Mr. Declan McLoughlin:

As soon as possible is the obvious one, but if we are looking at a European-wide process, as the Deputy knows, that can be very consultative and very detailed. I know the European Commission is actively addressing it. As Karen said, there is also an international group. The commission is also a member of the Global Online Safety Regulators Network with which we are engaging. It is, therefore, a very active issue. It is something on which people are very focused. It is difficult to give a timeline, however, because we are dealing with finding the right technological solution that guarantees privacy, which is hugely important because age verification raises a range of different issues, but also that it will be effective and, very importantly, is something people will trust. We had that from some of our submissions to the draft code. There were a lot of concerns about the potential risks around age verification processes and risks to privacy but also just risks to people's freedom to engage privately on the Internet and on websites and the like. There are, therefore, many thorny issues. It would be very difficult to give an absolute definition or timeframe.

One additional point probably does not directly address the Deputy's question about prosecutions, which is a real challenge and has been a challenge in the courts themselves for individuals trying to vindicate their rights. The online safety code once it comes into place will have in place content and reporting mechanisms. Even if someone does not know who the provider of the potentially harmful content is, he or she can still flag and report the content as illegal and harmful and then the video sharing platform service has an obligation to react to that flagging and also provide a response to what it did to address the concerns around the content, whether agreeing that it is problematic and taking steps or saying it is not problematic and giving the person an answer. There are real issues with prosecution. However, in terms of our focus on limiting harms insofar as it is humanly practical, the content flagging system and reporting system is a mechanism. Then, we have gotten requests for them to report on how effective it is. We have an obligation to assess the effectiveness of any of the mechanisms, and, if things are ineffective and there are bad faith actors not meaningfully engaging in their obligations under the code, then we have the significant sanctions Ms Hodnett talked about earlier. There is a suite of different elements in there. Prosecution is a real challenge. It has been a challenge for a while. I am not sure the commission on its own will be able to solve that problem, but we absolutely agree that it is something that does need to be dealt with in a way that addresses the rights of people who are impacted, but also the right to free speech and to engage privately online.