2026-06-11

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I congratulate the Minister of State on her new role and thank her for taking this Bill. I thank her and the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, for agreeing to support the Bill and facilitate its movement to Committee Stage. I look forward to working with the Department to address the underlying issues within the Bill. I am happy to consider how we amend it to deal with some of the challenges that new technologies are posing to our digital identify. I am conscious that this is a justice Bill. I know that, procedurally speaking, it is difficult to do but if it were possible for this to be referred to the Committee on Artificial Intelligence, it might work in a more effective way. If not, and it is referred to the justice committee, given the urgency of some of the issues, it is important that the underlying matters are addressed. I first started taking an interest in some of these issues around deepfakes and misuse of our digital identity nearly a decade ago. At the time, people might remember that there were fairly poor deepfakes. There were some deepfakes of Nancy Pelosi slurring her words. They were pale imitations. I went the Museum of the Moving Image in Brooklyn, New York. It was exploring the issue of where deepfakes were going to go. The first mass watched event was the moon landing. It may not be widely known but there were two speeches prepared for President Nixon at the time. The speech he delivered was the speech for a successful moon landing. However, another speech was prepared in the event that the moon landing did not go well. What would he have had to deliver to the American people and the globe? Using footage of President Nixon, the museum reconstructed the speech that would have been delivered had the moon landing been unsuccessful. I remember sitting and watching it in the museum, which had been set up like a sitting room from the 1960s. This was not political nerds watching all of this. I was convinced this was Richard Nixon. I thought it was particularly believable. We have obviously seen technology move on in the last decade. We saw deepfakes in the presidential election. They were not great deepfakes and I was surprised by some of the people who had been taken in by them. I hosted a meeting with the Irish Recorded Music Association in the audiovisual room here in Leinster House in March. An Irish company, AudioStack, by taking just a couple of moments of my speaking in this House, was able to replicate or synthesise my voice and provide a speech that sounded as if I was delivering it in Leinster House. It was probably far more eloquent than I am, but colleagues who were listening at the time were absolutely convinced that this was the case. While this is a problem that we would be very aware of in a political context, there are concerns if our digital identity is misused in circumstances where it could have a personal impact. We all get dodgy text messages or our parents receive them and ask if they are a scam. Generally, people are getting much better at picking out those text messages. However, if you receive a telephone call and you think the voice you hear is your mother, father, son, daughter, loved one or somebody close to you, and you act on the basis of that, it can have potentially serious consequences. We have already seen that in other jurisdictions in cases of bank fraud where people use automated means of interaction. This is also a problem for our musicians and artists and others in the creative industry. I am glad that IMRO and Irish Equity are among those who have been raising issues in relation to this. It is important that we listen to those voices that are expressing concerns in this area. What this legislation seeks to do is essential, namely, to protect artists and musicians such that others will not seek to commercially exploit their identity in an unauthorised way. We know that a lot of streaming services, for instance, are starting to remove deepfakes and so on, but there remains a real difficulty with how we can protect our own digital identity. What this Bill is seeking to do, in protecting our digital identities, is to make it an offence to misuse someone's voice, image or likeness without their permission and for malign purposes. This is not about someone making up a funny meme or anything like that. It is for instances where it is very clear that there are malign purposes involved. We need to start to talk much more about our digital identity. We have done a very good job nationally and at European level in protecting our data rights but our digital identity now also needs to be protected. As we see artificial intelligence develop so rapidly, the need for legislation in this area has never been as important. We have to remember, even in terms of how we speak in this House, our voice is an intrinsic part of who we are and we have to ensure we do not allow others to use it for the purposes of fraud or to misrepresent us. Technology now exists that allows for our voice or image to be simulated or replicated in such a way that it is believable to others. There are benefits to that and this legislation does not try to prevent that from happening. What the Bill seeks to do is to make it an offence where someone knowingly uses or infringes upon the use of an individual's name, photograph, voice or likeness by publishing, performing, distributing, transmitting or otherwise making it available to the public in any medium for the purposes of advertising products, events, political activities, merchandise, goods or services or for the purposes of fundraising, the solicitation of donations, the purchase of products, merchandised goods and services or to influence elections or referendums. Equally, it will make it an offence to distribute, transmit or otherwise make available on any algorithm, software tool or other technology, the primary purpose of which is the production of an individual's photograph, voice or likeness. These actions must be done without the individual's permission - if it is done with the individual's permission, it is not intended to be an offence - and with the intend to cause harm or to be reckless. As I said, I am perfectly happy for the legislation to be amended and addressed on Committee Stage. I am open to that. This issue has come up time and again on both the artificial intelligence committee and the media committee. There is an urgency about being able to address this. We know Members of this House have seen their image associated with products they have nothing to do with. We have seen prominent journalists and economist purporting to sell things. We all think we are smart enough and we will not fall for it, but we know that people are so doing. There are incredible, amazing creative possibilities in the use of AI and new technology but we also have to guard against harms. This is about protecting our own digital identity and protecting all of us, as citizens and consumers. For those in the creative industries, we need to protect their right to their voice, their expression and their identity against misuse. I urge the Minister of State to move with legislation in this area as quickly as possible.

Before I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Ardagh, to address us, I extend my congratulations to her on her recent appointment and to wish her all the best in her role.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach Gníomhach. I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, on this important initiative proposed by Deputy Malcolm Byrne. The Deputy is to be commended on his work on this issue over many years and I am pleased to advise that the Government does not propose to oppose the progression of this Bill. As artificial intelligence becomes more sophisticated, so too do the ways in which it can be misused, as outlined by Deputy Byrne. For many women and girls in particular, the unauthorised manipulation of their image or voice is not simply a technological issue but a deeply personal and traumatic violation of their dignity, privacy and sense of security. We have already seen how AI-generated content can be used to harass, intimidate and humiliate individuals, often with devastating consequences for their mental health and reputation. Legislation such as this sends an important message that innovation must always be accompanied by responsibility and respect for fundamental rights. It is often said that legislation struggles to keep pace with technology but Deputy Byrne has ensured that this House is actively engaging with these challenges, rather than simply reacting to them. I am, therefore, pleased to advise that the Government does not propose to oppose the progression of the Bill. The Government recognises the importance of the digital economy to Ireland and the profound opportunities presented by Al. We are committed to reinforcing Ireland's position as a digital leader and regulatory hub and to strengthening our profile as a location for investment and a global centre for applied Al. Ireland possesses a vibrant and established innovation ecosystem, attracting eight of the leading providers of foundation Al models, which have chosen Ireland as their European headquarters. However, the evolution of Al technologies has given rise to new risks and challenges outlined by Deputy Byrne, including safety and privacy risks. We are committed to providing timely, robust and comprehensive responses to such challenges as and when they may arise. Ireland will continue to be a strong voice in Europe for a digital economy which supports competitiveness and innovation, while also protecting data privacy and fundamental rights. In that context, consideration of the Bill's contents is timely. As Al tools have become more capable, with Al video becoming more proficient at depicting people realistically, opportunistic scams have proliferated across social media that misuse Al to impersonate public figures, including the Taoiseach and Deputy Byrne himself, as he outlined. These are clear attempts by fraudsters to exploit the online public through digital deception. Across a broad range of countries, deepfakes of various politicians, business leaders and celebrities have been circulated advertising fake investments intended to trick members of the public into sharing their bank details. The realistic reproduction of a well-known figure's voice or likeness adds a veneer of authenticity and credibility to such financial scams. We have also seen a proliferation of Al-generated disinformation campaigns spreading falsehoods with the deliberate intent to deceive. Hyper-realistic synthetic media, including the use of deepfakes, has been increasingly deployed to influence political discourse, erode public trust and foster polarisation in many countries, including Ireland, especially - and worryingly - during election cycles. There have been very significant concerns about the misuse of generative Al for the non-consensual sharing of intimate images or the creation of child sexual abuse material. It should be noted such content is already illegal under Irish law. Platforms must remove it when reported and very large online platforms must mitigate the risk of it appearing on their services in the first place. The Government supports the Deputy Byrne's initiative and looks forward to working with him on it. The Protection of Voice and Image Bill 2025 seeks to address a real harm and growing threat in tackling the non-consensual use of an individual's personal characteristics and identity for the purpose of advertising, political messaging, fundraising or influencing public opinion. The Bill recognises the use of digital tools, including Al, to replicate or generate an individual's personal characteristics without that individual's consent and for clearly malicious purposes must be policed. The Bill will undoubtedly play an invaluable role in the push for further concrete actions to address this issue. While we will seek to continue to foster innovation and creativity, we must ensure that proper safeguards are in place against misuse of Al and other digital technologies, as the Deputy has clearly outlined. Determining the means of most effectively addressing the misuse of generative Al and other digital tools will require further legal and policy analysis, taking account of existing legal remedies, statutory provisions and the wider national and EU regulatory framework. While lauding opportunities, we should not be afraid to also discuss the attendant risks that may also arise. It may be the case that the creation of a specific and delimited criminal offence category relating to the unauthorised creation, use and distribution of such personal identifying characteristics could play a role in addressing these harms. There are existing criminal law provisions that address the misuse of deepfakes in certain circumstances. For instance, the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020, known as Coco's Law, creates an offence of distribution or publication of an intimate image without consent with intent to cause harm to the victim and attracts a maximum penalty of up to seven years' imprisonment, as well as an offence to threaten to distribute or publish such an image. The Act also provides for a strict liability offence, with a lower penalty, for engaging in the recording, distribution or publication of an "intimate image" without consent, with no requirement to prove an intention to cause harm. The definition of an "intimate image" under the 2020 Act is intentionally broad and includes any visual representation of a person. This includes intimate images, such as deepfakes, which have been altered or doctored prior to their distribution or publication. Similarly, the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 is framed so that no distinction can be made between Al-generated material and other child sexual abuse material. The production and distribution of child sexual abuse material attracts a sentence of up to 14 years' imprisonment. Coimisiún na Meán, as Ireland's online safety and media regulator, is at the heart of Ireland's online safety framework, including the regulation of social media. Under the online safety framework, there is an obligation on platforms to act on reports of illegal content. A failure by a platform to protect against illegal or harmful content being shown can lead to significant financial sanctions and, under the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act, continued non-compliance can lead to criminal sanctions for senior management. Under the Digital Services Act, the European Commission has powers with respect to the proliferation of illegal content online on platforms and the protection of fundamental rights, including protection for minors. The EU Council and Parliament also reached political agreement on 7 May 2026 on the proposed the digital omnibus on Al. The proposed measure will prohibit Al systems that generate non-consensual sexually explicit and intimate content or child sexual abuse material, such as Al nudification apps. It is intended this specific ban will take effect from 2 December 2026. There is currently no stand-alone provision under Irish law that provides that identity theft or fraud constitutes an offence. However, it is addressed through a combination of legislative measures, primarily the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud) Offences Act 2001 and the Criminal Justice (Offences Relating to Information Systems) Act 2017. Section 6(1) of the 2001 Act provides for a broad offence of making gain or causing loss by deception, which can be applied to the fraudulent use of another person's identity. This can encompass a range of identity-based misconduct, including the use of deepfakes, where deception results in financial or personal gain. Separately, the use of deepfakes in certain circumstances could constitute harassment offence under section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997, where such use seriously interferes with another's peace and privacy or causes them alarm, distress or harm. It is also important to be cognisant of existing civil remedies for individuals who have been subject to the unauthorised digital cloning or imitation of their likeness, voice or persona by Al systems. Under lrish law, a person can already take a legal action against a natural or legal person who makes a defamatory statement to another person. The Defamation Act 2009 defines a defamatory statement as "a statement that tends to injure a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society". Such a statement includes a visual image, sound or gesture and a statement that is published on the Internet or via electronic communication. Further, the Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026 provides a statutory power for the Circuit Court, previously in the High Court, to issue a Norwich Pharmacal order directing a digital services provider to identify an anonymous poster of defamatory online material. This makes it a lot more accessible to members of the public. If defamation is proven the usual remedies, damages and an injunction to remove or restrain publication are available. In recent years, a number of individuals have taken High Court actions relating to online content, including the use of deepfakes, that seek damages for defamation, malicious falsehood, data rights infringement, personality rights appropriation and passing off. Social media platforms are frequently named as defendants in such actions, primarily as a mechanism for content removal and identity disclosure of third parties posting content. Data protection law may also be relevant in addressing the unauthorised use and dissemination of synthetic deepfakes using generative Al tools. Content relating to personal characteristics is regarded as "personal data" and, accordingly, data controllers are required to demonstrate a lawful basis for processing such data. Creating or sharing an Al-generated video of an identifiable individual entails the processing of that individual's personal data. Unless this processing falls within a lawful basis under GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, which is unlikely if done without consent or any legitimate justification, it is unlawful. Section 42 of the Consumer Protection Act 2007 prohibits misleading commercial practices including, under section 43, false information on the existence, extent or nature of any approval or sponsorship, whether direct or indirect, of the product by others. The unauthorised use of someone’s image in advertising material to suggest that the person endorses or is affiliated with a product could arguably be considered a misleading commercial practice. The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission is responsible for enforcing advertising rules in Ireland. The regulatory framework for Al at the domestic and EU level is also very much evolving. The EU Artificial Intelligence Act introduces a legal requirement that aims to ensure a high level of protection of health, safety and fundamental rights against the harmful effects of Al systems in the European Union. The new Al office of Ireland will be established in 2026 as an independent statutory entity which will act as the central co-ordinating authority for the EU Al Act. Under the Al Act, certain Al practices will be prohibited and certain Al systems and uses of Al by providers and deployers will be subject to legal requirements in terms of governance, transparency and responses to risks and incidents. The EU Artificial Intelligence Act regulates deepfakes, primarily through strict transparency obligations rather than outright bans. Article 50 of the EU Al Act introduces transparency obligations in four situations. These are, first, when AI interacts directly with people, second, when Al generates synthetic content, third, when Al is used for emotion recognition or biometric categorisation and, finally, when Al creates deepfakes or text published on matters of public interest. These obligations apply to all Al systems used in the four situations set out in Article 50, not just to high-risk systems. Deployers using Al to create deepfakes will be required to disclose that the content has been artificially generated or manipulated. Deployers publishing Al-generated text with the purpose of informing the public on matters of public interest will be required to disclose the text is Al-generated unless it has been subject to human review and editorial responsibility. The proposed approaches include persistent visual labels, opening disclaimers for video and audible warnings for audio. These obligations apply from 2 August 2026. It is evident that Deputy Byrne's Bill is aligned with a considerable number of recent legislative reforms, whether criminal, civil or regulatory, that seek to impose appropriate guardrails to protect privacy and fundamental rights. However, I am not convinced the creation of new criminal offences, beyond what is already provided for, is necessarily the best strategy to address the issues the Bill seeks to tackle, particularly if undertaken without regard to the existing and developing regulatory framework. A criminal justice approach is applicable only after a deepfake has been deployed to cause harm and may well be an appropriate means to address the most egregious harms caused by the misuse of generative AI tools, such as the development, distribution and use of so-called nudification apps. On the other hand, a regulatory approach can enforce compliance, platform accountability and technical standards before deepfakes reach the public. I commend Deputy Byrne on bringing the Bill forward. I look forward to hearing the views of Members on it.

I congratulate the Minister of State on her appointment. We are likely to see swaps in some committee Chair positions in the next while. Deputy Byrne was doing a good job as committee Chair, leaving out the circumstances. I welcome the Bill. In some ways we are dealing with an issue that is accelerating at a pace we have not seen before. That is one of the reasons I support this legislation. It is not that this is the only part of the armoury to deal with this; it is but one tool. We need to ensure that we have in our legislative system the tools required to react as quickly as possible. While we understand deepfakes and we can laugh about some of them, such as the crude ones that kids get up to that have been around for years, we need to think about the tools that are behind it and the ability to create deepfakes, as Deputy Byrne mentioned. At the push of a button, somebody can create my voice and play it back to somebody on a phone with me giving them an instruction. That has the potential to destroy people's careers and marriages or to result in suicide. That is on a one-to-one level, but what if it is a state actor, as they call them now, doing this? We have all had a laugh at clips of Donald Trump in Lego form coming from Iran. Literally one minute after an incident happens there is a new Lego video of Donald Trump being an idiot, as he is, but it is funny. That is the level it can be done at, and that is the speed it can be done at. That is the danger of it. Apart from us legislating for it, one of the big issues is that we have to hold the companies that have the platforms and programmes to account, those who hold the purse strings because, at the end of the day, this is all to do with money. They have to put in place the protections that are required but they also have to act when something happens. The biggest failure in the digital media age we are in is that the big companies are very slow to act. If you ring them or send them an e-mail to say what is online is libellous or if you press the button to say something is malicious, it does not get taken down straight away. It is not suspended while the company adjudicates. In the vast majority of cases where I have reacted to posts or stuff online, it has never been taken down. What version of our law are they reading? If somebody accuses you online of a crime, that is the equivalent of libel. While you can go to court, by the time you get there it will have been seen by hundreds, thousands or millions of people because of the speed of technology. It is not suspended until you win the case. If I make a charge, it should be suspended while the company adjudicates. I have no problem with that. As regards the incident we are dealing with, the programme most people were discussing at the time was Grok but it is not just one programme. It did not stop there, because that kind of ability to use people's images and to manipulate them and present them as reality is still available. We must have a way to protect people. Our image is our image. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of pictures of me. I am not too precious about whatever shape, size or whatever I am, but my image cannot be taken and put into another image to create a fake. I worked in the media for years so I know how to use images, but now it can literally be done by a child. There is now a Bollywood film that was created from ten other films. The main actor is dead. All of the songs are new songs but they use his voice. The film has been sold and people have gone to see it, knowing it is not a fake but something created by AI that is considered brilliant. None of the other actors got a penny and the main actor is dead. The only people who benefit are those in the film company. That raises the issue of the protection of the image and who owns it when you die. Does your partner or your family own it? This presents dangers. Mention was made of Nixon and the moon landing. We can all laugh at that, but if somebody like Deputy Byrne can be taken in, it just shows what is possible. That occurred a number of years ago. We have gone beyond that. Things can be smoothed out. You do not see six fingers on people any more in the pictures. It has gone beyond it. This technology is learning the whole time. It is now at the stage where it is teaching itself from its mistakes and identifying them. That is the nature of it. I am not afraid of it, but there are a lot of people who are afraid of it. A lot of older people are panicking. We have to find some way of helping them get around the problems that exist and teach them how to identify, as much as we can, what is fake and what is not fake. The only way we can do that is to show them examples. Way back when I was only a young fella, about 50 years ago, I remember doing a course in school. We had an imaginative teacher and he taught a media studies course. It was an extra class. He used to show us different pictures. He would block out one part and show that blocking out the context could change the interpretation and the purpose of the image. That was a photograph in a classroom of kids who were 13 or 14 years old. Now we have a computer that can do that and a lot more, for example, change the scenery or the background. It can be done for fun sometimes, which is what most people are doing, but it is not for fun when you start manipulating somebody's voice and what they are saying. We have laws that protect us in some ways already. The Minister of State referred to some of them, but we have to be able to act quickly. Some of our laws were brought in to deal with libel. It was a form of assault on people. The way to assault people now is through an image. You went to court and took action but the damage was restricted to a small circle of people who saw it. If it was on The Irish Times, you had a circle of maybe 50,000 people in the whole country who saw it and it died. If it was on the television, maybe a few more saw it. Now, literally at the click of a button, a million people can see it, so the damage is done there and then. How do you call that image back? How do you call back screenshots and everything else? How do you stop people sharing? We saw, even this week, images that should not be shared. Those very graphic images from Belfast were shared worldwide in an instant and then used by other actors. That was not a case of anybody doing anything to change those images, but a voice-over could be put on it. I think it was only a few hours later that the second person was there. There was no such thing and it was proven. However, it gets a head of steam and that head of steam is what you are trying to protect against here, to make sure that people understand it is illegal to do it in the first place but then that you have the power to stop it and to call it back before it does further damage. I support this. There are concerns about the freedom of speech, satire, etc., and we will address them on Committee Stage, when this gets to the committee, because it is important we do as much of this collegially as possible. It is not only us as politicians being precious; it is our whole society.

I also join in congratulating the Minister of State, Deputy Ardagh, on her appointment and wish her the very best as she takes on this important and challenging role. First of all, I commend Deputy Byrne and thank him for continuing with this legislation. Deputy Byrne had this on First Stage in April 2025. If we think of how far AI has developed in that time, this legislation is needed now more than ever before. Let us think back to 2025. Deputy Byrne introduced this Bill on First Stage and the entire Grok controversy arose at the end of 2025 leading into this year. Had his Bill been enacted, a lot of the concerns that we have seen might not have arisen, particularly around Grok and different nudification apps. It shows the importance of this legislation. Obviously, it needs to be discussed on Committee Stage. We will discuss it then, ideally at the artificial intelligence committee as well as the justice committee. Progressing this legislation is critical in terms of getting to grips with the misuse of artificial intelligence, not only in Irish society, but globally. If it were to be progressed in the Houses, this could be an example of best practice to other countries, showing them how to do it. Deputy Byrne has covered most of the issues, as has Deputy Ó Snodaigh. I do not want to go over them too much. If we think of an older or elderly parent getting a call on a Saturday night that a son or daughter is in trouble, needs help, needs money or whatever it may be, and that call has been made through nefarious means, it is something that everybody fears, particularly if you look at the exploitation of older people when it comes to financial issues. Those are critical, as are people's music, art and entire identities. As the world is becoming more international, our individual identity is far more important to us than ever before. That includes our likenesses, namely, how we look and sound. Our likenesses being advantage of is something that we need to tackle head on. While the Minister of State outlined that the EU AI Act covered a lot of ground in terms of various issues, such as how AI interacted with people and generated synthetic content and how it was used for emotional recognition and biometric categorisation, it does not cover the issue of the misuse of people's images, voices and likenesses. The Bill is crucial and key to getting to grips with and coming to terms with that. We all will be aware of the transformative impact that AI is having but there need to be guardrails. We have seen a lot of misuse of AI and we have to do as much as possible in terms of the regulation of artificial intelligence. While the EU AI Act has been passed, the general scheme of the AI regulation Bill here is progressing through the House. The national AI office will be established by August of this year. That does not mean that we stand still. AI is changing quickly, and sometimes it is quite frustrating how slow Parliament here and, indeed, parliaments around the world operate. If we were to get to grips with the fast-changing element of artificial intelligence, then it should not be that First Stage of Deputy Byrne's Bill was in January of last year and in June 2026, nearly a year and a half later, we are discussing it on Second Stage and then moving on to Committee Stage. This is the type of time-sensitive issue where we need to find a method within this House to move legislation more quickly. Deputy Ó Snodaigh spoke about the large tech and AI companies. There needs to be a lot more done in terms of how they are regulated and how they answer not only to this House, but to the Garda and international police forces around the world, because if a complaint goes in, it can take weeks for any type of response. Meanwhile, that content has in some instances gone viral or stayed up and traumatised people. There is a far bigger responsibility. We need to be doing more in this House to hold the large tech companies, and particularly the AI companies, to task for what they are and are not doing to protect people. That is a crucial element as well. In fairness, the Bill goes a long way to protecting the individual identity that I mentioned previously. I will work with Deputy Byrne in terms of progressing this legislation. I commend him on this and give him my full support.

I thank everyone for their contributions and Deputy Byrne for bringing this Private Members' Bill before the House. As Deputy Ó Cearúil says, Deputy Byrne was way ahead of the curve in relation to this. When they mention art imitating life, the Deputy's Bill came before the issues, especially when it came to Grok and the controversy we saw in late 2025. I noted something Deputy Ó Snodaigh mentioned in relation to Grok. On foot of the controversy and the concerns that we had, and as he will probably be aware, the European Commission launched a formal investigation of X under the Digital Services Act, DSA, on 26 January. Coimisiún na Meán is formally now involved with the European Commission in the investigation and was instrumental in the work leading up to its launch. The new investigation will assess whether the company properly assessed and mitigated risks associated with the deployment of Grok's functionalities into X in the EU. This includes risks related to the dissemination of illegal content in the EU such as manipulated sexually explicit images, including content that may amount to child sexual abuse material. Coimisiún na Meán will continue to formally support the European Commission as it conducts its investigation into X. I suppose this case is really a test case for other AI platforms and we all will be watching what happens there. In relation to the review of criminal and civil legislation, if you look at the Defamation Act, the idea of changing the jurisdiction for Norwich Pharmacal orders from the High Court to the Circuit Court has really democratised access to justice. Without needing to spend huge money on High Court fees, people can now go to the Circuit Court and get a Norwich Pharmacal order. That is a really big step in terms of trying to figure out who is behind these anonymous AI-generated posts. It is something that is really welcome. Regarding criminal legislation, I am committed - I know the Minister is committed - to ensuring it is sufficiently robust to protect people from digital harms. Technology is evolving rapidly. Dr. Mike Ryan's narrative that he used during Covid, namely, that we had to act fast, comes into play here. When we are drafting legislation, we obviously have to do it right, but we also have to act rapidly because the technology is evolving at such a rapid pace that it is hard for us mere mortals to keep up with it. One of the problems that we face in democracies is trying to keep apace with the speed at which we change, and the ability of companies to instigate commercialised products is effectively way faster than we can respond to them as legislators. That is a big problem we have across the EU when it comes to regulating cybersecurity, AI and the misuse of images. As we have outlined, the rapid development of generative AI raises diverse challenges across the board in relation to data protection, intellectual property rights, defamation, copyright and harms that more clearly fall into the criminal sphere. However, many of the issues that this Bill seeks to address might be better addressed or supplemented by civil remedies and regulatory models that we see coming from the EU. That said, it is important for us to have the discussion and shine a light on the sort of vacuum that is there when it comes to legislation relating to technology and AI. The way it is exploding is frightening, particularly for the young and the old. We have seen older citizens subjected to financial fraud and crime, with texts that seem to be from their children, for example, claiming to have lost their phone and needing money. It is so simple and people are falling for it. Young people are being made the subject of AI-generated videos. Such content might not be something Deputy Ó Snodaigh or I would be upset by but young people seeing altered videos of themselves can have significant mental health implications. We really need to look at that. From an education point of view, young people must be taught resilience and strength. There is an educational aspect in terms of how we can protect them emotionally from AI and in the social media space. We must evolve to meet the challenges that arise. We have a collective responsibility, across Departments and across the EU, in so far as we can, to channel technology where it may be of most benefit and to curb the instinct to misuse or abuse it. Technology should serve us, not be used as a tool to control or manipulate us. That really is the crux of the matter. Deputy Byrne's Bill prompts the House to consider its core purpose and key responsibilities. The GDPR protects our personal information, the EU AI Act will regulate the use of AI tools, Coimisiún na Meán regulates online content on our behalf and Coco's Law prohibits the publication of intimate images without consent. The Deputy's Bill seeks to build upon that foundation. We need to be aligned with EU thinking on this and related issues. We must balance any necessary actions with being open to the development and growth of new technologies. I commend Deputy Byrne on bringing forward this Bill. I commend it to the House.

I thank Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Ó Cearúil and the Minister of State for their contributions and their support. The Minister of State outlined the current legislative provision in this area but the reality is it is not working. If the legislation were working, we would not be seeing the proliferation of deepfakes and other continuing problems. While I acknowledge that the jurisdiction of Norwich Pharmacal orders has been extended to the Circuit Court, that is still prohibitive for many people, particularly those who do not understand the justice system. The Minister of State referred to Coco's Law, which came about following the incredible campaigning by Jackie Fox. She was often told there was legislation already in place to deal with much of what she was seeking. However, Coco's Law, and the public information campaign that followed, was so successful because while people do not necessarily need to know the detail of the legislation, it is fairly certain that most people in Ireland now know not to use intimate images of others without their permission. We need to get to a situation where there is an awareness in society that we should not use somebody's voice, image or likeness in a malign way without that person's permission. We might think that should be obvious but, unfortunately, it is not. In order to enforce that, we need to have criminal sanctions in place. As Deputy Ó Snodaigh said, the legislation is not a silver bullet. A broader series of measures must be in place. Our challenge is that we need to shift to a situation where we enforce a digital duty of care on technology companies such that they have consideration, before they allow products onto the market, as to how those products may be used. If they are misused, there must be the capability to take action. AI has incredible potential and I am a huge advocate of it as a tool to achieve particular goals. However, we know the consequences of its misuse, which include fraud, theft of intellectual property, which is a big issue for creatives, and suicide. We all need to understand our digital identity and what it means. Talking about Coco's Law reminds me of one of the successes of the GDPR. There probably are not many people who have read the entire regulation and know it inside out but, overwhelmingly, people do know that they must not use the data of others for any purpose save that for which they have expressly given permission. We need to move to thinking in the same way about digital identities, namely, that people cannot misuse another person's identity and voice for malign purpose. We certainly need to protect freedom of expression in the context of satire and so on but this legislation deals very specifically with cases where such usage is for malign purposes and in, many cases, for particular gain. I spent many hours dealing with the Online Safety and Media Regulation Bill, both as a member of the media committee and a Member of the Seanad at the time. A lot of the work that was put into that legislation was quite far-reaching, including the setting up of the Office of the Online Safety Commissioner. One of the concerns I had was that we were not taking strong enough action against some of the technology companies when they failed to take action. It was always my view that where a provider wilfully or recklessly allows an online harm to go out on a platform, there should be consequences and individuals should be held responsible. The problem, as the Minister of State mentioned, is that a lot of technology companies will just write off significant financial sanctions as business costs. I do not accept and never did accept that provision for non-compliance leading to criminal sanction is strong enough within existing legislation. If we have been successful in that regard, why then, as part of our EU Presidency agenda, have we said that online safety is one of Ireland's top priorities? Clearly, it persists as a challenge and a problem. As Deputy Ó Cearúil mentioned, this legislation was introduced before the arrival of Grok and so on. Those developments are impacting on society in many different ways. Our first obligation as legislators is to ensure the safety of our citizens, in the online space as much as in the offline space. We are going to see the misuse of digital identities grow in a whole variety of ways. While I am really appreciative of the Government's decision to allow this legislation to progress, I ask that there be movement to address these issues. I am not precious as to which exact legislation is progressed but it is clear that what we have currently is not strong enough. I recognise there will be challenges regarding extraterritoriality and all of that but there is an obligation on us to be able to protect people right now. It is critical that we take action on this. In the same way as there was a campaign regarding the misuse of intimate images, we need to start talking about protection of digital identity and how people can protect their own voice, image and likeness. We need a dedicated campaign about copyright both specifically for the creative industries and more widely. My view is that when people are having digital family conversations, they will have to introduce family safe words. If members of my family want to make sure it is actually me they are talking to, they could ask me for the family safe word. Do we need to start looking at public information campaigns in that regard? I encourage the Minister of State to work on building an awareness of our digital identities. Citizens do not necessarily need to have recourse to all the legislative provisions she listed but they need to know why their digital identity is important and that sanctions will be imposed on those who, for malign purposes, seek to misuse another's digital identity. I very much thank the Minister of State for accepting the legislation. I look forward to engaging further as it progresses.