Digital Services Bill 2023: Committee Stage
I thank members and witnesses for participating in today’s committee meeting. I remind any members participating remotely to do so from within the Leinster House complex only, as they are well aware. Should a division occur, any member participating remotely will be required to make their way to the meeting room within the normal division time to vote before returning to their original location. We have not received any apologies yet.
The meeting is being convened for the purpose of considering the Digital Services Bill 2023, which was referred to the select committee by order of the Dáil on 13 December 2023. The purpose of this Bill is to give further effect to Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market for digital services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) and for the purposes of amending the Broadcasting Act 2009 and the Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2014 and to provide for related matters. I welcome Deputy Dara Calleary, Minister for State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, who is accompanied by his officials.
The following amendment groupings will apply: amendments Nos. 2, 6, 41 to 44, inclusive; amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, 36, 37, 39, 40, 45 to 49, inclusive; amendments Nos. 7 and 26; amendments Nos. 8 to 16, inclusive, 18, 19, 23 to 25, inclusive, 50 to 58, inclusive, and 60; amendments Nos. 20 to 22, inclusive, and 59; amendments Nos. 27 and 28; amendments Nos. 29, 30, 32 and 34; and amendments Nos. 31, 33 and 35. All other amendments not grouped will be discussed individually.
I propose that we try to complete our consideration of Committee Stage of this Bill today. Is that agreed? Agreed. Before we proceed with our consideration of the Bill, I invite the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, to address the committee.
Guím gach rath ar an gcoiste tábhachtach seo don bhliain nua agus gabhaim buíochas leis as ucht a bheith ag obair linn. I wish members a happy new year. I thank the committee for facilitating us this morning and I thank everybody who took part in what was generally a constructive engagement on Second Stage.
Members will be aware that 13 of the very large online platforms and search engines are established in Ireland and consequently Ireland has a unique, critically important and high-profile role in the overall EU regulatory framework for digital services. This week, we are working towards enacting the Digital Services Bill before the EU deadline of 17 February, when the EU Digital Services Act comes into full effect.
As I said previously, this is a technical Bill that is necessary to give full effect to the supervision and enforcement provisions of the EU Act. The obligations on regulated entities, namely, the intermediary service providers, are set out in the EU Act and are settled EU law outside the scope of the Bill. Therefore, all proposed amendments must be considered against this backdrop.
I will reflect briefly on some of the issues raised on Second Stage. The Digital Services Act places the protection of freedom of expression at its core. It imposes rules on platforms to enhance the transparency of content moderation decisions. It provides users with a right of appeal if their content is removed and the right to access an out-of-court dispute settlement mechanism if the matter is not resolved to their satisfaction through the appeals process.
A number of Deputies raised concerns regarding trusted flaggers. The Digital Services Act is prescriptive on both who can apply for this designation and the scope of the role. The role of a trusted flagger will be to flag illegal content or content that is incompatible with the terms and conditions of service of the provider - not objectionable content. Trusted flaggers will have to publish information every year on their notifications, including the type of allegedly illegal content notified, the providers notified and the response and actions taken by the providers. Coimisiún na Meán can investigate a trusted flagger on its own initiative, on foot of information received from a third party or a complaint from a provider. A database of trusted flaggers will be published by the European Commission, which will also include information on trusted flaggers whose status has been suspended or revoked.
I acknowledge the important issue of resourcing was raised a number of times. While this is not a matter for legislation, I can assure members that the Government and I will ensure that Coimisiún na Meán and the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, CCPC, are adequately resourced for their respective responsibilities under the Digital Services Act. The Government allocated €2.7 million to an coimisiún for 2023 to set up the digital services co-ordinator function. This funding has increased to €6 million for 2024. The CCPC's Exchequer funding has also been increased. The resourcing of this authority will be kept under constant review in light of operational experience with the Digital Services Act during the year, and that is a commitment I give to this committee. I have kept in touch with Coimisiún na Meán, our digital services commissioner, John Evans, and the CCPC throughout this process to ensure that we are at one on that.
Since the Bill completed Second Stage, my officials, working in close co-operation with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, have identified a small number of issues that necessitate technical amendments to the Bill. These amendments are intended to provide greater clarity and strengthen provisions on matters such as data protection and procedures in relation to cross-border activities and joint investigations. No policy change will be effected as a result of any of these amendments. I again acknowledge the huge work put into this Bill on a very tight deadline by the four officials here with me.
With that, I look forward to our debate. I thank members for engaging. Gabhaim buíochas leo as ucht a n-obair inniu.
We will move on to the Bill and take it section by section.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
This section is opposed. This is a very important piece of legislation that has huge and significant implications domestically and internationally within Europe. Before I start, I thank the Minister of State and his officials for their engagement on this. It is a complex piece of legislation and we welcome the open door. That has been very useful. Many thanks to the Minister of State and his officials.
I am opposing this section. We can see how important this is from the breadth of the EU regulation and the Bill before us, as well as the pages of amendments that have been submitted. For this reason, I do not see why there is a need for such wide-ranging powers of regulation. I would not agree with any arguments in respect of speed and agility because we can see it can be done fast. It has been done fairly fast in this instance in advance of the February deadline. Any changes to such an important piece of legislation should be brought through the Oireachtas so we can see and scrutinise the scope, scale and nature of what the Government of the day is attempting to do. This legislation has a particular impact on free speech and the public realm. We oppose section 3 because of the wide-ranging powers and the fact that we have shown ourselves capable, and the Minister of State’s officials have shown themselves capable, of moving fast, being speedy and being agile. It strikes me that a lot of power is being concentrated in one place and this is a serious issue. For that reason, I oppose this section.
I thank the Deputy and her team for their engagement, and that engagement is still open as we proceed in the next week.
Unfortunately, I cannot accept her opposition to section 3. Section 3 provides for the ability to prescribe regulations in respect of the functioning of the Bill. Section 3 is necessary to ensure that where issues arise in terms of the effectiveness or efficiency of the implementation of the digital services regulation by Coimisiún na Meán or the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, the Minister can respond quickly to introduce necessary procedural reforms. For example, some of the procedural steps set out in the Digital Services Bill may require revision, depending on how the European board for digital services engages with digital service co-ordinators of establishment in practice with regard to cross-border collaboration activities and joint investigations. This will only become fully clear after the board is formed, but if revisions of procedure are required, the Minister will need to be able to introduce the necessary reforms in a timely manner.
The section will not facilitate any policy change, but all such regulations would have to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas within 21 days. This approach will provide the Oireachtas with full and effective oversight of any procedural changes, as is the standard approach to all legislation in this phase term.
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 4
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 8, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
“(2) Every regulation served on or given to a person under subsection (1)(a) to (c) shall be signed as received by the person for whom it is served or given, or by a person acting on their behalf.”.
I think the amendment is self-explanatory. I am not sure why this has not been provided for. It might be that I am wrong and that it is implied and understood, and if that is the case, I am content to withdraw the amendment, but we need to be careful that we ensure the regulations served on or given to a person should be signed and received by the person on whom they are served or by a person acting on their behalf. It is a belt, braces and baler twine approach, but if it is the case that this has been provided for, I will be happy to hear that from the Minister of State.
I understand the intent behind the amendment but I cannot accept the wording because I am cognisant of the possibility of unintended consequences arising. My concern is the amendment could be used by parties to obstruct or delay Coimisiún na Meán or the CCPC in their making of a decision as to whether a suspected contravention with respect to the digital services regulation had occurred and whether to impose a financial sanction. A party could, for example, deliberately fail to acknowledge receipt of properly served documents to avoid attending a hearing aimed at securing specific information from the party to inform the regulators’ decision in respect of a suspected contravention and whether a financial sanction should be imposed. The text in the section is a standard text used in many Bills and I am worried it could have another impact.
I fully understand the intent of the amendment but I am concerned about unintended consequences. I will be happy to look at the matter again if we can tighten up the language before Report Stage, but I cannot accept this amendment.
That is fair enough. It was not my intention to incur any unintended consequences but the Minister of State can see where I am coming from with this. I am happy to withdraw the amendment on the basis we will engage further. He sees the point I am making and I very much accept his point. We do not want to give somebody the capacity to refuse, hide or evade the document but, equally, we want to make sure it will get to the person for whom it is intended, which was the purpose of the amendment. On the basis we can engage on the matter between now and Report Stage, I am content to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
I have an issue here that I have come across with respect to other legislation. Four ways by which the document can be served to somebody are outlined. One of them, outlined in section 4 (b), refers to "leaving it at the address at which the person ordinarily resides or, in a case in which an address for service has been furnished, at that address". Section 4 (c) then outlines a similar scenario but refers to "sending it by post in a prepaid registered letter". I am concerned the phrase "leaving it at the address" will be open to all kinds of interpretation. Could the document be left under a stone at the front gate or would it have to be put into the postbox? Why not remove that provision altogether, perhaps on Report Stage, and insist on the use of registered post? At least then we would know that somebody present at the address had received it. Including the phrase "leaving it at the address" seems clumsy or vague. It could imply anything. The person might not be living there or may be away. Likewise, the phrase "ordinarily resides" may not cover someone living abroad, as is also the case with the phrase "in a case in which an address for service has been furnished, to that address". It is a bit open and loose. Will the Minister of State have a look at this before Report Stage and tighten it up?
Absolutely. It is standard language used in respect of the serving of documents, but we will definitely look at it because I absolutely see where the Deputy is coming from.
I have come across this language in the case of other legislation where it was changed because it was deemed to be too loose.
Even though we are dealing with digital matters, we are still dealing with the language of more traditional means of communication. Nevertheless, I absolutely see where the Deputy is coming from, so we will have a look at it before Report Stage. There will be some technical amendments on Report Stage, given we are trying to tighten up the language insofar as we can. One challenge with this Bill, to be straight with the Deputy, is that this is standard language used in respect of the servicing of documents, but we will have a look at it.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 5 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 9
Amendments Nos. 2, 6 and 41 to 44, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 10, to delete line 3.
This grouping of amendments relates to the disclosure of personal data. The substantive amendments in the grouping are amendments Nos. 6 and 41 to 44, inclusive. Further to a review of the Bill as part of the consultation process mandated under Article 36.4 of the general data protection regulation, the Data Protection Commission recommended that explicit provisions be made in the Bill to permit Coimisiún na Meán and the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission to process special category personal data and Article 10 data. The commission also recommended that explicit provision be made to allow for the setting-out of suitable and specific measures as may be required for safeguarding the fundamental rights and freedoms of data subjects in respect of the processing of special category data. Special category data relates to data such as personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, sexual orientation or data concerning health, while Article 10 data comprises personal data that relates to criminal convictions and offences.
Amendment No. 6 will give effect to the recommendations of the Data Protection Commission as they relate to Coimisiún na Meán, while amendments Nos. 43 and 44 will give effect to the recommendations by the Data Protection Commission as they relate to the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission.
Amendment No. 2 is a purely editorial amendment required as a consequence of the text insertion related to amendment No. 6.
I thank Deputy O’Reilly for submitting amendments Nos. 41 and 42, which relate to amendments to section 43 (1) and (2). Section 43 (1) provides that the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission can disclose personal data to Coimisiún na Meán, the Garda Síochána and intermediary service providers. Section 43 (2) sets out the circumstances for which the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission can disclose personal data to these bodies. The list of bodies included in section 43 (1) was limited on the basis that insights as to the type and content of complaints the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission may receive in respect of Articles 30 to 32, inclusive, of the regulation are also limited at this time. Section 43 (1) (d) and (2) (d) provide that the Minister may make regulations to prescribe a body to which the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission may disclose personal data and that the Minister may make regulations setting out the circumstances under which personal data may be disclosed to the prescribed body.
Amendments Nos. 41 and 42, as proposed by Deputy O’Reilly, would have the effect of removing section 43 (1) (d) and (2) (d), respectively. The provisions of those paragraphs are necessary, however, in order that there be flexibility to allow for reforms to be made in a timely manner in circumstances where the CCPC may need to share personal data with a body other than Coimisiún na Meán, the Garda Síochána and intermediary service providers to support their implementation of Articles 30 to 32, inclusive, of the digital services regulation.
The provisions of subsections 1(d) and 2(d) of section 43 are, however, necessary in order that there is flexibility to allow for reforms to be made in a timely manner in the circumstances that the CCPC may need to share personal data with a body other than Coimisiún na Meán, the Garda Síochána and intermediary service providers, in order to support their implementation of Articles 30 to 32 of the digital services regulation. For example, it may be that the CCPC will require expert advice from other national bodies to help it in fully assessing a complaint. In order to provide assistance to the CCPC, such other bodies may require full visibility of a complaint, including any personal data included in that complaint. On this basis I cannot accept amendments Nos. 41 and 42 when we come to them in the sequence of the amendments.
I wish to discuss amendments Nos. 6, 41 and 42, which give additional powers, if that is in order.
I advise all members that we are speaking on amendments Nos. 2, 6, and 41 to 44, inclusive.
I understand the intention is not to remove any sections. I am struggling to understand scenarios in which these powers would be necessary for the Minister. Disclosing personal data is a very serious matter. Perhaps the Minister of State could outline a situation where it might happen so that I can better understand it. The disclosure of personal data to a body prescribed by the Minister gives the Minister the right to decide what is or is not proportionate and what is and is not relevant. I am not certain that putting this in primary legislation is necessary. I do not know why the Minister would need the powers through legislation to release personal information to further bodies. Perhaps if the Minister of State could give an example or we could have an engagement to tease through this.
My intention is not to obstruct this. We understand how important this is and we want to be constructive. However, it does worry me, not with regard to the Minister of State personally but another Minister might take a different view. This is very sensitive personal information. Once it is disclosed it cannot be undisclosed. We cannot unring a bell. It seems the powers are very wide ranging. I am struggling to understand when they would be absolutely necessary. We should start from the principle that powers such as these would only be used in a scenario in which they are totally and completely necessary. It is personal data. I struggle to understand what those scenarios would look like.
We will work up some cases for Deputy O'Reilly and share them with her. Unfortunately I will not be able to do so at the meeting.
No, that is not what I meant. I meant between now and Report Stage.
I absolutely accept the spirit in which Deputy O'Reilly is coming to this. I assure her we will do everything to protect personal data. There may be circumstances in which it is necessary. We will engage with Deputy O'Reilly's team on some scenarios.
I thank the Minister of State. We will deal with it when we come to it.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, 36, 37, 39, 40 and 45 to 49, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 10, line 13, to delete "section 199" and substitute "section 201".
The substantive amendment in this grouping is amendment No. 36, which seeks to insert two new sections into the Bill. These sections provide that, as set out in Articles 9 and 10 of the Digital Services Act, when an authority issues an order to act against illegal content, or an order to provide information about a recipient of the service, it must meet certain conditions, contain certain information and be transmitted to Coimisiún na Meán. Articles 9 and 10 of the Digital Services Act are concerned with orders issued by the relevant national judiciary or administrative authorities on the basis of the applicable union or national law to a provider either to act against illegal content or provide information about a recipient of the service. They do not interfere with existing procedures or requirements for seeking or issuing an order to take down illegal content or provide information. It also does not change what constitutes illegal content.
The main objectives of these articles in the Digital Services Act are to ensure consistency in orders across the EU, to give clarity to Internet service providers about such orders, to ensure that there is transparency of the actions taken to give effect to these orders, and to ensure regulators throughout the EU are informed of these orders wherever they are issued.
Orders issued by the courts are not provided for in the Bill. Court rules are being amended by the Courts Service to meet the obligations in Articles 9 and 10.
Amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, 37, 39 and 40, and 45 to 49, inclusive, are purely technical amendments that update number referencing in the Bill that is required as a consequence of the insertion of amendment No. 36. These amendments are required because the numbering relates to numbering within amendments of the Broadcasting Act 2009, as amended, and, therefore, will not automatically change as part of the editing process by the Bills Office.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 10, line 18, to delete "section 199" and substitute "section 201".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 10, line 22, to delete "section 199(2);"." and substitute "section 201(2);",".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 10, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
"(c) by the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (3):
"(3A) Where the Commission processes or discloses special categories of personal data in accordance with this section, it shall only do so where the Commission considers that the disclosure is necessary and proportionate in accordance with the Data Protection Regulation and the Act of 2018.
(3B) The Minister may make regulations prescribing suitable and specific measures for the processing of special categories of personal data under this section.
(3C) Where personal data processed by the Commission is required for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of a criminal offence, the data—
(a) may be processed for as long as it is required for such prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution, and
(b) shall be permanently deleted after it is no longer required for such prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution.",
and
(d) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (9):
"(10) In this section—
‘Act of 2018’ means the Data Protection Act 2018;
‘special categories of personal data’ has the same meaning as it has in the Act of 2018;
‘suitable and specific measures’ means measures to be taken to safeguard the fundamental rights and freedoms of data subjects in processing the personal data of those data subjects and may include measures specified in section 36(1) of the Act of 2018.".".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
Amendments Nos. 7 and 26 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 11, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:
"Amendment of section 38 of Principal Act
12. Section 38 of the Principal Act is amended—
(a) by the deletion of subsection (1),
(b) in subsection (2), by the substitution of "any decision" for "any other decision",
and
(c) in subsection (5)(a), by the substitution of "subsection (2)" for "subsection (1) or (2)".".
Amendment No. 7 is grouped with amendment No. 26, as both amendments relate to the availability of judicial review in the Broadcasting Act 2009, as amended. At present, section 38 of that Act provides that leave shall not be granted for a judicial review of a decision by Coimisiún na Mean in relation to a finding that a provider has been in contravention of the Act. This amendment removes this restriction, thus giving rise to access to the courts in a manner which is more streamlined and more in keeping with the focus placed on transparency within the digital services regulation.
Section 139ZX of the Broadcasting Act 2009, as amended, provides that a decision by Coimisiún na Mean in relation to a finding that a provider has been in contravention of the Act can be appealed, and the basis of the appeal can include any grounds that could be relied upon by a provider if it were seeking a judicial review of a decision by Coimisiún na Meán. In other words, judicial review is wrapped up in the appeals process.
Amendment No. 26 removes the provision for the inclusion of judicial review grounds in an appeal, given the proposed amendment No. 7. This amendment is based on legal advice received from the Attorney General.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 12 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
Amendments Nos. 8 to 16, inclusive, 18, 19, 23 to 25, inclusive, 50 to 58, inclusive, and 60 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 14, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"Notice of communication under Article 58(5)
17. The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 139ZJ:
"139ZJA. Where, at any time after the commencement of an investigation pursuant to a direction under section 139ZI(1), the Commission makes a communication under Article 58(5) relating to the suspected contravention which is the subject of the investigation, the Commission shall as soon as is practicable give the inquiry subject notice in writing that the communication has been made.".".
The substantive amendments in this group are amendments Nos. 8, 12 to 16, inclusive, 25, 50, 53 to 57, inclusive, and 60. Amendments Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive, 18, 19, 51, 52 and 58 are technical amendments required as a consequence of the substantive amendments.
Cross-border co-operation and joint investigations among the digital service co-ordinators of member states are important enforcement elements of the digital services regulation. The proposed substantive amendments address the procedural steps required for Coimisiún na Meán or the CCPC, as the case may be, further to a communication by the European Commission of its views or a request for review of a matter under Article 59(3) of the digital services regulation. Such views or request for review may come about in the context of cross-border co-operation activity under Article 58 of the digital services regulation, or in the context of a joint investigation under Article 60 of the digital services regulation.
The amendments are proposed to ensure compliance with Articles 58, 59 and 60 of the digital services regulation and to provide for fair procedures and transparency.
Article 58 of the digital services regulation provides that, where a digital service co-ordinator of destination or the board suspects an infringement of the digital services regulation, they may request the digital service co-ordinator of establishment to assess the matter and take necessary investigatory and enforcement measures to ensure compliance with the digital services regulation. Article 58(5) places an obligation on the digital services co-ordinator of establishment to communicate with the digital services co-ordinator of destination that sent the request and the European board as to the assessment of the suspected infringement and any investigatory or enforcement measures taken or envisaged to ensure compliance with the digital services regulation. For the purposes of fair procedures and transparency, amendment No. 8 makes provisions such that, if an investigation into a suspected infringement of the digital services regulation has been commenced and Coimisiún na Meán makes a communication under Article 58(5) in relation to this investigation, Coimisiún na Meán must notify the inquiry subject of the investigation of this communication.
Article 59(1) of the digital services regulation provides that, where the board is in disagreement with an assessment or the measures taken by a digital services co-ordinator of establishment pursuant to article 58(5) of the digital services regulation, the board may refer the matter to the European Commission. Article 59(3) of the digital services regulation provides that, if the European Commission considers that the assessment or investigatory or enforcement measures taken or envisaged by the digital services co-ordinator of establishment pursuant to Article 58(5) are insufficient, the European Commission will provide the digital services co-ordinator of establishment with its views and request the digital services co-ordinator of establishment to review the matter. The digital services co-ordinator of establishment must take these views on board and take necessary investigatory and enforcement steps to ensure compliance with the DSR.
Amendment No. 12 inserts a provision to ensure that any views of the European Commission as provided under Article 59(3) are considered in the draft report of an investigation as prepared by the authorised officer.
Amendment No. 13 adds to the existing requirements that, when an authorised officer is providing Coimisiún na Meán and the inquiry subject with his or her final report on an investigation, he or she shall also provide any views communicated by the European Commission under Article 59(3) in relation to the matter to which the report relates. This will ensure Coimisiún na Meán will be provided with all the relevant information in one package and that there is full transparency to the inquiry subject.
The European Commission may communicate to Coimisiún na Meán its views and request a matter to be reviewed under Article 59(3) at a time which is after the final report relating to this matter has already been issued by the authorised officer to Coimisiún na Meán and the inquiry subject. To address this circumstance, amendment No. 15 first provides that Coimisiún na Meán must notify the inquiry subject in writing of the European Commission views and the request. This is to provide for fair procedures and for transparency purposes. Second, amendment No. 15 makes provision such that, where Coimisiún na Meán has been requested by the European Commission under Article 59(3) to review a matter, Coimisiún na Meán may take any action necessary to ensure compliance with the DSR. This includes referring the matter back to the authorised officer to reopen the investigation if necessary.
The effect of amendment No. 25 is to ensure that, when determining the amount of any administrative financial sanction to be imposed, Coimisiún na Meán will have regard to any views communicated by the European Commission under Article 59(3) that are relevant to the amount of the sanction.
In terms of joint investigations, Article 60 of the DSR provides that the digital services co-ordinator of establishment may launch a joint investigation with the participation of one or more other digital services co-ordinators. The digital services co-ordinator of establishment must communicate its preliminary position to the other participating digital services co-ordinator, the European board and the European Commission. In the event that the European board disagrees with the preliminary position, it may refer the matter to the European Commission.
Article 59(3) of the DSR provides that, if the European Commission considers the preliminary position is based on assessment or investigatory measures that are insufficient or that enforcement measures taken or envisaged by the digital services co-ordinator of establishment are insufficient, the European Commission will provide the digital services co-ordinator of establishment with its views and request the digital services co-ordinator of establishment to review the matter. The digital services co-ordinator of establishment must take these views on board and take necessary investigatory and enforcement steps to ensure compliance with the DSR.
Amendment No. 14 has the effect of ensuring, in the case of a joint investigation led by Coimisiún na Meán, that the inquiry subject is informed before or at the time that the authorised officer issues the final report to the inquiry subject that the decision made by Coimisiún na Meán as to whether it considers the inquiry subject has committed the contravention to which the subject of the investigation relates and whether to impose a financial sanction is to be considered in the first instance as a preliminary position. The inquiry subject is also to be informed that whether the preliminary position will be adopted as the final decision is dependent on any referral for review by the European Commission and the outcome of such a review by Coimisiún na Meán, acknowledging that a review of the matter by Coimisiún na Meán could lead to the opening of a new investigation.
Amendment No. 16 has the effect of identifying a decision made by Coimisiún na Meán as being a preliminary position in the case of a joint investigation under Article 60 for which Coimisiún na Meán is the lead digital services co-ordinator. This amendment also provides that the inquiry subject to which the preliminary position relates shall be notified of the preliminary position and of any communication to the other participating digital services co-ordinators, the European board and the European Commission by Coimisiún na Meán under Article 60(2) in respect of the preliminary position. Amendment No. 16 further provides that, if the European Commission does not make a request under Article 59(3) for the matter to be reviewed, Coimisiún na Meán shall adopt the preliminary decision as its final decision for the matter. Amendment No. 16 also provides that, if the European Commission makes a request under Article 59(3) for a review of the relevant matter, following such a review Coimisiún na Meán may subsequently adopt the preliminary position as its final position, direct that a new investigation into the matter be opened or take any other action that appears necessary to ensure compliance with the digital services regulation.
The substantive amendments Nos. 50, 53 to 57, inclusive, and 60 have the same effect as the substantive amendments Nos. 8, 12 to 16, inclusive, and 25 except that they refer to procedural steps and provisions for the CCPC rather than Coimisiún na Meán.
With regard to amendment No. 19, why are these lines being removed? They relate to an inquiry subject being informed of a decision in respect of an inquiry. Why is that section to be removed? It may be that this is catered for somewhere else in the legislation. I apologise if that is the case.
We will check that. We are trying to tidy it up somewhere else. We will come back to the Deputy before the end of the meeting.
That is no problem at all. I thank the Minister of State.
This is obviously extraordinarily technical and quite complicated, as the Minister of State has just outlined. I will mention a few things. The phrase "as soon as is practicable" is mentioned more than once in the amendments. Has any consideration been given to putting in a more definitive timeline, perhaps within two, three or six months, because that term is very subjective and could mean anything? This is extremely serious for companies, businesses, platforms and so forth. Will the Minister of State give us an indication of the timeline from initial engagement to the taking of a final decision? How long will that take? Is there any merit in putting in a more definitive timescale?
Some other State agencies seem to be able to take as long as they want and delay matters continually. This is not good enough. Perhaps this is an opportunity to look – maybe not right this second, but between now and Report Stage – to see whether there is any way of applying an end date to the various steps and procedures. It would be useful if, before Report Stage, we got a flow chart outlining in graphic form exactly what happened from beginning to end. How the Minister of State has outlined it is extraordinarily complicated and difficult to follow.
We will work to provide a flow chart, although it may not be in graphic form. This is a complex matter. With other legislation in this space, there has been frustration that national co-ordinators have taken a national flag. This provision is about checks and balances to ensure that every possible point is checked.
I am reluctant to include specific timelines in primary legislation. For instance, a joint investigation would depend on the resources of a DSC in another member state. We could keep this under review through regulation, but that scenario is why we are so committed to ensuring that the Irish DSC is resourced and that investigations are done quickly, transparently and effectively. I do not want a situation to arise at speed and undermine the quality of the investigation. We are conscious of the timelines and perhaps that is a matter to consider in regulation, but I am reluctant to include them in primary legislation.
I agree with the Minister of State on that front, but we cannot have inordinate delays occurring for whatever reason. The Minister of the day could issue a communication asking about the delay and whether the process could be accelerated. We cannot do that in respect of some other regulators, and they can take as long as they like. We need to be cognisant of this issue. Even though the regulators are independent, they must still act under certain constraints when getting the job done in a reasonable time. The phrase “as soon as is practicable” is reasonable and open. Perhaps the Minister of State might consider tightening it in some shape or form.
We will take a look and see what we can do in regulation. We will try to put all of the amendment into a graphic ahead of Report Stage.
It would be helpful if a case was set out from the beginning to the end so that we could see the stages. It was only when thinking about this amendment in practical terms that it made sense to me. I could see it. I second Deputy Stanton’s call.
Yes. We will try to make it as accessible as possible. It is all about checks and balances and ensuring that the whole process is as robust as possible and that the parties involved are protected. I am conscious that this team of people are working hard, but we will try to get a guide for the committee.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 17 agreed to.
Sections 18 and 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 20, line 6, to delete “and”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 20, line 8, to delete “paragraph” where it firstly occurs and substitute “paragraphs”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 20, to delete line 14 and substitute “authority, and”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 20, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
“(g) any views communicated by the European Commission under Article 59(3).”,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 20, to delete lines 21 to 24 and substitute the following:
“ “(7A) This subsection applies, in the case of a report under this section, to—
(a) any views communicated by the European Commission under Article 59(3) in relation to the matter to which the report relates, and
(b) any views of Member State Digital Services Coordinators that Article 60(2) requires to be taken into account in relation to that matter.”,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 20, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:
“Information about decision process following joint investigation to which Article 60 applies
21. The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 139ZM:
“139ZMA. In the case of an investigation pursuant to a direction under section 139ZI(1) which is a joint investigation to which Article 60 applies, the authorised officer shall, not later than the time when he or she provides a final report in compliance with section 139ZM(6), inform the inquiry subject of the effect of section 139ZSA.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.
SECTION 23
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 21, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:
“(e) by the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (6):
“(6A) Where, after the authorised officer has complied with subsections (6) and (7) of section 139ZM, the European Commission under Article 59(3) communicates its views and requests the matter to be reviewed, the Commission—
(a) shall give the inquiry subject notice in writing of those views and the request, and
(b) may, following the review, take any action that appears to it to be necessary to ensure compliance with the Digital Services Regulation, which may include referring the matter back to the authorised officer to reopen the investigation.
(6B) Where an investigation is reopened in accordance with subsection (6A)(b), this Part applies as if references to the final report on the investigation were references to the final report on the reopened investigation, but that does not affect anything done before the reopening of the investigation.”,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
Section 24 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 22, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
“Decision following joint investigation to which Article 60 applies
25. The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 139ZS:
“139ZSA. (1) A decision under section 139ZS, where the report referred to in subsection (1) of that section relates to a joint investigation to which Article 60 applies, constitutes the preliminary position referred to in that Article, and (subject to subsections (5) to (7)) sections 139ZT, 139ZU and 139ZV do not apply in relation to the decision.
(2) As soon as is practicable after making a decision to which subsection (1) applies, the Commission shall give notice in writing of the decision to the inquiry subject.
(3) A notice under subsection (2) shall—
(a) set out the decision and the reasons for it, and
(b) state the effect of subsections (1) and (5) to (7).
(4) Where the Commission makes a communication under Article 60(2) in relation to a decision to which subsection (1) applies, the Commission shall as soon as is practicable give the inquiry subject notice in writing that the communication has been made.
(5) If in relation to a decision to which subsection (1) applies—
(a) no referral is made under Article 60(3), or
(b) following a referral, the European Commission does not make a request under Article 59(3) for the matter to be reviewed, the Commission shall adopt the decision as its final decision.
(6) If, in relation to a decision to which subsection (1) applies, the European Commission makes a request under Article 59(3) for the matter to be reviewed, the Commission may, following the review and subject to Article 59(3), do any of the following:
(a) adopt the decision as its final decision;
(b) request a person authorised under section 139ZI(2) to give a direction under subsection (1) of that section for a new investigation;
(c) take any other action that appears to the Commission to be necessary to ensure compliance with the Digital Services Regulation.
(7) Where the Commission adopts a decision to which subsection (1) applies as its final decision, sections 139ZT, 139ZU and 139ZV shall apply in relation to the decision.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 25
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 22, to delete lines 31 to 33.
This amendment would delete subsection (5A), which reads: "Subsection (5) [of the principal Act] does not apply to a decision where the suspected contravention falls within paragraph (c) of the definition of ‘contravention’ in section 139ZG." Subsection (5) pertains to the publishing of the details of a provider who has committed a contravention. Why is this amendment seeking to stop the publishing of these details in certain instances? I mainly submitted it because I wanted to find out what the scenarios are. I am happy to withdraw it. This is just for clarification.
I thank the Deputy for submitting this amendment. My reading of it is that it seeks to amend the Bill in order that Coimisiún na Meán must publish decisions about contraventions carried out by an individual as well as by providers. In the Broadcasting Act 2009, as amended, following an investigation into a contravention by a provider, Coimisiún na Meán must publish its decision with the name of the provider, the nature of the contravention, the reasons for the Coimisiún's decision and any other particulars, reports or material that it considers appropriate. In the DSA, and consequently in this Bill, it specifically provides that the powers of investigation held by Coimisiún na Meán include powers to investigate both providers and other persons acting for purposes related to their trade, craft or profession who may reasonably be aware of information relating to a suspected infringement of the regulation.
The Bill provides that decisions that are to be published by Coimisiún na Meán relate to a contravention by a provider concerning an infringement of the provisions of the DSA or to comply with interim measures or a commitment agreement. In the case of a contravention that relates to the actions of an individual – for example, if someone obstructs an authorised officer during a digital services investigation, refuses to comply with a requirement or gives false or misleading information – the obligation on Coimisiún na Meán does not apply. The reason for this is respect for private life and to protect against concerns about the publication of personal data.
The intent of the DSA is to enforce regulation of intermediary service providers. The Bill provides for publication of decisions about contraventions by providers of the DSA. We are concerned that publishing decisions about contraventions by individuals in the course of investigating those providers does not necessarily aid the Bill’s aims and may inadvertently lead to individuals being targeted for whatever reason. This is my main concern, particularly in the current online environment.
I understand. I thank the Minister of State for that clarification. It specifically relates to individuals. My language might not be spot on, but the Minister of State is speaking about people who might be tangentially involved. The entity is the specific focus.
The Minister of State is speaking about private individuals rather than individuals acting in a professional capacity. Is that the case regardless of whether they are individuals or must they only be tangentially involved?
It is our intention that the entity be the focus. We have to keep the focus on the entity. My concern is that anything else would be a distraction from that focus.
There might be an unnecessary consequence for a person through the publication of-----
That is a particular concern in this case.
Yes. That makes complete sense.
I see where the Deputy is coming from in terms of consistency, but in this case, keeping the focus on the entity is the main intent.
I thank the Minister of State for his clarification. On that basis, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 18:
In page 22, to delete lines 31 to 33.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 23, to delete lines 3 to 7.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 26
Amendments Nos. 20 to 22, inclusive, and 59 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 23, line 14, to delete “and”.
The substantial amendments in this group are amendments Nos. 22 and 59. Amendment No. 22 relates to section 139ZU of the Broadcasting Act 2009, as amended. This section provides that where Coimisiún na Meán has made a decision to impose a financial sanction on a person, the person may make a submission to it in relation to the determination of the amount of the financial sanction. Section 139ZU(3) provides that Coimisiún na Meán may subsequently request further information from that person where it considers this appropriate for the purposes of determining the amount of the financial sanction. Amendment No. 22 also has the effect of making it an offence for a person to provide information that they know to be false or misleading in their response to a request from Coimisiún na Meán for further information relating to determining the amount of financial sanction. This amendment will have the effect of deterring persons from providing false or misleading information to Coimisiún na Meán.
Amendment No. 22 provides for consistency with other sections of the Broadcasting Act 2009, as amended, which provide that it is a category 2 offence for a person to provide false or misleading information to Coimisiún na Meán. For example, further to a request for information to a person by Coimisiún na Meán after the authorised officer has issued a final report, it is a category 2 offence to knowingly provide false or misleading information to Coimisiún na Meán.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 relate to the purely editorial changes required to accommodate the insertion of amendment No. 22. Amendment No. 59 has the same effect as amendment No. 22, except that it relates to a situation where the CCPC makes a request to a person for further information for the purposes of determining the amount of a financial sanction to be imposed on the person.
Section 28 states that the fine shall not exceed €20 million and should not cause the subject to be adjudicated bankrupt or to have to cease trading. I have come across legislation where such figures go out of date fairly quickly. When doing the gambling legislation, it was 1963 we were dealing with. We put in an amendment giving the Minister of the day the power to change those by ministerial order, which is much easier than coming back with primary legislation later. It may not happen for years but if it occurred, it is easier than bringing in primary legislation. Is it something the Minister of State will give consideration to? It would mean an amendment on Report Stage.
We will reflect on that before Report Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 23, line 20, to delete “sanction.”.” and substitute “sanction.”, and”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 23, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
“(c) by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (4):
“(4) A person who—
(a) without reasonable excuse fails to comply with a request under subsection (3), or
(b) in purported compliance with a request under subsection (3), gives to the Commission information which the person knows to be false or misleading in any material respect, shall be guilty of a category 2 offence.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
Section 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 24, to delete line 32.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 24, line 33, to delete “ “turnover”,” and substitute “ “turnover”, and”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 24, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
“(v) by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (l):
“(la) any views communicated by the European Commission under Article 59(3) that are relevant to the amount of the sanction;”,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 28, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 25, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 139ZX of Principal Act
29. Section 139ZX of the Principal Act is amended—
(a) by the deletion of subsection (2),
(b) by the substitution, other than in subsection (3), of “inquiry subject” for “provider” in each place where it occurs,and
(c) in subsection (3)—
(i) by the substitution of “the application of the inquiry subject” for “the application of a provider to whom a decision under section 139ZS relates”, and
(ii) in paragraph (b), by the substitution of “the control of the inquiry subject” for “the control of the provider”.”.
I remind members that acceptance of this amendment involves the deletion of section 29.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 29 deleted.
Sections 30 to 36, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 37
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 35, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
“(3A) A recognised trade union who apply for vetted research status under Article 40(8), shall be deemed to be an application under subsection (1) pursuant to a public interest mission recognised by a Member State under Article 2(1), of Directive (EU) 2019/790.”.
I will discuss amendments Nos. 27 and 28 together, if that is in order.
Article 40.8 of the EU Digital Services Act provides for the digital services co-ordinator to grant researchers the status of vetted researchers for specific research. The criteria for being considered for approval as a vetted researcher are laid down in paragraphs (a) to (g) of that article. This amendment will ensure applications from a recognised trade union or NGO for approval as a vetted researcher will be considered.
This should be facilitated under Article 2.1 of the EU Directive 2019/790, which refers to research organisations and entities whose primary goal is to conduct scientific research or carry out educational activities involving the conduct of scientific research pursuant to a public interest mission recognised by a member state. I do not think the directive was clear enough in this regard. It might be that it is implied and that what we do here will be enough to put it on the record but it would be really unfortunate if an established NGO or trade union could be excluded on the basis of the current definitions. I am reasonably confident the intention is not to exclude; I would be surprised if the Minister of State was to say it is. He can call me cautious. It is just belt, braces and baler twine in order to be sure that the criteria do not unintentionally exclude groups there is a need to have as trusted researchers.
It is not our intention to exclude. Amendment No. 27 relates to applications from recognised trade unions for the status of vetted researchers. It is grouped with amendment No. 28, which has the same intention for applications from non-governmental organisations.
Article 40 of the DSA provides that the digital services co-ordinator can grant the status of vetted researcher to an applicant if they meet all the conditions set out in subsection 8 of that article. The first of these conditions is that the researcher or researchers must be affiliated to a research organisation as defined in Article 2.1 of the 2019 EU directive on copyright and related rights in the digital Single Market. This defines a research organisation as a university or other entity whose primary goal is to conduct scientific research or to carry out educational activities involving the conduct of scientific research, either on a not-for-profit basis or pursuant to a public interest mission recognised by a member state.
This amendment seeks to provide that a recognised trade union, or an NGO in the case of amendment No. 28, should be deemed to be an applicant under this condition, pursuant to a public interest mission. I am not sure every trade union, as envisaged by the Deputy, could be defined as a research organisation within this. While this Bill sets out the process Coimisiún na Meán must follow in relation to vetted research applications, including notification of refusal or revocation and enabling the applicant to seek review of this decision, it does not define the conditions that the researcher must meet. As the Deputy has acknowledged, these are directly effective from Article 40.8 of the DSA. Any researcher is, in our view, entitled to apply for the status of vetted researcher under subsection (1) of the new section if they meet all of conditions set out. The amendment as currently framed may go beyond those conditions.
While I cannot accept the amendment, I will engage with the Deputy after the meeting. I do not want to inadvertently exclude people who are qualified in this space, but I do not want to open it up to people who-----
We both want the same thing. I am concerned the existing definition potentially excludes trade unions. The Minister of State is right that not all trade unions carry out education and research but by far the majority do. It is certainly carried out by the umbrella body, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. My concern is there is an inadvertent potential for trade unions and NGOs to be excluded.
It is very important that people have confidence in the trusted researchers. The notion that, unintentionally or inadvertently, groups like established and respected NGOs and organised trade unions would be excluded is a worry to me. If all of the research is being done by large corporate entities, that is not going to make for balance either. There needs to be that balance. I am very happy to engage with the Minister of State on it. I can hear clearly that the intention is not to exclude people who should be included, and I get that.
I am just worried that might happen unintentionally because of the way the Bill is worded. Maybe we could go a small bit further. Perhaps my amendments go too far. That is grand. I am content to withdraw them and engage so that we can come up with some wording and assurances. We need to find that balance. It cannot always be on the well-funded corporate side. There does have to be that balance in favour of other, perhaps less corporate, organisations that are still worthy of trusted status because of the work that they do. Such work is carried out by a lot of trade unions and NGOs. Perhaps the blanket inclusion of trade unions or NGOs is too broad. Maybe there is a way to include them but tighten up the criteria slightly. I am happy to engage with the Minister of State on that. It is something I feel fairly strongly about. If we are not broad with this and if we do not have a balance of views, it is not going to work out well. It might work, but not for everybody and only for a small number, and that is not good either. This is very important. My amendments are tabled in the interest of making the Bill stronger and not to be obstructive. I would be very happy and interested in engaging with the Minister of State because I think there is huge scope within the trade union movement and NGOs - not every trade union and NGO - to have this status.
I certainly hear where the Deputy is coming from. I emphasise that I am not excluding unions or NGOS, but the success of this is predicated on an EU basis. The implementation is harmonised across all member states. We are very limited and cannot really deviate from the actual DSA, which has been passed and is in place. The requirement there is that research is a primary goal of the organisation. On the basis of that and on the basis of what is in the existing DSA, I cannot accept the amendment today. I do not want to exclude anybody, bearing in mind in our interactions we have to have some consistency across member states. Where research is a primary goal, an entity can be included. Those are the parameters of engaging with the Deputy on Report Stage. Implementation has to be harmonised and consistent. Given the role the Irish DSA will play, applicants could be applying for recognition here from any country under very different circumstances than what we might understand. I cannot accept these amendments, but I do not want to be exclusionary either within the very narrow parameters I am working.
I hear the parameters and I think there is scope to make it explicit in some way. We need to issue an invitation, almost, to entities to become trusted researchers. We want to keep it as broad as possible for relevant and appropriate stakeholders. My concern is that all of the stakeholders are very well organised. It is not that they are taking sides, but perhaps that they are organised on one side and may be not-----
The Deputy is organised on every side.
-----so much on the other. I think there is scope for us to come to an agreement on the right way to do it.
Also on the sides in this, academic universities will be included in this space. Perhaps that is where the partnerships could be tied up.
There are institutes, and one in particular comes to mind------
The use of that term can be quite problematic.
-----that are aligned to trade unions that have a research function.
There are, but I think there is scope for discussion.
I want to be very clear that I do not want to exclude anybody, but unfortunately our hands are tied in terms of consistency. Let us see what we can do in the context of the language used within the Bill.
In terms of the scope of it, the Minister of State might also bring in the likes of the development commissions that do applied research themselves. I am not sure how much statutory support they get for that. If the Minister of State is widening the discussion, it should include those commissions as well.
We are not necessarily widening it. The parameters are very tight, but I do not want to exclude anybody that has a legitimate role in this space. I am certainly open to it, within the very tight parameters of an EU Act that has already been passed and is already in legislation. I do not want to exclude anybody who has something to add in this space.
I emphasise, regarding trusted flaggers, that it is very clear how applicants qualify to be trusted flaggers. A list is published every year and their decisions and work are heavily scrutinised under the existing legislation. It is quite an onerous task.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 35, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
“(3A) An Non-Government Organisation who apply for vetted research status under Article 40(8), shall be deemed to be an application under subsection (1) pursuant to a public interest mission recognised by a Member State under Article 2(1), of Directive (EU) 2019/790.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 29, 30, 32 and 34 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 35, line 23, after “decision” to insert “and shall publish the reasons for refusal on their website”.
The grouped amendments are fairly straightforward. I think it is in the public interest to know who is applying for the status of vetted researcher and trusted flagger. It is important to know who has been approved and who has been refused. These are going to be very important roles. Because we do not really engage with trusted flaggers or vetted researchers at the moment, maybe we cannot see now how important these roles are going to become. The role of trusted flagger, in particular, is hugely important. To get an holistic picture of those who are approved, those involved in research and those flagging the content, all information on applicants for refusals and for terminations should be made public. I genuinely think there is a public interest argument in seeing who it is that is applying for this very important role, who is looking to do this work, and if they are being refused, why they are being refused. It is in the public interest that that information be shared.
I oppose the amendment because it is our view the amendment seeks to add a requirement that Coimisiún na Meán would publish the reasons, as the Deputy has outlined, for a refusal to designate a vetted researcher after that decision has been made. The Deputy's amendment is grouped with amendments Nos. 30, 32 and 34, all of which relate to a requirement that Coimisiún na Meán publish reasons for refusal, termination or revocation of a trusted flagger or vetted researcher status once the decision has been made.
Designated vetted researchers can, via the digital services co-ordinator, DSC, of establishment, access data from very large platforms and search engines. This is so that they can carry out research for the purpose of contributing to both the detection, identification and understanding of systemic risks and the assessment of the adequacy efficiency and impacts of the risk mitigation measures. Publication of the reasons for a refusal or termination of an application or designation of the status of vetted researcher concerns me because I am worried it may disincentivise people from applying in the first place to become a vetted researcher. My concern is this could lead to poor outcomes.
The objective of the DSA is to make it more likely that illegal content online will be found and taken down, and trusted flaggers are an important mechanism to achieve this. We want organisations to apply for trusted flagger status. I intend, as part of this, to draw attention to the role of the trusted flagger, but I consider that publishing on the website reasons for refusing or revoking their status could disincentivise organisations from applying for that status. Coimisiún na Meán must provide the European Commission with the details of entities to which it has awarded trusted flagger status. It must also provide information about those trusted flaggers whose status has been either suspended or revoked, and the European Commission can publish that information in a public database. For somebody who has that status and loses it, the European Commission can publish the reasons. I am concerned that the amendments may discourage organisations from applying for trusted flagger status or researchers from applying to be designated as a vetted researcher and may impede the implementation of the DSA as broadly as we want to do so.
I am not persuaded by that answer. I genuinely do not think that would act as a disincentive. I will withdraw these amendments and consider them. I will likely resubmit them on Report Stage.
I see the point the Minister of State is making but it does not strike me that that is going to be an issue. To me, the publication is about maximum transparency. It is also interesting that we would know those organisations, groups or individuals that are applying for this status and are refused. It would enable the commission or the Department to be able to see a pattern among certain groups that are constantly applying and constantly getting turned down, which would be useful information.
As I said, I may, and in all likelihood will, resubmit on Report Stage but I will withdraw now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 35, line 42, after “termination” to insert “and shall publish their reasons for termination on their website”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 31, 33 and 35 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 37, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
“(2A) The Commission shall ensure the status as a trusted flagger is not awarded to an entity which is partisan and seeks the status as a trusted flagger as means of controlling or influencing content.”
I apologise for the use of somewhat inelegant language. The word “partisan” is perhaps not the best choice.
Sensitivity was knocked out of me a long time ago.
I imagine it was. I was not really apologising to the Minister of State personally. In any case, it is probably not the most elegant word to use but I included it to reinforce the point I am trying to make. The role of the trusted flagger is massively important and it is one of the most important roles outlined in this legislation. At its core, the trusted flagger will ensure a safe, predictable and trusted online environment and report on the dissemination of illegal content online as well as reporting content which causes societal risks, such as the dissemination of misinformation, and never has it been more important that we have tools to tackle misinformation and disinformation.
These roles could potentially have an impact on freedom of expression. The role that will be conferred on the trusted flagger is an exceptionally important one. People have a constitutional right to freely express their convictions and opinions, but it is qualified under the Constitution and it can be limited in the interests of public order and morality. There is a need to ensure entities with a - I will use the word again - partisan agenda or an agenda that is intent on shaping or controlling content to suit their own agenda will not be allowed to do that and will be disqualified.
The online space should be one where people can connect freely, where ideas can be shared and where they can engage in robust debate, but it is important this is done in a way that ensures safety and guards against disinformation. We cannot have an entity one arm of which is benefiting from the dissemination of disinformation or misinformation - I suppose it is disinformation if they are doing it on purpose – and another arm of which is also applying for the status of trusted flagger. If a vested interest managed to obtain the position of trusted flagger, it could potentially be abused.
These are people who will be responsible for monitoring and flagging issues in regard to the online space. We know there is potential for massive manipulation of online media. We do not want to run the risk that somebody who might benefit from disinformation getting into the public domain would also be a trusted flagger because that person also benefits from using their trusted flagger status to alert a person who may not be of the same views. There is no point in pretending that everybody agrees, and we literally work in a place that is designed to facilitate people who do not agree in coming to some class of an agreement. The online space is no different. There will be people there who are partisan actors who have an agenda and who, if they have the status of trusted flagger, could potentially use that to silence somebody or another entity with opposing views.
I spoke on Second Stage about the concerns I had with how the commission was using the legislation to push online platforms to censor content in support of people in Palestine. I am not breaking any confidences here, and we have seen that. If the legislation is to be fair, balanced and workable, it has to be transparent. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that transparency is there.
I share the Deputy's vision around the trusted flagger. I will walk the committee through the role and the conditions. There are already conditions and a very high bar for applicants to meet, and that is combined with the very high level of transparency that is built into the DSA. We want to make sure, and we agree with the Deputy, that trusted flagger status cannot be used as a means of controlling content.
As to the bar, first, Coimisiún na Meán, as the DSC, will be required to carry out due diligence to assess every application for trusted flagger to ensure it meets the conditions set out in Article 22 of the DSA. These conditions include that it has particular expertise for detecting, identifying and notifying illegal content and that it carries out its activities for the purposes of submitting notices diligently, accurately and objectively. Under the DSA, providers must put mechanisms in place to allow all users to more easily flag illegal content online. Article 16 of the DSA requires hosting services to put in place these user-friendly notice and action mechanisms. This enables the user to notify the provider of items of information the user considers to be illegal. Trusted flaggers use the same mechanisms but will have a priority channel.
Users whose content has been modified will also have strengthened rights under the DSA. An online provider will have to provide clear and specific reasons for the removal or limitation of content considered illegal. Providers must provide users with access to an effective internal complaint handling system and the option of an out-of-court dispute resolution.
Trusted flaggers themselves will be required to publish a report at least yearly on the notices they have submitted, including information on the number of notices, type of allegedly illegal content notified, and the action taken by the provider. That report must be submitted yearly to Coimisiún na Meán.
On amendment No. 33, it is already the case that the DSC must provide the European Commission with the details of entities to which it has awarded trusted flagger status. This goes back to the previous amendment. It must also provide information about trusted flaggers whose status has been either suspended or revoked. That information has to be published on a public database. If Coimisiún na Meán has reason to suspect there is a misuse of the status, which the Deputy is concerned about, based on information from a provider or a third party, it can investigate the entity concerned. Its trusted flagger status is suspended during the investigation.
On amendment No. 35, Article 22(7) of the DSA provides that third parties can complain about trusted flaggers, so this will take direct effect. We feel it does not require an amendment to the Bill. This article states that the DSC that awarded the status of trusted flagger to an entity will revoke the status if it determines, following an investigation either on its own initiative or on the basis of information received from third parties, including the information provided by a provider of online platforms, that the entity no longer meets the conditions to be a trusted flagger. One of those conditions, as I have said previously, is that it carries out its activities for the purposes of submitting notices diligently, accurately and objectively.
We feel it is not necessary to include the amendments as proposed by the Deputy and that her concerns are captured within the Bill.
Unsurprisingly, I am not convinced that my concerns are captured within the Bill as it stands, and we will just take that as a given. I have a very serious concern about this and about the potential abuse of the trusted flagger status. Nonetheless, I welcome the wording, some of which goes some way towards assuaging that concern.
In terms of an entity that is partisan but respected, I am thinking of one in particular, but I honestly could not live with the grief if I named it, so I am not going to. Let us say we are talking about an entity with very fixed views in regard to women accessing healthcare. It uses its position as a respected entity or institute, or whatever we want to call it, to apply for trusted flagger status, to which there are no impediments given it is an educational establishment and does research and all of that.
It may then use its status as a trusted flagger in a vexatious way to frustrate the work of an organisation on the other end; for example, an organisation that thinks that women should have access to healthcare. I just do not think there are enough checks and balances in place within the legislation to ensure that cannot be done. I know of organisations and entities that are on the one hand very respected and on the other hand would be quite capable of engaging in practices to frustrate the activities of entities that may be described as their opponents, or people who hold differing views to them, politically, morally or otherwise.
My interest is in making sure the trusted flagger system works. For it to work, it cannot in any way, shape or form be seen to be partisan. I just do not think there is enough in this to ensure that. I keep using that word. There are better words, but I do not have them right now. We need to ensure that just cannot happen or, to the greatest extent possible, that it is stopped. We know there are entities that are quite capable of frustrating, being vexatious or taking vexatious complaints for the purpose of frustrating the activities of another organisation. That is what my amendments are seeking to do.
We had a previous discussion about how there is a high bar in order to be qualified as a trusted flagger. We looked at that. Trusted flaggers have to be independent of any online platform. They are obliged to be objective. They are obliged to be accurate when submitting notices. Every trusted flagger which has that status will have to publish an annual report that outlines its activities in this space. That report can be published.
The digital services co-ordinator can investigate trusted flaggers. There are checks and balances in relation to their behaviour. The trusted flagger does not have the final say regarding what content should be taken down. That is important as well. It flags content through an expedited channel.
Again, I emphasise that what can be taken down will be illegal content. There is a pretty high bar for what defines "illegal content". I absolutely understand where the Deputy is coming from, but I think we do have the checks and balances in place to try to make it as effective as possible, so that the role of the trusted flagger, which is a very important one, is transparent and their qualification criteria are quite high. Again, we are focusing on illegal content, and not on content that people may have a political difficulty with or a values difficulty with. It is a matter of illegal content.
When the Minister of State says that the digital services co-ordinator can investigate trusted flaggers, how will that be initiated? Could that be off the back of a complaint from a member of the public?
We will investigate a complaint to the digital services co-ordinator from a third party. We do not have specific criteria for who can make the complaint.
Okay. Is it the case then that a member of the public would not be precluded from doing it? Are we leaving it to the digital services co-ordinator to initiate these complaints, or can be they be prompted by a complaint?
They can be prompted by a third party, yes.
They can be prompted by a third party. That is okay. I have a feeling I will resubmit these amendments, but I will withdraw them this morning on the basis that we will have an engagement between now and then, although not necessary on this. I am not sure we will come to an agreement on it. I will withdraw the amendments in order, as appropriate, with a view to coming back on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 37, line 14, after “decision” to insert “and shall publish the decision on their website”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 37, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
“(6) The Commission shall establish a database of trusted flaggers, including aggregate details of complaints, including unsuccessful complaints, to be published publicly on a yearly basis.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 37, line 20, after “revocation” to insert “and shall publish the reason for revocation on their website”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 37, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:
“(3) The Commission shall establish a mechanism for third parties to lodge complaints regarding the actions and workings of trusted flaggers.”.
I wish to make an observation. It appears to me that earlier in the conversation we had been speaking about the resourcing that will be given to Coimisiún na Meán. As part of that, I share some of the concerns Deputy O'Reilly outlined. Some of the work that is being done in terms of the reporting standard should be looking at this issue. What resources are being given to look at the issue she outlined, namely, the potential for conflicts of interest? At the end of the day, those who control the information can control the output. That is something that will not come up here, but it needs to be looked at in terms of resourcing and in terms of looking at the activities of the commission once it is properly established.
Yes, 100%. We are very committed to the resourcing side of it. The Deputy makes a very good point, which I will bring to the attention of our digital services co-ordinator. It is all very well to get people in this space, but they must be in it for the best of reasons.
Can I be cheeky, a Chathaoirligh? It might be worthwhile for the committee, as part of its programme of work, to have an engagement with John Evans, who is the digital services co-ordinator, about his role and his resourcing. Obviously, he will be busy in these coming weeks, but it would be worthwhile to do that to get an understanding of how this will work practically.
I was going to suggest that.
It is cheeky to suggest the work of the committee.
No, it is a very useful suggestion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 41, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
“CHAPTER 3
Miscellaneous
Orders to act against illegal content
198. (1) Where an authority in the State issues an order to act against one or more specific items of illegal content under Article 9(1), the authority shall ensure that the order meets the conditions specified in Article 9(2).
(2) Any order issued in the State under Article 9 shall be transmitted to the Commission by the authority who issues it, and such transmission shall include any information received from an intermediary service provider of the effect given to the order under Article 9(1).
Orders to provide information
199. (1) Where an authority in the State issues an order to provide specific information under Article 10(1), the authority shall ensure that the order meets the conditions specified in Article 10(2).
(2) Any order issued in the State under Article 10 shall be transmitted to the Commission by the authority who issues it, and such transmission shall include any information received from an intermediary service provider of the effect given to the order under Article 10(1).”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 41, line 21, to delete “198” and substitute “200”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 41, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
“(3) The Commission shall ensure that fees for different classes of application or review request are not prohibitive.”.
Again, this is in relation to the trusted flagger. It is fairly straightforward. It asks that: "The Commission shall ensure that fees for different classes of application or review request are not prohibitive." There is no point in having all the justice in the world if you cannot write the cheque to access it. It seeks to keep the fees low because nobody wants to see a situation where people have the ability, competence, enthusiasm and all the rest of it to be a vetted researcher or trusted flagger, but the cost is prohibitive so that only a select few can actually gain those positions. Personally, I feel it is important that any fees that are charged should be just enough to cover administrative costs. Something along those lines could be included. I have a concern in relation to smaller organisations. There needs to be a multiplicity of voices in relation to trusted flaggers and trusted researchers. Again, there are entities, agencies, institutes and whatever they want to call themselves that fulfil all the criteria, have the education, do the research, etc. Equally, there are people who, on the face of it, would be entitled to trusted flagger status. We really do not want a situation where the costs for whatever reason spiral out of control and serve as a barrier. Obviously, there are enough barriers in terms of the criteria. They are really high, as I think they should be. It is not a job one would take lightly, and it should not be one. You therefore have to fulfil all the criteria and tick all of those boxes, and that is really important. However, if you do that, you may then come up against a barrier where the organisation cannot afford the application, simply because many NGOs operate on a shoestring budget. If the fees are too high, then they just will not be able to participate. In order to keep the field as wide as possible and to encourage as many people who fulfil the rigid criteria - which are entirely appropriate - there should be some mechanism in place to keep the fees at a level that is not prohibitive.
I can assure the Deputy that there is zero intention to have astronomical fees in this space. The commission has set nominal fees that will just cover the costs of applications. These are just to cover the costs of applications and review requests. There is no intention for that fee to be profit-generating. The fee-making power is there and is consistent with all legislation. The intent of the legislation is for the commission to act fairly in the setting of those fees. Again, they are accountable to the Oireachtas in terms of their activity. There is a way of holding them to account.
I am absolutely confident that there will be no profiteering with regard to the fees. The fees will be very normal in terms of costs.
There would not be a massive profit in it for Coimisiún na Meán or anybody else but it still might act as a disincentive. We spoke earlier about the publication of names online in terms of people who were denied trusted flagger or trusted researcher status. This is the same thing. The Minister of State spoke about the need for there not to be disincentives. High fees would act as a disincentive, and I wonder if the Minister of State would consider an amendment - maybe not my amendment but an amendment in that space - to link it to the administrative costs, or to ensure that it is very explicit. For this in particular, there needs to be a wide range of trusted flaggers. If they are all coming from the well-heeled end of the market that is not going to be good. In order to ensure that one gets full buy-in from NGOs, or other organisations that may not have deep pockets but which still want to be part of the process, and are necessary as part of the process and have a lot to contribute to it, would the Minister of State consider including a reference to a mechanism to keep the fees low in a more explicit way, just to ensure the costs are covered? I know that nobody is seeking to make a profit but, even without making a massive profit, one could still have the fees set at a level that would act as a disincentive. Nobody wants that. We want to keep the field as broad as possible, so I wonder if the Minister of State would give consideration - perhaps not in the way I have phrased it - to setting the fees at a reasonable level, and keep them as low as is practicable.
It may not be something we can do in legislation but definitely in the context of the regulations we will look at it. The regulations, as we discussed at the outset, are a little bit more flexible. We can send messages and send signals. I am sending a signal today to Coimisiún na Meán. I want this process to be accessible. The language with regard to fee-setting powers is consistent across all legislation but with regard to specific regulations, we will look at it and see.
I will withdraw the amendment on that basis. I thank the Chair.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 41, line 27, to delete “199” and substitute “201”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 42, line 34, to delete “200” and substitute “202”.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 37, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Page 41, section 199(2) states, "The Commission shall carry out an initial assessment of the complaint made under subsection (1) and, having done so, may transmit the complaint". How does the commission make a decision on whether to transmit the complaint to the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, the Digital Services Coordinator or the European Commission? I know if it does not, there are other actions it can take but how does it make that decision? The Minister of State might send a note to me on that later.
Yes. I will get the Deputy a note on that later in the week, definitely.
I thank the Minister of State.
I might discuss this with the Deputy afterwards to get the specific-----
Sure. It is on page 41. I do not want to delay matters.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 38 to 42, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 43
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 46, to delete line 31.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 47, to delete lines 10 to 12.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 47, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
“(4) Where the Commission processes or discloses special categories of personal data in accordance with this section, it shall only do so where the Commission considers that the disclosure is necessary and proportionate in accordance with the Data Protection Regulation and the Act of 2018.
(5) The Minister may prescribe suitable and specific measures for the processing of special categories of personal data under this section.
(6) Where personal data processed by the Commission is required for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of a criminal offence, the data—
(a) may be processed for as long as it is required for such prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution, and
(b) shall be permanently deleted after it is no longer required for such prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 48, to delete lines 7 to 11 and substitute the following:
“(9) In this section—
“Act of 2018” means the Data Protection Act 2018;
“personal data” has the same meaning as it has in Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation); “special categories of personal data” has the same meaning as it has in the Act of 2018;
“suitable and specific measures” means measures to be taken to safeguard the fundamental rights and freedoms of data subjects in processing the personal data of those data subjects and may include measures specified in section 36(1) of the Act of 2018.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 43, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 44
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 48, line 14, to delete “section 199(2)” and substitute “section 201(2)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 48, line 17, to delete “section 199(1)” and substitute “section 201(1)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 48, line 31, to delete “section 199(1)” and substitute “section 201(1)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 48, line 32, to delete “section 199(2)” and substitute “section 201(2)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 49, line 2, to delete “199(1)” and substitute “201(1)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 44, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 45
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 49, after line 37, to insert the following:
“(7) Where, at any time after the commencement of an investigation pursuant to a direction under subsection (1), Coimisiún na Meán makes a communication under Article 58(5) relating to the suspected contravention which is the subject of the investigation, the Commission shall as soon as is practicable give the inquiry subject notice in writing that the communication has been made.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 45, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 46 to 50, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 51
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 54, line 10, to delete “and”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 54, line 14, to delete “authority.” and substitute “authority, and”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 54, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
“(f) any views communicated by the European Commission under Article 59(3).”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 55, to delete lines 1 to 4 and substitute the following:
“(8) This subsection applies, in the case of a report under this section, to—
(a) any views communicated by the European Commission under Article 59(3) in relation to the matter to which the report relates, and
(b) any views of Member State Digital Services Coordinators that Article 60(2) requires to be taken into account in relation to that matter.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 51, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I have one small query about the authorised officers. I take it they will have identification and so on, and that there is a laid-down identification badge or warrant they will carry.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 55, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:
“Information about decision process following joint investigation to which Article 60 applies
52. In the case of an investigation pursuant to a direction under section 45(1) which is a joint investigation to which Article 60 applies, the authorised officer shall, not later than the time when he or she provides a final report in compliance with section 51(6), inform the inquiry subject of the effect of section 58.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 52 to 55, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 56
I move amendment No. 56:
In page 57, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
“(7) Where, after the authorised officer has complied with subsections (6) and (7) of section 51, the European Commission under Article 59(3) communicates its views and requests the matter to be reviewed, the Commission—
(a) shall give the inquiry subject notice in writing of those views and the request, and
(b) may, following the review, take any action that appears to it to be necessary to ensure compliance with the Digital Services Regulation, which may include referring the matter back to the authorised officer to reopen the investigation.
(8) Where an investigation is reopened in accordance with subsection (7)(b), this Part applies as if references to the final report on the investigation were references to the final report on the reopened investigation, but that does not affect anything done before the reopening of the investigation.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 56, as amended, agreed to.
Section 57 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 58, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
“Decision following joint investigation to which Article 60 applies
58. (1) A decision under section 57, where the report referred to in subsection (1) of that section relates to a joint investigation to which Article 60 applies, constitutes the preliminary position referred to in that Article, and (subject to subsections (5) to (7)) sections 59, 60 and 61 do not apply in relation to the decision.
(2) As soon as is practicable after making a decision to which subsection (1) applies, the Commission shall give notice in writing of the decision to the inquiry subject.
(3) A notice under subsection (2) shall—
(a) set out the decision and the reasons for it, and
(b) state the effect of subsections (1) and (5) to (7).
(4) Where Coimisiún na Meán makes a communication under Article 60(2) in relation to a decision to which subsection (1) applies, the Commission shall as soon as is practicable give the inquiry subject notice in writing that the communication has been made.
(5) If in relation to a decision to which subsection (1) applies—
(a) no referral is made under Article 60(3), or
(b) following a referral, the European Commission does not make a request under Article 59(3) for the matter to be reviewed,
the Commission shall adopt the decision as its final decision.
(6) If, in relation to a decision to which subsection (1) applies, the European Commission makes a request under Article 59(3) for the matter to be reviewed, the Commission may, following the review and subject to Article 59(3), do any of the following:
(a) adopt the decision as its final decision;
(b) request a person authorised under section 45(2) to give a direction under subsection (1) of that section for a new investigation;
(c) take any other action that appears to the Commission to be necessary to ensure compliance with the Digital Services Regulation.
(7) Where the Commission adopts a decision to which subsection (1) applies as its final decision, sections 59, 60 and 61 shall apply in relation to the decision.”.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 58
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 59, to delete lines 24 to 27.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 58, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 59
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 60, to delete lines 18 and 19 and substitute the following:
“(4) A person who—
(a) without reasonable excuse fails to comply with a request under subsection (3), or
(b) in purported compliance with a request under subsection (3), gives to the Commission information which the person knows to be false or misleading in any material respect,
shall be guilty of a category 2 offence.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 59, as amended, agreed to.
Section 60 agreed to.
SECTION 61
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 62, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
“(m) any views communicated by the European Commission under Article 59(3) that are relevant to the amount of the sanction;”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 61, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 62 to 78, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Before we conclude, I wish to formally advise the committee of my intention to bring forward further amendments on Report Stage. The amendments are necessary to correct a small number of cross-references in the Bill, where one section of the Bill cites another section. They are basically typographical and they do not impact on the policy or principles of the legislation. However, the Bills Office has advised us that because there is a change to the text that has been present since the Bill was published, the changes can only be effected by way of amendments.
I thank the four officials who are here with me, who spent their Christmas with the Digital Services Bill and will spend another part of the new year with it. They have put in extraordinary work. I thank the Chair, the secretariat and the committee for the engagement this morning.
Do we have an idea of where the various platform companies that will be regulated by this stand in regard to meeting their compliance requirements? Has any provisional assessment been done? How challenging will it be on the day that this all comes into place to reconcile the new obligations?
I do not know. I know there is engagement with the platforms and that might be something worth pursuing with John Evans, were he to come to the committee. There is definitely engagement. As I said, we have already initiated part of the DSA with some of the platforms, and part of their responsibilities on the DSA was initiated on the night of the riots in Dublin. We will try to get some sort of an overview for the Deputy from Coimisiún na Meán.
I thank the Minister of State and his officials for attending today's meeting and I look forward to the Bill being enacted and implemented as soon as possible.
