I thank the Deputy for bringing forward the Bill. The Government will not oppose it. I look forward to engaging with Deputies today but, in general, the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, and the Minister, Deputy McEntee, look forward to engaging with Deputy Smith on this.
We have all been appalled at the phenomenon of sharing videos of accidents and their aftermath. Some truly shocking material has been made available depicting death and serious injuries, with no evident regard to the victims or their families.
Whatever about the decision to record such a video in the heat of the moment, it is another step to share the video. In the past if a person saw an accident he or she might have told people about it. Now however, some seem to have the urge to record and share it. There sometimes seems to be a failure of basic human decency.
Deputy Smith referred to the number of people who have been lost on our roads. Every lost life is a terrible tragedy. They leave behind families and friends. Whole communities are affected and traumatised. I emphasise again that the Government is committed to taking all action necessary to reduce the number of people injured and killed on our roads. Every death is one too many. The trauma of loss is compounded by the sharing of material in a public way. It compromises the dignity and privacy of the person shown. It brings a very real risk of those close to a victim learning of a serious accident through online coverage rather than through proper, more sensitive channels. For the public at large, it exposes all of us to extremely distressing material without any of the safeguards that might properly be expected to reduce the serious effects on viewers.
Images captured by the media depicting accidents and their immediate aftermath, typically intended for news purposes, seldom include bodies. While there are instances where broadcasters opt to include such visuals in certain stories, they come with warnings and the images are often brief and non-graphic. When these reports are shared on social media platforms by news outlets, the accompanying posts do not normally contain such imagery. This stands in stark contrast with individuals who share grim imagery online, leaving unsuspecting viewers with no option but to encounter it. For all those reasons, as I mentioned already, we now routinely hear An Garda Síochána asking that footage of incidents, particularly tragic accidents, not be circulated. We all support that message. We have heard that here today.
Criminalisation is never a quick fix and I know the Deputy is not suggesting it is. However, it can only ever be part of the answer in changing behaviours and realising what are acceptable social norms. In certain cases, of course, the sharing of such images may already constitute a criminal offence, for example, a harassment offence under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, which was extended last year.
The commencement of the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act in March 2023 marked a watershed moment in the move from self-regulation of online providers to an era of accountability and a more joined-up approach to media regulation. It established a new powerful regulator, Coimisiún na Meán, to enforce accountability in the sector. On 27 May, Coimisiún na Meán published an updated draft online safety code. The code provides for a number of obligations on video-sharing platform services established in Ireland, such as YouTube, Instagram and Meta or Facebook. Those obligations include requirements to restrict certain harmful online content, including cyberbullying, incitements to hatred or violence and racist or xenophobic material. The code will also require those platforms to offer parental controls and content rating systems, as well as to operate effective reporting and complaints mechanisms for users. Coimisiún na Meán expects to finalise and adopt the code later this year.
Alongside the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act, under the EU Digital Services Act social media platforms are required to remove illegal content as soon as possible. Of course, the longer the material stays online, the greater its reach and the more it can spread and grow. Therefore, we will continue to ensure the compliance of social media platforms with their obligations to ban, detect and remove these depictions. An coimisiún is Ireland's digital services co-ordinator under the Act and it works with the European Commission in regulating platforms under the Act. Failure to comply with the Digital Services Act can lead to fines of up to 6% of global turnover. Failure to comply with the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act can lead to fines up to 10% of relevant turnover.
There are undoubtedly challenges to criminalisation. We have consulted with a number of agencies on the Bill. I am going to set out some of the matters Deputy Smith may wish to consider as the Bill progresses. These are intended constructively and I know the Department, through its officials, is happy to engage on them. It is suggested that some thought might be given to scope. The Deputy's focus has been on road traffic accidents but the Bill refers to any visual representation of a person "at the scene of an accident or other emergency". In particular, the term "other emergency" may be construed very broadly. It is easy to imagine that this might include, for example, a deliberate assault, a public order incident or simply a person having a serious health issue in a public place. An argument can certainly be made for that broader scope, but it needs to be considered.
There may be a distinction to be drawn between recording and publication. Recording can occur in a very wide range of contexts and photographs and videos of non-consenting subjects are frequently captured in public places. Any change to this general approach would have significant and widespread consequences, such as in the context of CCTV and dashcams. I know the Bill does not deal with those instances but the legislation may need to be finessed to ensure that some of this automated filming and recording is appropriately dealt with. It is already dealt with by data protection law as regards personal data. There are other areas of law which regulate this to some extent. The point is that it is a complex area and requires further consideration.
There may be significant public importance in the freedom to take and publish photographs and videos in situations where injury may occur or has already occurred. This may particularly arise when law enforcement personnel are involved, such as in the context of a riot or other public order incident, for example. Restrictions could be problematic. We, as an Oireachtas, and indeed the courts, very rightly closely scrutinise measures affecting freedom of expression. It is also worth noting that the availability of photographs and recordings after an incident may be of value. The value might only emerge after the fact. For example, An Garda Síochána routinely asks for dashcam footage. The Deputy has addressed some of these questions, to be fair, through sections 3 and 4.
However, the sense from the advice received in the Department is that the Bill as currently drafted risks discouraging what might be called well-intentioned recording, while potentially providing quite wide gaps for the unscrupulous.
Finally, the Bill is silent on the question of what a person must know or intend to commit an offence. A bystander recording a video may have no idea whether a person is dead or dying or is seriously injured. They may also have no intention of causing distress, alarm or harm to the person. In addressing this, there may be value in considering whether this intent provision might be used more effectively in defining the scope of the offence.
An issue has been flagged in respect of section 3 on whether this will cover emergency services' workers and there are some further technical and definitional issues. These issues cab be addressed in due course. This happens all the time with Government legislation, where issues are identified and addressed. It is not meant as any disrespect to the legislation the Deputy put forward.
I hope this will help the Bill. I was glad to see the chairman of the justice committee here. I hope the justice committee will be in a position to consider the Bill further. Officials from the Department of Justice are absolutely happy to engage. I want to make that clear. A huge amount of work has gone into the Bill. It is a good Bill. There are good intentions behind it. The Government is not opposing it and I hope it can go to Committee Stage, where the issues we have raised in the best of faith can be addressed and the Bill can be improved to achieve the aims with which we all agree.