Shane Cassells (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Like Senator Byrne, I thank the Minister and her officials for the engagement pertaining to the amendment and, indeed, all the work that has been to finesse this and get it to a point where we can see real progress. As Senator Byrne outlined, the essence of the amendment relates to trying to find a balance as to what is going to be taken as strength. I have consistently made the point that when we had engagement at committee and off site, there was not that level of respect from companies in general in this sphere towards the State and its laws. There was a sop. There was not due regard. Senator Byrne is correct.

I refer to the findings this week of Helen Dixon, the Data Protection Commissioner, in respect of breaches by Meta in the context of Instagram and the money, totalling some three quarters of a billion euro, that was being put aside to deal with these potential breaches. That is the kind of money these companies can put aside to deal with breaches. Indeed, they can add to that. We are dealing with companies such as the one that has revenue in excess of €40 billion in this country, a rise of €6 billion on the previous trading year, and can put aside three quarters of a billion euro to deal with breaches.

When Frances Haugen, a whistleblower, appeared before the Oireachtas committee in February, she outlined to us that it was made clear, and actually reported to company directors, that the algorithms devised in the context of several elections across Europe were driving aggression and hate. The algorithms were driving engagement and, hence, revenue, so nothing was done. That was the point. The issue was outlined and the company was made aware of it but no action was taken. Why was no action taken? Because the net result was an increase in engagement on the platform and, hence, an increase in awareness for the advertising platforms and an increase in revenue. Our own data regulator is pointing out the transgressions, with breaches in terms of the processing of the data of children in the context of the operation by children of business accounts and so forth. We are well aware of the breaches that exist at present. I praise the Data Protection Commissioner and those others who are currently charged with dealing with this issue. I am sure the Minister will do likewise. The companies do not care, however. As I stated, it is a business cost. If a company has revenue of €40.6 billion and can put aside three quarters of a billion euro to deal with the fines this State may lay down, where is the sense of fear?

When this amendment was tabled several weeks ago, however, by God, there was fear. I refer to the reaction in terms of letters that were written and the furore that was created. There was an attempt to portray the State as not being a friendly and welcoming place for these companies. The threat we have seen companies make previously was rolled out. It is nearly a case that if we do not worship at the companies' altar, they will be gone. They will find somewhere else.

The protection of the citizens of this State and their rights is what is at play here. It goes back to the earlier amendments we tabled in the context of the right to privacy not being superseded by anything else. It is a very important point of debate in the context of how we value the protection of people in this country and what level of protection we are going to introduce. As I stated, the fines for breaches may seem eye-watering to us, but if a company can put aside three quarters of a billion euro to deal with such fines, that is a different ball game altogether.

When we engaged with the eSafety Commissioner in Australia, she outlined clearly to us that by laying down the law from the outset in a strong and meaningful way, the level of engagement from these companies was fulsome. They knew she meant business and that it was in their interests to play ball from the outset rather than being found in breach.

The reaction that has emanated since the amendment was tabled is quite interesting. We have very strong legislation as things stand. The amendment would strengthen it further. I hope we can work collectively and positively with the Minister in respect of this amendment.