Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Sure, but the Department was working with the legislation. The legislation we got contains a set of provisions that have merit. However, the Commission is arguing that they are too strong. I know Mr. Ryan cannot confirm this but I will say it anyway. Clearly, the Attorney General's advice when we got the amendments was that they were fine, but then the Commission interjected and said "No". What I am asking is, at that point, after the reasoned opinion was issued by the Commission, if subsequent legal advice was sought by Government to contest or validate the Commission's view that the e-commerce directive was relevant? I accept that it is paid advertising, but it is paid in the context of elections. Everybody would accept that elections hey are in a very different sphere of regulatory responsibility from the general economy. My worry is that the power of big tech in lobbying the European Parliament and the European Commission is far greater than the power here. They did come before the committee and gave us their views, but there was a fair amount of consensus that we wanted the strongest possible regulation. In fact, many of us were disappointed that what was being put in front of us was weak. It was a decent start. My worry is we have a directive that might not be the most appropriate legal avenue for the Commission to water down what were originally Government proposals.

I have another concern. Obviously, the EU provides a floor of regulation. Was legal opinion sought to discover whether, as long as the Government did not go below that floor but sought to go above it and have even stronger regulations, in the context of elections, that would be permitted legally? These are very important legal questions.