Mark Duffy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State is welcome to the House.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Cathaoirleach and colleagues for their attendance here this evening. I am very pleased to bring this Bill before the House today. The purpose of the Bill is to bring full effect in Ireland to EU Regulation 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council, that is, the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act, which I will refer to throughout as the AI Act.

As with all EU regulations, the AI Act has direct legal effect across all 27 member states. It aims to harmonise rules for AI systems across the EU, creating a single market and ensuring a consistent approach to risk, safety and fundamental rights. With those aims in mind, this Bill is a technical implementing measure. It does not add to, nor alter, the obligations placed on regulated entities by the AI Act. This Bill establishes essential domestic regulatory architecture for the supervision and enforcement of the AI Act in the State. In particular, the Bill does three things: it establishes a national AI office here in Ireland; empowers our competent authorities to supervise the regulation of Al; and creates a robust administrative sanctions framework for enforcement.

Artificial intelligence is one of the defining technologies of our time. It is already delivering real benefits across medicine, public services and, of course, the wider economy. Our national digital and AI strategy, Digital Ireland: Connecting our People, Securing our Future, sets out Ireland's ambition to be a global hub for applied AI innovation. However, AI also carries real risk. Without appropriate oversight, it can embed and amplify discrimination, manipulate behaviour or worse, exploit the vulnerabilities of people, posing threats to the health, safety and fundamental rights of our citizens.

The AI Act, which entered into force in August 2024, is the first ever legal framework designed to address these concerns while simultaneously fostering innovation of responsible and ethical Al. There are five main pillars to the AI Act, which set out obligations across a number of categories and uses of AI systems and models and, crucially, mandate member states to put in place competent authorities and meaningful penalties to ensure effective enforcement. Key pillars of the AI Act include: it prohibits a limited set of practices that pose an unacceptable risk; it imposes stringent requirements on high-risk AI systems used in sensitive areas such as biometrics and critical infrastructure; it introduces transparency obligations for AI systems that interact with people or generate synthetic content, including deepfakes; and it places obligations on general purpose AI models to mitigate systemic risk.

As Ireland assumes the Presidency of the Council of the EU, as we did today, meeting our obligations under the AI Act will further strengthen our position as an EU centre of excellence and digital regulatory hub. It will also demonstrate our commitment to fostering responsible, human-centric AI innovation, both domestically and across Europe. There is also a firm legal deadline. Enforcement of prohibited AI practices posing unacceptable risks, as set out in Article 5 of the AI Act, takes effect on 2 August 2026. Ireland must have the necessary national supervisory and enforcement infrastructure in place by that date.

As I have noted and I have no doubt Senators are aware, the EU’s digital omnibus on AI, which is a set of targeted amendments to the AI Act, was provisionally agreed in May 2026 and approved by the European Parliament in June. Ireland supports the agreed omnibus, which helps increase legal certainty and reduce administrative burden. Importantly, the omnibus extends certain implementation timelines, including for transparency obligations and high-risk AI system requirements. However, the omnibus does not extend the timeline for enforcement of prohibited AI practices. The 2 August 2026 deadline remains firm and this Bill addresses it directly. Any amendments to domestic legislation that may be required following formal adoption of the digital omnibus on AI will be addressed as part of the second phase of the work in the autumn.The second phase will also provide an opportunity to further enhance Al regulation in accordance with the Al Act if required.

Having set out the context and urgency of this Bill, I will now outline its main provisions. The Bill is structured in ten Parts, with 139 sections and four Schedules. Its overarching policy objective is to ensure that the Al Act can be comprehensively and effectively implemented in Ireland.

Part 1 of the Bill, comprising sections 1 to 5, provides for Title and commencement, key definitions, regulation-making powers, service of documents and expenses to provide that the costs of administering the Act are funded with the appropriate ministerial approval.

Part 2 is set out over sections 6 to 40 and provides for the establishment of the Al office of Ireland and its governance structure, including appointment of its board, CEO and staff, and its accountability, funding and functions.

Part 3, comprising sections 41 to 52, provides for the practical operational infrastructure underpinning enforcement of the Al Act in Ireland, designating the Al office as the national single point of contact, requiring it to maintain a national Al register to record prohibited Al practices, serious incidents and other notifications, and establishing Al regulatory sandboxes and real-world testing for high-risk Al systems under its supervision.

Market surveillance authorities are a key cohort of the national competent authorities required for the implementation of the Al Act. Part 4 sets out, at sections 54 to 66, the general obligations and powers of market surveillance authorities, including the power to receive complaints from the public. Section 59 specifically enables fundamental rights bodies to request the testing of high-risk Al systems where infringements of fundamental rights are suspected.

Part 5, comprising sections 67 to 77, provides market surveillance authorities with a comprehensive, structured and proportionate enforcement toolkit, progressing from co-operative compliance measures through to coercive intervention. Authorised officers appointed under sections 68 to 70 are empowered to inspect premises, records and products, require information and take samples, and to issue contravention or prohibition notices, or seize products in the most serious cases.

Part 6, set out over sections 78 to 120, establishes an independent adjudication system for administrative fines for breaches of the Al Act, allowing matters investigated by an authorised officer and supported by a market surveillance authority to be referred to an independent adjudicator. It provides for substantial fines aligned with the Al Act, with public bodies capped at €1 million, rights of appeal, High Court confirmation before any fine takes effect, and the nomination and appointment of adjudicators, while expressly safeguarding their independence.

Part 7 of the Bill concerns penalties and miscellaneous provisions and, at sections 121 to 127, sets out criminal penalties for obstruction of authorised officers, failure to comply with enforcement notices and unauthorised disclosure of confidential information.

Part 8, at sections 128 to 133, amends the Central Bank Act 1942 to equip the Central Bank with the investigatory and sanctioning tools necessary for its role as a market surveillance authority under the Al Act.

Part 9, at sections 134 to 137, amends the Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2014 to equip the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission with the investigatory and sanctioning tools necessary for its role as a market surveillance authority under the Al Act.

Part 10, at sections 138 and 139, contains miscellaneous amendments including consequential amendments to the Communications Regulation Act 2002 and the Freedom of Information Act 2014.

Additionally, there are four Schedules governing oral hearing procedures, the assignment of adjudicators and the register of adjudicators.

Establishing a credible and coherent Al enforcement regime in Ireland underscores our commitment to responsible Al development and is a core component of our international competitiveness offering. In this respect, it is imperative that the State has a comprehensive and robust legal basis for the full and effective implementation of the Al Act. I am confident that the Bill achieves this objective in a balanced and proportionate manner. I thank Senators for their attention, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Ollie Crowe (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share my time with Senator Dee Ryan.

Mark Duffy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ollie Crowe (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, to the Chamber this evening. Fianna Fáil welcomes and supports this Bill which as the Minister of State outlined will give effect in Ireland to the EU Artificial Intelligence Act and establish the domestic enforcement architecture necessary to ensure the world's first comprehensive AI regulatory framework operates and is fully effective in the State. Obviously, the topic of AI has become increasingly important in recent years and we hear a lot about the potential it has and how it could transform our daily lives, but there is also a great deal of concern on the part of people. There is significant fear about the economic impact, how many jobs will be lost due to AI and so on. This new office will have an important role to play in addressing those concerns and enhancing AI literacy across a wide range of areas, including in businesses.

Ireland has been a tech leader for many years. It is an important part of our offering in terms of foreign direct investment and this office will ensure that the country continues to be a standard bearer in that respect. All Members are aware of the capacity AI has and the impact it could make, but we also recognise the importance of ensuring that there is sufficient oversight and this office will provide that needed oversight.

The Bill will fulfil Ireland's EU obligations, giving effect to pioneering AI regulation in domestic law while ensuring we have the national infrastructure to enforce it effectively. It establishes an AI office of Ireland as a strong independent institution at the centre of our AI regulatory system and empowers our competent authorities with the investigative and sanctioning tools they need. It is particularly fitting that today Ireland begins its six-month Presidency of the Council of the EU as this Bill sends an important message that Ireland is committed to responsible and human-centric AI innovation that fosters innovation and defends the rights of its citizens.

We are still at a relatively early stage of AI and I do not think anyone can speak with certainty at this point about what the impact will be economically and more broadly. Different experts give different views on those issues. It is fair to say a wide range of outcomes are possible at this stage. We need to ensure that we are prepared as effectively as possible for all those outcomes and this office will be an important resource in meeting that challenge.

As the Minister of State is aware, Article 73 of the AI Act requires our competent authorities to have adequate technical, financial and human resources. It is welcome that the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, has stated that this resourcing is vital and that funding will be provided in 2026 to establish the office. I also welcome her assurances that any additional resources needed can be met through the normal Estimates process.

Members may be aware of the concerns raised in the lower House about the independence of the office given that the Minister of State has the power to issue policy directions. I welcome the Minister of State's confirmation that this power is limited and constrained, and does not extend to the key functions, the findings of the adjudicator, the determination of administrative sanctions or the role of the courts. That is a welcome and important clarification.

I welcome the Bill. The establishment of an AI office is an important step in ensuring Ireland remains a global leader on the tech front. Having said that, as the Minister of State is aware, this is an area that is changing rapidly. We need to ensure that we are constantly monitoring it and adapting our legislation on a near-constant basis in the years ahead to ensure our legislative framework is suitable.

Dee Ryan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State to the Chamber. I thank her for giving the time today to discuss and introduce the Bill into the House. As a member of the AI committee and with a background in business, I am very appreciative of the regulatory infrastructure the Bill now provides. I am aware of the huge amount of work the Minister of State and her officials have put into creating this regulatory framework.It will allow us not only to ensure that the citizens of Ireland are served with the safe use of artificial intelligence, but that safe opportunities will be created for us to innovate within Ireland, using AI to deliver better public services, where appropriate, and equipping our business community to innovate, flourish and develop.

I welcome the Bill and acknowledge the significant amount of work the Minister of State and her officials have put into getting it to this stage. The Committee on Artificial Intelligence has been preparing for this over recent months. We have been meeting with the competent authorities, each of which is taking responsibility for monitoring and overseeing the regulation in its own area. To be fair, they had many questions as to how they would interact with the AI office. From a first reading of the Bill, it seems the Minister of State has answered many of those questions in the draft legislation. I look forward to reviewing the legislation further and participating in a constructive way with colleagues here in the House in proposing any amendments that might be useful in developing the most beneficial and fruitful framework for the regulation of this important technology and for overseeing its use in our future and in our children's future.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State is very welcome. It is great to see her here in the Chamber. I will address the structural flaws in this legislation. Underneath the language of safety, this Bill threatens our economic sovereignty, creates court bottlenecks and sets up hypercritical double standards for the State and the citizen. The Government claims that establishing oifig IS na hÉireann by August gives us first-mover advantage. The Minister of State argues that this early roll-out will provide stability to the market. However, moving before the starting gun fires gets you disqualified. We are rushing into a regulatory fog. This Bill forces a costly enforcement machine into existence by August despite the EU's digital omnibus framework having delayed the actual high-risk rules until December 2027. We are hiring staff and spending millions to referee a match that does not begin for 16 months. This signals to the tech sector that we are trigger-happy and eager to regulate what we do not yet understand. True stability means knowing the rules and the subject matter they regulate rather than forcing employers to guess what an overeager domestic office might do.

This brings me to the enforcement framework set out in Part 6, which duplicates the flaws that paralysed GDPR enforcement for years. Every administrative fine is frozen until confirmed by the High Court. Even if a company accepts a fine without appeal, the authority must queue for a High Court date just to activate the penalty. With zero statutory guidelines guiding these investigations, a company could deploy an invasive algorithm in seconds while our legal response grinds on for three to four years. I believe the Government's defence is that, under the Zalewski v. WRC and Pigs Marketing Board v. Donnelly rulings, an unelected regulator cannot penalise someone without a High Court judge signing off. This is a legal straw man. Our Constitution requires a judge to validate a sanction but it does not mandate High Court involvement for every minor infraction. The cases confirmed that lower courts, such as the Circuit Court, are fully capable of conferring constitutional validity on administrative fines. By bypassing lower courts, the Government creates an artificial bottleneck. We need a system where lower value fines under €500,000 take effect swiftly through the Circuit Courts, with strict statutory clocks running on investigations. Without these fast-track timelines, the Bill is a paper tiger.

The most offensive element of this Bill is the double standards in how the State treats private employers as opposed to itself. Under section 105, private firms face ruinous multimillion euro penalties tied to global turnover while, under sections 133 and 136, the State caps fines for public bodies at a flat rate of €1 million. This ignores a crucial fact. The highest risk automated systems are not built to sell consumer goods; they are deployed by states. States use algorithmic profiling for welfare, automated housing systems, biometric tracking and many other purposes, yet the machinery of Government has ensured that, if it breaks the law, it will face a relatively inconsequential slap on the wrist. The Minister of State defends this cap by claiming that imposing large fines on Departments of the State punishes the public twice by draining budget from health and education.

I will turn that logic back on the Minister of State. If massive financial penalties dangerously drain cash from vital investments, why apply them to private employers? The highly mobile digital economy based in Dublin pays for our State pensions, infrastructure and public sector wages. If a massive fine ruins a private company's budget, it punishes the taxpayer through job losses and a shrunken tax base. If fines are toxic for public services, they are toxic for the private sector as well. The solution is to flatten the fine limits for both public and private offenders using the discretion the EU law allows us, rather than creating a privileged sanctuary for State bureaucracy. We should either do that or dissuade our public bodies by the same fine threshold found in Article 99 of the EU Act.

We must also confront how this Bill handles democratic oversight. It scatters enforcement power across a web of 15 separate regulatory bodies, moving executive decisions out of public sight and away from elected representatives. Power is being transferred to unelected authorities in Brussels and Dublin, reducing the Oireachtas to an office that simply pays the bills. Furthermore, the advisory board of this new AI office lacks a statutory requirement to include experts in human rights or consumer protection. It prioritises purely industrial backgrounds, sidelining civil liberties.

This legislation approaches the future with deep institutional paranoia, treating human ingenuity as a dangerous liability to be shackled with pre-emptive State permissions. We are telling young developers that they are suspected rule-breakers until they fill out enough paperwork to prove themselves otherwise. It is a rule of trust for the State but suspicion for the creator. We are positioning ourselves as a high-handed hall monitor of the digital schoolyard we did not build. We must remember that; we did not build it. While international hubs invest capital in deep learning and computational infrastructure, Ireland's primary ambition under this Bill is to be Europe's most enthusiastic clampdown merchant. We are penalising local tech before our domestic economy can benefit from it.

Only today, it was announced that TikTok is cutting 300 jobs in Dublin. This is not about future hypotheticals. It is real and it is happening now. This illustrates that these companies do respond to regulation. This market is moving faster than we can keep up with. Ultimately, this means that our legislation has to be streamlined and focused, not cumbersome, with enforcement spread across 15 statutory bodies. We must stop this trigger-happy rush. We must fix the High Court bottlenecks by utilising the Circuit Court. We must demolish the double standard shielding public bodies and ensure that we do not cross the starting line so early as to disqualify our entire economy. The Minister of State might take on board that point. I will be proposing amendments on Committee Stage. It is a really important element of the legislation the Minister of State has brought before us today.

Linda Nelson Murray (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State to the Chamber. I welcome the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Bill 2026 and commend the Minister of State on bringing this important legislation before the House. As she mentioned, this legislation is important and necessary to ensure that Ireland meets its obligations in overseeing the development and deployment of artificial intelligence systems. The Bill is a national implementation measure that will establish the AI office; provide market surveillance authorities, MSAs, with powers to supervise, investigate and enforce compliance; introduce a general administrative sanctions framework; and enable certain regulators, including the Central Bank and the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, to use existing sanctions regimes. These measures will ensure that Ireland has the necessary supervisory and enforcement structures in place to fulfil its obligations applying from 2 August and those under future phases of the EU AI Act.The Bill provides the enforcement and institutional infrastructure - the office, the competent authorities, the adjudication system and the criminal penalties - through which the EU AI Act will operate in Ireland. It does not create the obligations that apply to providers and deployers of AI systems. Those obligations are already in Irish law by virtue of the EU AI Act, which is directly applicable. The Bill's enactment is necessary to designate the authorities which will enforce those existing obligations. The Minister, Deputy Burke, stated the publication of the Bill is a landmark moment for Ireland's digital regulatory framework. The Bill establishes the AI offices of Ireland as a strong, independent institution at the centre of AI regulatory system and empowers our competent authorities with investigative and sanctions tools they need. The office is intended to be Ireland's central co-ordinating authority for implementation of the AI Act.

Artificial intelligence is already changing how we live, work and access public services. It has enormous potential to improve healthcare through earlier diagnosis, support businesses to become more productive, assist farmers with precision agriculture, reduce administrative burdens and create high-quality jobs in Ireland's growing technology sector. The Bill provides the certainty businesses and citizens need. It establishes a clear regulatory framework, ensures compliance with the EU AI Act, creates appropriate oversight and enforcement mechanisms and helps build public trust that AI will be developed and used safely, ethically and transparently. That confidence is essential if Ireland is to remain a global leader in innovation while protecting fundamental rights.

As we embrace these opportunities there is one area the legislation could go further on. Maybe that is in phase 2 and could be looked at in the summer. It is protection of children. Discussing this legislation as part of our work on the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, the vulnerability and protection of children came up a lot. The Irish Internet Hotline said that while the Bill focuses on full implementation and enforcement of the EU AI Act, including the designation and empowerment of national competent authorities and the establishment of penalties for infringements, its implementation represents a decisive moment to introduce safeguards for children's rights and protection from harmful artificial intelligence. The Children's Rights Alliance also came before the committee and commented that the scheme "is silent about the participation of children and young people in decision development and decision-making. Children and their voice should be considered at all levels of decision development and decision-making, including by any regulatory sandboxes and the board of the AI office." They are really looking for children to have an input into it.

Young people are among the most frequent users of AI-powered technologies yet they are also the most vulnerable. As a mam of ten- and 11-year-old girls, I really worry. AI increasingly influences the content they consume, the information they receive, the educational tools they use and the decisions that shape their online experiences. I would welcome stronger provisions placing children's rights at the heart of AI regulation, including child impact assessments for AI systems that are likely to affect children, stronger protection for children's personal data and greater investment in digital and AI literacy for children, parents and teachers, maybe to work alongside this. If we get this right, Ireland can lead in the development of artificial intelligence and in ensuring it is developed responsibly, ethically and with the protection of future generations at its core. Innovation and protection should go hand in hand. This Bill provides an excellent foundation on which to build. As we take up the EU Presidency, which was a proud moment for us all today in Dublin Castle, I welcome this Bill and our work to protect people, including the most vulnerable, when it comes to online safety.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. This is an important piece of legislation and is clearly central to establishing the institutions, powers and penalties required to implement the EU AI Act. Under that Act, Ireland is required to have a working regulatory framework in place by 2 August. While this legislation will ensure compliance, it does not alone ensure protection for citizens from the harmful effects of artificial intelligence. There are opportunities for improvement across many aspects of the Bill. Sinn Féin has tabled amendments in the Dáil and will consider the same in this House.

We recognise the potential of AI - possibly improved healthcare outcomes, enhanced productivity, better data analytics and automation of repetitive tasks - but we are equally aware of AI's profound capacity for harm. Research by Trademark, an independent social justice organisation based in Belfast, found that 90% of digital infrastructure is controlled by six tech companies. That means the critical infrastructure of the Internet - search engines, cloud storage and communications networks - are owned by private companies accountable only to their shareholders. It is important we see social media platforms for what they are: not neutral spaces, but sophisticated influence systems shaped by algorithms which amplify inflammatory and right-wing content because outrage drives user interaction and interaction generates advertising revenue.

Many of us in this Chamber will have experience of being targeted online by faceless accounts. We know bot armies and AI-generated content are used to manufacture the appearance of grassroots sentiment and trained to flood comment sections and drown out dissenting voices. It is obvious there needs to be regulation in this space. Social media companies should be held accountable and responsible for what is on their platforms. Self-regulation is no regulation. Unfortunately, the Government approach to online safety has been piecemeal and weak.

The Bill introduces strident enforcement powers including contravention notices requiring compliance, withdrawal or destruction of AI systems, but it will be the implementation of the legislation that will have the real impact. It will be prudent for the Minister of State to ensure regular performance monitoring takes place.

The Oireachtas AI committee has been clear that the EU AI Act must be treated as the minimum, not the ceiling. AI development moves far faster than legislation; the Government must be able to respond swiftly to emerging risks. We must protect our democracy to ensure false narratives do not dominate and bot armies do not sabotage democratic discussion online. We must never see a repeat of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, when personal data belonging to 87 million Facebook users was collected by the company for political advertising without informed consent. Tech companies and the applications they build are not neutral; they are designed to make someone a profit. It is the job of the Oireachtas to ensure citizens are not harmed in that process.

I look forward to seeing the work of the AI office, which the Bill legislates for. I emphasise that regulation of AI would be better done on an all-island basis. I ask the Minister of State to engage with agencies in the North in the time ahead.

Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Al regulation has been a long time coming. It is one of the most pressing challenges we face. It has changed the way we work, our entire understanding of the world and our ability to discern truth from fiction when we see what AI can produce. It is good we are discussing regulation and this directive is finally being transposed but I want to express serious concern about the manner in which this is being done. It is being rushed through with very little parliamentary scrutiny, despite our having years of lead time to prepare for this. While preparing my notes for this evening, I could not even read back the transcript for last night, such is the speed with which we are rushing this through at the end of term and not allowing meaningful time for scrutiny of such a large, complex piece of legislation. The establishment of a statutory body and the regulatory framework for the supervision and enforcement of the Al Act in the State is inherently complex. It is critical we get it right and we have to have sufficient time to do that, which was not afforded to us.

I echo the comments of my colleague, Deputy Gibney, in the Dáil last night that it is troubling that the Al committee did not have the opportunity to engage effectively with this Bill, despite the gravity of what we are dealing with. While I welcome the move to give full effect to the EU Al Act, as provided for in this Bill, we need to be treating this as the “minimum baseline for national Al regulation, not a maximum standard”, as was the view of the joint AI committee.

Before addressing the content of the Bill, I want to speak to larger concerns I have with the Government's approach to AI and big tech regulation. Time and again we hear the industry narrative being peddled that we need to maintain the competitiveness and viability of Ireland's digital economy. The conversation is always framed in terms of innovation and enterprise, rather than the protection of fundamental rights and the litany of harms and threats posed by this tech, which is evolving faster than many governments in Europe, including this one, can keep up. The location of the new Al office within the Department of enterprise speaks to the centrality of this business-first approach to governance, rather than putting human rights first.

It further speaks to the power of the big tech lobby at home and in Brussels, which continues to consolidate its power and influence over politics to a frightening degree. We see this with passage of the EU’s digital omnibus on Al - a worrying deregulation agenda. I know the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, does not agree with me on that but it is serving to critically weaken the Al Act and playing right into the hands of big tech. We had some wins in provisions around data participation in the digital omnibus but simplification is weakening rights, rather than strengthening them. There will still be use of incredibly sensitive data in AI systems and the high-risk implementation period has been extended. High-risk systems do not need to be compliant until next year. AI companies will rush out systems that can have incredibly dangerous implications.It is ridiculous that they will have this window in which they can still produce this because the high-risk system regulation will not be retroactive for new pieces of tech. That is stuff that might be dealing with complex and sensitive child welfare cases and medical AI cases. We know, in the case of social media and entertainment, that AI is algorithmically driven to addict the human brain. All of those high-risk systems have this extra time in which they can be developed and not come under the regulation. That is really worrying.

We can talk about the enormous opportunity and potential for good, regulated AI. I see it particularly when we talk about medical science, but we also need to get serious about the scale of harm and potential for harm coming down the road to us if we do not regulate these companies in any meaningful way. The Grok AI nudification scandal showcased how completely unprepared we are at home and abroad, at EU level, to counter these threats and X effectively got away with a slap on the wrist. The company was asked to please not do it again and allow sexual abuse imagery material of children and adults to be developed on its platform because we would really like it not to. It shows the complete contempt with which these companies view us and governments. They did not even attend the Oireachtas media committee, such is the contempt with which they view our parliamentary process. We have seen no prosecutions and no sanctions for this, and the stark reality is that this feature still exists and can be accessed in this country with the right technology. We have not effectively safeguarded the public, including women, children and minorities, from this harmful technology. It is still accessible. People can still promote child sexual abuse material and image-based sexual material using the technology made available to them by a private company that operates in Ireland.

Another threat we cannot overlook is that of labour displacement. Recently, 720 workers from the Dublin-based Covalen company heard they were going to be made redundant thanks to AI. This is just coming down the line to us. My Dáil colleague Deputy Gibney highlighted that the Government's stock response to this threat from AI is to hail the potential for AI to augment the quality of jobs by performing more menial tasks. That is not the reality of what is happening. Automation has not served to improve the quality of jobs people are doing, job security, job stability or the pay and conditions of workers. People are losing jobs from AI and automation. Customer support is all bots now. There used to be humans doing these jobs. They are now done by bots. We are going to see a fundamental shift in society because of AI labour displacement. Gen Z is struggling to find jobs as companies pivot to AI, using it for entry-level jobs. Youth unemployment is worrying in Ireland, but across Europe and the world youth unemployment is skyrocketing and on the rise. That is because companies see it as financially more beneficial to use an AI system they do not have to pay than upskilling a young worker. We are not facing up to the reality of this by having any meaningful strategic planning in place.

I turn to the Bill itself. Serious concerns have been raised in the Dáil regarding the governance and potential independence of the new AI office. It is vital that the AI office as a regulator has the appropriate independence and resources to operate to ensure it can carry out its functions protected from potential corporate influence. The AI office is a vital piece of our new regulatory framework and must have sufficient independence from Government if it is going to be effective. Yet, there currently real deficiencies in how the Bill provides for this crucial independence.

There are concerns regarding transparency of appointments to the board and of its leadership. The Bill currently suggests that the first board and CEO will be directly appointed by the Minister for enterprise with little reference to any binding recommendations from the Public Appointments Service or procedures in the appointment to safeguard independence. Without independence it is actually kind of meaningless. The practice we see in the legislation does not tally with Government's assurances as to its independence, nor does the provision where the Minister can instruct the office to act on his or her direction, even with the exceptions for specific enforcement matters. This is not any particular Minister. I am talking about a Minister or a Department. Undue influence from the Minister will undermine the effectiveness of the regulatory system. How can we have an effective regulation of AI in this country when the supposedly independent State body tasked with that regulation is not permitted to comment on Government policy when asked by Members of these Houses at Oireachtas committees?

I am also concerned that a key aspect of the EU directive is missing from this transposition. It is the part about vulnerable groups seeking an explanation as to why AI tools have made a specific decision. I might be wrong and perhaps it is in the legislation, but I do not think it is. There have been multiple examples of algorithmic AI decisions being made in EU countries where they are having a biased reading of the applicants, particularly in the Netherlands with child welfare cases. If we do not have a mechanism by which vulnerable groups can seek to understand an explanation for an AI decision in an automated process at government level or in the private sector, we are serving to emphasise the further marginalisation of those communities. That is really crucial. It may be in the Bill, and I did not see it, but that just points to the fact that we have not had proper time to meaningfully scrutinise this legislation.

If we want to talk about being at the centre of EU excellence and digital regulation, we have to take seriously meeting our obligations under the AI Act by establishing a truly independent and robust regulatory and enforcement regime.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I express deep frustration and concern at the extremely rushed nature of our engagement with this substantive and substantial legislation. The Bill was published by the Government on 17 June, with Second Stage taken in Dáil Éireann a week later. Committee and Remaining Stages were taken in the Dáil last evening, with the debate guillotined after the consideration of just six of 80 tabled amendments. That does not give us any sign that there has been legislative scrutiny. Scrutiny improves legislation and we should always view it as such.

As the Seanad commences its consideration of the legislation this evening, we are still awaiting the publication of the pre-legislative scrutiny report on the draft heads prepared by the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Tourism and Employment. We want to engage with the Minister of State in good faith. As a member of the AI committee, I understand our functions as a special committee in that we were not in a position to engage with the legislation. This made it even more important for that engagement to happen in this and the other House because we have Members of both Houses who have spent nine months doing nothing but interrogating the use of AI. Those contributions would be really important given that the AI committee could not work with this legislation and it had to go to a different committee. That is fundamentally bad parliamentary practice.

I add a note of caution as we prepare amendments for next week. Yesterday, we only saw six out of 80 amendments discussed in the Dáil. I hope the Minister of State will give us assurances today that this House will be given time to consider amendments to the legislation. As many of my colleagues are aware from previous discussions of AI in this Chamber, I have significant concerns about the development and deployment of artificial intelligence and AI tools in society, with particular regard to the potential impact on privacy, fundamental human rights and equality.

I have been a member of the Oireachtas joint committee for over a year and what has stood out in that process, above all else, is the substantial difference in the perspectives of those in government and industry and those in digital rights bodies, civil society and academia. That brings us back to the conversation on which Department AI should be placed in. When it is placed in a Department with a sole focus on enterprise, do we lean the AI legislation or AI conversation more towards industry than those civil society, academic, digital rights bodies frameworks?

Government spokespersons often talk about the extraordinary potential presented for our economy by AI and the need for balance to be achieved between this potential and mitigating the many risks posed by technologies to citizens. Like many of the civil society and academic leaders that the joint committee on AI has engaged with, I am of the view that the Government is getting this balance wrong. It is embracing a policy approach to AI that prioritises Ireland's role as a digital hub over the protection of the rights of individuals.

The EU's landmark Artificial Intelligence Act, which must be implemented by 1 August to fulfil the deadlines agreed, was meant to create a comprehensive framework for accountability and transparency on the use of AI in society. However, since its adoption in 2024, we have borne witness to a co-ordinated campaign by industry to undermine its efficacy, with the legislation's protections now at risk of falling victim to the EU's deregulation agenda through the so-called AI omnibus proposals. The EU landmark accountability law for social media and other digital platforms, the Digital Services Act, is also at risk.This agenda is being pushed at the highest levels of the European Commission under the banner of simplification, but the danger posed is that core protections for individuals and communities will be eroded. For truth, democracy and the rule of law to endure in the era of AI, we have to create robust ecosystems of transparency and accountability.

Large tech and AI companies, despite selling promises of innovation and broader societal benefit, monetise and routinely undermine the society they claim to serve. Put simply, they cannot be trusted to self-regulate. Given the track record of the technology industry in this regard, stricter regulation and enforcement are among the clearest ways governments can demonstrate that they serve the public interest first and foremost.

Effective regulation also relies on active enforcement, something Ireland has demonstrated, since the implementation of the GDPR, it is unwilling to do. The Data Protection Commission recently acknowledged that, apart from amicable resolutions on trivial issues, Ireland has not completed a single EU inquiry into Google or enforced against any big tech firm or its subsidiaries in the ten years since the GDPR was enacted.

The effectiveness of the AI office will depend not only on its statutory designation as an independent body but also on whether it is genuinely independent in practice. As drafted, the Bill provides significant ministerial influence over the appointment of the first board and CEO, who may serve for a full five-year term. Given the office’s central role in supervising compliance with the AI Act and co-ordinating enforcement across multiple regulators, there is a strong argument for more robust safeguards around appointments, governance and operational autonomy.

The Bill establishes the AI office as the national single point of contact, but many of the substantive enforcement powers reside with sectoral market surveillance authorities. While the distributed model has advantages, questions remain about whether the AI office has sufficient authority to co-ordinate investigations, resolve disputes between regulators and ensure consistency of enforcement. Much appears to depend on co-operation agreements and voluntary co-ordination arrangements.

Section 43 of the Bill provides for the establishment of a national AI register containing important information, including prohibited AI practices and serious incidents involving high-risk systems. However, the Bill does not appear to clearly state the extent to which this register will be publicly accessible. Transparency is essential to building public trust in AI regulation. Consideration should be given to whether the register, or at least significant elements of it, should be available to the public.

There is relatively little in the Bill itself that explicitly centres the protection of fundamental rights, privacy, equality, non-discrimination and democratic participation as guiding principles for the exercise of regulatory powers. While rights protections may be implicit in the AI Act, the Bill should still contain a clearer statement requiring the AI office, market surveillance authorities and adjudicators to exercise their functions with regard to fundamental rights.

A significant amount of detail appears to be deferred to future ministerial regulations and implementation measures. The way AI tools and systems are developed, deployed and governed reflects choices about power, priorities and values. While flexibility is important in a rapidly evolving environment, democratic accountability must be protected. The Oireachtas should have greater clarity regarding the scope of these matters.

I hope the Minister of State can confirm to us in the Chamber today that she will allow for adequate scrutiny of this legislation, especially given that this Chamber has several Members who are on the AI committee who can devote time to it and actually engage in scrutiny of a kind that might not have been done by the enterprise committee. We will seek clarification on that as we go forward.

Joe Conway (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I láthair na huaire, táim cinnte nach bhfuil aon cheist ann atá chomh réabhlóideach agus chomh casta leis an gceist seo faoin intleacht shaorga. Is breá an rud é go bhfuil seans againn inniu féachaint ar an mBille seo agus ar an imní atá againn ar an taobh seo den Teach faoin luas lena bhfuil an Bille ag dul ar aghaidh agus faoi na rudaí atá ag gabháil leis an mBille i gcoitinne.

To break it into percentages, I suppose that 90% to 95% of people who speak about AI in forums like this remind me of a conversation I heard in a bar in Longford many years ago, when a parent was discussing the travails in his household because of a son who was trying to negotiate the difficulties of trigonometry. He said to his fellow drinker, “Do you know anything about this trigonometry stuff?” The other guy replied, “I don’t, but I have seen it done.” That is where we are at with artificial intelligence. We do not know anything about it, but we know it is going on somewhere. We know that it is going on now all around us.

The first thing I would say about this legislation, and it has been adverted to by a number of the speakers here, concerns the pace at which it has been thrown at us and its treatment in the other House last night. It does not inspire confidence, in me anyway. This legislation is 106 pages in length. It is very well drafted. It is very well put together by whoever drafted it, but it is the governmental thrust behind it that has me worried.

The key question for the House is whether the framework we are putting in place strikes the right balance. We are talking about oifig intleachta shaorga na hÉireann and its functions. There are positives to it but there are also negatives, and we have to worry about all of the things Senators Ruane and Stephenson mentioned in relation to the regulation of and response to AI. Are we going to have adequate responses to the use of AI to generate harmful and abusive materials? There are all sorts of concerns around defamation and character assassination. There are also wider issues, as referred to this morning on the Order of Business. Kilmeaden, a sleepy bucolic village in Waterford is now going to have a data centre on 108 ha of land, and all the implications that come from that.

With respect to the oifig intleachta shaorga, the Minister of State mentioned in her introduction to the legislation “the nomination and appointment of adjudicators, while expressly safeguarding their independence”. Could she possibly tell us how exactly it is envisaged that we are going to expressly safeguard the independence of those adjudicators?

Senator Stephenson mentioned that none of the big tech companies took up the invitation of our Oireachtas committees to attend. It is a very poor signal of their participation in the democratic processes of our land if they will not even give us a reck by coming along to the parliamentary committee meetings.

I am out of time but Members will gather from the import of what I am saying that while I am sure AI presents great opportunities, I have a profound sense of worry and unease about the whole pig in a poke that we are buying about the great good it can do. Undoubtedly, it can do good but it is fraught with all sorts of difficulties and concerns. I just hope I do not live to see it become the ogre that many people are pointing it out to be.

Laura Harmon (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I echo the concerns of colleagues over the amount of time we have to scrutinise this legislation. It is important that we get to have a full debate in the Seanad in relation to it.It was quite appalling that the tech companies refused to engage with Oireachtas committees. I thought it was a real mark of disrespect to the media committee, but also to the committee on artificial intelligence. When we invited many of them in, I think only one showed up. This is something on which they need to engage more with us as public representatives.

Ultimately, the Labour Party welcomes the intent of this Bill. The emergence of AI will likely lead to some of the most significant societal and economic change we will see in our lifetimes, and good regulation is absolutely critical. AI is already fundamentally changing our economy, our jobs market, the way we work and ultimately, how we live our lives. It is also changing how important decisions are made. It is incumbent on any Government to recognise the scale of the challenge here and to respond. We cannot simply leave the direction of this transformation to the tech giants. We know their only priority will be the power and profits they hope will flow their way on the back of this AI revolution, so regulation and democratic guardrails are essential.

The choice we are faced with is not between AI or no AI - it is already here and there are many benefits to it - but between a human-centred AI that serves ordinary people and AI that serves tech billionaires and those who want to oppress. It has the potential to deliver much good, but it needs to have the public's trust in order to do this, and it needs to have effective regulation.

The EU AI Act was an important world first in beginning to put regulatory guardrails in place, but it is certainly not perfect. There are issues, including how companies effectively self-designate as high risk or otherwise, how it fails to effectively safeguard copyright protections for creatives, and gaps in its definition of high-risk AI uses. Nonetheless, it was a vital first step and it is welcome that this Bill aims to implement some of the requirements arising from that legislation relating to Ireland.

We need to make sure this legislation is watertight. My colleague, Deputy Lawlor, raised significant constitutional concerns with this legislation in the Dáil, relating to the system of adjudication on fines and how that relates to our constitutionally protected judicial independence. We need clear answers on those questions already raised, but we also need to see much more urgency from the Government in responding to the challenge of AI. This Bill makes a start on that regulation but there is no sign the Government is fully taking seriously the challenge AI will pose to the jobs market and the world of work. For example, even if the overall level of employment does not decrease, what jobs are available, where they are available and to whom may radically change. That churn occurs as part of this transition, and it is going to have real world consequences for many people. Some 11% of workers in Ireland fear losing their job to AI in the next five years, and 38% believe it is likely their employers will use AI to replace workers where possible. These are huge concerns. AI can also have serious negative impacts on job quality. AI pessimism has been found to be prevalent among workers, with one in two workers in Ireland not believing their workplace will adopt AI in a way that is beneficial to them.

My time is running out, but I just want to say from a workers' rights perspective that we absolutely need to be steadfast with regard to protecting workers and being on their side when it comes to artificial intelligence. We believe a starting point would be giving the new oifig IS na hÉireann, which will be established under this Bill, the powers to monitor the impact of AI on jobs and work, promote responsible rights respecting AI use by employers, and lead on ensuring upskilling and retraining opportunities are made available as AI will disrupt the jobs market.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

First, I thank each and every Senator for their very thoughtful contributions. I will attempt to answer as much as I can and address some themes that were broadly touched on by everyone.

Regarding Senator Crowe's point, I have never shied away from the fact that there are positives and negatives to AI and the potential it has, not just in the displacement but also the augmentation, which I know some Senators referred to here today. Only last week, the Minister, Deputy Lawless, held a round table conversation with industry leaders, both big and small, to see where the gaps are and how we can mitigate against those with both reskilling and upskilling. That is all being thought about and considered.

Senator Ryan very clearly talked about many aspects of this which relate to the protection and safety of our children. As regards the development of this AI office, while it is coming from the Department of enterprise, it will be independent of me as Minister of State and of the Department and Government. It will have a very broad remit which will not just look at it from an enterprise prism but also a human-centred one. Fundamental rights have been raised on many occasions, and I could go through a whole lot of things but Senators should remember this: the Data Protection Commission has oversight of this. That is not enterprise. The Environmental Protection Agency is not enterprise. The Human Rights and Equality Commission is not enterprise and neither is the Ombudsman for Children's Office. This points to the broad myriad of inputs that will be there to support the work and interact with the competent authorities with responsibility for the AI office.

I further emphasise and reassure Senators that Coimisiún na Meán was set up under the previous Government. Where did it come out of? It had to come from a Department, and that was the Department of media, culture and communications. It is not run by Government; it is completely independent. We all know that. I am sure members present have had Coimisiún na Meán before them at the committee on media or elsewhere. The format and establishment of the AI office is no different from any of those organisations. They have to come from somewhere and it is incumbent on us to think about its establishment. It comes from the Department of enterprise. As I am given the responsibility of AI, trade promotion and digitalisation, it naturally has to come from there. To reassure Senators, it has that independence and I hope I have alluded to that in my reply.

Senator Keogan raised a huge range of issues. Fundamental rights were mentioned, which I have spoken to briefly. I accept that this is moving at pace but Senators must also accept that AI is moving at pace. We do not have 12 months to hang around on this. To speak to Senator Stephenson's point, it is about the protection of young people and being human-centred. We cannot deliberate over this for 12 or 16 months; we have to move and act quickly.

If we did not move and act quickly, as the Senator suggested earlier, that would be speaking to the tech companies. They would love if we did not regulate or if we did not have an AI office in place. They would love it if we did not respond and work with European partners and colleagues to ensure we have regulation and oversight. That is why we are moving at pace. However, we also saw the controversy some months ago with Grok, which really impacted on women and children and the protection of all of us in society. The prohibited practices piece is something I have strongly advocated for to see it brought in. It will be enacted in August, if I have got my dates right. We cannot afford to think about this for much longer.

I also reassure Senators that there will be a second phase of this, which I outlined in my opening speech; a second piece for primary legislation where we will have more time and will have it enacted. It is going to be organic in the sense that the technology is moving fast. We do not know and cannot see into the future, and Senator Conway is absolutely right on that. I am also deeply uneasy about it and that is why I am moving quickly. It is incredibly important that we have the AI office established and the expertise within that to ensure our citizens are protected. I am not shying away from displacement but we need to have the expertise in place that can show us and guide us with facts around where the jobs are being most affected and how we can reskill, upskill and try to mitigate against that as much as possible. I accept that Senators feel the pace is moving quickly but I am telling them why it has to move quickly and I am giving assurances that there will be a second phase to this where we will have more time.A number of Senators raised the fact that two committees have oversight of this. There is the artificial intelligence committee, which I have had the opportunity to go in and speak in front of. I thank the Senators on the committee for their work. I know Senator Ruane, having worked with her previously, feels passionately about this stuff, and rightly so. However, the recommendations that I can take, and that is beyond my control, are from the Oireachtas committee with responsibility for enterprise. I am awaiting its report. When I get that report, I assure the Senators that I will sit down with my officials and we will go through those recommendations line by line to see to how we can make this legislation better.

Senator Joe Conway said the legislation is quite impressive. It is. It has been worked on by wonderful colleagues and officials, who get lots of bashing around the place, the same as Government TDs and Ministers have got in the past. They have done incredible work here. They have been working on this for the past 18 months and longer, before I was in the role. They know exactly what they are doing here. It is not rushed on their part at all. If Senators have read this legislation, as Senator Conway has, they can see that.

Senator Nelson Murray talked about children and youth voices and being silent on children. I would cite the Ombudsman for Children. I met the Ombudsman for Children and I will continue to do that. On the Children's Rights Alliance, I have met it and will continue to do that. If there is any way we can strengthen this Bill to protect children, I will take that. We have a big opportunity - we are taking the opportunity that we have got with the European Presidency - to ensure that the protection of children online is a priority for us, not only in my Department but in the Department of culture as well.

Youth voices was raised in the Dáil last night by Deputy Malcolm Byrne. I will certainly take that on board and see how we can do that in a proactive way.

Senator Murphy raised the amplification of discrimination. I note it would be something Senator Ruane would feel strongly about as well. The Senator spoke about the manipulation of behaviour and about the exploitation of vulnerabilities of people and children. That speaks to the point as to why we have to move quickly. We cannot sit around on this for the next year thinking about it. I know there is sincerity in the Senator talking about amendments and strengthening that. I will take that at a later point.

Senator Murphy also raised the point about thinking about this on a all-island basis. I am certainly up for that because we know with technology there are no borders. That is why we are responding and working with our European colleagues with the EU AI Act and moving that on quickly. There are 27 member states, we are all affected the same and as far as I am concerned, borders do not come into it.

I am trying to be as specific as I can and I ask the Senators to bear with me. I hope I have answered some of the queries Senator Stephenson raised around fundamental rights and AI jobs. On the AI jobs piece, the number of AI jobs in this country has doubled since 2023. That is a fact. There is huge demand for it. Senators should keep that in the back of their minds as well.

I hope I have answered some of the issues Senator Joe Conway raised. I will continue to do that and work with the Senator closely too.

Senator Harmon asked that regulation be human centred. I hope I have answered that. On the constitutional piece, I have been back to Deputy Lawlor in a comprehensive way. If there is more we need to do on that, I am certainly open to doing that. That is as specific as I can be.

I thank the Senators most sincerely because I know the thoughts and contributions they have made here tonight are heartfelt. I hope the Senators know mine are heartfelt too. I am extremely conscious that this is seen not only through an enterprise prism. It is about the protection of citizens. It is about the protection of young people and I hope I have emphasised that enough.

I re-emphasise that the purpose of the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Bill 2026 is to provide for the implementation in Ireland of the Al Act, an EU regulation, which is something we all want.

This Bill is a landmark moment for Ireland's digital regulatory framework. Al is a transformative technology which offers extraordinary potential for our economy and citizens and realising that potential requires appropriate oversight and accountability. That speaks to the balance that we need to strike.

This Bill delivers exactly that. It fulfils Ireland's EU obligations, giving effect to Europe's pioneering Al Act in domestic law by ensuring we have the national infrastructure in place to supervise and enforce it effectively.

The Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Bill establishes the national Al office of Ireland as an independent statutory body with a central co-ordinating role in Ireland's Al regulatory framework. The Al office is designed to support consistency in how the various market surveillance authorities, MSAs, carry out their responsibilities across different sectors, ensuring that enforcement is coherent and co-ordinated rather than fragmented.

The Bill designates the Al office of Ireland as a single point of contact, SPOC. We do not want people to have to go all over the place to get the information. In terms of the enterprise piece, we have been clear and mindful to respond to what has come out of the Draghi report that we do not burden people, businesses and public bodies with more regulation, and that they have that one point of contact but continue to work with their existing regulators whom they have relationships built up with.

The designation of the Al office, as I said, the SPOC, in accordance with Article 72(2) of the Al Act for liaison with the European Commission and other member states on Al-related matters. That harmonisation is incredibly important.

The designation of the AI Office as an MSA is formally given effect by a designation regulation, which will be finalised before the end of July. This will be an amendment to the first designation regulation in July 2026, which designated the first eight MSAs for the Al Act.

The Bill carefully balances ministerial accountability to the Oireachtas for public policy with regulatory independence in operational matters of the Al office.

The Government is committed to ensuring that our competent authorities are adequately resourced, which has been raised here, to fulfil their obligations. The Government provided funding in 2026 to support the establishment of the national Al office. In response to Senator Keogan's point that the Government is spending millions of euro, the facts are there was €1.5 million, which is arguably not a huge amount, for the establishment of the AI office, not millions of euro. We need to be factual about these matters.

Relevant competent authorities and market surveillance authorities will continue to be resourced through their existing governance and budgetary arrangements. That gives certainty to people.

I note that the Bill is a technical instrument that will ensure that the rights and protections provided for in the EU's Al Act, will be rigorously asserted in Ireland, for the benefit and protection of Irish citizens. This Bill neither adds to nor alters the obligations on businesses under the Al Act. It is mandatory under the Al Act for EU member states to give effect to these national provisions by 2 August 2026. We have obligations and commitments that we must live up to.

In addition to enabling Ireland to meet its EU obligations, this Bill delivers on key commitments in the programme for Government to position Ireland as a leader in the digital economy and artificial intelligence. Our national digital and Al strategy sets out Ireland's ambition to strengthen our position as an EU centre of excellence and digital regulatory hub, which supports competitiveness and innovation while protecting the health, safety and fundamental rights of our citizens. That is the essence of it. We cannot bury our head in the sand and ignore what we have been told by the Draghi report. The Draghi report clearly states that across Europe we have stifled businesses, as those Senators who are on the enterprise committee will be aware, with regulation and red tape. We are trying to ensure that we give space for innovation and creativity. Here is our opportunity to do it and we must grasp it.

This ambition is to be realised through a modern, cohesive and well-resourced regulatory framework for the digital economy. The Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Bill is a key enabler of this ambition. This comprehensive and sophisticated Bill, once enacted, will demonstrate our commitment to fostering and promoting responsible Al innovation and adoption, both in Ireland and in Europe.

I thank the Senators most sincerely for their forbearance in my responses and for their constructive engagement with the Bill. I look forward to working with the Senators. This is not a done deal. This is not finished or complete. This is a Bill that we will have to come back to and I am more than open and happy to do that.

Dee Ryan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Ollie Crowe (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Next Tuesday.

Dee Ryan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.