Protection of Voice and Image Bill 2025: Second Stage [Private Members]
Dail Éireann — 2026-06-11
============================================================

Catherine Ardagh (FF), Dublin South-Central

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.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/2026-06-11/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-09-14T01:01:05+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-06-11