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.

Sentiment score: 0.01

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.

Sentiment score: 0.06