Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I begin, I wish Martin all the best in his retirement and thank him very much. I had the privilege of being in this House as both a Member and a staff member for a number of years, and the courtesy I was shown did not differ. That is the same for everyone, which is a testament to Martin and his colleagues, so I wish him all the best.

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

I am seeking Government support for this Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to criminalise and make an offence of the practice of recording and sharing images of victims of road traffic accidents.

This is something we should never have to bring to our Parliament. It is a ghoulish and morbid practice that seems to have developed over the past four or five years. I am sure all of us have listened to the radio and heard about road traffic accidents, and within the same breath there is an appeal by gardaí for images not to be shared online or on social media platforms. Why anyone would do that is beyond me and the vast majority of people up and down this country.

In conjunction with a colleague of mine in Cork, Councillor Peter Horgan, who shares my revulsion at this practice, I looked into this and saw that it was not an offence to carry out such an activity. That is where this Bill has come from. I introduced the Bill on First Stage over a year ago. It has been in the Bills lottery and I am delighted it has been chosen. I have had a number of opportunities to speak about it in the media and at public engagements. It has received cross-party support, as well as support from road traffic accident groups and individuals who have contacted me from all over the country. Following any media appearance, I have been inundated with emails and messages in support of this simple Bill. It is a Bill aimed at restoring or demonstrating a basic threshold of decency that the majority of us would not have to think twice about.

I am bringing forward the Bill in the context of our road safety numbers going in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, more people are dying and there are more road traffic accidents and serious injuries. We can talk about a whole piece of work around that on another occasion. This Bill would provide for a class A fine or imprisonment of up to 12 months for an offence, which would send a really strong message, similar to Coco's Law, that this is unacceptable and the Irish people do not accept this kind of behaviour. It is as disrespectful and distressing an intrusion into private grief as one could possibly imagine.

When the Bill was selected from the Bills lottery a few weeks ago, I wrote to Deputy Simon Harris, who had just been elected as Taoiseach and had stated that road safety would be one of his key priorities for the duration of this Government. I wrote to him in the hope that his Government would support this Bill's passage through the Houses and into law before the next general election, whenever that might be.

A couple of provisions in the Bill are worth putting on the record. The Bill does not stop people from having dashcams, which are very important for gardaí and emergency services who seek footage to understand how traffic accidents happen. That is protected. The Bill would not stop people who are providing emergency first aid at the scene of an accident and need the assistance of emergency services from sharing images that might help victims. There is a public interest defence and some common sense provisions to protect people in the Bill. We all know what practice the Bill is aimed at. Nobody should ever see the victim of a traffic accident in shock or a minor or serious injury or death on a WhatsApp message, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook or anything else.

I would love the Bill to be passed along with whatever amendments happen on Committee Stage. I welcome the chairperson of the justice committee to the Chamber. I would also accept an amendment to a justice Bill that would ultimately deliver the same thing. I have nothing more to say on this and I do not think there is much more to say. I look forward to the response of the Minister of State and anyone else who wishes to contribute.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Deputy Lawless wish to contribute?

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. I commend Deputy Smith for introducing the Bill. As an aside, the Ceann Comhairle has already referenced those watching from outside. It might be worth clarifying that though this Chamber is often sparse, many of us are watching diligently in our office, as I was five minutes ago when I saw this matter being raised by Deputy Smith. I made my way to the Chamber to speak on it. I was not aware the Bill was being debated, but it is useful for the public to be aware that many of us are doing our business diligently around the Houses and are monitoring from afar what is going on in the Chamber.

I have not had a chance to study the provisions in the Bill as to whether there is a criminal or a civil intent.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Criminal.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Criminal. It strikes me that there are a plethora of often overlapping and complex frameworks surrounding the capturing of images, be that video footage or stills, from the point of view of GDPR, the constitutional right to privacy, surveillance Acts and the interception of telecoms. We have had many such debates in the justice committee in recent times, not least on facial recognition technology which is now subject to separate legislation and before that we debated body cams for gardaí.

When I introduced legislation to regulate drones, I encountered a difficulty in the previous Dáil when the question of what a reasonable expectation of privacy was arose. People were disconcerted by the idea that a drone might hover overhead and record them without their permission or consent. I understand the position in civil law is that if one is in a public place, there is not an expectation of privacy but if one is in one's back garden, for example, there probably is unless there is a very low fence or whatever. There is a rule of thumb and the usual legal phrase is "Where there is an expectation of privacy". It is a difficult one to get right.

It is a modern phenomenon, with the digital age, that there are so many consequential recordings. I am glad Deputy Smith mentioned that the likes of dashcams will not be affected by the Bill. I am uncomfortable with the idea of being accidentally or consequently recorded many times a day as we go about our business. One of the reasons we were so apprehensive about the facial recognition technology during the course of the debate was because of the thought of ongoing surveillance. I understand a street in London had a camera running 24-7, which led to the potential for profiling and the unintended or unwanted consequences that flow from that are apparent. It is something that happens, however We have to distinguish between innocent engagements, such as holiday snaps which have a person in the background, and more sinister behaviour. What we used to call rubbernecking we now call rubberphoning or video cameraing. Deputy Smith spoke about the constant Garda refrain to please not share images. It is horrific and tragic that that even needs to be said. One would think common decency would prevent someone from doing that. The instinctive reaction should not be to whip out a phone and record an accident unless it is contribute to evidence gathering - unfortunately, that is not the case in most instances - and then to share the footage. We have to question how we have ended up in a society where recording such images is the first instinct and the second instinct is to forward them on to a WhatsApp group.

I am sure the Minister will have amendments to consider. I have not had a chance to study the text of the Bill. It is difficult to get legislation right in this space because there is so much conflicting and overlapping legislation in terms of allowing the consequential recording and capturing of images and the expectation of privacy in a public place, which does not really exist. My knowledge of the royal family is not 100%, but a young royal couple who married some years ago were on honeymoon when a photographer with a zoom lens took a photograph while the woman was sunbathing on a balcony. Ultimately, the question of law said if she was visible from the road she could not have an expectation of privacy. That seems very intrusive and unfair, but that is often the law in these cases.

The Bill deals with a very serious and grave matter, but people's privacy is also a very serious matter that has to be respected. It is difficult to get this right, but I commend the Deputy for bringing the Bill before the House. Unfortunately, with the increase in the number of car crashes on the M50 and elsewhere I have seen what has happened. The intention is excellent and it is certainly something I would welcome passing. I am glad to hear the Deputy say it has all-party and Government support.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have had support from Deputies and parties of Government.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let us hope that continues. No pressure, Minister.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

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.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State and his officials. I certainly took those points in the manner in which they were intended, that is, constructively. I will go back and look at them all in an attempt to improve this and bring it forward to Committee Stage. This is exactly how this Parliament should work in terms of putting something forward and having a good reasoned debate and then getting good points back. I am happy with that. I thank Deputy Lawless for contributing to the debate as well. I acknowledge Senator Barry Ward, who contacted me about section 3 and having reference to emergency services as well as the reference to An Garda Síochána.

I have been critical of the Government for putting in delay provisions previously on private Members' Bills. I am most thankful that the Government is not opposing the Bill and is allowing it to go to Committee Stage. I will work with the officials and whoever else it may be to try to improve the Bill and move it forward through the Houses.