Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. The Minister of State is most welcome to Seanad Éireann. I thank her for being here today.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 10, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following: “ “biometric identification” means the automated recognition of physical, physiological, behavioural, or psychological human features for the purpose of establishing the identity of a natural person by comparing biometric data of that individual to biometric data of individuals stored in a database;”.

This amendment seeks to insert a definition of biometric identification in the Bill, using the same language that is used in the AI Act. The use and deployment of biometric identification is very relevant to this legislation. Again, it is a high-risk activity and identified as such within the AI Act. The Minister has stated that the purpose of the Bill was to establish the national supervisory and enforcement framework through which compliance with obligations contained in the AI Act can be monitored and enforced. Our intention is to ensure that this is done effectively. We also need effective harmonisation between the AI Act and our national legislation. That means we need to be working off the same definitions. However, this has been utterly and unnecessarily complicated by the recent legislation introduced by the Minister for justice, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, who introduced legislation outlining the practice of "biometric analysis", which is a novel term not reflected in the AI Act. Despite labelling it by using a different term, it is clear that the processes which are described in biometric analysis do in fact involve biometric identification and they match the description of biometric identification in the AI Act. In the definition of biometric analysis, they include the line "this is not biometric identification", which by the way is not a way to clarify something – it is to simply say it is not that thing that it obviously looks like it is. The Minister for justice introduced his own definition of "biometric identification". As well as the novel, newly made up concept of biometric analysis, he has also introduced his own definition of biometric identification, which does not match the definition of biometric identification in the AI Act.

The Minister of State has outlined that the purpose of this Bill is to ensure that we have the supervisory and enforcement framework to ensure compliance with the obligations that already exist under the AI Act, but we have a definition of biometric identification going into a separate item of Government legislation which does not match the AI Act. We are concerned that the use of the novel terms like biometric analysis and a direct difference in definitions could allow concerned technologies to escape proper enforcement mechanisms that are in this Bill, and the safeguards that are provided for under the AI Act.

During the Committee Stage debate of the Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) (Amendment) Bill 2025, where the novel term of biometric analysis was introduced, the Minister for justice stated, "When it comes to domestic Irish legislation we are perfectly entitled to use our own definitions and our own interpretations or interpretation and that is what has been done in this legislation." We clearly have concerns as to how that legislation is going to interact with the enforcement provisions that are in the AI Act. We have one Minister saying we can do as we wish with our concept of it and then another Minister of State who has acknowledged our points in her engagement on Second Stage. We pointed to many of the safeguards we would like to see in national legislation. We were consistently told not to worry because they are there in the AI Act, and this Bill is simply a mechanism for enforcing and applying the AI Act. However, that does not deal with the fact that there are different interpretations that directly conflict.

I should clarify what the clash is in that regard as well. In the case of the Minister for justice, his new definition of biometric identification completely changes what it means. The AI Act is what we have here, which is why at a minimum we should ensure that this legislation has the correct definition of biometric identification so that we can point to that and that at least it is clearly identified here. Biometric identification under the AI Act just means the automated recognition of physical, physiological, behavioural, psychological, human features for the purposes of establishing the identity of a natural person by comparing biometric data of that individual with biometric of individuals stored in a database. What the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, has proposed to do in his definition is to take that obligation under the AI Act, where the definition would seem to make sense, and refer to comparing biometric data of an individual to biometric data of named individuals in a database. Names are not biometric. That is not an appropriate filter and by putting in the requirement that it can only be biometric identification when it is being compared with a database of named individuals, many of the clearly planned for, anticipated and proper applications and understandings of biometric identification under the AI Act, along with the safeguards that are attached to that issue in the Act, do not come into effect.There is a bit of a crisis in terms of this issue.

The Minister of State has stated very clearly her intentions. I hope that we can move towards there being a correct definition and operation of biometric identification so that we can ensure that Ireland delivers on what she has said is her goal, which is a Bill, mechanism, and natural supervisory and enforcement framework that monitors and enforces compliance with the obligations of the AI Act. This is in the Minister of State's correspondence engaging with us. I thank her for her engagement with Second Stage concerns. She noted that the Act imposed extensive obligations on defined high-risk AI systems, including law enforcement and the administration of justice, and that these systems were considered high risk precisely because of their potential impact on people's rights, opportunities and life chances. She notes that providers must meet stringent requirements related to risk management, data quality, transparency, human oversight, accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity. These are the Minister of State's words. I take her bona fides in relation to this intent. She was correctly naming and identifying law enforcement and the administration of justice as high-risk AI systems that were clearly defined as creating obligations for very good reasons due to how impactful they could be. Alongside that, we have a Minister saying on the same issue that we are perfectly entitled to use our own definitions and interpretation and that is what we are doing. It does not align.

Biometric identification and biometric categorisation are described as high-risk AI systems in the AI Act. Biometric analysis does not feature in that Act. This Bill contains some provisions to enforce obligations that are outlined in the AI Act regarding high-risk AI systems. I wish to ask the Minister of State two things. The first is on the question of getting a correct definition of biometric identification, but the second is on biometric analysis. Biometric analysis is clearly a high-risk system. The description of it matches what is defined as high-risk systems in law enforcement where the Minister of State has stated the importance of having proper safeguards and obligations, given the impact on people's rights, opportunities and life chances. The Minister of State talked about the importance of those stringent requirements. Will biometric analysis be captured under those stringent conditions and proper scrutiny and enforcement? This is the novel concept introduced by the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, but its description and the actions within it include recognition of physical, physiological and behavioural features matching those with data from other sources. They match the same activities. They are clearly high risk for the same reasons, and they also fall into that area of law enforcement. My two questions to the Minister of State are on the definition and on how biometric analysis is going to be properly captured and administered.

I can come back on some additional points. I can go into further detail, but perhaps it is not useful. The safeguards contained in the Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) (Amendment) Bill are significantly less secure than those contained in the AI Act. There is a difference. For example, Article 26.10 states:

... in the framework of an investigation for the targeted search of a person suspected or convicted of having committed a criminal offence, the deployer of a high-risk AI system for post-remote biometric identification shall request an authorisation ... without undue delay and no later than 48 hours, by a judicial authority or an administrative authority ...

In the AI Act, we are doing these exact same kinds of thing. It recognises the need of urgency. It can say within 48 hours. It gives that 48-hour window that one can act in and ensure that one has the proper paperwork to authorise that. In the Minister for justice's Bill, the use of biometric analysis simply requires the approval of any two gardaí, not two qualified gardaí or not a senior garda. Any two gardaí can use biometric analysis. A garda can ask any other garda and then it is ready to go. There is such a wild disparity between that and the language on safeguarding, obligations and recognition of high risk, yet the same actions are being described. I ask the Minister of State to address both of those issues.

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

I thank my colleagues very much for their deep interest in this. To some of the Senators, we have had an opportunity and taken notes from the previous day. Some of the Senators, if not all, will have detailed responses to some of their queries.

I take Senator Higgins's point. I thank her and Senator Ruane for this amendment on biometric analysis and biometric identification. At this point, though, they are matters for the Minister for justice. As the Senator said, that terminology has been created in legislation that he has introduced. Under the Bill that we have deliberately drafted, the terms and expressions used in the EU AI Act have the same meaning in domestic legislation. This came up in places in the previous debate. Section 2(3) expressly provides: "A word or expression used in this [Bill] that is also used in the Artificial Intelligence Regulation has, unless the context otherwise requires, the same meaning in this [Bill] it has in that Regulation." The proposed definition is already provided for in Article 3(35) of the AI Act.

We are talking about high risk. It is important to note that, before placing high-risk AI systems on the EU market or putting them into services, providers must ensure that the system complies with the requirements set out in the AI Act. One of those key obligations is that providers must carry out conformity assessment to demonstrate compliance with the AI Act. This includes risk management, data governance, technical documentation, record-keeping transparency, provision of information to deployers, human oversight, accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity. Following the assessment, providers should draw up EU declarations of conformity and mark compliance with conformity. The assessment must be repeated where the system or its intended purpose is substantially modified. Risk management and data governance providers must implement risk management systems and ensure that training, validation and testing data are appropriate, relevant and sufficiently represented.

Regarding human oversight, accuracy and cybersecurity, high-risk AI systems must be designed to allow effective human oversight and meet minimum standards of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity.

On what the Senator said around biometric analysis and biometric identification, the two terms that she questions, we will speak with the Minister for justice. I am happy to discuss it with him. I will ask my officials to engage further on the issues that the Senator has raised today.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad that the Minister of State will engage because, with respect, this cannot be left to that Minister. She is the Minister of State with responsibility for this. This is the AI Act. That definition should be included and made explicit in this legislation. If it is not in this national legislation, it shall be interpreted as matching the EU definition except for where there is another context, then we have the diluted idea about if the context has been that the Minister for justice does not want to.We will come to other issues relating to public confidence later, but for public confidence in the regulation of AI, it is vital that Government Departments do not appear to be taking an àla carteapproach to it. Under the definition, names are not biometric data. Inserting names as a filter to narrow the application of the biometric identification piece is a significant step that is directly at odds with the EU AI Act. It cannot be left like that. I would, with absolute respect, suggest that a path needs to be made for inserting a correct definition, ideally including the word "notwithstanding". The definition that was inserted into the recording devices Act must be amended because it is inaccurate and directly flouts the AI Act before we even begin monitoring and supervision.

I thank the Minister of State for her engagement. I cannot emphasise enough that this is not a matter that should be left to discretion. She is the Minister of State in this area, and if this law is to be the foundational law in respect of how this is implemented and enacted in Ireland, it needs solidity from the beginning and cannot have a contradiction at its starting point.

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

I will expressly commit to further discussions with the Minister for justice, and I will ask my officials to do that, on the Senator's valid points. On this occasion, I cannot accept the amendment.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the amendment being pressed?

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will withdraw it. I will re-enter it on Report Stage. Is this Committee and Report Stage or just Committee Stage?

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is Committee Stage.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be returning on Report Stage with that amendment.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 2, 8 to 12, inclusive, 15 and 17 are related. Amendment No. 9 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 8. Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are physical alternatives to amendment No. 10. Amendment No. 12 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 11. Amendments Nos. 2, 8 to 12, inclusive, 15 and 17 may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 11, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: " "Service" means the Public Appointments Service;".

My amendments within this group largely deal with the establishment of the board. The Minister of State will have seen these amendments when my colleague, Deputy Gibney, submitted them in the Dáil. They are about governance and trying to strengthen the governance of the AI office to ensure its independence. Under the current drafting of this legislation, I do not think there is independence. We talked about this issue last week and the Minister of State talked about it in her response. However, I do not believe that we have sufficient protections and safeguards around the independence of the office. There are multiple areas where the independence is undermined in the legislation.

Amendment No. 2 relates to the Public Appointments Service, PAS. Setting a high standard includes using the PAS as a tool for hiring and making sure that it is distinct from the Department itself. That is currently not guaranteed within the existing legislation. This amendment would ensure that no appointments are made at the behest of any one Minister and ensures transparency. I do not think that having direct appointments in any situation is tantamount to good managerial or governance practices.

The Minister's ability to give written direction to the office as it currently stands is a violation of the independence of the office. The idea is that the office will take action via ministerial direction and I would like to ensure that is not possible. I know that within the legislation there is a carve-out to state that the Minister cannot provide direction specifically when it comes to regulation, but that protection does not exist when it comes to the issues of literacy, innovation and all the other functions that the office carries out. That undermines the independence piece. If the Minister is able to write to the office providing guidance on direction of travel, I do not know how we can say that is normal and leads to the independence of an independent State body.

We have models where it works. We have the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, Coimisiún na Meán and the Data Protection Commission, DPC. They are independent in how they were created for good reason and we are just not doing that here and I do not know why.

When it comes to the establishment of the board, amendment No. 8 is around restructuring board appointments to give better independence to ensure it is not within the gift of any one Minister to appoint the first board or to appoint the first CEO with the normal process and oversight for a full CEO and board term. I do not know why the process for appointments is not currently grounded in the legislation. These amendments are all about grounding that in the legislation as it stands because it has not been written that way.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am going to speak to amendments Nos. 8, 11 and 15 in this group. Amendments Nos. 8 and 11 seek to remove the provisions in the Bill regarding the establishment of the board, and appointments to the board, of the AI office and replace them with more suitable provisions. As was outlined by Senator Stephenson, they are in place for other statutory bodies. The amendments take the format from the IHREC and adapt it for appropriate use in the case of the AI office. This is an established way of working and operating. We know it can work. It also addresses some of the concerns we have around the provisions in the Bill.

The Minister of State has said that both the first CEO and the first board members are being recruited through open PAS competitions, but those appointments are not happening under the provisions of this Bill. As such, we do not know what selection criteria and procedures were followed in this process and the provisions of the Bill as drafted in section 13(3), that "the Minister shall agree with the Public Appointments Service the selection criteria", is, presumably, not implemented, given that the section is not in effect. The Minister of State might clarify the criteria and procedures in place for the selection process for the first CEO and board. We have been told they are going to come into effect immediately but this is putting the cart before the horse. We have been told that their selection is already under way even though the Bill has not passed.

An important feature of our amendments is the requirement that the prospective candidates appointed to the PAS for involvement in the selection process to recommend an appointment would also have relevant expertise in areas that are important to ensure that appropriate appointments are made. Those areas include human rights, equality matters, climate, digital rights and digital privacy. We want persons with understanding of those issues to be the persons in a position to oversee the selection process and make recommendations to the Government.

AI is rippling through many facets of our lives. It is an extraordinarily impactful, volatile and, in many senses, dangerous edifice. Even this first CEO and board matter. We are facing into a period when we know that AI has considerable question marks over its viability, financial viability and environmental impacts. The speed at which it is moving and the level of risk associated with it at every level - social, environmental, financial, fiscal, economic and ever other level - is so high that this first CEO and board matter.

The Minister of State might say that, down the line, we can apply selection criteria and procedures for any new CEOs and board members, and will reference the tight timeline. The issue remains that the first CEO and board will not be appointed through the procedures outlined in the Bill. There is a lack of transparency about those appointments as CEO and to the board. They will be making such crucial early decisions.

Our amendments seek to ensure the selection processes are applied from the first instances, approaching the appointment of the first CEO and board with more transparency from a governance perspective. Amendment No. 15 also inserts a new provision that would preclude an individual from becoming a member of the board of the AI office or disqualify them from acting as a member of the board in circumstances where that person has a material conflict of interest that undermines his or her ability to perform the functions expected of board members. This amendment seeks to strengthen the independence, integrity and public credibility of a key part of Ireland's AI governance framework.

AI regulation will involve oversight of very powerful commercial actors whose financial interest may be impacted directly by regulatory decisions.When a prospective board member has a commercial, financial or professional holding that is a conflict of interest, and where there is a risk that those decisions made at board level could be influenced or even perceived to have been influenced by those interests over the public good, that is a concern. Even the appearance of undue influence reduces and undermines public confidence in this new regulator in this crucial area.

By explicitly legislating in respect of a person who has a material conflict of interest that compromises their ability to act or can be seen as compromising their ability to act independently and impartiality, the amendment establishes an important safeguard against regulatory capture, ensuring those with important roles in the governance of the oversight of AI regulation do so free from competing interests. That is our amendment No. 15, which is part of the same grouping.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to speak in support of amendment No. 9. It proposes that at least two members of the AI office board possess significant experience in AI development, commercialisation and digital innovation or, in other words, recognised industry representation. It is a modest but important amendment, and it strengthens the governance of the AI office and ensures that its decisions are informed by real-world experience.

The AI office will make decisions that will affect every business across every sector in the economy and it will shape how AI is regulated, guidance is issued and compliance is supported. For that reason, it is essential that the board includes members who understand how AI is developed, deployed and adopted in practice.

The amendment is not about representing specific sectional interests; it is about broadening expertise, industry experience and technical expertise that will hopefully lead to better-informed and more balanced decision-making. Recognised industry associations engage daily with businesses of all sizes, particularly SMEs, which I have spoken about many times in this House, and they understand the practical challenges we face when implementing new regulatory obligations or adopting emerging technologies. Including board members with such experience will ensure that the office's work is grounded in the realities of what we are experiencing in SMEs, not just in theory or policy.

Members with industry backgrounds can provide valuable insight into how codes of practice, guidance and regulatory initiatives will operate on the ground. They can also anticipate unintended consequences and ensure that regulatory measures are proportionate and workable in practice. That practical perspective will improve the quality, credibility and effectiveness of the office's output.

This proposal is entirely consistent with the principle that innovation and business adoption should remain central considerations alongside our regulatory objectives. It does not create an industry majority. It does not compromise the independence of the board. It simply ensures that business experience sits alongside other forms of expertise within a balanced governance structure. Good governance benefits from diversity of experience, and complex AI issues require perspectives from regulators, lawyers, academics and technologists who understand exactly how businesses deploy AI systems.

If the AI office is going to be effective, its board must reflect the breadth of Ireland's AI ecosystem. Including members with recognised industry experience will strengthen the office's credibility. It will improve engagement and it will also ensure that regulation remains practical, proportionate and also supportive of responsible innovation. That is what I hope to achieve with amendment No. 9.

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

I want to begin by acknowledging the letter from the Minister of State in relation to some of the points that I raised on Second Stage. I note the time pressure in relation to this so that it can take effect by 2 August. I also take some heart from her comments that there will be a phased approach to the implementation of the AI Act, and that it will be open to further measures as part of this work.

The number of amendments we are dealing with today highlights that there is a lot of work to be done in relation to this, even with the timeframe. I do not believe that we, as Senators, are getting sufficient opportunity to go through this in detail, to scrutinise and to try to bring some more issues to bear in relation to the Bill. That is always a danger when legislation is pressurised and rushed through so quickly, particularly in an area of such importance, one that has significant implications for people, as well as the running of this State and the various devices that the Government will use. The implications of the issues around the Minister, ministerial directions and the independence of a board still leave us with significant concerns.

We submitted amendment No. 12 to try to strengthen the calibre of the people on the board, and I have no doubt that good people will be sought for it. However, in relation to things like human rights, equality law, trade unions, workers' rights, consumer protection and civil society, we want to ensure there is a broad representation on the board. That is essential both to ensure the genuine independence of the new AI office and effective regulation. It is an amendment aimed at strengthening the board. Our concerns remain about the relationship between the Minister and the board and the sense of genuine independence.

We want effective measures in place. There are enormous opportunities with AI, but there are also enormous challenges and potential difficulties. We need to ensure that this country is not just a centre of tech companies but also a centre of regulation to ensure that we lead from the front in this regard. Our amendment is an attempt to strengthen that position in relation to the board.

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

Gabhaim buíochas to all of the Senators who raised some of the issues that we spoke about the last day and continue to debate.

I understand people's concerns about us doing this at pace but I am at pains to express the genuine concern I have about leaving it any longer. As Senator Murphy said, we have a deadline of 2 August. There is no getting away from that. Equally, this legislation will deal with tech that is moving very quickly and we have to react and respond. This is not legislation that is going to sit on a shelf for 20 years, as lots of legislation does because it can and stands the test of time. This is legislation that has to respond to technology and therefore it will be something that we will have to come back to as the technology develops. We will have to react and respond quickly and be as agile as we possibly can.

It is not me, it is the wonderful officials the Members see here and the great team that is working incredibly fast to get the AI office up and running and to get the legislation through. In relation to the director of the AI office, that job has been advertised publicly through PAS and is available for everyone to see. I will get a little bit more into that as I get into the individual amendments.

I thank Senator Stephenson for her amendment. However, I do not consider it necessary to introduce a definition of "service" for the purpose of this Bill. The references to the Public Appointments Service in the Bill are limited in number and are clear and unambiguous in their context. The provisions concerning the appointment of members to the board expressly refer to the Public Appointments Service and there is no difficulty in understanding those references as drafted. As a general principal of legislative drafting, defined terms should be used only when they are necessary to assist the interpretation or operation of legislation. In this instance, to introduce a definition of "service" would not materially improve the readability or operation of the Bill. For those reasons, I do not consider the amendment necessary and therefore cannot accept it.

On amendments Nos. 8 to 12, inclusive I thank Senators Murphy, Stephenson, Higgins and McCarthy. While they differ in their detail, there is a common objective in them all, that is, to ensure a transparent and merit-based appointments process, a broad range of expertise on the board and governance arrangements that support the effective discharge of the office's functions. I agree entirely with these objectives. Indeed, they are objectives that are already reflected in the Bill.Taken together, these amendments would substantially alter the governance and appointments framework of the board.

Amendment No. 8, to which Senator Higgins spoke, would replace section 12 with a detailed statutory framework governing the size and composition of the board, gender balance requirements, terms of office, reappointment arrangements and other operational matters.

Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 would replace section 13 with a significantly more prescriptive appointments framework. They would require a detailed Public Appointments Service competition process to be set out in primary legislation, prescribe expertise requirements for selection panels and place additional constraints on the appointments process.

Amendments Nos. 9 and 12 would require specific categories of expertise to be represented on the board, including expertise related to AI, business and enterprise, human rights, equality, consumer protection, trade union and worker's rights issues and civil society engagement. While I understand the intention behind these proposals, I do not consider it necessary or appropriate to prescribe these matters in such detail in primary legislation. The Bill already provides for a Public Appointments Service process and requires both the initial and future appointments to be made having regard to the expertise and capacity of prospective members in matters connected to the functions of the office. Section 13(3) of the Bill specifically provides:

The Minister shall agree with the Public Appointments Service the selection criteria and procedures that are to apply ... having regard to the desirability that the members of the Board will have experience of, and shown capacity in, matters connected with the functions of the Office.

Accordingly, the Bill already provides a mechanism for ensuring that board members possess relevant expertise and experience.

Many of the procedural requirements contained in these amendments are already reflected in the Government's guidelines on the appointments to State boards. Those guidelines require open advertising of vacancies, publication of appointment criteria, an independent assessment process conducted by the Public Appointments Service, and consideration of diversity and skills requirements. I do not, therefore, consider it necessary to replicate these operational arrangements in the primary legislation. I consider the existing provisions provide the appropriate degree of flexibility for a newly established organisation.

The office is being created in the context of an entirely new regulatory framework under the EU AI Act and in a rapidly evolving technological environment. In addition, access to independent technical expertise will be available through the structures established at EU level, including the EU scientific panel. It is important that the appointments process can evolve in response to the practical needs of the organisation as it develops. I do not consider it appropriate at this stage to prescribe in primary legislation detailed requirements in relation to appointment procedures, selection panels or particular categories of expertise.

In response to amendments Nos. 9 and 12, I agree with the sentiments underlying these amendments. It is important that the board collectively possesses a broad range of expertise and perspectives. However, I do not agree that a prescriptive, statutory requirement for particular categories of board members is necessary.

The functions of the office are wide ranging and will continue to evolve. As the AI governance framework develops, the expertise required by the board may, likewise, change over time. The Bill already contains a mechanism for ensuring that the board members possess appropriate expertise in matters connected to the office's functions. I feel like I am repeating myself but I do have to try to respond to each of the amendments. I am satisfied this is already catered for in the wide range of relevant expertise and diversity within the composition of the board.

I recognise the objective behind amendments Nos. 10 and 11, namely, to establish a highly transparent and independent appointments framework. However, many of the detailed procedural requirements proposed are already provided for under existing Government policies and administrative arrangements. The Bill strikes the correct balance between the role of the Public Appointments Service in identifying suitable qualified candidates and the Government's role in making appointments to State bodies. For that reason, I do not consider it necessary to replace section 13 with a more prescriptive statutory framework.

I have spoken to amendment No. 11, which proposes introducing a definition of "Service". A general principle of legislative drafting is that defined terms should be used only where they assist in the interpretation or operation of the legislation. In this case, introducing the definition of "Service" would not materially improve the readability or operation of the Bill.

For the present, I am satisfied the Bill strikes the right balance between transparency, accountability, expertise and flexibility. I am satisfied that the Bill already provides for a merit-based appointments process, caters for a wide range of relevant expertise and diversity within the composition of the board, and provides the flexibility appropriate for a newly established organisation operating in a rapidly evolving regulatory environment. For those reasons, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 8 to 12, inclusive.

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

The Minister of State brought up the August deadline. We have actually had two years to transpose the directive, so we are now on a deadline, but the Bill could have been introduced earlier. I know that the two-year period was for officials to work on transposing the legislation, but the problem is that if we only get the legislation delivered at the end of term weeks before the transposition deadline, it makes matters difficult. I know that the officials do huge amounts of work in all Departments when it comes to the transposition of complex EU directives, but it is our job as elected representatives and parliamentarians to scrutinise legislation. This point is not unique to this directive, as it happens all of the time, but we cannot play our constitutional role as elected parliamentarians properly when we have limited time to scrutinise legislation. I know that we are near the deadline, but if we could in future put in a time buffer to permit us to scrutinise legislation properly, then it would be much easier.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be brief on that same point. The Seanad has the EU scrutiny committee to try to ensure that statutory instruments are published six months in advance so that there can be an input process. Similarly, we should be looking at this legislation many more months in advance so that we can have the best process. When we are putting in place something so new, it is extra important to have that done. There is a level of poor timing, whereby it is coming at such a late stage. I appreciate that the Minister of State is dealing with a new area but it is a pattern, unfortunately. I spoke earlier about how ten out of the previous 11 Planning and Development Acts have arrived in the last two weeks of July or the last week of December. We have always been told that, unfortunately, the Government cannot take on amendments because we are moving at this pace. It is not unique to the Minister of State, but as a Government practice, it needs improvement.

We may disagree on some of the amendments but that is fine. We can proceed to the vote and so forth.

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

Just to respond to that point, I am sympathetic to the intentions behind the amendments. I know that the Senators are all coming from a very good place with their amendments. However, I cannot accept them.

As to the pace of Bills coming to the end of term, I will relay Senator Higgins's sentiments to the Chief Whip.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 3 to 7, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 13, line 34, after “foster” to insert “ethical and responsible”.

My colleagues' amendment No. 4 is the same. The Bill includes the word "foster" and we would like it to include "ethical and responsible". The Minister of State will be familiar with this amendment from the Dáil because my colleague, Deputy Gibney, tabled it.I do not know why we are not pursuing it. This seems like a straightforward amendment. It seeks to strengthen the Bill such that when we talk about fostering AI innovation and literacy, we are talking about fostering ethical and responsible AI innovation and literacy. The Minister of State might outline why she does not think it is appropriate to talk about ethical and responsible AI innovation and literacy. Surely, it is a given that we include that kind of language because of the scale of the danger AI poses and the concerns to which it gives rise.

The Minister of State said that "promoting and fostering AI innovation and literacy" is sufficiently broad and that the wider framework of the AI Act already ensures that "innovation is pursued in a manner that is human-centric, trustworthy and [proactive] of fundamental rights". I got that quote from the Official Report of the proceedings of the Dáil. I do not necessarily agree with the Minister of State. If we want to emphasise the role of the regulatory framework as protecting fundamental rights, then it must be spelt out within the legislation and explicitly defined in the remit of the office to which this Bill relates. Talking about an ethical responsibility is crucial when we want to frame the role and responsibility of that office as human rights-centric.

In the Dáil, the Minister of State said that there are no definitions of the terms "ethics" and "responsibility" in the legislation. However, the word "ethics" is used five times and the word "responsible" is used twice. Therefore, we use those terms in other areas of this legislation. It is not really about those definitions because we use them in other aspects of the Bill. That argument does not hold water.

I do not understand why we are not including the phrase "fostering ethical and responsible AI innovation and literacy". That seems fundamental to the role and responsibility of the office. I find it hard to understand why that commitment is not included so that we are pursuing reasonable, balanced AI regulation that focuses on human rights.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We tabled a similar amendment. I definitely support the ethical and responsible approach set out by Senator Stephenson. We put forward an amendment with a slightly different wording. The Minister of State spoke in the Dáil about terms being undefined, but the term "ethical" should be a standard that can be operated. The term "sustainable" is defined across multiple items of legislation. That is why our amendment, that is, amendment No. 4, seeks to amend section 9 and ensure that the functions of the AI office promote AI innovation that is ethical and sustainable.

There is an unusual disjoint, one we have never seen before, with this legislation that is very concerning. The AI office is being given two potentially conflicting briefs. On the one hand, it is to function as the regulator of AI while, on the other, it is supposed to promote AI innovation. That is not the standard or the norm. Coimisiún na Meán does not promote or push media production; it is there to regulate. The position is the same in any of these areas. There is no drive on the part of the Data Protection Commissioner to push data products or commercial innovation in the area of data. The commissioner does not have that remit. There is, therefore, real tension in this regard that has the potential to cause dysfunction because two very different roles are being given to the same body.

If we look at how the current regulatory approach is framed, there is significant concern about how this conflict might manifest. Concerns have been expressed in respect of areas like data protection, where Ireland has been perceived internationally as having failed to always act solely in the context of the regulatory imperative. There has been concern that Ireland’s economic interests may have influenced the context of Ireland’s data protection. That concern was publicly and widely expressed across Europe.

The establishment of the AI office will replace the AI and digital regulation unit that currently sits within the Department of enterprise. In that unit’s correspondence to the enterprise committee on the general scheme of this Bill, when outlining the importance of the legislation and looking for it to be pushed through in that speedy way we have spoken about, the unit stated, "Maintaining Ireland’s position as the location of choice for technology companies in the EU is an overarching national imperative." To say that it is an overarching national imperative is huge language. What does it arch over? Does it arch over our social responsibilities? Is it overarching our environmental responsibilities or climate obligations? Does it surpass everything? That seems to be the case at the moment when we see ourselves as wild outliers when it comes to data centres and their consumption of electricity. We are far outstripping anyone in terms of the amount of our national and collective resources we are allowing to be absorbed by data centres. There is concern regarding that regulatory function.

The Minister will understand that is why we need to see some kind of countervailing language. The current AI regulation unit, which will become this new body, stated that this is a national imperative. It also stated that encouraging and incentivising AI companies to locate here is a comprehensive, all-encompassing and critical aim. Essentially, with this language, especially the term “national imperative”, it is saying that it is essential to the survival of the State. Therefore, we are a bit worried that this new body will forget to focus on ethics and sustainability but, rather, solely focus on making AI happen.

We know Ireland is one of the jurisdictions internationally that are trying to make AI happen. There are a lot of people trying to make AI happen. On a straightforward financial perspective, however, it is not. There is a huge drive to make AI delivery happen. That drive could, in fact, lead to the neglect of ethical and sustainability concerns, as well as other imperatives. If this new AI office will be picking up where the AI and digital regulation unit has left off, what will the balance and trade-offs be? This is a question regarding the AI office’s role in the promotion of innovation and its role in enforcing safeguards that may curb dangerous excesses of that innovation.

We must also bear in mind that the sector we are talking about very proudly had the credo for many years of, “Move fast and break things”. That was the sector’s philosophy. We know that a lot of things have been broken. The same body is being given the job of making AI innovation move fast while trying to ensure it does not break things. In essence, that is what is being asked of this AI body. It must regulate so that things are not broken, but it must also move fast so there is quicker innovation. That will result in tension.

We cannot simply say that there is no doubt that the intention in this regard is for good innovation and literacy that is empowering, rather than it simply being a matter of pawning it off to people who will have to expect their data to be used. I am passionate about digital empowerment and that literacy piece. When the Minister, Deputy Calleary, held a related role to the one the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, currently holds, I engaged with him about the idea of digital empowerment funds that would come from the State rather than companies. Those funds would be related to giving people control on the future and a voice in shaping it.

When the AI office has this driver piece, it makes it critically important that such promotion is done ethically and sustainably.I would like the Minister of State to accept our amendment. I think she should. She will find future issues that arise in relation to the operations of this body easier is she is able to point to a mandate it may have in terms of ethics and sustainability. If the Minister of State will not accept the amendment, will she outline how the strong regulatory framework will be established while pursuing that overarching national imperative frame and using that language of innovation at all costs, effectively?

Amendment No. 7, in this same grouping, proposes that the new artificial intelligence office should have due regard in the performance of its functions to the work of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Artificial Intelligence. My colleague, Senator Ruane, may come back in on this in a reply. As drafted, the Bill proposes that the office should have due regard to the policies and objectives of the Government and any Minister of the Government, but the Minister of State will be aware that a special committee has been established and a number of interim reports have already been produced. When substituting for my colleague on that committee, Senator Ruane, on a number of occasions, very important issues and concerns were brought to light from a wide range of sources. These are concerns from young people affected by artificial intelligence, older people affected by artificial intelligence, from the very serious lacuna and gap we have in terms of security, defence and military uses such as autonomous weapons in relation to artificial intelligence and from the environmental impacts of artificial intelligence. There is a wide range of in-depth concerns that have been flagged and have been teased out by experts speaking at that committee. I suggest that office should look to engage with the work of that committee and the interim reports to date. My colleague may come back further on this.

While the committee makes its recommendations to Government, this amendment would ensure the artificial intelligence office would also be paying due regard directly to those, rather than solely if the Minister chooses to draw its attention to what the committee may recommend. It is important because it is a diverse committee. It is a cross-party committee. It allows for a nuanced approach in what might be put forward. There is a value in the office considering the policies of the Government. The office is not there to serve the Government and it will have a responsibility that is wider than any one particular government at one particular time. It should, therefore, be drawing on the widest possible expertise from civil society, from academia and from right across our Parliament.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to speak in support of amendment No. 6, which seeks to expand the statutory functions of the State's AI office, so that it becomes, not only a regulator but also a genuine centre of excellence for guidance, practical support and training. If we want the AI regulation to succeed, then businesses must understand what is expected of them. Regulation works best when compliance is enabled. At the moment, even on the enterprise committee, I think compliance is feared - certainly among SMEs. As drafted, the Bill contains extensive provisions on investigations, sanctions and enforcement. Of course these are necessary, but what is missing here is the equivalent emphasis on helping businesses, particularly SMEs, as I have mentioned. It is a new territory and they could be helped to navigate this complex regulatory landscape. Most Irish organisations that are going to be affected by the AI Act will not be large multinational technology companies that have a lot of staff and armies of lawyers and engineers. They will be small and medium-sized enterprises, often with limited in-house expertise. They will need clear guidance, a practical code of practice, training and technical assistance if they are to comply with the new legislation and do that confidently. My amendment rebalances the Bill by placing compliance support alongside enforcement. It does not weaken the standard; it strengthens it. Prevention is always more effective and far less costly than enforcement after the fact. By empowering the AI office to develop and disseminate guidance to facilitate training programmes and provide technical assistance, we will ensure businesses will receive help before any problems arise. Crucially, the amendment also enhances legal certainty. Many organisations are eager to adopt AI, but many remain unsure how the Act will apply to them in practice. We need clear guidance to reduce that uncertainty and encourage responsible investment and innovation. When businesses know the rules they are more likely to follow them. The amendment also strengthens the feedback loop between businesses, regulators and government. The AI office will be uniquely placed to advise the Minister on emerging implementation challenges, and that will ensure the policy will evolve in line with real-world experience. That is how good regulation works; not in isolation but in partnerships with all of us who must comply. Ultimately, success should not be measured by the number of investigations conducted or number of sanctions imposed. Success needs to be measured by how many businesses understand the rules and comply with them, and confidently adopt trustworthy AI. Amendment No. 6, which I have tabled, helps to achieve that goal. It ensures Ireland is not only a leader in regulating AI but a leader in enabling its responsible and innovative use.

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

I also wanted to speak to amendment No. 5. I apologise, I had not realised it was in this grouping. This is for the regulator to be able to publish its reports publicly. I think the Minister of State mentioned in the Dáil that the Bill already considers a number of provisions designed to ensure transparency and accountability in the performance of the office's function, including requirements to prepare a strategy statement and an annual report, both of which would be published. That is great but having a publishing function for all types of reports that the office would be looking into is not exactly the same as publishing the annual report and the strategy statement. That is different. If the office is doing reports into specific cases or specific regulation issues more broadly, providing that evidence and the detail of the report it had looked into to parliamentarians, advocacy groups and citizens would be really important.

We talked a bit last week about enterprise versus rights and the Minister of State has talked about the AI Act adopting a rights-based model, which is true. While the Act may have identified protections, we do not see that laid out when it comes to the functions of the office. In many ways, some of those protections have been left out. Say, for the regulatory matters that are prescribed in the AI Act itself, the office does not seem to serve the same rights-based model, quite frankly. That is why having things like "ethical and responsible" and "ethical and sustainable" in amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are really important for bringing that to the fore.

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

I thank colleagues for their amendments. I will speak to amendment No. 3 first and thank Senator Stephenson for it.

The purpose of section 9(1)(c) in the Bill is to provide a broad statement of the function of the office to promote and foster AI innovation and literacy. The Bill is intended to give effect to the EU AI Act, and in doing so it is important that the language used in the Bill remains consistent with the terminology and objectives of the underlying regulation. Article 1 of the EU AI Act states that its purpose is "to improve the functioning of the internal market and promote the uptake of human-centric and trustworthy artificial intelligence (AI), while ensuring a high level of protection of health, safety,[and] fundamental rights" while supporting innovation. The regulation, therefore, already embodies the principles that the amendment seeks to advance. In addition, neither "ethical" nor "responsible" is defined in the AI Act or in this Bill. Introducing those terms in a single provision without definition and without corresponding usage elsewhere in the legislative framework could create uncertainty as to whether a different or additional standard is intended to apply to the function of the office. I consider that the existing reference to promoting and fostering AI innovation and literacy is sufficiently broad, and that the wider framework of the AI Act already ensures the innovation is pursued in a manner that is human-centric, trustworthy and protective of fundamental rights. Accordingly, I do not consider the amendment necessary and will not be accepting it.

On amendment No. 4, in much of Senator Higgins's contribution she said that this AI office was not to serve the Government. She is right. It is to serve citizens.I again thank Senators for their amendments here today and reiterate the purpose of section 9(1)(c) in the Bill is to provide a broad statement of the office's functions. I do not want to be repeating myself, but Article 1 in EU AI Act states that its purpose is "to improve the functioning of the internal market and promote the uptake of human-centric and trustworthy artificial intelligence (AI), while ensuring a high level of protection of health, safety,[and] fundamental rights".

Sustainability in the development of AI is a key focus of the AI Act. The Act already provides for sustainable AI by mandating energy consumption documentation for general purpose AI, promoting energy efficiency standards and utilising AI regulatory sandboxes to develop eco-friendly algorithmics safely. Furthermore, these provisions integrate with the broader EU AI Act strategy to ensure long-term environmental responsibility. The Act also encourages the development of common benchmarks and methodologies to measure and minimise the energy and other resources of AI models throughout the entire life cycle.

The Act requires providers of general purpose AI models to document the known and estimated energy consumption of their models as part of their technical documentation obligations under Annex XI of the AI Act. To support this, the European Commission is currently undertaking a piece of work to develop a robust and practical framework for measuring AI energy and consumption efficiency.

Furthermore, the Bill requires that the office has regard to the policies and objectives of the Government and any Minister of the Government insofar as the policies and objectives may affect or relate to the functions of the office. This provision is broad and captures wider Government policies, including environmental policies. The Act is clear and strong on its emphasis on application in accordance with the values of the Union as enshrined in the Charter, facilitating the protection of natural persons undertaking democracy, the rule of law and environmental protection in the uptake of trustworthy AI. The Government is conscious that the functions of the office may evolve over time but it is important to avoid unnecessary duplication in relation to its functions. The amendment is, therefore, unnecessary and I cannot accept it.

On amendment No. 5, the Bill already contains a number of provisions designed to ensure transparency and accountability in the performance of the office's functions, including requirements to prepare a statutory statement and annual report, both of which must be published. In addition, section 9(4) provides that the office shall have all such powers as are necessary for the performance of its functions. Where research, analysis or the publication of reports is required to support the exercise of those functions the office would already be able to undertake such activities. The proposed amendment would introduce a broad, stand-alone function to prepare and publish reports on research undertaken, sponsored, commissioned or assisted by the office. It is not clear what additional legal effect this would have, particularly as the office would already be capable of publishing research or reports where these support the performance of its statutory functions, including its function to promote AI innovation, literacy and enhanced public awareness. I consider the Bill already provides the appropriate framework and therefore the amendment is not necessary.

On amendment No.6, I acknowledge that Senator McCarthy feels very passionately about the SME sector and how it is implicated in all of this. In my view and in my humble opinion, this is why that effort has been made to have this one-stop shop. With regard to the regulatory framework there is no extra bureaucratic burden. The sandbox is there to ensure the adoption of AI and to allow SMEs comply in an easy way. That will be one of the advantages of having the AI office as the one-stop shop as the regulatory adviser. Businesses in the SME sector will be dealing the regulatory bodies they are used to dealing with in respect of the market surveillance and the competent authorities. That is very much taken into account in the establishment of the AI office. On the amendment's reasoning, section 9(1)(c) of the Bill provides that the office shall promote and foster AI innovation and literacy, which the Senator spoke to. Section 9(1)(d) provides that it shall enhance public awareness in relation to the use of AI systems and the rights and obligations under the artificial intelligence regulation. These functions complement the range of supports that are provided for in the AI Act at an EU level, including guidelines, codes of practice and a service desk, which are intended to support and reinforce a consistent implementation of harmonised rules across the EU. I am satisfied that these provisions already capture what is proposed in paragraphs (h), (i) and (j), and re-stating them in granular subparagraphs would result in legislative duplication without adding any substantive legal effect.

The Bill, through section 46, provides for the establishment of one or more regulatory sandboxes, in accordance with Article 57 of the EU AI Act, with priority access for the SME sector and startups free of charge as mandated by Article 62 of the regulation. This sandbox function is the primary structural vehicle through which the office will support the SME compliance and reduce regulatory barriers in the adoption of AI. The proposed paragraph (k) duplicates what is already embedded in the sandbox and real-world testing frame provided for in Part 3, Chapter 3 of the Bill.

Section 9(1)(f) already requires the office to provide advice to the Minister on matters relating to its function. The proposed paragraph (j) requires the office to provide advice and technical assistance to the Minister, competent authorities, businesses and organisations. It is a repetition of its existing function.

Section 10 of the Bill confers on the Minister the power to assign additional functions to the office by ministerial order, following consultation with the office and relevant Ministers. This ensures that the office's functions can evolve responsibly to alignment with the wider national policy priorities. That is all I have to say for the moment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With respect, the language the Minister of State was using from AI Act such as "human-centric" and "high level of protection" and all of that, is not in here either. The Government has taken the innovation piece and chose to put that in. The Government could have just said "a body to comply with the AI Act" but it has chosen to specify "promote and foster AI innovation" and to say it as something without the caveats that were in it. It is interesting that even within the AI Act they insert "human-centric and trustworthy ... AI, while ensuring a high level of protection" and all of that language. They did not just say "innovation": they put caveats on it but the Government is choosing to put the innovation language in without the human-centred bit. If the Government did not like the language that Senator Stephenson and I suggested to put in, a very obvious solution would be to put in the language that is in the AI Act. It must be seen as a signal that you have an AI Act that applies and you choose to pick out one aspect of it such as "innovation" and copper-fasten it under a section listed as "Functions of Office". Arguably, it is a promotion and fostering role of AI innovation. This is a complicated thing: a promotional role while at the same time the office is meant to have a regulatory role. The Government should have put in the other language as well or else leave that out and just have the functions of the office being information sharing between relevant offices, enhancing public awareness about the AI Act, dealing with competent authorities, and performing the functions and all of that. If you pick out one of the things, however, and say that the office has got to do this and then not add the other language, then there is a problem. There is a perception, matched up by the kind of language we have seen from the AI unit within the Department with its language of overarching national imperative - which is wild language - that because you put that in and because section (9)(1)(c) exists, you need to put in something else, but the Government does not want to put in "ethical". I think we could probably risk letting that be defined and letting the body define it and look to it. At least it would be looked at. We do have precedents in how it is defined. On "sustainable" we certainly have precedents in how that is defined in other legislation.In fact, there are a couple of definitions. I have argued with this definition because I do not think it is strong enough. A lot of recent legislation goes back to a definition of sustainable as being the idea that this is something which can be managed in such a way that the resources are not depleted for the next generation. I have argued for a version of sustainable in which the current generation should not be using more than our fair share. It is not actually okay that we just manage to be sustainable for the next generation in Ireland if people in Malawi and elsewhere are getting completely hit by the bad decisions we make. I have argued for a stronger definition of sustainable. However, my point is, even using the existing definition of sustainable, there are multiple precedents. I have spent hours in the definitions sections of Bills talking about this because I would like to strengthen that definition. I do not accept there is not a definition and we do not know what we would mean by it. The Minister of State said sustainable AI is in the AI Act. As there is a reference to sustainable there, what is the problem in putting it here?

Presumably, the assumption is that sustainable in the functions of the office would be done in a way that reflects the way it is spoken about in the AI Act. The point is, there are things which have been chosen to be placed as front and centre that are not just about the enforcement and transposition but are specific responsibilities and the choice was made not to include human-centred or sustainability and not to place that within the functions of the body and the office; an office which already has a torn double-function.

I want to establish two other points. It is notable in the section on performing its functions that the office "shall have regard to ... the objective of providing a coherent, harmonised and effective approach". This is provided for in its functions and goes back to our earlier point on biometric identification because it would immediately have on its desk a first problem. It has regard to the objective of providing a coherent, harmonised approach to the implementation of the AI regulation in the State by competent authorities, as well as the need to ensure consistent and effective governance and implementation of the AI regulation in the State. However, as we have just told the Minister of State, the Department of justice is not planning to be coherent or consistent so that will be something on the desk of this body as soon as it starts.

The Minister of State has to hear the concern - and I have sat in the AI committee on numerous occasions. Maybe the idea of that committee was that it was meant to be a place where everybody says AI is amazing and it did this and that and it is so great and wonderful and look at all the money somebody is making, but actually, what is happening is that people are coming with really serious environmental, social, financial, regulatory and employment concerns. If this new body the Department is setting up is meant to be for the people, it needs to send a signal that it is going to care about those things and not just about driving innovation.

The last thing I will say is the Minister has the power under section 10 to confer additional functions. If the Minister of State is not accepting our amendments today, though I will be pressing them, I want to know whether the Minister will be using his powers under conferring of additional functions to add additional functions, and if the Government wants to use that language of human-centred and everything else from the AI Act directly, that it will do so to ensure that from the get-go, this body is serving people and not just money. I say this in absolute honesty and respect. I would like to hear how the Minister of State plans to use section 10 to address the massive lacuna in the functions of the office as it is set out, because I know she is rushing the legislation through.

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

I know the Senator’s sentiments are heartfelt, and there has been a very conscious effort to get the balance she has spoken about with AI of creativity and innovation, but also being human-centric and trustworthy. It is not for one moment the case that both are not taken into account. It is important that while we have our market surveillance and competent authorities, we also have our fundamental rights authorities which are there to advise, support and ensure that citizens' rights are considered. The feedback of Coimisiún na Meán, the Data Protection Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, the Ombudsman for Children's Office, and the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces has been taken into consideration in order that the Bill is rounded, and is not just a one-size-fits-all or is all about innovation and creativity. I will leave it at that.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am disappointed that the Minister of State has not indicated her intention in using section 10. That would have been a good signal. It is woefully unacceptable to say “but there are all of these other bodies.” If people go to the Department and say they have concerns in relation to AI ethical or AI sustainable issues, will they have to go to IHREC for that? They will have to go round the houses. They will have to go to the Data Protection Commission only to come back. If the Department is setting up the regulatory authority, the Minister of State has literally told us these bodies should not come to it with their problems. They should go to one of the other authorities which are set up properly. Is it or is it not part of that regulatory authority architecture that the Minister of State has just described? Is it going to function like Coimisiún na Meán? Is it going to function like any of these other bodies, and have that actual component? Are people still expected to go with their ethical concerns about AI to these other bodies? Why is there not a signal for this? I am actually surprised. I could understand if it had, as an oversight, or poor decision-making within the Department been left out, but I genuinely, fundamentally asked that this be addressed, if not by our amendments, by the functions and powers the Minister has. That is there under section 10, and as for simply saying they will go somewhere else, will they go somewhere else because human rights are not going to be in the mix for this body when it does its job? Can the Minister of State confirm whether section 15 of the climate Act will apply to this body and its operations? That relates to my question on sustainability.

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

I meant to say in my first contribution that I give the Senator my assurances that my officials will speak with the Minister for justice on the issues she raised earlier today.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 13, line 34, after “foster” to insert “ethical and sustainable”

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

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 14, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: “(f) prepare and publish, in such manner as it sees fit, reports including reports on any research undertaken, sponsored, commissioned or assisted by it,”.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 14, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following: “(h) develop, publish and disseminate guidance, codes of practice and other informational materials to assist businesses, public bodies and other persons in understanding and complying with the Artificial Intelligence Regulation and any enactments relating to the development, placing on the market, putting into service, deployment or use of AI systems;

(i) facilitate, promote and support access to training, educational programmes, workshops and other initiatives designed to enhance awareness, capability and compliance among businesses, public bodies and other persons in relation to AI systems and the Artificial Intelligence Regulation;

(j) provide advice, guidance and technical assistance to the Minister, relevant competent authorities, businesses and other organisations in relation to the interpretation, implementation and practical application of the Artificial Intelligence Regulation and related enactments, with a view to promoting compliance, legal certainty and the responsible adoption of AI systems;

(k) advise the Minister on policies, measures and initiatives to facilitate and accelerate the adoption, deployment and commercialisation of AI technologies by businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, to support innovation, productivity and competitiveness, reduce barriers to compliance, and strengthen the State’s position as a leading location for the development and responsible use of AI technologies.”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 14, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following: “(b) the work of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Artificial Intelligence, including recommendations made by the Joint Committee in any interim and final reports;”.

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

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 15, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following: “Establishment and membership of Board

12. (1) The Board shall consist of such and so many members (not being more than 11 and less than 7) as the Government determines.

(2) Of the members of the Board, not less than 3 of them shall be men and not less than 3 of them shall be women, and in a case where there are 10 or more members, not less than 5 of them shall be men and not less than 5 of them shall be women.

(3) Each member of the Board shall be appointed by the Government, in accordance with section 13, and shall hold office for such period not exceeding 5 years, as the Government may determine when appointing him or her.

(4) Each member of the Board shall hold his or her office on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Government at the time of his or her appointment and shall, subject to subsection (8), be eligible for re-appointment for a further term not exceeding 4 years.

(5) The Board may act notwithstanding any vacancy among its members (including one or more vacancies that result in subsection (1) or (2) not being complied with).

(6) Of the persons who on establishment day are to comprise the members of the Board—

(a) one less than half of such members shall be appointed for a term of 3 years, and

(b) the remainder of such members, including the Chairperson, shall be appointed for a term of 4 years.

(7) Subject to subsection (8), a member of the Board whose term of office expires with the passage of time shall be eligible for re-appointment to the Board.

(8) A person who is reappointed to be a member of the Board in accordance with subsection (7) shall not hold office for more than 2 consecutive terms and, in any event, may not hold office for periods the aggregate of which exceeds 8 years.

(9) Where it is proposed to reappoint a person as a member of the Board in accordance with subsection (3), it shall not be necessary for the person to participate in a further selection process undertaken by the Public Appointments Service under section 13 or to be recommended for reappointment by the Public Appointments Service.

(10) Subject to sections 17 and 18, a member of the Board shall hold office on such terms and conditions as the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, determines.”.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 15, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “(5) In making appointments under this section, the Minister shall ensure that not fewer than 2 members of the Board possess significant knowledge of, and experience in, the development, deployment or commercialisation of AI technologies, digital innovation, entrepreneurship or business representation, including experience gained through service with a recognised representative body of enterprises or industry sectors.”.

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

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 16, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:

“Recommendations for appointment of members of Board

13. (1) A member of the Board shall be appointed by the Government. (2) Where a vacancy arises, or is anticipated will arise, on the Board, the Government shall, for the purposes of identifying persons and making recommendations to the Government in respect of those persons for appointment as members of the Board, invite the Service to undertake a selection competition.

(3) The Service shall appoint the members of the selection panel from amongst persons who, in the opinion of the Service, have relevant experience of, and expertise in relation to, matters connected with any or all of the following:

(a) human rights matters or human rights law;

(b) equality matters or equality law;

(c) public sector administration and reform;

(d) board management and corporate governance;

(e) industrial relations;

(f) climate or energy systems.

(4) The Minister shall agree with the Service the selection criteria and process to be implemented in respect of the filling of any vacancy on the Board.

(5) A vacancy on the Board shall be advertised publicly and shall include details of the agreed selection criteria for the filling of the vacancy and the process to be implemented in respect of the filling of that vacancy.

(6) The Service may adopt such procedures as it thinks fit to carry out its functions under this section.

(7) A person shall not be recommended for appointment by the Government under this section unless the person is, in the opinion of the Service and the Government agrees, suitably qualified for such appointment by reason of his or her possessing such relevant experience, training or expertise as is appropriate having regard in particular to the functions conferred on the Board by or under this Act.

(8) The Service shall provide the Government with particulars of experience, training and expertise of the person whom it recommends under this section.

(9) Where the Service makes a recommendation for the appointment of a person to the Board, the Government shall accept that recommendation.

(10) In exceptional circumstances, where the Government, for substantial and stated reasons, is unable to accept the recommendation by the Service of a particular person, it shall inform the Service of that fact and the reasons for it and shall request the Service to make another recommendation in respect of the vacancy and, the Service shall—

(a) consider the Government’s reasons, and

(b) unless the Service disagrees with the reasons and wishes to make representations to the Government in that behalf, make another recommendation for appointment to the Board.”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 16, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:

“Recommendations for appointment of members of Board

13. (1) A member of the Board shall be appointed by the Government. (2) Where a vacancy arises, or is anticipated will arise, on the Board, the Government shall, for the purposes of identifying persons and making recommendations to the Government in respect of those persons for appointment as members of the Board, invite the Service to undertake a selection competition.

(3) The Service shall appoint the members of the selection panel from amongst persons who, in the opinion of the Service, have relevant experience of, and expertise in relation to, matters connected with at least two or all of the following—

(a) human rights matters or human rights law;

(b) equality matters or equality law;

(c) public sector administration and reform;

(d) board management and corporate governance;

(e) industrial relations;

(f) climate or energy systems;

(g) digital rights or technology law;

(h) data privacy and the General Data Protection Regulation.

(4) The Minister shall agree with the Service the selection criteria and process to be implemented in respect of the filling of any vacancy on the Board.

(5) A vacancy on the Board shall be advertised publicly and shall include details of the agreed selection criteria for the filling of the vacancy and the process to be implemented in respect of the filling of that vacancy.

(6) The Service may adopt such procedures as it thinks fit to carry out its functions under this section.

(7) A person shall not be recommended for appointment by the Government under this section unless the person is, in the opinion of the Service and the Government agrees, suitably qualified for such appointment by reason of his or her possessing such relevant experience, training or expertise as is appropriate having regard in particular to the functions conferred on the Board by or under this Act.

(8) The Service shall provide the Government with particulars of experience, training and expertise of the person whom it recommends under this section.

(9) Where the Service makes a recommendation for the appointment of a person to the Board, the Government shall accept that recommendation.

(10) In exceptional circumstances, where the Government, for substantial and stated reasons, is unable to accept the recommendation by the Service of a particular person, it shall inform the Service of that fact and the reasons for it and shall request the Service to make another recommendation in respect of the vacancy and, the Service shall—

(a) consider the Government’s reasons, and

(b) unless the Service disagrees with the reasons and wishes to make representations to the Government on that behalf, make another recommendation for appointment to the Board.

(11) In this section, “Service” means the Public Appointments Service.”.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 16, 18 to 26, inclusive, 29 to 31, inclusive, 33, 46, 74, 75 and 89 to 91, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I move amendment No. 13:

In page

“Conditions of office of membership of Board

14. (1) A member of the Board may at any time by notice in writing to the Government—

(a) resign from the Board, or

(b) in the case of the chairperson, with or without resigning from the Board, resign from the office of chairperson.

(2) A resignation under subsection (1) takes effect on the date specified in the notice to the Government, or on the date on which the Government receives the notice, whichever is the later.”.

All the amendments in this grouping are to do with good governance and creating more transparency and accountability so that everything is not in the hands of one individual or Department. Some of the amendments are consequential, so all of them would need to be included for them to function. I know a few of them have been debated in the Dáil as well.

The Minister may remove a member of the board from office if he or she does something wrong. I am substituting that with "the Government" may remove. It is just about creating more accountability and ensuring that more people are involved in these processes. Critically, it is exactly the same process that exists for Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, the Data Protection Commission and Coimisiún na Meán. We have these independent State bodies already. We have processes for independent State bodies. They are functioning well and instead of copying that, we are doing something different with this legislation. I do not understand why. That is why so many organisations, advocacy groups and parliamentarians are concerned that this office is, for some reason, having different standards and procedures applied that do not match the model that works and functions properly. Perhaps the Minister of State will explain why we have created a system here that is somehow different from the operating models we already have.

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

In relation to amendment No. 13, this amendment appears to replace part of section 14 with what is effectively the existing section 15, dealing with resignation of members of the board, but changes the recipient of the resignation from the Minister to the Government.I thank Senator Stephenson for her amendment. However, I do not consider it necessary. The matters addressed in the amendment are already provided for in the Bill. Section 15 sets out the procedure by which a member of the board, including the chairperson, may resign from office and specifies when such a resignation takes effect. The only substantive change proposed by the amendment is to require resignations to be submitted to the Government rather than to the Minister. I do not consider that this would provide any additional safeguard or governance benefit. The Bill consistently assigns responsibility for board-related matters to the Minister, providing a clear line of accountability and administration. Accordingly, as the matter is already addressed in the Bill and the proposed change would merely substitute the Government for the Minister without materially altering the operation of the provision, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

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

Maybe the Minister of State could speak to why we have chosen to pursue a different process from that for other independent State bodies, such as the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, the Data Protection Commission, DPC, and Coimisiún na Meán in this. I was speaking to amendment No. 13 but, actually, all the amendments in that list - amendments Nos. 14, 16, 18 to 26, inclusive, 29 to 31, inclusive, 33, 46, 74, 75 and 89 to 91, inclusive - relate basically to the same concepts of making sure the processes we are following for this independent body are exactly the same and that the model is the same as the other one. Perhaps the Minister of State could speak broadly to that. She does not need to speak to every single amendment since some of them are basically the same in different parts in the legislation, but why are we not matching and replicating the models that exist and function well?

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

I again thank the Senator for her contribution and her amendments. The Bill already contains a clear and workable mechanism for filling casual vacancies on the board. Where a vacancy arises, the Minister is required to appoint a replacement in accordance with the Public Appointments Service process provided for in the Bill. The principal effect of the amendment would be to transfer this function from the Minister to the Government. For the reasons I have outlined in relation to earlier amendments, I do not consider that such a transfer would provide any additional safeguards or governance benefit. The existing approach provides a clear line of responsibility and accountability through the responsible Minister while maintaining the integrity of the Public Appointments Service process. The amendment would also remove the flexibility contained in the Bill regarding the term of office of a replacement member. The current provision allows an appropriate degree of flexibility in managing board succession and maintaining continuity in the governance of the office while ensuring that the term limit remains in place. While I appreciate Senator Stephenson's intention of promoting consistency across the appointments framework, I am satisfied that existing provision already provides a transparent, accountable, effective mechanism for filling vacancies on the board. Accordingly, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

I do not accept that amendment No. 16 would transfer the power to remove a member of the board from the Minister to the Government. The Bill already places significant safeguards around the removal of board members, including statutory grounds for removal, notice requirements, an opportunity to make representations and consideration of the views of the board. I am satisfied that these protections provide an appropriate balance between the board's independence and ministerial accountability. The transfer of the removal function from the Minister to the Government would not materially strengthen those safeguards. The Bill adopts the standard governance models used for many statutory bodies whereby the responsibility for the appointment or removal of board members rests with the Minister, who is accountable to the Oireachtas for those decisions. The existing provisions strike an appropriate balance between accountability, due process and effective governance. For that reason, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

I am taking amendments Nos. 18 to 25 together. I do not propose to accept these amendments. The Government's model adopted in the Bill is consistent with that used for many statutory bodies. As I said, the Minister is accountable to the Oireachtas for the performance of the office and exercises a range of governance functions in relation to the board and the office. Section 19 already contains significant safeguards including specified grounds for removal, notice requirements, an opportunity for representations, consideration of the board's view and adherence to the principles of natural justice. Transferring these functions from the Minister to the Government would be inconsistent with the broader governance framework of the Bill, under which board members are appointed by the Minister and most Government functions relating to the board are exercised by the Minister. The amendments would introduce an additional layer of decision-making without providing any additional procedural safeguards. They would also increase administrative overheads in circumstances where timely action may be required to address issues relating to board membership. The existing provision strikes an appropriate balance between accountability, due process and effective governance. I am satisfied that no policy justification has been identified for requiring Government approval for individual board removal decisions. Accordingly, I do not propose to accept the amendments.

I do not propose to accept amendment No. 26. The Bill provides that the chief executive officer is to be recruited in accordance with the Civil Service Regulations Act and the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004 and appointed by the board with the consent of the Minister. This reflects established governance arrangements in statutory bodies and provides an appropriate balance between the board's role in selecting the chief executive officer and the ministerial accountability for the operation of the statutory body. Transferring this function from the Minister to the Government would not materially strengthen the independence of the office. The CEO is responsible for the management and administration of the office and is accountable to the board for the performance of its functions. The Bill, therefore, places operational responsibility with the CEO and governance responsibilities with the board while maintaining appropriate ministerial accountability. The Bill already contains appropriate safeguards in relation to the CEO including recruitment through the established public appointments process, accountability to the board, statutory grounds and procedures for removal from office and restrictions on holding other offices or employment without consent. These measures provide robust governance safeguards while supporting the effective establishment and operation of the office. Therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

I do not propose to accept amendments Nos. 29 to 31, inclusive. They would replace the Minister with the Government in a number of provisions relating to the chief executive officer. The governance framework in the Bill is based on the principle that responsibility for oversight of the office rests with the Minister, who is accountable to the Oireachtas for the operation of the legislative framework. The Bill, therefore, assigns a number of governance functions relating to the CEO and the Minister. This is consistent with the approach adopted throughout the Bill and with the governance arrangements that apply to many statutory bodies. The CEO is accountable to the board for the management and administration of the office, while the Minister retains responsibility for certain oversight functions within the statutory framework. Replacing the Minister with the Government in provisions would not provide any additional safeguard or strengthen the independence of the office. I am satisfied that the existing provisions strike the appropriate balance between operational independence, effective governance and democratic accountability and I do not propose to accept the amendments.

Amendment No. 33 would transfer the power relating to the removal of the chief executive from the Minister to the Government. The Bill already provides a comprehensive framework governing appointment accountability and removal of the CEO. The governance model adopted in the Bill is that the Minister exercises certain oversight functions in relation to the office while remaining accountable to the Oireachtas for the operation of the statutory framework. The removal of the CEO is a significant step and the Bill already contains appropriate safeguards and procedural protections in this regard. Replacing the Minister with the Government would not provide any additional protection or strengthen the independence of the office. Rather, it would introduce an additional layer of decision-making that is not reflected elsewhere in the governance arrangements established in the Bill. The existing approach is consistent with the governance arrangements that apply to many statutory bodies and ensures a clear line of responsibility and accountability. I am satisfied that the existing provision is appropriate and I do not propose to accept the amendment.

On amendment No. 46, again, I thank Senator Stephenson for the amendment, which would transfer the relevant function under section 44 from the Minister to the Government. Again, the governance framework established by the Bill consistently assigns oversight and administrative functions relating to the office to the responsible Minister, who is accountable to the Oireachtas for the operation of the statutory framework. The existing provision reflects the governance model and provides a clear line of accountability and responsibility. I do not consider that transferring this function to the Government would improve transparency, accountability or the operation of the AI register. Rather, it would introduce in additional layer of administration that would be inconsistent with the broader approach adopted through the Bill. The Government does not generally exercise direct responsibility for the detailed administration of statutory schemes of this nature, which are typically entrusted to the relevant Minister.I am satisfied that the existing provisions strike the appropriate balance between accountability and efficient administration. Therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

I will speak to amendments Nos. 74 and 75. Again, I thank Senator Stephenson for the amendments. The amendments would replace reference to the Minister and any other Minister with relevance to the Government. The purpose of this section is to facilitate co-operation and co-ordination between Ministers whose areas of responsibility may be affected by the implementation of the AI Act and the operation of the national regulatory framework. The existing provision recognises the responsibility. The AI regulation may intersect with a number of ministerial portfolios and provide the practical mechanism for co-operation between relevant Ministers. I do not consider it appropriate or necessary to require Government approval or involvement, in each instance, where such co-operation may be required. The Bill consistently assigns responsibility for oversight of the office and operation of the statutory framework to the responsible Minister while recognising that engagement with other Ministers may be required from time to time. Replacing references to Ministers with the Government would introduce an additional of administrative process without providing any additional safeguard or governance benefit. It would also reduce flexibility and responsiveness in circumstances where timely co-operation between Ministers may be required. I am satisfied that the existing provision provides an appropriate and practical framework for interdepartmental co-operation and co-ordination. Therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendments.

I will speak to amendments Nos. 89 to 91, inclusive. Again, I thank Senator Stephenson for the amendments. These amendments would replace references to "Minister" with a reference to "Government" in a number of provisions relating to adjudicators. The Bill adopts a governance model whereby the responsible Minister exercises certain administrative and oversight functions while remaining accountable to the Oireachtas for the operational statutory framework. The provisions relating to adjudicators are consistent with this approach. The independence of adjudicators does not derive from whether they are appointed by the Minister or the Government rather it derives from statutory safeguards contained in the Bill, including provisions governing their appointment, qualifications, tenure and independent exercise of their functions. I do not consider that the transfer of these functions from Minister to Government would strengthen the independence of adjudicators or improve the operation of the adjudication system. Instead, it would introduce an additional layer of administration and would be inconsistent with the broader governance framework established by the Bill. The Government does not ordinarily exercise a direct role in the routine administration of the statutory adjudication systems of this nature. I am satisfied that the existing provisions strike the appropriate balance between independence, efficiency and accountability. Therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendments.

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

In answer to one of the points made by the Minister of State, I still do not understand why we would not follow models like IHREC and the DPC. The Minister of State has not answered the rationale. I appreciate that some bodies might operate with this model but the Minister of State has not explained the rationale for not copying the model for those important regulatory bodies that we have in Ireland like Coimisiún na Meán, the DPC and IHREC. I do not understand why a different process is being chosen here. I do not conceptually understand why. To what purpose? For what end?

The Minister of State made the point that it is not the responsibility of the Government to deal with terminations or the removal of people from office because it is the Minister who appoints them. As I will discuss later, I do not think that it should be the Minister who appoints the CEO. I do not think that is appropriate. I do not think it provides the necessary independence. It should be a completely separate system. One of the rationales given was that it is the Minister who makes these appointments. I do not think that the Minister should make those appointments so that rationale does not stick.

I ask the Minister of State to speak more broadly as to why the Minister of State has chosen this approach when so many of the other bodies take a different approach and have more independence.

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

Again, I thank the Senator for her thoughts and observations. Again, I am satisfied that all the required provisions are within the Bill.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the amendment being pressed?

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

Yes.

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

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 17, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “Casual vacancies in membership of Board

16. (1) If a member of the Board resigns, dies or ceases to hold office (otherwise than by effluxion of time), the Government shall, as soon as practicable, appoint a person from among such persons as are recommended by the Public Appointments Service in 6 in accordance with section 13# to be a member of the Board to fill the casual vacancy so occasioned.

(2) A person appointed under subsection (1) shall hold office for the unexpired period of his or her predecessor’s term of office, as the Government may determine.

(3) A person appointed under subsection (1) is eligible for reappointment to the Board on the expiry of the unexpired period but shall not hold office for more than 2 further consecutive terms and in any event shall not hold office for periods the aggregate of which exceeds 8 years.”.

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

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 18, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following: “(e) has a material conflict of interest of such significance that the person’s ability to perform their functions in an independent and impartial manner is undermined;”.

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

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 18, line 25, to delete “The Minister may remove a member of the Board from office if he or she is” and substitute “The Government may remove a member of the Board from office if they are”.

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

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 18, to delete lines 34 and 35.

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

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 19, line 1, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Government”.

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

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 19, line 2, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Government”.

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

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 19, line 8, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Government”.

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

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 19, line 11, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Government”.

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

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 19, line 14, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Government”.

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

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 19, line 18, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Government”.

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

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 19, line 19, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Government”.

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

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 19, line 20, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Government”.

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

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 22, line 20, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Government”.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 27, 28, 32 and 34 are related. Amendment No. 28 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 27. Amendments Nos. 27, 28, 32 and 34 may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 22, to delete lines 25 to 30.

Amendment No. 27 seeks to remove the part, as I have mentioned, that allows the Minister to appoint the first CEO and for them to have a full five-year term. I do not agree with that and I have said it before. I do not think it provides good governance. I do not think it provides the correct independence from the Department as is needed.If someone is the direct line manager, effectively, in appointing someone who is supposed to provide guidance but also provide a critique on policy decisions that are being made, what are the power dynamics within that which would allow someone to do their job independently? I know the Minister of State is not going to accept the amendment. However, along with all the other amendments, it is about seeking good governance and good structures.

Amendment No. 32 mirrors the language in the section on the board being removed in the case of conflicts of interest. The Bill currently contains conflict of interest provisions for the board members, but not for the CEO. That seems like a mistake. I do not know why we would not have this consistent across both.

Amendment No. 34 seeks to ensure that a statement is laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as is practicable, which reflects the language of the IHREC Act. Instead of going through the Minister for the report, the report would come straight to the Houses of the Oireachtas. This emphasises, once again, the independence of the office. We do not believe it should be in the Minister’s gift to deliver that report to us should he or she wish.

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

Amendment No. 28 imposes an obligation on the Minister and the Government to have due regard to the need for the CEO of the artificial intelligence office to possess specific professional experience in fields relevant to the work of the office. As drafted, the Bill does not include any provisions relating to the expertise or experience expected of the CEO of the office. The amendment specifies that the CEO should have expertise across at least two of the following fields: data protection and GDPR; human and fundamental rights; digital rights or technology law; equality law and policy; climate or energy systems; public administration and governance; and civil society engagement.

The amendment would encourage the appointment of a well-rounded, public interest-focused leadership within the office’s executive, ensuring that it does not become dominated by a technical or commercial perspective. Achieving a balance between public interest protections and innovation at the level of the chief executive would promote greater independence, credibility and public confidence in the work of the office. The amendment is particularly important in circumstances where the Minister designates a person as the first CEO of the office, as the Minister is empowered to do under the Bill. Significant concern has been expressed about this provision across civil society and academia. There are fears that the designation of a CEO for a period of five years undermines the office’s independence from the Government and the Department from the outset. The danger of the provisions of section 24, as drafted, is that a person designated as CEO could effectively be a political appointee handpicked by the Government to promote AI innovation at the expense of developing robust regulatory safeguards to prevent the potential social, cultural and environmental harm caused by AI in contemporary society.

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

I propose to take amendments Nos. 27, 28, 32 and 34 together.

Amendment No. 27 would delete the provisions that allow the Minister, before the establishment date, to designate a person as the first CEO, who would automatically stand appointed by the establishment of the office. The provisions allowing the Minister to designate the first CEO before the establishment of the office are intended to facilitate the timely and orderly establishment of the office. As Senator Stephenson will be aware, the recruitment process for the CEO has already been undertaken and is under way through the Public Appointments Service. Removing these provisions would prevent the advancement of the CEO on the establishment day. It could risk delays in operationalising the office and carrying out its statutory functions. It would undermine the objective of ensuring that the office is operational as quickly as possible following the commencement of the legislation. The designation mechanism is limited to the first chief executive officer only, and is intended to ensure that the leadership is in place in a timely manner to support the establishment of the organisation. I am satisfied that the provision is necessary to facilitate the effective establishment of the office. Therefore, I do not accept the amendment.

On amendment No. 28, while I agree with the sentiment and that the areas identified are important, the Bill already provides sufficient flexibility to ensure that the most suitable candidates can be appointed as CEO, having regard to the full range of skills, experience and leadership qualities required for the role, without the need to prescribe a statutory list of qualifying fields. Section 24 of the Bill provides that the CEO must be recruited in accordance with the Civil Service Regulation Acts and the Public Service Management Act 2004, ensuring that the appointments are made through a merit-based and transparent process. I am satisfied that the Bill already provides sufficient flexibility, and that relevant experience and expertise will be considered without the need for additional statutory prescription. In fact, many of the matters identified in the proposed amendments were already recognised as important competencies in the recruitment process for the inaugural CEO. The candidate information booklets and recruitment materials for that competition specifically identified a range of related knowledge, experience and expertise requirements, including the ones suggested by the amendment. I believe the flexibility provided in the Bill allows the board and the Minister to assess candidates holistically and to appoint the individual best placed to provide strategic leadership to the office in light of evolving regulatory and operational needs.

I thank Senator Stephenson for amendment No. 32, but I do not propose to accept it. The Bill already contains a comprehensive framework governing conflicts of interest on the part of the CEO. The CEO is subject to statutory obligations regarding the disclosure of interests and must comply with the governance and ethics requirements applicable to officeholders in public bodies. The Bill also contains provisions governing the circumstances in which the CEO may be removed from office, including where he or she has become incapable of effectively performing the functions of the office and has committed stated wrongdoing. The amendment would introduce a new and potentially subjective ground for removal based on the board's view that a conflict of interest is of sufficient significance to warrant the CEO ceasing to hold the office. I am concerned that such a provision could create uncertainty as to the applicable threshold and could overlap with the existing governance and ethics framework. Where a conflict of interest arises, there are already established mechanisms to require disclosure, manage the conflict appropriately and ensure that decisions are taken in accordance with the public sector governance standards. I am satisfied that the existing provisions provide appropriate safeguards and that the additional removal grounds proposed in the amendment are not necessary.

I do not propose to accept amendment No. 34 at this time. The amendment would remove the requirement for the office to furnish the relevant statement to the Minister and would instead place a direct obligation on the office to ensure that the statement is laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Bill adopts the standard approach used for many statutory bodies, whereby reports and statements are submitted to the responsible Minister, who then arranges for them to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. This approach reflects the Minister's accountability to the Oireachtas for the legislative framework and for the overall governance arrangements applying to the office. The existing provision does not restrict publication or transparency. Rather, it provides a clear and established mechanism through which documents are formally presented to the Oireachtas. Retaining the Minister's role also ensures consistency with other reporting and accountability provisions throughout the Bill. I am not satisfied that the amendment would provide any additional transparency or accountability beyond that already provided for under the existing provision. Therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

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

I move amendment 28:

In page 22, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following: “(4) In making an appointment or designation under subsections (2) and (3), the Board and Minister shall have due regard of the need for the Chief Executive Officer to have relevant experience of, and expertise in relation to, matters connected with at least two of the following—

(a) digital rights or technology law;

(b) data privacy and the General Data Protection Regulation;

(c) human and fundamental rights matters or human rights law;

(d) equality matters or equality law;

(e) climate or energy systems;

(f) public administration and governance;

(g) civil society.”.

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

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 22, line 34, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Government”.

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

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 22, line 37, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Government”.

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

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 22, line 41, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Government”.

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

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 24, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following: “(d) the Chief Executive Officer has, in the view of the Board, a conflict of interest of such significance that the Chief Executive Officer should cease to hold office.”.

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

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 24, line 28, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Government”.

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

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 24, lines 37 to 39, to delete all words from and including “furnish” in line 37 down to and including line 39 and substitute the following: “ensure that the statement is laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as practicable.”.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment Nos. 35 and 36 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 26, to delete lines 30 to 32.

I will be very brief. Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 delete the provision in sections 32 and 33, which prevents the CEO of the AI office from expressing an opinion or questioning the merit of any policy of the Government or the objectives of such a policy in front of Oireachtas committees. This is another feature of this Bill which calls into question the assertion of the independence of the AI office. How can the office be truly independent of Government if the CEO cannot question the substance or objective of a Government policy?

The Bill allows the Minister to issue directions to the CEO regarding policy and then precludes the CEO from making any public comments about those policies. This is not independence and, regardless of that, it is also not good practice. Bringing people in to work on a body and in an office that will gain such insight and expertise, which will constantly have eyes on what is happening in AI, and for that expert in the room - the CEO - to then not be able to question policy is authoritarian. This completely removes any sort of transparency in the expert of an AI office being able to question Government policy that could be terrible and could have a massive public impact on society. We are effectively covering the mouth of that person to question the policy.

If we were comfortable enough as Departments, the Government and politicians, we would not feel the need to effectively gag a CEO on challenging policy. As we know, AI is moving at a rapid rate and we have acknowledged many times throughout the Houses that politicians and policymakers are struggling to keep up with how quick it is moving. To have a CEO not be able to raise any sort of alarm with Government policy that could be way behind, or lacking in ethics, sustainability and all the stuff we mentioned, is a very bad move for any country. It is not allowing a CEO of a so-called independent body to challenge, speak to or criticise Government policy.

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

I agree with Senator Ruane. Under the current provisions, the Government has created a system where the CEO cannot comment on Government policy in the public accounts committee or in any other committee. They are effectively curtailed from doing their job, which is to regulate and to challenge the Government. That is why the independence piece we have been banging on about for the duration of this debate is so important. They have to be able to challenge the Government.

We have a right, a responsibility and a constitutional role to play in this as parliamentarians, and this is stopping them from speaking to us. It is very unusual for this to be permitted. The CEO should be able to make an assessment, good or bad, on Government policy and decisions because they are there to provide expertise and guidance on the use of AI, and to protect citizens and their rights when it comes to AI. I find it extraordinary that the CEO would be gagged from providing evidence in our Oireachtas and Parliament, and that they are effectively not allowed to have opinions on Government policy. I really do not agree with this in any way and it is an awful precedent to set.

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

I thank the Senators for their amendments. As both amendments address the same underlying issue, namely, the role of the CEO when appearing before Oireachtas committees, I will address them together.Amendment No. 35 would delete section 32(2), which provides that when appearing before the public accounts committee, the "Chief Executive Officer shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government" or "the objectives of such a policy". Amendment No. 36 would delete section 33(7), which applies the same principle when the CEO is appearing before other Oireachtas committees. The effect of these amendments would be that the CEO would no longer be expressly prohibited from commenting on, questioning or expressing views on the merits of Government policy while giving evidence before Oireachtas committees. I do not propose to accept these amendments. Sections 32 and 33 reflect the long-established distinction between the respective roles of the Ministers and senior public officials appearing before Oireachtas committees. The CEO is accountable for the administration, management and operation of the office. Ministers, in turn, are accountable to the Oireachtas for the Government, policy and the objectives of that policy.

The purpose of sections 32(2) and 33(7) is to preserve the distinction and ensure clarity in lines of accountability. The role of the PAC is to examine expenditure, governance, financial management and value for money; it is not to examine the merits of Government policy decisions. Section 32, therefore, ensures that when appearing before the PAC, the CEO can fully account for the use of public funds and the performance of that office while avoiding being drawn into debates regarding the merits of Government policy. The CEO will remain fully accountable to PAC for matters relating to administration, governance, financial management, efficiencies and effectiveness. Similarly, section 33 reflects the long-established distinction between policy responsibility and administrative responsibility in appearances before Oireachtas committees generally. The provision ensures that the CEO can account for the discharge of the office's functions and the operation of the organisation while the Ministers remain accountable for Government policy and policy objectives.

The CEO will remain fully accountable to the Oireachtas for administration, governance and operation of the office. However, responsibility for Government policy properly rests with Ministers. Sections 32(2) and 33(7) preserve that important distinction and support clear lines and accountability. For that reason, I do not consider the amendments necessary, and I do not propose to accept amendment Nos. 35 or 36.

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

Yes, policy development rests with Ministers, but it is normal for State bodies to come in and present their opinion on policy and how it impacts their ability to do their jobs. That is linked. They are not separate things. I do not get it. What the Minister of State said about going to PAC and talking about the accounting, budgeting and books is fine. However, poor policy often leads to wasteful spending. We often hear those discussions coming out in PAC in various areas because, again, they are inextricably linked. We cannot say that witnesses are just going to come in to talk about the books or their overspending or underspending and the nuts and bolts of financial management. That is linked to the policy delivery. Again, I do not understand it. It is a bad precedent to be setting. They are responsible for making assessments as well, presumably. If we are talking about innovation and literacy, those things are linked. The responsibility of the office is linked to those things. It feels like we are trying to reduce accountability and transparency, which is the opposite. That is not good practice.

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

I thank the Senator. I chaired a committee in the previous Oireachtas. It is very clear. It is not a new precedent. It has always been the case. Ministers like myself and many others come in and answer to the Oireachtas and to the Senator and everybody else at the committee in relation to Government policy. Members can tear us apart if that is what is required, but that is the Minister's job to come in. It is incredibly important that we do not blur lines. We are not creating a new precedent. That has always been the case. I do take exception to the use of the word “gagged”. There is no attempt in this legislation to gag a CEO of a new AI office.

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

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, comes in. It is an independent State body. It comes in all the time. Again, I do not see why it is different for one State body versus the other. That is the point. It feels like we are creating a complete distinction in process specifically for this AI office.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome guests of the Minister of State, Deputy Harkin, who I guess are from County Sligo. They are most welcome to Seanad Éireann.

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

It is gagged. People might not like the language sometimes when we take it out of diplomatic speech in saying somebody cannot come in front of a committee and speak or somebody cannot have an opinion on Government policy. When we frame it in political language, it does not land as hard. When we strip it away and call it what is it, which is "gagged", it causes a reaction. That is reaction is welcome. When we look and break down language, what it means and what underpins the language we use to make something not seem as bad as it is and we strip it away and use the raw word, then it evokes the real reaction and the response is that nobody is gagging or wants to gag anyone else. It is not the intent to gag, but we wrap it up in something else and pretend that is not what it is. We have the Secretary General of the Irish Prison Service who comes into the justice committee, who is not even independent of the Department. We have lots of other spaces where this happens and bodies come in.

It does gag. If we have a Department and a junior ministry as part of that Department and a committee cannot question the CEO of that body - and that is a committee that will have the most work to do in this country in relation to examining AI - that is effectively gagged. If they are not allowed to talk in a committee, they are not going to be allowed to talk on the news without a political line or a brief being given to them or being told, "This is the policy. If you go off the policy, then that is not in line." I am glad the Minister of State had a reaction to the word "gagged". When we take language and give it what it is, it has the intended purpose. If we silence people from criticising Government policy or attending a committee, that is effectively gagging for all intents and purposes from a political perspective.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we look at this combined with section 11 - that is why we opposed section 11 - whereby the Minister in relation to the AI office can "give a direction in writing to the Office requiring it to comply with such policies of the Government relating to AI" and it must comply with it. The Minister can write and say, "Here is the Government policy, you need to do it." However, if that CEO comes into an Oireachtas committee and things go wrong and the committee members are rightly asking what happened and why things are going wrong, they cannot say that they followed a policy and this is the consequence of the policy. The consequence is the problem. They are being gagged and silenced in terms of being able to give honest answers to committees when they seek to respond to issues which may very well arise in an area riddled with high risk or an area that has subcategories of high risk. If there is so much risk, the more information, the better and the more transparency, the better. At the moment, the Minister can tell them do something that is Government policy. They come into a committee to talk about what has happened and they are not allowed to say, "We feel it may have been mistake. This has had an inadvertent consequence. Here is something which has arisen since we changed the policy last June from what we had in May." They are really consequential things and they are not going to be able to speak about it. There is no other word for that other than being gagged. They are going to sit there and say that they cannot comment. How useful is that to the body politic if it to tries to deal with problems that arise?

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

The Minister of State said that it is an independent body. She said she previously experienced being a committee chair and Ministers coming in and speaking about their Department because that it is their brief. At the same time, she is telling us that this other body is independent but it cannot speak for itself. Does this body sit under the Department? I know it is housed within, but will it be independent? What the Minister of State has just presented is that the Minister will come into committees and speak for it. She said that the standard practice is for the Minister to come in. I said it is okay for heads of State bodies to come in and that they do it is all the time. I am trying to point out that there is a contradiction in what the Minister of State presented.The Minister comes in and speaks about the Department and its responsibilities and remit. If the AI office is an independent office, which the Minister of State presents that it is-----

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator.

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

We will pick it up next week.