Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. It is a source of significant frustration that she has yet to publish the Future of Media Commission's report. The co-operation and synergy between the commission and the new regulator were core issues for the joint committee when debating this Bill. Here we are discussing the dissolution of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, yet the Parliament does not have to hand a report from the commission, which was set up by the Government at a cost to taxpayers in the State of €400,000.I asked RTÉ representatives when they were before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media recently how they felt. They said they were beyond frustrated that the report has not been published yet. The Press Ombudsman was before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Public Petitions, of which I am a member, and he expressed his concern that it had not been published yet. The committee pre-legislative scrutiny report noted the notable overlap between the Future of Media Commission and the new regulator. I urge the Minister to release the report to tell us what the Government's plan is for the future of media in this country.

I will turn to the individual complaints mechanism. The Internet brings risk. This Bill has identified the loss of personal data, exposure to harmful content, cyberbullying, negative effects on health and mental health, online grooming and extortion. There is a scheme in the Bill for nominated bodies that will be able to notify the media commission about harmful content and non-compliance with the online safety codes. However, that does not go far enough. The Bill should specifically provide for an individual complaints mechanism to ensure citizens have access to an effective remedy. When someone's rights are not respected by online providers, and that person has exhausted all appropriate channels with an online platform, the State should then have a mechanism in place to allow an effective remedy for the individual. I appreciate the Minister has established an expert group to consider the issue. It will report to her before 90 days at this point, but this work should have been completed in parallel with the pre-legislative scrutiny process.

I hope the Bill will not leave the Seanad before we get access to the advice from the expert group. It is important for Senators to be able to consider the Bill with the advice from that expert group to hand. I hope the Bill will not go to the Dáil, be amended there and then return to this House. While I welcome the piece about nominated bodies, I am not convinced such organisations, for example, NGOs, have the time or resources to do this type of work. Having super-complainants is a useful provision, and one I understand social media companies have in place, but it is no harm to put that on a legislative footing.

I will refer briefly to public service programming and prominence. It is something I brought up at the committee at numerous points. The prominence of our public service broadcasters and public service media must be safeguarded in law. This is particularly important when it comes to the Irish language. We used to be able to turn on the television and the public service broadcaster would be right there. It now takes multiple steps to find public service content. It is important we maintain prime billing on viewing menus, for example, so the regulator can step in and ensure public service content is easy to find. As I said, there are multiple steps a viewer has to take to find public service content now, whether that is through a Sky box and so on. I do not want a situation where public service broadcasters are being drowned out.

The new media commission will have the power to impose financial sanctions on broadcasting services and designated online services. I am mindful when I read these sanctions that another commissioner, the Data Protection Commissioner, has come in for international criticism for being too soft on big tech companies such as Facebook and Google. Ms Frances Haugen said that Ireland faces a conflict of interest when regulating these companies. The Government needs to get tough and this media commission needs to be tough on tech companies. I am also concerned that the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Robert Troy, has given confidentiality to Facebook and other tech companies when they meet that Department.

I would like to raise the issue of the ban on advertising to children. I remember the Connemara film-maker, Bob Quinn, always fought against advertisements during children's programming when he was on the RTÉ authority. In 1970, he called for a complete ban on all advertising directed at children. Recommendation 24 from the committee's pre-legislative scrutiny report is a ban on advertising to children online, including, at the very minimum, advertising of junk foods, alcohol, foods high in fat, salt or sugar, and gambling. There should be an online safety code that addresses this issue. I believe an explicit reference is required that makes it clear from the outset this will be included in the work of the new regulator because it is in public health interest of children. The same applies to the content levy. The media regulator will have the ability to introduce the levy but there is no date for that. Does the Minister believe it will happen if we leave it and do not make explicit reference to its introduction at the start of the Bill?

My last point relates to public interest research based on the data provided by regulated platforms. Ms Frances Haugen was a product manager researching misinformation on Facebook's civil integrity team. She will be before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media tomorrow. She disclosed internal documents showing Facebook's internal research teams had evidence of harmful content. Facebook did not share those findings with the public nor did it give external researchers access to data to confirm their findings. We need transparent data access. Researchers can only access what Facebook wants them to see. Researchers can see patterns on Twitter because its data is public, but Facebook and YouTube do not readily share data with researchers and, therefore, there is a void in research, which is the first step in understanding what is going on under the lid of these platforms. Recommendation 23 from the committee was that provision be made in legislation to enable public interest research based on data provided by regulated platforms. Is the Minister satisfied the Bill provides for data to be supplied to independent researchers and academics? I do not think it does.