Mr. Ronan Lupton:

I am a senior counsel, based at the Law Library in Dublin. I have been nominated by the chair and CEO of the Bar of Ireland to attend today's joint committee hearing to assist the committee's deliberations on this fascinating area.

None of the remarks made by Professor O'Hare in his introduction came as a surprise to me, given my background. My career has spanned approximately 25 years and has included a lot of input and work in the telecom and Internet space. I listened with interest to the professor's timeline, going back to the 1960s and 1970s. AI has been around for some time but at the moment, we are moving to a sphere and environment at extreme pace. That is a key challenge.

To pick up from where Professor O'Hare left off, the key challenge is to keep pace with the technology and where it is going. My practice focuses on the areas of commercial, competition, chancery, media and regulatory law. I am a member of the recently founded Media, Internet and Data Protection Bar Association. I have taught criminal and constitutional law at a professional level and currently do so part time at UCD. With a second hat on, I chair the Association of Licensed Telecommunications Operators, ALTO, as some of the committee members will know. I have had questions from Deputy Bruton at previous committee meetings over the years.

The Bar of Ireland engaged me and a number of colleagues to write the draft submission on the issue of the AI liability directive consultation for the Department late last year. As a result, I was nominated to address the committee today. While I have not been invited to make a written submission to the joint committee on any particular legislation or framework at this time, this is a timely period, with the passing of the AI Act, as previously mentioned, on 14 June. In the US, the Biden and Harris Administration is now looking at AI-related issues. I understand the Administration is consulting on the topic at the moment.

I intend to address three areas in my evidence and contributions to the committee today. Those areas are the issues of AI and legal and employment rights arising in the workplace; strategic concerns, insofar as the committee may have questions on those related issues, considering AI technology and the future; and any observations on employment and employment rights evident in the AI Act as passed by the European Parliament. I will make some observations in that regard. The Act is set in a fashion which seeks to foster employment and protect the rights of workers and so forth. That is an important set of part of the amendments and the existing drafting within the AI Act. The general data protection regulation, GDPR, and compliance with GDPR norms, feature throughout the Act. A fairly significant contributor to the AI debate in Ireland said that the AI Act is like the GDPR on steroids. I would not necessarily agree. GDPR rights are found under Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and within the GDPR itself. In Ireland, those rights are found under the Data Protection Act, as passed. Those rights are rights of citizens in any event and what can be overlaid in relation to technology does not change those rights at all. In other words, when we are dealing with legislating for the future in terms of employment rights, and employer rights and obligations, there are no changes to what the GDPR says and does. One of the most interesting features of the Act, as passed, relates to the issue of a prohibition on biometric technology, specifically real-time biometric screening and scanning. The committee may have questions in that regard, which I will take.

Given that there has not been a particular request for written submissions and we are not looking at pre-legislative matters at the moment, I cannot attribute much of my evidence to the Bar of Ireland but I will delimit if I am answering on my own behalf.

I appreciate being asked to come before the committee and hope I will be able to address any questions the committee has.