how bad it is. Not even that; we had one Minister, Deputy O'Donovan, blame the user. He does not even go as far as blaming the tech platforms.

Deepfakes are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to online harms. This is the other thing I want to speak to. This is one area which is hugely problematic, has rightly caused huge consternation in society and has provoked reactions from across this House, the media and society. This legislation is to be commended as it seeks to address a specific piece of it but even if we fix this, it will not deal with the core issue, which is big tech. We need to deal with online platforms, e-commerce, or whatever we want to call them, and the way in which the online harms that are proliferating on these companies' websites are reaching into the lives of every single individual in society and that governments and regulators across the globe have no control and no ability to hold them to account. We get messages that either the regulatory and legal framework does not exist for them to do that, that when the framework does exist it is too hard to enforce, or that when they want to enforce it, it is not working and the companies do not pay heed to fines or whatever else. None of this is good enough. I do not care if it is about jobs, tax, or whatever it is; the Government needs to step up because these companies are running rings around it. Every day people are paying the price. Everybody is paying the price. The worst part of all this is that these are technologies, particularly AI, which could bring so much amazing benefit to society. Unfortunately, the more we see products like this unleashed on society, and we will see more and more of them, that trust will be eroded and AI as a tool will be completely undermined. We will start to see the inequality divide online increase further, as people pay to access tools that they can trust and will work for them, while everybody else just gets to dive around in the cesspit that is the Internet.

Today is Safer Internet Day, the theme of which is "AI Aware: Safe, Smart, and in Control". There was an event in the Department of justice to mark the day, at which members of a youth panel spoke to the issue. While that sort of activity is to be welcomed, I do not know how the Government can stand over celebrating Safer Internet Day when it cannot even deal with a safe Internet.

It cannot hold big tech to account and actually provide a safe Internet. I am crystal-clear on exactly what this Government needs to do to deal with big tech. Our Government needs to grow a pair. It needs to regulate, enforce, prosecute and make the Internet safer. I welcome this Bill and commend it but we need so much more from the Government.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge Sinn Féin for bringing forward this welcome Bill. I will support it because it responds to a harm that is no longer hypothetical and no longer something we can say the law has time to catch up with. Only today, Ireland's Online Safety Commissioner said she was "horrified" by what she saw when testing the AI system Grok. She was horrified that it could generate sexualised, degrading images of people who never consented and never could consent. That is not a campaign group talking. This is the State's own regulator warning us that the technology is already ahead of the law that is supposed to protect us from it.

Coco's Law was landmark legislation. It mattered. It helped victims, but it was written for a world where abuse followed an image that already existed. What we are dealing with now is different. We are dealing with abuse that begins with a fabrication. A person does not need to take to take a photo, access your phone or deceive you into trust. They simply need your face. That changes everything. The harm is the same. The shame they seek to impose upon a victim is the same. The fear is the same. The consequences remain the same - jobs potentially lost and relationships potentially damaged. People are still silenced but the scale, speed and accessibility of the abuse has exploded. This Bill matters because it names that reality very clearly. It says that an intimate image is not just something captured by a camera. It can be digitally generated, it can be artificial, and it can and will destroy someone's life. It also does something important and overdue. It treats the act of generating this material without consent as part of the wrongdoing, not just from the moment it is shared. This is essential if we want prevention, rather than permanent clean-up after the damage is done.

The Bill extends the time limits for bringing cases forward. That matters too. Victims do not report in a neat legal timeframe; they report when they are safe enough, strong enough or when the threat finally becomes unbearable. The law should reflect that reality, not punish people for surviving it. I want to say this clearly. Online abuse is not just an unfortunate side-effect of public life; it is a deliberate tactic. It is gendered, sexualised and designed to intimidate people out of participation. If we keep telling people, especially women and minorities, that this is just the cost of being visible, we are complicit in the narrowing of who gets to speak and lead. Ireland hosts many of these platforms that profit from this content travelling fast and far. We cannot keep outsourcing responsibility while victims are left chasing take-downs that come too late and often not at all.

The Social Democrats will support this Bill but I legislation alone is not enough. We need Garda capacity, fast, enforceable take-down systems and real consequences for those facilitating this abuse at scale. France has recently shown us the way in that regard. When our Online Safety Commissioner tells us she is horrified by what these tools can already do, the response of Dáil Éireann cannot be just caution or delay. The Bill is a necessary step. I acknowledge those who brought it forward. I hope the State will enact it at great speed.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will share time with Deputy Healy.

I agree that AI is opening up a new frontier for misogyny and abuse. I also raise tonight that the image-based sexual abuse laws we have are not being implemented. I am very concerned about the institutions that we have and how they deal with non-consensual imagery being shared, particularly institutions that deal with young people. I will highlight this by starting with the case of a medical student in UCD who, in mid-2025, had a nude, bruised and unconscious image of herself shared and circulated to a significant number of UCD staff email addresses. This image was procured after she was raped by a student, a rape that she chose not to report - most women and victims do not report. The picture showed her bruised and undressed. I will not be too graphic, but I want to bring home the levels of misogyny that we have in our society. A finger was pointing toward her vagina. She was clearly unconscious or asleep.

The image was first shared in that email but subsequently, due to the inaction of UCD school of medicine and the leadership of UCD in general, it was shared on a WhatsApp group of students. I could not even repeat in the Dáil the comments that accompanied it. I felt nauseated after reading them. I will say, however, that there were further rape threats and further threats to use objects to violently rape this person. This person was told she should take her own life. She was called all sorts of names and comments were made about her appearance and so on.

My issue is this. It was horrific that this happened. I cannot blame UCD for the circulation of that image in the first instance, but I can blame it when it was subsequently shared on two further occasions. The first time was to the email addresses. The university contacted An Garda Síochána but did not make any contact with this young woman for about a week or a week and a half. That is absolutely outrageous. It also never had a proper meeting with the victim of this image-based sexual abuse. Students who received this image subsequently were not warned. There was no huge meeting to explain the dire consequences of sharing image-based sexual abuse. No information was provided to students about safeguarding or risk assessment.

In November 2025, the image was circulated to student group chats, accompanied by violent and misogynistic threats. In January 2026, it was circulated to a group of medical students at St. Vincent's. This has to be registered because UCD is the biggest university in this State. It has tens of thousands of students in its charge. It does not seem to have due regard for safeguarding in respect of image-based sexual abuse or how to react. There was no compassion or real sympathy shown to the victim in this case by the school of medicine either. It is unbelievable that trainee doctors are circulating images like this, but that is unfortunately where we are.

The student who was raped in this incident and did not report the rape experienced further repercussions in her own life arising from that rape, which I will go into at another time. Again, those were never dealt with with any sense of compassion by UCD. I have written to UCD school of medicine and management about this and the lack of culture. Apart from the meeting with some class representatives, the way the victim put it to me was that they have had more warnings about littering the library than about the consequences of resharing images like this. On one occasion, the university newspaper was threatened if it took up the story. I am particularly concerned about what the safeguarding policies are. Safeguarding policies seem to be just about harassment. If someone is being harassed, they can contact the university but in this case the person does not know who is harassing them. The Garda has not been able to find the original source of this image due to the clever use of technology. Our institutions are way behind. Never mind AI, they are way behind with laws that have been in place for a number of years.

The head of UCD should meet this victim, as I think the Minister of State would agree, to discuss the consequences. She does not want anything like this to happen to any student again. Clearly, UCD is not learning any lessons if it is not willing to do that. I should also add that this student has suffered incredibly from the original rape, which she did not want to report because she knew she would probably not be believed. This sort of reaction by the UCD authorities does not bode well for anybody who wants to come forward in these situations.

I felt it was important to raise that on the floor of the Dáil. If our universities do not have proper safeguards in place to deal with the sharing of images of students in these situations, what hope is there for us? Will the Minister of State take this up with the head of UCD and ask her to meet with this woman - I would be happy to meet with UCD - who is certainly the victim in this case?

Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I thank the Sinn Féin Deputies for bringing it forward. I welcome the Bill. It is important legislation, although it is short, that is vital for the protection of the public, both adults and children, to stop the creation and distribution of intimate images without consent. Unfortunately, there are gaps in the principal Act of 2020. This legislation deals with that by creating a stand-alone offence of the creation of non-consensual intimate images.

This is an area where there must be no room for confusion, loopholes or grey areas. It is an area that must be dealt with and legislated for urgently. What we are dealing with here is, of course, a crime and a violation of individuals on the basis of image-based sexual abuse and child sexual abuse material. As I said, this is important legislation. It clarifies the original Act, creates the stand-alone offence and increases the time limit within which a case can be taken. That is very important because on very many occasions there can be long delays in information coming forward, so the extension of that time is vitally important. The increase in penalties is also very significant and welcome. This is very important legislation that I urge the Government to accept. I know it is not opposing the Bill but what we need is urgent action to implement the proposals in it.

I will also refer to the whole question of access by minors aged under 16 to social media. As we know, Australia was the world's first country to ban social media access for under-16s. That ban came into force in December 2025. Other countries, such as Spain, France, Denmark, Greece and Portugal, either have or are introducing similar bans of their own. In fact, the Spanish Prime Minister said, and I agree with him, that children must be protected from what he calls "the digital Wild West". Minors in Ireland have unsupervised access to a space they were never meant to navigate and are exposed to violence, manipulation, abuse, addiction, pornography and much more. Early access to social media is linked to risks, including cyberbullying, mental health issues, depression, anxiety and exposure to harmful content.

The Government must introduce legislation in this area to include State-enforced regulation to prevent access by under-16s to social media and require platforms to introduce technology-verified identity systems to prevent that access. Self-reported age is simply not good enough any more. Most platforms formally require people to be over the age of 13 but there is effectively no enforcement of that. The platforms will strenuously object to these proposals but they are of vital importance.

The owners of these tech companies are part of an elite group of billionaires. Nine of the ten top social media companies in the world are owned by six billionaires and eight of the top ten AI companies are billionaire-run. These billionaires use their extreme concentration of wealth to shape laws to influence the media, technology, taxation and public policy in their favour. These companies must be faced down for the protection of children. We must not be laggards in this area, waiting and waiting for the EU to act. As I said, other countries in the EU, such as Spain, France, Denmark, Greece and Portugal, have gone on their own. We must do the same and we must do it quickly.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Bille seo inniu. It addresses one of the most insidious frontiers of crime in modern Ireland. For years, we watched technology outpace our laws but today it is outpacing our own sense of human dignity. We are living in an era where nudification has become a service and predators do not even need a camera to destroy a life. All they need is an algorithm.

We stood in this Chamber and spoke about Coco's Law as landmark legislation, and it was, but technology is moving fast and the Government's system is moving too slow for it. Today, we are witnessing the rise of a new industry of misery - AI-generated deepfakes. Right now, a predator can take the face of a young girl from social media, run it through a nudification app, generate pornographic material of her and, because this image is technically a computer-generated image, the Government's current laws are not able to keep up. Rather, they ask whether it is an intimate image or a real person. While the Government's law debates the definitions, real persons get destroyed.

This Bill asserts a vital truth; any of these materials are real harm. We must criminalise the actual creation of these images from the outset. We know that hotline.ie received 1,500 reports of intimate image abuse last year and only a fraction of these ever resulted in a conviction. Gardaí are fighting a digital war with their hands tied behind their back. Under the current two-year statute limits, the clock often expires before a tech company in California, or even Dublin, responds to a data request. Agencies such as the Data Protection Commission and Coimisiún na Meán need more than laws. They need the power and resources to enforce those laws, including the ability to fine companies into compliance. It is estimated that 6,700 sexually abusive images are produced by AI every single hour, 99% of which target women and children. Hotline.ie reported a 166% increase last year in computer-generated or computer-altered child abuse materials.

Last week, the Oireachtas committee was treated very shoddily by major tech companies. X refused to appear. Others refused to give information about how many children are using their services and have admitted to refusing to building in the necessary safety to the design. Grok is not alone in the production of this material. Merlio AI, Soulgen, nudify-online, undress AI, DreamGF, deepnude.cc, Promptchan AI and Candy.ai all facilitate nudification tools. One video generation tool, owned by the Chinese giant Alibaba, allows for this material to be created. It allows anybody to upload an image and do anything they like with that image. ByteDance, which is a parent company of TikTok, offers an unmoderated video generation tool as well.

Six years ago, Aontú introduced a Bill looking for the banning of the provision of hardcore pornography to children. When we raised it, the Government turned its face against it, even though there is massive evidence that children are being distorted by this material and are being led to assaults in relation to it. We need to make sure that we look at the whole swathe of Internet content that is having significant negative effects on the minds of our young children.

Richard O'Donoghue (Limerick County, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did we ever think we would see the day where we would see imagery like this? When we grew up in our day, and a lot of people here grew up at the same time, if we had a row at school or outside, it did not follow us home.

The problem we have with the social media is that it follows you everywhere. Whether you are dead or not, it follows you. Whether it is AI-generated this or AI-generated that, it is all down to algorithms. People want to know how many likes they got here and there.

People always ask me about social media. I am on social media but I never answer anyone on social media. If people do not have the common sense or the know-how to pick up the phone and contact me, I will not talk to a phone that has algorithms and all the rest of it. I use it for good to help people but a lot of companies are using it for their own benefit. We do not know who is talking any more. People might see something coming from the States but no one knows if it is real any more. They do not know who is talking. It can have the Minister of State where he is now and have him doing something he is not physically able to do. The younger generation does not know any different. They see something on social media and they think it is true. No matter how false it is, they think it is true.

Why not have legislation that provides that if something is generated by AI or anything else, it must be clearly marked across the top that it has been AI-generated and if it is not marked, the liability is on the platforms. Producers of food or anything else in this country have to label their products as theirs, so why not label stuff as generated by AI, regardless of whether someone else is using their stuff. Accountability has to go right back to the people who allow it, the platforms. It should be marked. There should be accountability. How many lives have been ruined and taken because of false images being posted and mistruths being told? People look at it and then it is yesterday's news, with no accountability.

The Government has to get off its backside on this and get out in front of it. It has to make sure this is stopped for our children's lives, our friends' lives, our neighbours' lives and for everyone's life. They have to be protected. AI can be brilliant for certain things when it is used within the parameters for which it is meant to be used but when it is taken outside those parameters and used for harm or to hurt somebody, we cannot stand idly by. We need to have a branding system so people, including the next generation, can see that something is only AI-generated. We need a branding system that shows stuff like this and brings the portfolio back to the person and company that put it out in the first place.

Ken O'Flynn (Cork North-Central, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How long do I have?

Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You have three and a half minutes.

Ken O'Flynn (Cork North-Central, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Sinn Féin for bringing this Bill to the House. It is an important, detailed and well put together Bill. The senior Minister referred quite heavily in his speech to Coco's Law. More than 12 months ago, I wrote to the Minister about expanding Coco's Law on behalf of a young gentleman who lost his life in the River Lee in Cork - he was 33 years old - Luke Hyde. I asked him to bring in an addition, known as Luke's Law. This young man drowned in the River Lee while hundreds of people videoed him in difficulty. They videoed the final moments of his life. On three occasions, I have written to the Minister of State's Department and to the senior Minister, requesting he meet the Hyde family. I have received an acknowledgement that my letter was received. I have never received an appointment or a possible opening for him to meet and talk to this family. This heartbroken mother still sees images of her child occasionally arrive on TikTok. She opens her phone, Facebook or whatever and sees images of Luke in his final moments of distress. No one is willing to talk about that. I have asked the Minister of State and the Minister to bring in a Luke's Law to address that situation. It ties in a lot with the things being discussed tonight, nudification and the atrocities that are happening in what is the digital wild west, without a doubt, to women and particularly to children.

Paedophile rings have become incredibly sophisticated. That is the reality. They have embraced technology far more than most of us ever have. They are now scanning the globe, generating these types of images and sharing them on various platforms on the dark web, on Telegram and on various other communication networks and they have become very sophisticated. The problem is that we are not able to catch up. For some reason, criminal activity and those who are generating money from this and those involved in gratification from looking at young children are far more sophisticated and are running rings around the Irish Government, European governments and the rest.

I do not know whether this legislation will make much difference. I say that because we are dealing with people in Singapore, China and Taiwan and groups in Silicon Valley. How far does it span? The entire world has to be working on this. The entire networks have to be working on it.

Deputy O'Donoghue made a valid point about branding AI images. The other thing we have to address - penalising people is mentioned in the legislation and bringing them-----

Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Deputy.

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome this legislation that updates Coco's Law, which made it an offence to share or threaten to share intimate images without consent. Much has changed in recent years. At the time, the legislation did not explicitly criminalise the generation of a sexualised image of someone without consent, the creation of deep fake images, the manipulation of existing images to make them sexual, or - and this is a fundamental part of the Bill - the production of harmful images, even if they are never shared. I have to ask why anyone would produce an image if not to share it. It is then there possibly as a coercive threat, which goes back to the fundamental reason for Coco's Law, which criminalises threatening as well as doing it.

The creation should be banned, if it is possible to enforce, because AI has made these types of abuse dramatically easier. Deep fakes can be created from a single photograph. Child abuse imagery can be created without a real child being present and there are nudified versions of ordinary photographs. The second part of the Bill, which I welcome, changes the time for bringing a case from two to five years. Victims often discover the abuse long after it happens, so that is crucial.

We need to be able to get at the individuals who are creating and disseminating the images and, as others have said, go after the companies. They are getting away too easily in Ireland and relatively easily in the European Union. We have to do it collectively as a federation of states. We have to stand up to these companies, whether they are in China, the US or anywhere else in the world.

Colm Brophy (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies Devine and Carthy for raising this issue. I also extend my appreciation to all the other speakers who contributed to the debate this evening. It was interesting to listen to so many points on which there was broad agreement in this House. It is not that usual to hear that.

As mentioned, online safety is a priority for the Government and the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, and I have it at the heart of what we believe is important in what we are doing. It will also be a priority during our EU Presidency. The European Commission has a key role to play in this area. It is important to ensure we work together with other member states. As the Minister, and indeed the previous Deputy, indicated, a momentum is being developed to prohibit at European level the types of AI systems that enable the generation of child sexual abuse material and non-consensual intimate content of people. It is important that we drive this at EU level because we need to drive it at that scale.

A significant body of existing legislation provides the foundation of Ireland's online safety framework, including the regulation of social media. Coimisiún na Meán, as Ireland's online safety media regulator, is at the heart of that framework. Under the framework, it is for the regulated platforms to demonstrate they have the correct safety measures in place to prevent illegal or harmful content being shown. The EU AI Act complements the protections provided for in the Digital Services Act, by introducing stronger governance for AI that is developed or deployed within the European Union.

These provisions will introduce transparency requirements such that AI-generated images must be clearly labelled, as has been mentioned, as being made by AI.

The Government is in the process of implementing domestic legislation to give full effect to the EU AI Act in Ireland. The main supervision and enforcement provisions will come into effect in August, as the Minister mentioned. These provide a formal regulatory mechanism for relevant surveillance authorities to engage with individual companies specifically on the development, provision and deployment of AI systems.

I reiterate that the harmful digital practices being debated disproportionately target women and children. So many of the contributors tonight made that point and it should be made by everybody who speaks on this matter.

In such circumstances, the zero-tolerance strategy on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence is extremely relevant. Cuan is engaging with partners and stakeholders on research relating to the harmful effects of violent pornography and its links to violence against women and children in order to develop an evidence-based pornography literacy strategy spanning public awareness and education. This includes co-ordination with the Department of Education and Youth, ongoing work to provide prevention, consent and healthy relationships education through our schools and other youth settings and the implementation of the framework for ending sexual violence and harassment in higher education.

I reiterate that I am committed to keeping all legislation under review, as is the Minister. Technology is evolving rapidly, and criminal law must keep up. I have made it clear in the many contributions that I have made on this topic that one of the problems that we face in democracies is trying to keep pace with the speed at which things change. The ability of companies to instigate and commercialise products is effectively faster than most democracies can respond to them through legislation. What we are doing here this evening is important. I will consider whatever legislative amendments are required arising out of this debate.

Fionntán Ó Súilleabháin (Wicklow-Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have seen a flood of deepfake sexual images generated by AI, often depicting children. As we know, Coco's Law criminalised the non-consensual recording or distribution of intimate images. However, it remains unclear whether the 2020 Act covers the creation of such images. It is important that the law keeps up with technology. In that context, the Government has been moving at snail's pace in many ways. We in Sinn Féin have three straightforward amendments to Coco's Law. One is to explicitly criminalise the non-consensual creation and generation of intimate images and videos using AI. The second is to extend the Statute of Limitations from two years to five for summary offences. The third is to increase the maximum penalties upon conviction.

Government inaction has left a clear gap in the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020. The recent Grok nudification scandal shows the consequences. A total of 85% of generated images were sexualised and during the Christmas period, an estimated 3 million sexualised images were produced, including 23,000 that appear to depict children. AI and big tech are really destroying the minds of a generation of children. That is quite shocking. We must do everything we can to stop it.

In my constituency of Wicklow-Wexford, domestic, sexual and gender-based violence continues to rise. Sexual assaults rose by 44% in Wicklow and 120% in Wexford over the past two decades, so we need zero tolerance for violence against men, women and children, which is often related to such imagery. We must also ensure that An Garda Síochána has the personnel and resources to hold offenders to account and to ensure that social media companies face the full force of the law.

This Bill will criminalise the non-consensual creation of intimate images through AI and strengthen penalties. We call on all TDs to support it.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Minister of State knows, the purpose of the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences (Amendment) Bill is to try to ensure that we can avoid situations where individuals are taking advantage of technology. He mentioned that technology is moving so fast it is hard to keep up with it. That is certainly the point. He also made a valid point to the effect that the victims are primarily women and children, which means that the perpetrators are primarily men. That is something else that has to be considered in respect of this. For many years, social media, which is really antisocial media, has allowed the development of pornography and the spread and normalisation of hateful and harmful abuse. An element of that has been happening for some time and no checks have been put in place. So many people online are anonymous. We do not know who they are and there is no way of finding out who is behind all of this. The tech companies will not tell us who they are either. These companies have a responsibility. If they can say they are only facilitating what is happening, then the minimum they can do is identify those they are facilitating. At present, they do not do that to any great extent.

The purpose of the legislation is to deal with this relatively new phenomenon whereby the technology that is used has the capacity to visually undress and sexualise children and women, and use that as a weapon. This is about a power imbalance. All of these things are about power. It is about people who think that they have the power to humiliate and degrade others and that this enrich and lift them up. It is about time that we stepped in firmly, not just here in Ireland but globally, to ensure that we prevent any more of this from happening.

Johnny Mythen (Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Bill before the House is plain and simple. It amends what is known as Coco's Law. The purpose of the Bill is to clear up a grey area of whether the 2020 Act explicitly covers the creation of intimate images. However, it fails to state that the generation or creation of deepfake sexual images of adults is illegal. This must be remedied immediately. We witnessed the Grok controversy in December and January. Researchers estimated that 6,700 sexually suggestive nudified images were created hourly. These mainly depicted women, children and young girls and represent a violation of sacrosanct human rights. As if that was not bad enough, after a huge backlash, instead of removing such a base tool, X hid Grok behind a paywall rather removing it.

The French have taken action, along with the UK's Ofcom, and have launched an investigation and raided X offices, citing violations of the digital safety Act. X and similar platforms must be constrained from allowing the creation of nudified images of women, children and young girls. Many countries are now calling for the removal of tools that can facilitate the latter. The Government must act. I would like to see action similar to that in France and the UK being taken here. That is why Deputies Máire Devine and Matt Carthy and Sinn Féin put this Bill forward.

Coco's Law is a deterrent but needs strengthening. A review of the Act in 2024 stated that 100 cases were prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions between 2021 and 2023. However, more than 1,500 victim reports were made in the same period. This is why we are asking that the Bill be accepted and that Coco's Law be strengthened in order to criminalise non-consensual intimate images and increase the maximum penalties on conviction. I welcome the fact that the Minister is not opposing the Bill.