I know. I am not asking for a comprehensive response. I will signal for the record that it is a very worrying pattern. I accept what the Minister of State said and outlined. I appreciate it and look forward to engaging further on the details of the process. I note that in the required report on complaints and flags received, and how many there are, which is outlined in the Bill, I am a little worried that in the reports we will get from platforms, we may not get the qualitative information around that same thing I …

I move amendment No. 29: In page 40, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: “(6) An Coimisiún shall systematically review notices submitted by all trusted flaggers in order to detect targeted, malicious, vexatious, or bad faith submissions, and to identify trusted flaggers whose status should be considered for revocation.”.

I move amendment No. 30: In page 40, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: "(6) An Coimisiún may initiate a review of the status of any trusted flagger either— (a) on An Coimisiún’s own initiative, or (b) based on information received by An Coimisiún from third parties.".

I move amendment No. 33: In page 41, line 1, to delete “14 days” and substitute “28 days”.

I move amendment No. 34: In page 43, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following: "(1A) The Commission may initiate an investigation under this section either— (a) on the Commission’s own initiative, or (b) based on information received by the Commission from third parties.".

It is important that they would not be prohibitive. As I say, I believe there are a number of NGOs. NGOs are carefully and strictly monitored in terms of the charities regulation, etc. I do not have the same concern in relation to participation. Having worked in the past for a very small NGO where I had a budget of €17,000 a year, even what seemed like small fees for others would have been a very significant fee for me in that context. I had approximately €3,000 of flexible funding within it. Everything was strictl…

I move amendment No. 36: In page 45, line 8, after "provider" to insert "or providers". I ask the Acting Chairperson, Senator Maria Byrne, to bear with me for a moment as I have misplaced some of my notes. I can speak to it in any case. Perhaps this amendment is not necessary. The Minister of State can assure me in relation to it. It was simply to ensure that where the complaints process is relating to persons - plural - we will not make it onerous. It is around avoiding obstacles to a complainant if there has been…

No. I have the amendments. I had my speaking notes in relation to this issue but I do not need them. It is fine. Effectively, where persons are making a complaint, there are three forms of intermediary service. The pure conduit, I think, is one of them. There is a number of different ones. A situation which has arisen may require a complaint against both the conduit and another form of platform so that there are multiple intermediary service providers involved in the complaint. What I wanted to ensure is that we di…

To clarify, the issue is not the issue of multiple complaints; rather the idea is that there can be a single complaint that involves multiple parties, that is, a person can make a complaint that covers more than one intermediary service provider. There is the capacity to make a million complaints or multiple complaints. However, the question is in order to ensure its efficiency, to ensure that a single complaint, where appropriate, can address more than one intermediary service provider. That can perhaps be tackled…

I move amendment No. 37: In page 48, line 24, to delete “, as far as practicable,”. With regard to amendment No. 37, I am concerned about the language “as far as practicable” in this context. These are important amendments. If Members will bear with me for a moment, I have some detailed notes on them. Fundamentally, these address the issue that was highlighted on the danger of a lack of clarity in the Bill around precedence and the dynamics between Coimisiún na Meán and the CCPC. Currently, the way it is framed see…

I understand the Minister of State's messaging and concern in relation to the question of the establishment of precedence. It is something that he feels would cross over between these two independent entities. He has asserted that from his perspective at least, there is a very clear separation of functions in the implementation of the Act. However, I believe that in that context, it should be possible for the phrase "as far as is practicable" to be removed. If it is very clear which articles the CCPC has competency…

Yes.

I move amendment No. 38: In page 48, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following: “(b) setting out rules regarding the precedence of the decisions of An Coimisiún na Meán over the decisions of the Commission in the event of disagreement over decisions made or other steps taken by the Commission and Coimisiún na Meán in so far as any part of those decisions or steps relates to the Digital Services Regulation,”.

I move amendment No. 39: In page 49, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following: “(4) Where inconsistencies occur between decisions made or other steps taken by the Commission and Coimisiún na Meán in so far as any part of those decisions or steps relates to the Digital Services Regulation, the decisions of An Coimisiún na Meán shall be deemed to take precedence.”.

I move amendment No. 40: In page 49, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following: “Report on inconsistencies in decisions of An Coimisiún and the Commission 46. (1) The Minister shall, within two years of the passing of this Act and biennially thereafter, conduct a review of the operation of cooperation agreements under section 45 , with particular regard to any inconsistencies identified between decisions made or other steps taken by the Commission and Coimisiún na Meán in so far as any part of those decision…

I move amendment No. 41: In page 50, line 39, to delete “may” and substitute “shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act,” This amendment relates to the powers that sit with the Minister of the day in the context of the processing of special categories of personal data. The GDPR recognises that there are categories of sensitive personal data in respect of which suitable and specific measures or additional safeguards may be needed. The Bill states that the Minister may prescribe suitable and specific measure…

I accept that the intention is there in terms of the operations. It is going back to the same issues we flagged earlier, such as proxy markers and how sensitive information might be used. I am thinking here of biometric data. The State has not always had a great record in processing this. The State has fallen short in the handling of special and sensitive personal data in the past. Unfortunately, I have to say that at times the DPC has not been as robust as we would like and I will come to that in some of my later …

I move amendment No. 42: In page 50, line 40, after “section” to insert “, and may prescribe further suitable and specific measures from time to time”.

I move amendment No. 43: In page 57, line 6, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.

I move amendment No. 44: In page 62, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following: “(c) any previous decisions by other Member State competent authorities in respect of similar or comparable investigations,”. Is this a stand-alone amendment or is it grouped?