Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 1 Jul 2015

Vol. 241 No. 2

Harmful and Malicious Electronic Communications Bill 2015: Second Stage

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I welcome the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, and thank her most sincerely for taking the Bill this evening. As she can probably appreciate, this means a lot to me because it is an issue about which I feel strongly.

While much online abuse targeted at teenagers, politicians and so on has been well documented in the past, in recent days focus has returned to the issue with Meath footballer Paddy O’Rourke being threatened and told, “don’t think I won’t knife you, brother” on Twitter. The Minister will agree that this is appalling abuse for any well intentioned sportsman to endure, but it does not stop there. I remember back in January 2013 reading a headline in an evening newspaper, which stated “cyber bullies claimed lives of five teens” Five children is five too many and having a legislative vacuum in this area is nothing short of a failure on the part of legislators.

So many people have contacted me about their own specific experiences online, for instance teenagers telling me they have self-harmed as a result of online abuse, or college students telling me about the vitriolic posts directed at them because they are student leaders. I have had people with disabilities itemise the horrendous abuse they sustain continually because of their conditions. A grown adult contacted me recently who had made a mistake and was subject to a very public campaign of ridicule.

While much is great about our online world and most people engage in it very positively, others' experiences tell me there is an element of our online community which wants to drag people into a bottomless pit of negativity, smother them with abusive and threatening messages and keep them in their sewer.

Technology is advancing at such an alarming rate that, as a Facebook and Twitter user, I am obsolete in terms of my tools of social media engagement. I first became aware of all the other apps on the market last year following a survey I carried out with Deputy Derek Nolan in schools in County Galway. This was my first experience of the ills of online interaction and, quite frankly, the results were frightening. Up to 70% of County Galway students have been or know someone who has been bullied online; a further 85% said cyberbullying is a major issue for young people; 22% admitted to having been subject to online bullying; and up to 50% know someone who has been cyberbullied. A majority of 80% did not think that enough was being done to tackle this issue.

As an Oireachtas Member, I felt an onus to do something about these statistics because they are a hell of a lot more than just statistics. It is very much real life. I started by contacting social media companies and calling on them to show some corporate social responsibility. I believe they have shirked their legal and moral responsibilities completely when it comes to providing a duty of care to their users. While I accept that the onus is on social media users not to behave in an abusive manner, we need to expect more of these multi-billion euro companies and ensure we have uniform application of the very same standards demanded of our print and broadcast media.

I wrote to Ask.fm, a website well known in this country for plausibly all the wrong reasons, asking it to advertise anti-bullying and suicide prevention numbers on its website for free in order that children in need would have ready access to supports. It has failed, refused or neglected to do so thus far. I wrote to Twitter and Facebook as a result of the inordinate number of messages I received from people who have been subjected to online abuse and I asked them how many complaints they have received in the past year; the average length of time it takes to investigate a complaint; and how many complaints they have referred to the Garda authorities. To date they have either failed, refused or neglected to provide me with this information. Social media companies have demonstrated to me that they will not step up to the plate and, despite the favourable tax rate they enjoy in Ireland, they clearly think they are entitled to cherry pick which laws they want to abide by.

The reality of the situation is that adults and children alike the length and breadth of the country have been exposed to sustained and sometimes orchestrated campaigns of abuse online. Their mental health and well-being suffer and they have no recourse. All of this has been allowed fester as a consequence of the lack of clear legislation in this area. That is why I am particularly pleased to put this legislation before the House. I strongly felt that based on the outcome of my survey and the victims of cyber abuse who contacted me doing nothing was not an option. We need to put down a marker. I began with a blank canvas; this Bill is very much a starting point. It is up to each Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas to add, amend and delete as they see fit. I am asking everyone in the Chamber to embrace and support my efforts because it is too big an issue to play political football with. It probably affects most households in the country. I am delighted this issue is now in the political consciousness after a long time in the public consciousness. Before I go into the sections of the Bill, I thank my Seanad colleagues, Senators Ivana Bacik and John Whelan, for supporting my endeavours and for signing the Bill which I will now explain to the House.

As previously stated, the purpose of the Bill is to protect against and mitigate harm caused to individuals by all or any digital communications and to provide such individuals with a means of redress for any such offending behaviours directed at them. Section 1 refers to the name of the proposed Act: Harmful and Malicious Electronic Communications Bill 2015. Section 2 provides definitions of “electronic communications”, “explicit content” and “shares”.

Part 2 of the Bill encompasses section 3(1) which provides that a person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, intentionally or recklessly shares a harmful electronic communication shall be guilty of an offence. The words “without lawful authority or reasonable excuse” provide an out for people who might have lawful authority to use certain words and descriptions, for instance Ultimate Fighting Championship, UFC, fighters who might use that kind of language as a competitive tactic. “Shares” denotes the breadth of ways in which the communication can be disseminated and is preferable to the word "sends".

Section 3(2)(a) provides that for the purposes of this section, an electronic communication shall be considered harmful where it incites or encourages another to commit suicide. This provision is self-explanatory and I have included it in the Bill to respond to three high profile suicides of teenagers in recent years. Omitting this provision would have meant that, as legislators, we had learned nothing about protecting our young and most vulnerable online.

Section 3(2)(b), which refers to inciting or encouraging another to cause serious harm to himself or herself, covers all threats and abuse which culminate in serious harm to the person in question.

Section 3(2)(c) protects against the growing phenomenon of revenge pornography. I have included the words "the other" as opposed to "another" so as not to criminalise the use of pornography. Conviction under this section leaves an individual open to a fine not exceeding €5,000, a term of 12 months in prison or both. The level of penalty will be at the discretion of a judge who will decide if mitigating factors apply after considering all the circumstances of the alleged offence.

Section 4(1) provides that a person who, without lawful excuse, persistently shares malicious communications regarding another shall be guilty of an offence. This subsection refers to the persistent sharing of malicious communications which means that there must be more than one instance of cyber abuse.

Section 4(2) provides that for the purposes of this section, an electronic communication shall be considered malicious where it intentionally or recklessly causes alarm, distress or harm to another person. For instance, being drunk or stating that someone else was using one's telephone or computer may still be deemed reckless, particularly where the offence requires that the behaviour be persistent. Both offences under section 4 require the victim, namely, the person being "the other", to give evidence of harm. This is preferable to the use of the word "another" in respect of this offence as this would result in private communications about a third party being criminalised if brought to the attention of An Garda Síochána. Again, on conviction, a defendant would be subject to the jurisdiction of the District Court and he or she would be open to a fine not exceeding €5,000, a term of 12 months in prison or both.

Part 3 refers to jurisdiction and procedure. This is most important as it provides some scope for a judge to depart from the penalties provided for in sections 3 and 4. This will be especially important for children as it means they will not be criminalised, even in cases where the defendant has reached the age of criminal responsibility.

Section 5(1) refers to a number of reliefs available to the court. This gives the court leeway to put a stop to the offending behaviour, even in instances where proofs may not be satisfied. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are self-explanatory and the benefits of the relevant provisions obvious. Subsections (5) and (6) provide that an accused who may not have been found guilty of an offence under sections 3 or 4 may be subject to an ancillary order which, if broken, would constitute an offence.

These are the parameters of the Bill. Prior to its enactment, it is vital that an awareness and education campaign is rolled out nationally and a specialised unit of An Garda Síochána is trained to deal with issues that may be forthcoming.

This is an important Bill which has the potential, in time, to become seminal legislation. By enacting it, we will join countries such as New Zealand and the United Kingdom and certain US states which have enacted similar legislation. These first world countries and modern democracies are leaders in international best practice in this area.

The purpose of the Bill is not to curb freedom of speech and the Constitution, the highest law in the land, already provides freedom of speech safeguards. As a qualified barrister with almost ten years experience, I fully understand this. As someone who also speaks her mind inside and outside the Chamber, I fully support freedom of speech and depend daily on this basic principle. The purpose of the Bill is to curb abuse and threats in our online world. It is an Internet safety Bill which is designed to protect children who may cry when they look at their computer screen, whose esteem is damaged and who have become withdrawn and no longer want to go to school. It is also about their parents who feel powerless to help and protect them and the need to restore decency to our online debates and engagement. Who could possibly be against that? For these reasons, I commend it to the House.

I welcome the Minister. I am pleased to support the Bill proposed by my colleague, Senator Lorraine Higgins. I commend her for the work she has done on the legislation, the eloquent speech she made in proposing it and her bravery in raising this issue and speaking publicly about her personal experience. This, too, needs to be acknowledged because it can be difficult for public representatives and politicians to speak publicly about the online abuse with which all of us are familiar.

Abuse is not confined to cyberspace. I recall as a student union officer in the late 1980s being subjected to particularly vicious hate mail for the student union's stance in favour of freedom of information and free speech concerning the right of women to access information about crisis pregnancy services, including abortion. While this hate mail was of the snail mail variety, as a young person I found it extremely hurtful and difficult to deal with.

What we have seen in more recent years has been a much more pernicious type of abuse taking place, with abusive attacks being made on young people online. The difference in such cases is that it is difficult to escape online abuse because it arrives on one's telephone or computer screen, thereby invading the home space, especially of teenagers. I have spoken to friends who are parents of teenagers and they are particularly aware of the nasty effects these attacks can have on a child's self-esteem.

Senator Lorraine Higgins spoke about appalling examples of the effects of online bullying and the awful teenage suicides we have seen. This type of bullying is not confined to young people, nor is it something of which only young people are guilty. Vicious attacks and bullying are traded among adults on Twitter and other social media on which people can express themselves anonymously.

This is clearly a difficult area in which to legislate. It goes without saying it gives rise to freedom of expression and free speech concerns, on which Senator Lorraine Higgins also spoke eloquently. As with most Private Members' Bills, the Bill is a starting point and is not perfect. It is incumbent on all of us, therefore, to examine how we can improve it. There are undoubtedly other issues that need to be addressed in a more comprehensive Bill. Senator Lorraine Higgins touched on a number of these, including the duty of Internet service providers, ISPs, to be more proactive in removing material from the Internet. Speaking to other practising colleagues at the Bar who have dealt with this issue, it is clear that it is extremely difficult to obtain a civil remedy for clients who have been faced with the most appalling false allegations online. Extraterritoriality is another issue as most ISPs are located outside the jurisdiction. Legislation may also be required to address this issue.

The ancillary orders provided for in section 5 have a precedent in the harassment provisions of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act. There are issues beyond criminal matters which must be addressed and the Bill seeks to do so. These issues need to be re-examined.

Cybercrime in the more general sense must also be addressed because much of our current legislation was not drafted with cybercrime in mind. For this reason, our legislation needs to be improved, not only in the areas of online bullying, which the Bill addresses, but in several other areas.

Cyberbullying has been the subject of a good deal of work and the Bill forms an important part of a series of reports and measures which has made suggestions on how to deal with the issue. The Bill deals with the sharing of harmful and malicious electronic communications. Senator Lorraine Higgins has kept the offences in the summary jurisdiction of the court, which is important. This follows from and builds on some of the recommendations made by previous groups. In 2013, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources established the Internet content governance advisory group which published a report in 2014. Its recommendations are being discussed in the relevant Departments.

The Law Reform Commission is also engaged in work in this area and examining the issue of cybercrime as it affects personal safety, privacy and reputation. The European Commission published an issues paper in November in which it asked interested parties to address a number of questions, some of which have been addressed in the Bill before us. The paper notes that the offence of harassment currently contained in section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act may not apply to certain forms of indirect cyber harassment as it does not refer specifically to this type of harassment, having been drafted prior to the prevalence of online communications.

Section 10 does not address the setting up of fake profiles where harmful behaviour is directed towards a person other than the victim but concerns and harms the victim. The Law Reform Commission is examining whether section 10 should therefore be amended, and is also looking at the issue of extra-territorial jurisdiction. It is also looking at the difficulty with the requirement for "persistent" behaviour in the current offence of harassment. Even if section 10 can be used in the cyber setting, it may not amount to harassment under section 10 to post with a single upload the sort of communication referred to in section 3(2)(a) of the Bill inciting or encouraging someone to commit suicide online - an appalling abuse - even where it is seriously harmful to a person's safety or privacy. There is a question about that. The Law Reform Commission is investigating the possibility of either amending section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act or creating a new offence, as this Bill aims to do. While that is a question that needs to be addressed, the Law Reform Commission has identified the flaws and gaps in our legislation currently in dealing with the sort of cyberbullying we have seen.

Another point to make is that our legislation on hate crimes more generally also requires updating. There is a recent University of Limerick report on this issue. The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 is our existing law, but there are areas in which it needs to be updated. The European Commission has called for this and the Law Reform Commission is also investigating the issue. The Law Reform Commission is specifically looking at the issue I have already raised of existing civil law remedies and whether they are adequate to protect against cyber harassment and safeguard privacy rights. This is the issue of the take-down order and whether ISPs can be ordered to remove defamatory or abusive content, in particular.

These are some of the complex questions that will need to be addressed. As Senator Lorraine Higgins said, the Bill is a starting point in seeking to address some of them. The core of the matter is seeking to address the really harmful conduct which we have seen cause harm to individuals. It seeks to address that in a sensitive manner that is in balance with the rights to freedom of expression and free speech which will have to be taken into account in any final draft. I hope the Government can accept the Bill on Second Stage and that we can see a consensus emerge as to how we move forward. Clearly, legislation of some sort is required to deal with new forms of bullying, as existing legislation may not be adequate. I agree with Senator Lorraine Higgins that this is not just a criminal justice matter and that there is also a huge need for greater education and awareness-raising around the safe and respectful use of online and social media. We must ensure that anonymity does not give people carte blanche to be abusive.

I am glad to speak on the legislation introduced by Senator Lorraine Higgins, into which she has put considerable work. That has been based partly on her own experiences which seem to have been abhorrent and worthy of condemnation. I understand they are the subject of a Garda investigation, which is as it should be. I hope prosecutions will result for some of the people under our existing law. This is a very tricky area because a great deal of harm is being done by cyberbullying. As Senator Ivana Bacik outlined, our legislation predates the whole cyber scene and there is no doubt that some laws need to be updated.

We support the Bill in terms of the broad brush. The Bill should pass on Second Stage, but we have issues with some of the sections. If the Bill were to reach Committee Stage, there would have to be significant revisions. Section 3 is a good section which deals with inciting or encouraging people to commit suicide. I would draft it slightly differently by making those very specific offences rather than including them as part of the definition of "harmful". It would make for stronger legislation. There is no question that the section is necessary in light of the crisis in relation to suicide and self-harm and the new phenomenon of revenge porn. Certainly, I will be tabling amendments on Committee Stage to improve upon the excellent intentions behind the section and to make it even stronger. I agree wholeheartedly with the aim that is sought.

Section 4 is based on very worthy intentions, but, as I have said to Senator Lorraine Higgins, it is extremely broad. It goes much further than section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, on which, I believe, it is based, which includes a proviso whereby the complained-of conduct must be such that a reasonable person would believe it was going to cause alarm, distress or harm to the person concerned. As drafted, however, section 4 of the Bill provides that anything said more than once online or electronically which the other person considers to be alarming, distress-causing or harmful would constitute an offence. There must be serious problems with this. Notwithstanding Senator Lorraine Higgins's good intentions, one might end up making a provision in law that is much broader than it needs to be. For a start, there should be an exemption for the expression of political views, even though one might not assume it was needed. If someone is expressing political views, a politician should not have any comeback. If it is personalised, in the way some of the dreadful things said to Senator Lorraine Higgins were, that is a totally different thing and nothing to do with politics. I am not trying to equate those issues. In one of the US statutes that the Senator mentioned, there was an exemption in Maryland for political views. Maryland has attempted to ban the infliction of serious emotional distress, but the ACLU has expressed serious doubts as to its constitutionality under the First Amendment to the US constitution. Similarly, a statute in Albany in New York state which sought to ban annoying communications was struck down by the Court of Appeals in New York state on First Amendment freedom of speech grounds. It highlights the fact that there is a serious problem to be addressed, which is cyberbullying that is causing harm, upset, suffering and distress, but there is also a serious right that we cherish and that is the right to free speech.

In some cases, one cannot argue with a right to offend. We all said "Je suis Charlie," which meant that we believed Charlie Hebdo had the right to offend. While that newspaper was not an electronic communication, there is no doubt that it caused distress to the Muslim community. As a believer in a Christian God, it would cause distress to me to see someone's religion treated like this. I am not in any way equating it with what Senator Lorraine Higgins went through, but it is clear that it caused huge distress to some. Nevertheless, we upheld absolutely the right of the newspaper to say things that were insulting and offensive. I would not have done it myself and it is unlikely that anyone here would have printed something like that out of respect for the religion of others, but the world said at the time that people who wanted to could do so.

My difficulty with the section is its subjective nature. It seems to depend on what another person considers to be alarming, harmful or a cause of distress. There should be something about what would be considered harmful by a reasonable person or to require that actual harm be caused. Senator Ivana Bacik spoke about doubts around section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act. I am not criticising her and have not looked at the report of the Law Reform Commission, but I ask whether there have been difficulties with juries or judges convicting people under section 10 which now have to be addressed.

I find that amazing. To me, it is over-interpretation of the law. It is a little like the brouhaha we had here over the reporting of Dáil proceedings. The whole thing was made hugely complicated by the 60 or 70 lawyers in the High Court arguing over the Constitution, when the issue was very simple. In my view, section 10 is very simple also. On the matter of raising doubts, it seems that academia sometimes creates these doubts unnecessarily. Section 10 is very simple and covers communications. It seems that should include electronic communications. I am not a practising academic or criminal lawyer, but we often forget about a plain reading in law. In this case, a plain reading suggests section 10 is a good provision which could be used and improved on. In fact, Senator Lorraine Higgins has based some of what she is saying on it.

While we support the Bill, we need to ensure what we are doing protects children and adults and protects victims, that it does so effectively and that it does not do so in an unconstitutional way. We also need to ensure people have the right to speak and engage in political discourse. By the way, that does not always have to be polite. People have a right to be impolite to politicians. I believe people have a right to offend politicians. Certainly, I have been offended on many occasions. Perhaps that comes with the territory. It is different from the type of harm that Senator Lorraine Higgins is talking about. It is different from what happened in the case she mentioned - I will not even use the word. I am not equating the two situations in any way. Where someone is threatening to rape another person or to do what was threatened against the Meath goalkeeper last weekend, there are already laws to deal with that issue and they should be used effectively. That is wrong and it needs to be condemned fully.

I thank and commend Senator Lorraine Higgins, as well as Senators Ivana Bacik and John Whelan, for bringing the Bill before the Seanad.

There is a strong imperative, as Senators have been saying, to ensure our legislation is fit for purpose and keeps up with the pace in terms of the challenges of technology and new media. There are implications for many pieces of legislation posed by the developments that we are discussing.

The last decade has seen rapid development of many new forms of technology and digital media. This has been matched only by the rapid increase in the use of social media by all sectors of society, the young and the not-so-young. New forms of digital and social media bring with them many exciting opportunities that must be harnessed. Anybody here would be in no doubt about this. There are new capabilities to share news and information with thousands, millions or billions, which, in turn, can educate and enrich our knowledge and awareness. It can promote transparency. It can break down barriers. Instantaneous messaging has made the world much smaller. Grandparents in Ireland can now talk to and see grandchildren on the other side of the world in real time. I have no doubt that instant messaging has also saved many lives by allowing speedy reporting of accidents and health risks. New technology can support how we work, do business and innovate. I have stated previously that the budding child entrepreneurs of today are more likely to be writing code and designing apps than, as may have happened in the past, selling lemonade or penny apples.

However, with opportunities come challenges. Of course, those challenges and the risks of new technology are what we are discussing here this evening. Clearly, there are risks, and Senators have already discussed quite a few of them. First, regrettably, the online world has provided a new arena of opportunity for those who seek to engage in sexual exploitation and the grooming of children. It is quite horrifying to see the videos that predators, paedophiles and international criminal gangs will exchange in real time of children being abused. We see this internationally. No country is immune from it. It certainly is challenging for our police and intelligence forces to deal with that. Online sexual exploitation is an abhorrent but very real risk facing children. It is for this reason that I will shortly introduce the criminal justice (sexual offences) Bill, which will include new offences and tough new sanctions for any predatory sexual activity which seeks to target children online such as through social media.

Second, it seems that the traditional boundary lines of personal privacy have become greatly blurred by the growing phenomenon of over-sharing of personal information and photos on social media. I support the calls for better information and education and the work that we need to do, particularly with young people. Policing forces internationally tell us that many of the images that children themselves put up go on to be used in child pornography, and of course those images are up there for a long periods. The risks pile up as people share this kind of private information, such as photos. Some of the longer-term implications of over-sharing, particularly in terms of privacy and data protection law, are only now beginning to be explored. No doubt this is an area to which we will return in the Seanad in relation to all of these issues and the various boundaries. Senator Thomas Byrne made a relevant point about the sort of boundary that needs to be observed such as the right of people to express themselves and the right to privacy and just where one sets the boundaries in that regard. We must not move to a situation of censorship or not allowing people free speech. Senator Lorraine Higgins made that clear.

Third, just as traditional forms of communication allowed some people to express abusive messages, new means of communication can afford them amplified and anonymous means of cyberbullying and cyber harassment. We have all had experiences of individual children whom we know who have been abused in this way. The word "abuse" is the right one. It took us a long time to recognise physical and sexual abuse as it happens. We are now being called to recognise these new forms of abuse that are prevalent and can be life-threatening. That is the reality.

There are a number of background matters that I want to mention briefly. The report of the Internet content governance advisory group, which was published in June 2014, is being implemented. In my Department there is an Office for Internet Safety, OIS, with four partner organisations, a dedicated website which contains information and links on Internet safety and various booklets that have been made available.

The Garda also launched a new initiative which I bring to the attention of Senators, under which a memorandum of understanding has been agreed with the Internet service provider UPC. This was a first. There is room for more of this kind of work between the Garda and Internet service providers.

For the information of the House, I recently hosted a meeting with the chief Internet service providers in Farmleigh in Dublin to discuss the exploitation of children and the broader issue of access to material online that is criminal. The videos or photographs online to which we refer are effectively crime scenes-----

-----and there is a question of how they are kept and made available. The Internet companies are proactive in terms of safety. The vast majority of them now have safety officers and they are conscious of this issue. They are working on it within their companies and are working with governments. At the recent meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers, one of the agreements reached, for example, which might seem far away from what we are discussing tonight, was about the online radicalisation that is being used by ISIS in terms of recruitment of terrorists. One of the recent initiatives is to have a high-level EU forum which is being put together by the Commission, to link with the Internet service providers at a high strategic level to discuss these issues and to achieve, as Senator Lorraine Higgins pointed out, uniformity in the responses from providers to the kinds of issue we are discussing. Hotline.ie is another group that does valuable work.

I will move on to what the Law Reform Commission is examining in this area. The commission is carrying out a project on cyber crime affecting personal safely, privacy and reputation, including cyberbullying, as part of its fourth programme of law reform. A paper was published in 2014 that sought the views of interested parties on whether the current legislation, for example, the harassment offence in section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 should be amended; whether there should be an offence that involves exactly what we are discussing tonight, namely, a single serious interference, through cyber technology, with another person's privacy; on whether current law on hate crime adequately addresses activity that uses cyber technology; on whether current penalties for offences such as cyber harassment and related behaviour are adequate and on the adequacy of civil law remedies. The Law Reform Commission also held a seminar last year. It is now bringing together its recommendations which we expect to have this year. It will be an important contribution to how legislation needs to be developed. In fact, there are probably Bills that are needed.

It is clear, when I look at the Bill before us, that much thought and deliberation has been given to creating offences which reflect the reality of some of the behaviour that can be used against others via technology.

It shows a clear appreciation of the serious issues which can arise, such as encouraging others to harm or kill themselves which is a despicable crime and sharing an electronic communication which includes explicit content of another person.

Section 3 provides for an offence of harmful electronic communication which is not dependent on direct communication with the victim. Indirect communication is an issue the Law Reform Commission has identified and which will have to be considered as part of any solution to the problem. Its inclusion in the Bill is very relevant. The offence depends on intentionally or recklessly causing alarm, distress or harm to another. Technical questions would arise regarding some of the formulations and further work needs to be done on some of the particular points made by Senator Lorraine Higgins.

The concept of persistence is very interesting because we know precisely what it means. Section 5 goes beyond the normal approach of applying standard criminal penalties of fines or imprisonment to provide for the making of ancillary orders which can include matters such as a requirement that a person remove or delete specific electronic communications, even if he or she has not been convicted of one of the offences.

The Bill raises issues such as the balance between the right to information, an open society and privacy. This issue arises constantly in the area of criminal justice. The European Parliament has concerns about sharing passenger notification records, which are essential in terms of interrupting terrorist and illegal activity, even though there are agreements with the United States and other countries to share such information. I make that point to show that the approach is far from unanimous.

I fully appreciate and understand that the purpose of the Bill is to protect individuals from harmful and malicious communications and to provide such individuals with a means of redress. I also understand why it is considered important to provide for legislation of this type, notwithstanding some points that need a different formulation and further development. I will not oppose the question.

We are all aware of the excellent work carried out by the Law Reform Commission and how its consultation informs our legislation in both Houses. It is always extremely useful in terms of the formulation of legislation. I would like to assure Senators that the issues dealt with in the Bill will be considered further, particularly in the context of the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. As I did in a discussion with Senator Feargal Quinn when I brought his Bill, with his agreement, to the Law Reform Commission in order that it would inform its work, I am happy to draw its attention to the content of the Bill and the debate, even though it has gone beyond its consultation period.

I again thank Senator Lorraine Higgins for highlighting the issue and contributing to the development of legislation in this important area. It is a very important issue and a relatively new threat. We as legislators have to be very conscious of keeping legislation up to date in a number of areas of criminal justice in order to deal with the challenges.

While I respect the sentiments which have motivated the Bill, I must, with regret, oppose it because we do not have a First Amendment in Ireland. If we did, I would be a first amendment hawk. Free speech is the cornerstone of any democratic society. Any law which has within it the potential to undermine free speech, a law which, when crafted by well meaning people like Senator Lorraine Higgins, will be implemented in future generations by people who may be less well meaning, has within it the ability to undermine many of the central freedoms which keep our democracy safe.

The Bill is motivated by a desire to prevent personal harm inflicted by malicious people through the medium of the Internet, specifically things like revenge porn and exhortations to commit suicide. Such people should be dealt with in specific legislation. There should be a comprehensive Bill and an attempt to deal with issues relating to suicide. The way to deal with revenge porn is to pass legislation on the ownership of images which may have been exchanged between two people to prevent them being widely disseminated. The problem with the Bill is section 4 (2), which states: "For the purposes of this section an electronic communication shall be considered malicious where it intentionally or recklessly causes alarm, distress or harm to the other." It is the nature of a democracy that it is full of people who, every now and then, need to be harmed.

I am not referring to the poor children and teenagers who have been maliciously harmed, but that should be dealt with in specific legislation. We should not give to Government the broad stroke to use the excuse of prevention of harm to defend the powerful and influential. As John Hume recently said, "The right to free speech never entails a right to be taken seriously" and as George Orwell said, "If liberty means anything at all it is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." Those rights would be gravely undermined if the Bill was passed.

The wonderful Máiría Cahill who has done so much to cast light on a very shadowy and disreputable series of episodes that occurred in Ireland, used the medium of the Internet widely and caused - I will use the words of the Bill - quite a bit of alarm, distress and harm to people who deserved to be alarmed, distressed and harmed. She did so deliberately, but not maliciously. The Bill would have allowed people on the receiving end of what we believe are very valid criticisms to hide behind the legislation and protect themselves from the kind of criticism they deserved and the light which needed to be shone on their activities and deficiencies.

I can think of many other examples. An example we all lived through is the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act. Most of us, Senator Lorraine Higgins included, I am sure, were subjected to very substantial amounts of very personal abuse from people who called us baby killers, said we were anti-life and told us we would be toasted forever in the eternal fires of Hell. Such comments are quite distressing and I imagine somebody with delicate sensibilities would take them to heart. Some very hurtful things were said to me. I am a doctor who deals with cancer patients and people went online and said I was anti-life and pro-death. What could be a greater personal and professional insult to me than that? Like Voltaire, I disagreed with what they said, but I defend to the death their right to say it. That is the kind of society to which we must aspire.

With great respect, that is why the Bill has the potential to be very dangerous. It is part of a broad series of new ideas being developed in the new world which are attempts to roll back the individual freedoms which were so hard fought immediately after the dawn of the Enlightenment that rolled back many of the darknesses that had enveloped people for so long. A Jewish person might fervently believe that he or she has a right to live in Israel according to ethnic or religious beliefs, with which one may or may not agree. Some people have stated this belief, called Zionism, is a form of racism. I do not believe that, anymore than it is a form of racism to have Islamic republics dotted all over the Middle East. In an ideal world I would love to have pluralistic, multi-confessional and democratic republics throughout the Middle East where everybody could vote and would not vote according to ethnic or tribal lines, but that is not what we have. We have the current reality. People who believe Zionism is a form of racism should be allowed to say it, even though it may be very deeply and personally offensive and hurtful to many Jewish people who see Zionism in a very different light. I have major problems with many of the practices of the Islamic theocracies in the Middle East. Should I be allowed to criticise them, even though very devout Muslims may find that hurtful?

I understand from where this came. Senator Lorraine Higgins went through an awful experience which nobody deserves and I hope there is a legislative remedy.

A legislative remedy that could be abused by people, who are less well meaning than the Minister, in years to come in an attempt to squelch dissent in this State should not be supported.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Gerald Nash. I also commend my colleague and friend, Senator Lorraine Higgins, for the introduction of this Bill. Given the importance of the Bill which is sponsored by Senator Lorraine Higgins, Fine Gael has opted to allow her to lead this debate on behalf of the Government. This is symptomatic of how important Fine Gael, as a group within Seanad Éireann, believes this legislation is. I listened with great interest to Senator John Crown and to his concerns, which I am sure could be addressed on Committee Stage. I have no doubt that Senator Lorraine Higgins, more than anybody else, is open to the acceptance of amendments that will strengthen this legislation.

In the past five years cyberbullying has become a problem in this country. Earlier today, Deputies Joe Carey, Michael McNamara and I met a group from Clare Comhairle na nÓg following a tour by them of the Houses. We had a very interesting engagement with them in the AV Room, during which I posed the question as to what, in their view, would be the issues of concern during the next general election. They were unanimous that the big issues would be mental health and bullying, particularly cyberbullying, which is a new phenomenon. I consider myself to be a young politician, but this phenomenon did not occur when I was in school. It certainly did not occur when I was in college, a time I shared with the Minister of State, Deputy Gerald Nash. We had many great times together in UCD. The Minister of State was a member of the Labour Party and I was a member of Young Fine Gael. When we wanted to inform people about meetings, we did so by putting up notices on notice boards.

I was taking down the Fine Gael notices.

I would never have taken down any of the Minister of State's notices. Now such messages are being sent via social media. Approximately six months ago I was in UCD to speak to a group of young people. While there I took the opportunity to go and see the notice boards in the arts block. While there were posters about events pinned to them, there were no messages posted. Social media is a phenomenon not of our generation. Nevertheless, we engage with it. As politicians we want to avail of every opportunity to get our message across, be that via social media, print media, snail mail and so on. However, with social media comes problems. All of the people with whom Deputies Joe Carey, Michael McNamara and I met spoke of the challenges they face in terms of mental health and suicide and cyberbullying via social media. It was an amazing experience to hear people of between 15 and 17 years of age speak about what they perceived as challenges. I am sure Senator Lorraine Higgins will be very happy to hear that I took great pleasure in informing them that the Seanad would be debating this issue between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. this evening. I then explained the detail of the Bill and how the legislative process works, including that if the Government does not oppose the Bill on Second Stage it moves to Committee Stage where the real work is done.

I call on those who have concerns about this legislation to allow it progress to Committee Stage where their concerns can be addressed. This is an example of where the Seanad can make a difference. The Seanad has proven itself to be a formidable force in many areas, one such area being direct provision, which Senators Trevor Ó Clochartaigh, Jillian van Turnhout and others, including me, have been battling for some time to have addressed. I note a report on that matter has been commissioned. It is hoped the outcome will be good things for those who have suffered in this area.

Like Senator Lorraine Higgins I, too, had a problem with social media last November, although not to the same degree as her. As public figures, we will all be subject to a battering on social media at some stage. However, this becomes a problem when it descends into criminality. This legislation will be a first step towards ensuring the law will prevail not only for social media but all media.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Gerald Nash. He has been spending a great deal of time here. I am not sure if that bodes well for him into the future and I wonder if the Minister of State is trying to send us a message. Nevertheless, it is good to see him here.

I can assure the Senator there is no message in that, one way or the other.

I am pleased to hear it. I would like to pick up on the point made by Senator Martin Conway regarding people who have concerns about this legislation allowing it to progress to Committee Stage where the real work is done. There is an element of wisdom in that. The problem, however, is that Members on this side of the House have brought forward several Bills and despite our calls that they be allowed to progress to Committee Stage, they were voted down by the Government on Second Stage.

I do not disagree with that.

A little bit of practice of what we preach might not go astray. However, I take Senator Martin Conway's point. It is well made.

I commend the proposer of the Bill for allowing us to have this important debate on bullying and cyberbullying. In 2013, my colleague, Deputy Jonathan O'Brien, tabled a Private Members' Bill in the Dáil entitled the education and welfare (amendment) Bill. This is another example of a Bill introduced by a member of the Opposition to address the issue of bullying in schools but being voted down by Government, including the Labour Party. The education and welfare (amendment) Bill sought to impose mandatory requirements on schools to adopt counter-bullying and preventive measures and to direct the Minister for Education and Skills to introduce regulations based on existing guidelines. As I said, that Bill was rejected by the Government as a whole.

In 2013 the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport and Communications produced an extensive report into cyberbullying, a copy of which I have with me. This report contains many recommendations, many of which have not been implemented. I call on the Government, the Minister, the Minister of State and the Senator who proposed the Bill to review that document and the many recommendations therein in respect of which there is all-party support. It is not beyond us to craft a Bill which can have all-party support and do something meaningful in relation to the issues being raised. The committee made some progressive suggestions as to what could be done to tackle cyberbullying, including increased funding for schools to educate young people on how to use social media, increased communication between schools, hotlines, social media companies and the provision of more resources to the Data Protection Commissioner and the computer crime investigation unit. It also recommended that additional training and guidance be provided to the Garda and the Director of Public Prosecutions to assist them in dealing with cyberbullying. It also dealt with the issue of revenge pornography, which as stated by other speakers has, unfortunately, come to the fore in recent times. As we know, this involves a member of the public posting explicit pictures or videos, often of a former partner, on the Internet as some form of revenge. This has resulted in private and intimate photographs being posted without the consent of others, causing extreme distress. It is interesting that An Garda Síochána has admitted that the laws around this issue are vague. This is an area in respect of which we do need to do some work and legislate. Where is the legislation to do this? I take the opportunity to put the Minister of State, Deputy Gerald Nash, on notice that Sinn Féin has prepared legislation to deal with some of these issues and will shortly publish a Bill to deal with that particular issue.

Educating children is one of the most important aspects in tackling cyberbullying. It is imperative that we teach young people how they should act online and how they should treat others.

There is no doubt that social media have been used in a very negative way. However, our role as legislators, and this is crux of my contribution, is not to suffocate social media, rather to work with the industry in an attempt to make social media as user friendly as possible. Unfortunately, bullying has occurred in schools for a long period. With the advent of social media, bullies increasingly use it as a platform to harass and inflict suffering on their victims. In compiling the Oireachtas report mentioned earlier, it was found that 17% of 12 to 18 year old students have suffered cyberbullying at least once. Clearly, guidelines in regard to cyberbullying should be given in order that schools, the Garda, sports clubs and other organisations have clear protocols to follow. Cyberbullying can happen to adults as well and all of us as politicians come in for a great deal of abuse. Instances of such abuse during the debate on the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill were given. We get large amounts of hate mail, which is the only way to describe it, in respect of many Bills. People have concerns about legislation and they express their views in a very negative way towards all of us. This falls under section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997.

Social media have also played an important role in spreading new ideas and opinions, especially in countries where freedoms may be limited. We saw it during the Arab Spring of 2011 when social media were a way for many protesters to bypass the restrictions and repressive governments of those countries to get message out into the public domain.

There is problem with the language in the Bill and I will be joining those Senators who will be opposing it, where it refers to instances causing alarm, annoyance or inconvenience. That can be very subjective and that is the problem in that context. The author of the Bill and the Government need to examine that aspect. There is no doubt that we must do a great deal more to deal with the issues of bullying and cyberbullying. I am not convinced that what is proposed in the Bill is the way to do it. I ask the Government to examine the recommendations in the Oireachtas report which has been supported by almost all the political parties and proceed to address this issue on that basis. That would be a much better and more useful way of dealing with the genuine and sincere issues raised here by those supporting the Bill.

I welcome the Minister of State. I support the Bill introduced by my colleague and good friend, Senator Lorraine Higgins, and commend her for the work she has done on it. As alluded to by other Senators, there is clearly a need to balance rights, but something must be done and if it were another area many of the Senators on the other side of the House would be suggesting we legislate immediately for something like this measure.

Many of us have been subjected to abuse. As some Senators said, it is arguable at what point something becomes abuse and whether one person would find something abusive that another person would not. I can appreciate 100% where Senator Lorraine Higgins is coming from on this issue. I had an incident of this myself which was quite difficult and which I reported to Twitter and the Garda, but there is very little that can be done. Clearly, more effort must be made to deal with these issues as they arise.

As politicians, we put ourselves out there. To all intents and purposes, we are public property and fair game. We are used to taking abuse but at some point one has to say "Stop". It is a large philosophical debate as to at what stage something becomes abusive. As Senator Martin Conway said, there is no doubt that in recent years social media has given a voice to people who, if they met one on the street, would not look one in the eye, never mind speak to one. It gives people in their string vests in their basements the power to be abusive.

We must remember the very positive benefits of the Internet and social media and, for the most part, their use is usually positive. It is like anything else we have to legislate for regarding the negative or terrible things that might happen. As Senator Martin Conway said, social media did not exist in his time in school and college and he and his friends found ways around it, but I welcome social media and everything they have brought other than these, I hope, fairly rare instances of abuse. Clearly, we have to protect rights.

For what it is worth, I encourage colleagues to support the Bill and bring it to the next Stage, at which point positive suggestions for altering it can be made. I disagree with the point the previous Senator made that the Government has not been supportive of any Bill from the Opposition. Our record is better than the previous Government in the sense that some Bills initiated by the Opposition have been put through to Committee Stage. I share the Senator's view it would make a great deal of sense to allow most Bills to go forward to Committee Stage, unless, as Senator Martin Conway said, when we were discussing this a few minutes ago, they are off the wall. I agree with the previous Senator in that regard. I encourage Senators to allow this Bill to go to the next Stage, at which point we together as a House could make appropriate amendments to it. I commend Senator Higgins again for her work on it.

I will not delay the House too long. I have much sympathy for the mover of this Bill. I have some idea of what Senator Lorraine Higgins and others in this House have gone through as a result of abusive communications through social media. My family is no stranger to the use of technology to abuse. Back in 1974, my poor mother used to be woken at 3 a.m. to be told I was shot and that happened every day. She received calls at 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. As that is a matter of police record at this stage, I am not making this up as I go along.

Media have been used in one form or another to abuse people for generations. I started in media with flags and semaphores and worked my way through Morse code, VHF radios and now on to social media and the like. I engage in Twitter all the time and can thank Twitter for my election. If Twitter had not broken the story at the time, I would not be here today. Social media have positive influences.

The Bill is well meaning but, let us be honest about it, it is poorly thought out because it fails to take account of where the technology is located. I have taught in the computer area, particularly in the networking area, for the best part of 20 years. How does one stop me gaining access to one's phone if I have the know-how and can use someone's phone as the platform to bully people? I once had a student who bullied people electronically and it took me months to find him. The reason it took me months was that he was cute, able and technologically proficient enough to be able to switch IP addresses and use the IP addresses of colleagues he was sitting beside. That is the sort of technology we have. Bullying is as old as man. If those who engage in bullying do not bully people on electronic media, they will find some other way.

Should this not be a Bill for the Department of Education and Skills? Should we not be educating young people on how to use social media, because it is here to stay? Bringing in this Bill will not go the whole way towards addressing this issue. If I wanted to have a go at one of my colleagues, I would buy a phone in the North of Ireland, cross the Border every day, send a few text messages and come home. This Bill will not solve the problem. The way forward is by way of regulation. If we really want to do something about it, we should place the onus on the Internet service provider and ask it to remove indecent or abusive material. Senator Lorraine Higgins said there was a difficulty, but that difficulty can be overcome with regulation and Government orders. If we are going to legislate, we should legislate for the Internet service providers. This Bill will not solve the problem.

I welcome everything the Minister of State said. I am delighted that a combined agency is examining this issue, involving all those involved in the delivery of these technologies. I hope that at some stage we will see some form of regulation being brought forward through legislation.

However, I do not want to see legislation being passed by this House that will end up being misused by those who want to control people's access to the media and their communications with others.

I have suffered abuse online. I have been called all sorts of names since I was elected to this House. There is a very simple solution to that - block it. If someone insults me once online, they are blocked. That is it. They are not coming back and I do not want to know anything more about them. If someone is insulting the Senator online, she should just block them, but we should not go crazy on this issue.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Gerald Nash, and compliment Senator Lorraine Higgins for doing something about this problem. It is very easy for us to sit back, let things happen and do nothing about them, but the Senator has experienced this problem. She knows what it is like to suffer at the hands of bullies and decided to do something about it. I compliment her on getting off her rear end and doing something about it. We can all talk about the problem, but doing something about it is different.

In the past, if we were bullied in school - many of us were bullied in school about our looks, our weight, being stupid or God knows what - we were able to go home to mum and dad and leave that trouble outside the door, but we can no longer do that. It follows us into the house, our bedroom and into our heads and it is very difficult to stop it. I was one of those who got a lot of abuse following budget announcements. I am sure those on the Government side have been subjected to much more in the line of bullying in recent years. If people do not agree with the budget, they let us know but we signed up for politics and we have to stand over what we say or do in this House. However, vindictive, malicious comments are another matter. We should have a decent debate, and I have no problem debating the issues with anyone. The person put his name on the texts I was getting and even though they were not nice, at least I knew who was sending them.

I have been working on the problem of bullying in a different way, which could complement Senator Lorraine Higgins' Bill. I have been drafting my own SIM registration Bill. I am doing that because I dealt with a young girl attending college who used to receive telephone calls, particularly at night, from someone who said they were watching her, they knew where she was and what she was doing and that they could see her all the time. The girl was terrified. She was so upset she would go home crying to her mum and dad. She was afraid of her life to go outside the door because she did not know who was calling her or where that person was. This person could have been in Northern Ireland or Donegal; she did not know. The person, however, slipped up by sending a text. When someone sends a text, his or her number is displayed, which is great. We had been to the Garda about these calls previously but they could not do anything about it because his number was blocked. However, when she received the text with his number displayed, we went straight to the Garda, which was delighted. It got on to Vodafone, but the number was unregistered.

There are people walking around this country with unregistered SIM cards. Every land line, pay as you go and bill pay phone is registered, yet we can walk into a shop and buy a SIM card that is not registered, with which we can do what we like. We can bully, send pornography and so on because nobody can trace us. I have drafted a Bill, which I hope to introduce, that will make it mandatory to register every SIM card in this country. I hope it will be accepted by the Government, but I am working on it. We should do something about this problem and not criticise everything. We should work together and ensure this Bill and that of Senator Lorraine Higgins are effective. Senator Lorraine Higgins had the courage to do something about this problem. I am disappointed to hear that some will oppose the Bill. We should come together and identify the problems with her Bill and go forward with it. We should do something, and we can do it in this Chamber. When the girl I referred to was being bullied, I Iobbied Deputies to do something about it but nothing was done. As I am in a position now where I can do it myself, let us do it. I congratulate Senator Lorraine Higgins on her Bill which I hope will be passed by the House.

Senator Lorraine Higgins has started a very interesting debate, on which I congratulate her. The contributions from Senators on both sides of the House are useful.

They say when a Bill is opposed on Second Stage, it is being opposed in principle. I was touched by the arguments put forward on this side of the House because I welcome free speech, and I defend freedom of expression to the end. I disagree with what Senator John Crown said, but I will defend to the death his right to say it.

We have got to look at boundaries, what is safe behaviour and what is unsafe behaviour. With Senators Catherine Noone, Marie Moloney and Lorraine Higgins, I, too, have had a tough time on social media on occasion. It could be said I brought some of that on myself and I am not saying I did not make errors, but nobody deserves to be defamed. That is an offence. Nobody deserves to be a victim of cyberbullying. That is an offence. I am talking about young people who are going through a very tough time. It is an offence to groom a young person.

I am not saying this Bill is perfect, but we should use the content of both sides of the debate presented here and craft smart amendments. I have no doubt that Senators Lorraine Higgins and Ivana Bacik are listening. In the light of what has been presented here, we could tweak the Bill considerably because something needs to be done. The message must go out from this House that we are responsible for our actions and our words and that they can hurt and damage. Politicians have spoken here about getting tough treatment, but all a politician trades on is his or her reputation and a reputation can be very easily destroyed. When one has to have recourse to the courts to have one's reputation defended under defamation legislation, it can be risky and costly. It is time that we stepped up to the plate and took this problem seriously.

There is definitely a need for education and information about this problem in the context of social, personal and health education. In the past, I was involved in working on curricular development in that area. It is now time that curriculum was revised in the light of social media, other technologies and digital communications. It is vital that boundaries are discussed with our young people in schools in terms of what is safe and unsafe behaviour.

We have to realise - I am not preaching about this as I have teenagers - that social media are moving at a rapid pace. Young people live on and live far. The first question asked in a restaurant is about the Wi-Fi code. I hear it every day and guess what? I am doing it now. Our young people cannot possibly live without it.

This is the space in which good and bad things take place. There are many benefits to social media. In terms of the traditional media in the past, it would be very difficult for many members of the public to get published. Now everyone can be published, but with that comes responsibility.

We have a very big issue to address in terms of our young people and the balance of interaction at an interpersonal level, between real, live physical human beings in front of one, and those in cyberspace or on social media.

I was reminded by something Senator Martin Conway said when he mentioned Comhairle na nÓg. Approximately a month ago, I had a similar experience with young people in Comhairle na nÓg in Oranmore. The one thing that came across, particularly from the girls, was their absolute need to be perfect. I cannot tell the House how many times they used the word "perfect" with regard to the images presented to them on social media and how they were prompted. They felt they could no longer make a distinction between what social media told them was perfect and the sexualisation of young girls versus the fact it is okay not to be perfect according to the definitions presented on social media. This is just as dangerous as some of the offences Senator Lorraine Higgins points out in the Bill.

I hope I have brought something to the debate. I say well done to Senator Lorraine Higgins. On balance, the Bill is worth supporting. I am not saying it is a perfect Bill, and I do not think Senator Lorraine Higgins would say this, but I was struck by the gender balance in the House on the issue. The four females who have spoken have seen the Bill as necessary.

As did the males.

Not all of them. I am speaking about the four females and the males in the House. Everyone has a right to decide whichever way he or she wants, but my point is-----

In fairness, the men did.

I am commenting on the need for the Bill.

The Senator is way over time.

On a point of order, that was a little disingenuous. It is diluting the argument.

She said all the females here supported it.

I acknowledged Senator Martin Conway's value here. He should not take it personally.

It is a nonsensical argument.

On balance, I wish Senator Lorraine Higgins well and we need to do a good bit of work on the Bill on Committee Stage. Let us move ahead.

I wish to add my few brief words. I welcome the Minister of State. I compliment Senator Lorraine Higgins on the fine piece of work she has brought to the House which has been shaped very much by her experiences. She did not leave it at this, and interacted with many other people who have suffered serious bullying online. The amount of work and research which has gone into the Bill is very much to be commended.

We all realise the rapid development of many forms of new technology and digital media bring many great opportunities for business and the media. It eases communication, particularly in connecting people throughout the world and all of this is very much to be welcomed. In the main, it is used very responsibly. However, as the Minister of State said earlier, huge risks come with it, such as online sexual exploitation and the online bullying of young people. Examples have been given during the debate. Unfortunately, in recent years we have seen several young people take their own lives as a result of being abused online. When the good is weighed up with the bad we must wonder whether we have progressed that much. If we have people whose lives have been destroyed as a result of improvements in technology is it worth it? Are we paying too high a price for progress?

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames has referred to the fact that the first thing young people and adults do when they go to places of entertainment and restaurants is inquire about Wi-Fi. All eateries should ban the use of mobile phones and technology. Recently I saw six people, two adults and four youngsters, sitting at a table in a restaurant. Not one syllable was uttered by those four youngsters during the two hours I was on the premises. The two adults interacted the entire time but the youngsters did not. It is a whole new world but it is a dangerous world.

There is a song in that.

I agree with Senator David Cullinane that the all-party document produced has some very good proposals and suggestions. Education on the dangers of social media and the Internet needs to be very high on the curriculum of all primary schools and secondary schools.

Even if we do not agree on all aspects of the Bill Senator Lorraine Higgins has brought forward, she has done the Seanad some service by bringing it forward for debate and discussion. There will be opportunities to seriously improve it on Committee Stage. I welcome the positive indication given by the Minister of State that much work is being done by various organs of the State to address this issue. Whether one is a public representative or private citizen, nobody should have to put up with being threatened with the most vile form of death or serious injury which some in the House have had to endure in the past 12 months. Politicians are fair game to take stick for decisions they make, but it must be done in a respectful manner. One yearns for the days when the worst abuse one would get was outside the church gate on a Sunday morning as one gave a political contribution before an election. A few hecklers in the audience would take one to task over decisions made. We have come a long way from that in many ways, which is to be welcomed.

While we welcome the progress we have made, we need to keep an eye on it. I am concerned social media has become a runaway train and we need to put the brakes on it. We need to put in controls and I agree with Senator John Crown who spoke about regulating by controls. There is much common ground on this issue. Senator Lorraine Higgins has been brave in bringing forward the Bill and I am very pleased to support it. I want to see it strengthened and to see safeguards put in place in this country to keep young people safe.

We need to get the message out to young people that, unfortunately, some of the information being shared will come back to haunt them in years to come. I have no doubt it is accurate to state the first thing an employer will look at, as he or she makes a decision on offering a position, is the candidates' activity on social media and what they have been involved in. We need to be very careful about what we share as it may come back to haunt us significantly in years to come. I congratulate Senator Lorraine Higgins and look forward to supporting the Bill.

I compliment Senator Lorraine Higgins and her co-sponsors on the Bill she has presented for our consideration. I welcome the indication by the Minister of State, Deputy Gerald Nash, that these proposals will be considered when the five issues to which he referred have been reported upon by the Law Reform Commission. I missed most of the debate, unfortunately, as I had to attend the sitting of the banking inquiry, but I am glad to compliment Senator Lorraine Higgins on her commendable initiative, and the Minister of State and Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, on their favourable response. I wish the Bill well.

I thank colleagues for their mostly constructive and positive contributions to this debate. I thank the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, and the Minister of State, Deputy Gerald Nash, the Fine Gael group, Fianna Fáil group and my Labour Party colleagues for supporting the proposals, as well as Senators Fidelma Healy Eames and Senator Sean D. Barrett.

To be clear, this Bill is not about me. As a person from the west, I am, of course, made of stern stuff. While the type of commentary we have been discussing might get one down at times, it will not knock one out. Nevertheless, it is a massive issue which is affecting a whole generation. Any of us older than 20 probably do not understand the impact, but I came to a very clear understanding of it after conducting surveys in secondary schools in east Galway.

Senator Thomas Byrne made several useful suggestions for amendments on Committee Stage. He was a little troubled, however, as were Senators Gerard P. Craughwell and John Crown, about the use of the word "alarm" in the Bill. To clarify, I did not dream up that word; it is already in use under section 11 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. Far be it from me to claim credit for it. In regard to the right to offend, I am not talking simply about below-the-belt comments but rather abusive threats, which is what I am attempting to legislate for in the Bill.

Some of Senator John Crown's comments on the Bill were not very flattering. He seems to have misconstrued the essence of the proposals and might be better off sticking to medicine rather than criticising this legislation. He is completely wrong in his point about the potential silencing of people like Máiría Cahill. Ms Cahill had lawful excuse to expose the crimes that were perpetrated against her, and that is provided for in the Bill. These proposals are not about defending the powerful and wealthy, as Senator John Crown suggested. As the father of young children, he should understand that I am concerned with protecting children and nobody else.

I thank Senator Martin Conway for his support and his very articulate contribution.

I am absolutely delighted to hear from Senator David Cullinane about how proactive Sinn Féin is on the issue of bullying and the great deal of work it is doing in the area. It seems we should all disregard what we have read in the newspapers in recent days. I would have preferred, however, if the Senator had confined himself to commenting on the proposals we are discussing instead of focusing on all the work Sinn Féin has or has not done, as the case may be. I do, however, agree with him in one instance, namely, the need to educate young people about these issues. That is absolutely key, as I made clear in my opening speech. It is a cause for concern that so many children do not understand that the behaviours in which they are engaging constitute abuse and bullying. I urge the Senator and his colleagues in Sinn Féin to put forward amendments on Committee Stage. This Bill is a blank canvas or starting point and I hope constructive proposals will be put forward.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell argued that the legislation is poorly thought out. If trying to save children from online abuse is poorly thought out, I am guilty of that charge and happy to be guilty.

I emphasised the importance of education.

The Senator talked about people using a telephone being found guilty of an offence. If he had looked at the legislation a little closer, he would have seen that the offence in question requires abuse to be persistent. A person could not be convicted on the basis of a once-off incident.

The example I gave referred to recurring abuse.

The Senator also referred to the removal of material. If he reviews Part 3 of the Bill, he will see there are provisions for a judge to make ancillary orders. I suggest he should read legislation in full before contributing to debates in the future.

Are €5,000 fines to be imposed on children?

I thank Senators Catherine Noone and Marie Moloney for their contributions. I look forward to supporting the proposals Senator Marie Moloney intends to bring forward on the registration of SIM cards.

I thank Senator Fidelma Healy Eames for her contribution. She was one of the few Senators, with Senators Catherine Noone, Marie Moloney and me, who referred to being cyberbullied in the past. It seems pertinent that we are all women. Not a single male Senator stood up this evening to say he had been subjected to such bullying.

(Interruptions).

Do it once and you are blocked.

Senator Lorraine Higgins should be allowed to speak without interruption.

It is plausible to say there is a healthy dose of misogyny online. Senator Fidelma Healy Eames, like others, pointed out that education campaigns are key. I had to chuckle in the midst of this very serious debate when the Senator referred to Wi-Fi as what sounded like "wiffee". That is a new word for me.

Cyberbullying is pervasive, insidious and omnipresent and its effect should never be underestimated. I have made clear from the outset that this legislation represents a starting point and a means of getting the issue on the agenda. I am delighted it is now in the political consciousness of the Oireachtas. We need to restore decency in our interactions online; if we do not, we are heading into the abyss. It is not I who will decide who is guilty of offences. I will not be the person convicting people of crimes under this Bill. Those decisions will be made by impartial, unbiased and independent judges. With that, I rest my case.

Question put.
The Seanad divided by electronic means.

Although it has been suggested I should stick to medicine and perhaps it might be because of that occupation that I am unfamiliar with the relevant Standing Order-----

What does the Senator wish to propose?

Under the relevant Standing Order, I request that the division be taken again other than by electronic means.

Is the Senator referring to Standing Order 62(3)(b)?

Question put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 4.

  • Bacik, Ivana.
  • Barrett, Sean D.
  • Brennan, Terry.
  • Burke, Colm.
  • Coghlan, Paul.
  • Comiskey, Michael.
  • Conway, Martin.
  • Cummins, Maurice.
  • D'Arcy, Jim.
  • Hayden, Aideen.
  • Healy Eames, Fidelma.
  • Higgins, Lorraine.
  • Keane, Cáit.
  • Moloney, Marie.
  • Mulcahy, Tony.
  • Mullen, Rónán.
  • Mullins, Michael.
  • Naughton, Hildegarde.
  • Noone, Catherine.
  • O'Brien, Mary Ann.
  • O'Donnell, Marie-Louise.
  • O'Keeffe, Susan.
  • van Turnhout, Jillian.

Níl

  • Craughwell, Gerard P.
  • Crown, John.
  • Cullinane, David.
  • Reilly, Kathryn.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Ivana Bacik and Lorraine Higgins; Níl, Senators Gerard P. Craughwell and John Crown.
Question declared carried.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 7 July 2015.
Barr
Roinn