Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I join others in welcoming the Bill. Having the advantage of speaking at the end, I welcome the strong consensus on all sides of the House in recognising self-regulation is not adequate in this area. It is encouraging that we are hearing various proposals from all the parties and groupings. I am hopeful that we will find ways to work together and combine the best legislative proposals. While I recognise this Bill works under ComReg, I believe the case for a digital safety commissioner has been strongly made. If a proposal were made for the establishment of such a role, perhaps the Bill could work with that. The Bill refers to sole responsibility but additional responsibilities might need to be catered for if we succeed in establishing a digital safety commissioner. That is important.

Senators have said things are moving fast. For quite a long time, online service providers have managed to create a sense that this is an impossible area to regulate and that it cannot be done. This is similar to the intimidating dynamic we used to hear about regarding financial regulation. We are told the system is global, that it is everywhere and nowhere, and that it is impossible to regulate. As with financial regulation, we have realised this is an area that can be regulated because the companies do land and have headquarters, bases, clients and customers. They have commercial practices. Anywhere there is money changing hands, regulation is possible.What we are seeing now is a stepping-up by legislators. I am happy to see it across this House but I have also met legislators in the United States and in other parts of Europe who have realised that this is an area where many of our citizens spend time and where we have a duty to see if we can take action. Ireland has a particular duty because this is where many of these companies are headquartered.

Some specific points are really positive in this Bill and represent useful additions to the debate in online safety. The expression "distributes or otherwise makes available" is used. This is important because it is not always the case that something is simply published. Some material may be published online but "distributes or otherwise makes available" covers something wider. It covers personal messages that people may get. Such messages might come directly to people and may not be subject to any of the normal safeguards or screens that we have in the public sphere.

The issue of harmful practice and how platforms respond to it arises. There is also the issue of incitement to hatred, which is another matter that needs to be looked at. I am keen to strengthen the Bill in that regard.

Another important point complements the last point in terms of the issue of direct messaging. This is a major area where people are being reached. It is not as visible as Facebook or what might be happening on Twitter. I am referring to direct personal messages and WhatsApp. We know WhatsApp is an area where people receive messages. It is an encrypted site. It is difficult to know what content is there and how to access it.

The framing of the expression "a means of communication" is interesting in terms of the jurisdiction. It applies even if the person is outside the State but the means of communication is located in the State. WhatsApp and other direct messaging formats rely on telephone numbers sourced in Ireland. We know about the area of incitement to hatred and we have seen the use of WhatsApp in the Brazilian elections and elsewhere. The number attached to a person's messages in WhatsApp needs to be accessed in a given country. I can send a number from a UK telephone number. However, if I have a telephone number with a 087, 086 or 085 prefix, the number is sourced. Ireland has strict rules around the regulation of unsolicited text messaging and so on as well as in the area of direct marketing through text. There is scope for us to target the area of WhatsApp, which is a concern.

I am coming to the area of micro-targeting. The sentiments that have been expressed on content that is harmful are strong and clear in the House. That is one half of the picture. The other half of the picture is the targeting. There is the question of content as well. This measure goes a long way to regulating it, but there is also the matter of targeting and how people are reached. I am keen to note two areas in particular. The Bill sets the age of a child at 16 years. I would prefer if the age was 18 years because in most areas a child is construed as being 18 years or under, with the exception of the sub-clause in the general data protection regulation. We could go with what section 29 of the general data protection regulation, which refers to a child of 18 years.

We already have a law on the Statute Book. Senator Lynn Ruane and I won this amendment in the debate on the general data protection regulation. It specifically states that it shall be an offence under the Act for any company or corporate body to process the personal data of a child for the purposes of direct marketing, profiling or micro-targeting. Such an offence shall be punishable by administrative fine. That is already the law, but the problem is that it has not been commenced by the Government and no date has been set.