Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 1, 2, and 4 to 8, inclusive, are related and will be taken together.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, line 14, to delete "person" and substitute "online service, intermediary service provider and/or hosting service provider".

The amendments in this group are submitted to ensure and get confirmation that levies cannot be levied on an individual. I am disposed to supporting this legislation, but I am reserving my position depending on the explanation from the Minister of State in relation to aspects of this and the consideration of my party's amendments. I submitted these amendments to seek clarity in this regard. I wish to get confirmation from the Government that levies will only be collected from intermediary services and hosting services in order to fund the regulatory work of Coimisiún na Meán and the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, CCPC. The wording in the legislation seems to indicate that levies could potentially be passed on to the individual. I ask the Minister of State to confirm that this will not be the case. If he cannot do so, I will press these amendments and will be left me in a position whereby I will not be able to support the legislation.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy O'Reilly for her amendments. The Deputy is the only party to engage with amendments on the Bill.

I oppose the amendments. I understand the intention behind them. However, the reference to "person" as a legal term is defined in the Interpretation Act 2005, which provides certain general rules of the interpretation of a particular word. In Part 4 of that Act, entitled "Meaning and Construction of Words and Expressions, it provides that:

"Person" shall be read as importing a body corporate (whether a corporation aggregate or a corporation sole) and an unincorporated body of persons, as well as an individual, and the subsequent use of any pronoun in place of a further use of "person" shall be read accordingly ...

Therefore, it is the case that an intermediary service provider, ISP, or hosting service provider may be a person and that person might also be an individual. If an intermediary service provider was an individual, this amendment would mean, inadvertently, that they would not be subject to the levy and the cost of the levy would have to be borne by other providers or, potentially, the Exchequer, which would not be a fair outcome and could be open to an unintended consequence whereby service providers could avoid the levy.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There were a lot of words there. Am I right when I say that the individual, in other words, the person as referred to, is an entity but that entity could only be one person? Does the Minister of State see where I am coming from in terms of an individual?

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a small amount of ambiguity in the wording and that was the reason for the amendments. It was as much to prompt the debate as anything else. If the Minister of State is saying that where there is an individual involved, he or she is regarded as an entity. That makes sense. If that is the clarification, I am happy to accept that.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is the legislation, as read. I think the Deputy is trying to make sure that ISPs do not use an individual to avoid-----

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy's amendment could allow them to do that inadvertently.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Inadvertently. I understand, but that was not the intention of it.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 3 and 9 are related and will be discussed together.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:

"(5) Nothing in this Act shall allow for the collection of levies for any reason other than funding the regulatory work of the Commission and the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission.".

The amendments in this grouping have been submitted to seek clarity that levies can only be used to fund the regulatory work of Coimisiún na Meán and the CCPC. We do not want to see a situation where, though the backdoor, levies would be used to fund other work of the Commission and the CCPC, which work should be funded by Government. I am seeking confirmation that this is not the case and that it will only be for the purpose of regulation that levies will be applied to hosting services and to intermediary services.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy O'Reilly. In opposing amendment No. 3, I want to give the Deputy some background. The levy is designed to be cost-recovery in nature and is not revenue generating. It is to recover the costs incurred for the activities undertaken by Coimisiún na Meán and the CCPC in their work in forcing the digital services regulation or the terrorist content online regulation.

The Bill states that the coimisiún must seek to ensure that the amount of the levy is sufficient to meet its expenses, properly incurred. There is also a provision that any surplus of income, over those expenses properly incurred, must either be refunded proportionately to the providers or retained to be offset against subsequent levy obligations. It thus sets out that Coimisiún na Meán or the CCPC, when calculating the amount of the levy, should consider their expenses in that period related to performing functions in respect of the regulated entities.

If we look at the CCPC, for example, the Bill amends the Digital Services Act 2024, which in section 44 designates the CCPC as a competent authority for Articles 30 to 32 of the EU digital services regulation. The Bill now explicitly states that the levy will meet the CCPC's expenses incurred relating to the performance of its functions as the competent authority designated under section 44 of the Digital Services Act. The levy cannot be collected for any reason other than funding the work of the CCPC or Coimisiún na Meán in relation to its activities as a designated regulator of those providers. Additionally, section 21(5) of the existing Act, and this is mirrored for the CCPC, provides explicitly for cost apportionment, such that the levy on the distinct providers of services should be proportionate to the expenses associated with functions relating to those providers of the services.

In that context, and I hope that gives the Deputy the clarification, I do not believe the amendments proposed are necessary to ensure that the levy collected from those regulated entities is for any other reason than funding the enforcement activities of an coimisiún or the CCPC in respect of their specific competence under the Digital Services Act 2024.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the clarification. I thank the Minister for that. He sees the purpose of the amendments. This levy should not be a revenue generator in that way. Funds should be ring-fenced for the express work of the regulation and applied only to the hosting and intermediary services. I thank the Minister for that clarification.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 7, line 5, to delete “person” and substitute “online service, intermediary service provider and/or hosting service provider”.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 7, line 6, to delete “person” and substitute “online service, intermediary service provider and/or hosting service provider”.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 7, line 8, to delete “A person” and substitute “An online service, intermediary service provider and/or hosting service provider”.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 7, line 10, to delete “his or her” and substitute “their”.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 7, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following: “(5) Nothing in this Act shall allow for the collection of levies from an individual.”.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 7, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following: “(5) Nothing in this Act shall allow for the collection of levies for any reason other than funding the regulatory work of the Commission and the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission.”.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank you all very much. You are most efficient.