2026-06-30

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach Gníomhach for his forbearance. I thank the House for facilitating Committee Stage today and for the constructive engagement on the Bill on Second Stage. The Bill puts in place the regulatory foundation needed to build public trust in artificial intelligence, Al, so that Al develops as a tool for people and supports the wider goal of improving human well-being. With these aims in mind, the Bill is a technical implementing measure. It does not add to, nor alter, the obligations placed on regulated entities by the EU Al Act. The Bill establishes essential, domestic regulatory architecture for the supervision and enforcement of the Al Act in the State. We are moving with agility now, as there is also a firm legal deadline. Enforcement of prohibited Al practices posing unacceptable risks, as set out in Article 5 of the Al Act, takes effect on 2 August 2026. Ireland must have the necessary national supervisory and enforcement infrastructure in place by that date. There will be a phased approach to implementation of the Al Act, so we recognise the need to be open to further measures as part of this work. I also take this opportunity to say that I look forward to receiving the enterprise committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny report. The recommendations contained in it will be considered as part of the next phase. All proposed amendments must be considered against this backdrop. I will briefly address some of the issues raised on Second Stage. I have written directly to some of the Deputies who raised specific questions last week. I hope most of them had an opportunity to consider the correspondence. The important issue of resourcing was raised a number of times, and I fully agree that the resourcing of all competent authorities is vital to ensure the successful implementation of the Al Act in Ireland. For that reason, the Government provided funding in 2026 to support the establishment of the Irish Al office. Relevant competent authorities and market surveillance authorities will continue to be resourced through their existing governance and budgetary arrangements. The EU Al Act continues to come into effect on a phased basis and will do so from August of this year to December 2028. This period provides an opportunity for competent authorities to further assess operational requirements for them to carry out their roles in the regulation of Al. Colleagues raised points around the independence of the Al office. I want to be clear: I recognise the importance of this matter. The Al office is to be established as a separate statutory body corporate with its own legal standing. The Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Bill expressly provides in section 9 that the Al office “shall be independent in the performance of its functions". This is reinforced by its status as a stand-alone body; governance by an independent board rather than the Minister; a public appointments process for board members and the CEO; conflict of interest rules; and restrictions on political officeholders serving in the office. While the Minister retains a limited power to issue policy directions, that power is constrained and does not extend to the regulatory co-ordination functions of the office. The office will remain subject to appropriate statutory, funding and accountability controls, while its operational independence in core regulatory functions is protected by the Bill. Deputies also raised points regarding the powers and role of the Al office and I welcome the opportunity to clarify these. I confirm that the Al office is to be designated as a market surveillance authority and Ireland’s single point of contact for the European Commission and other member states, as required by the Al Act. In this role, it will increase organisational efficiency in Ireland to support consistent enforcement of the Act; facilitate co-operation between competent authorities and fundamental rights bodies; and act as Ireland's main interface with the EU and member states for Al regulation. The Irish Al office will act within a distributed regulatory model, under which a range of existing sectoral regulators and market surveillance authorities are responsible for supervising and enforcing the Al Act within their respective areas of expertise. I confirm that no Government amendments are being brought forward this evening. I thank Deputies for their co-operation.

Amendments Nos. 1, 13 to 16, inclusive, and 20 are related and may be discussed together. Amendment No. 16 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 15.

I move amendment No. 1: In page 11, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “ “Service” means the Public Appointments Service;”. This first set of amendments speaks to the establishment of the board but first I wish to address the parliamentary scrutiny, or lack thereof, of this legislation, which is so disappointing. It is 11 calendar days since the text of this Bill was published. We have had four Dáil sitting days and seven working days to scrutinise this absolutely crucial Bill. Providing 11 calendar days between publishing the text and enacting the law is not parliamentary scrutiny. That does not give us as members of the Opposition any opportunity to engage properly with this legislation and provide for amendments. It is a disgrace. I have valuable insights and I want to work on the governance of AI. I established a State agency, which is arguably the most independent State agency. I was its inaugural director between 2014 and 2016 and later I led it for four years as chief commissioner. I have knowledge I can contribute to this. I worked in the tech sector for eight years. I have a lot to add. I sit on the AI committee and the culture, communication and sport committee where we regulate the tech sector. I attended the pre-legislative scrutiny at the enterprise committee and I could even see, between those three committees, the gulf in understanding. AI is technical, complex and we have learned a lot on the AI committee but we were not given the opportunity to engage effectively with this Bill. Instead it went through pre-legislative scrutiny at the enterprise committee and now it is being rushed through the Dáil even though the Government has known it is coming down the track for years. I am genuinely disgusted at how this is being handled. It is a travesty of democracy that this is all the opportunity we get to discuss it. My amendments in this grouping are amendments Nos. 1, 15 and 20. They speak to the Public Appointments Service process for the appointment of the board. A lot of these amendments, especially in the first half of the legislation, are to strengthen the governance of this office to make it more independent. Although the Minister of State said in her statement she appreciates the independence of the office, that this is reinforced by it being a stand-alone body, etc., there are multiple clauses in the Bill that go against that. We will speak later to the fact the Minister gets to appoint the first CEO without any involvement by the Public Appointments Service and the fact the CEO cannot comment on government policy. Besides that, the appointment of the board itself should strive towards the greatest level of independence. These amendments try to essentially put in place a gold standard through the involvement of the Public Appointments Service, as distinct from the Department, so the office can act on its own. I am familiar with the State boards process. I have issues with the process as it stands. There is a bang of window-dressing off it at times. Obviously it was moved and developed because there was criticism of the fact that Ministers in the past were cherry-picking appointments at board level across many State agencies. Regardless, it is better at least than direct appointments by the Minister. It is important we use the mechanisms that are available to us in the Public Appointments Service to appoint board members and these amendments set out to do exactly that and to make sure we can do that. Also, rather than the Minister having that oversight, other parts of the amendments in this grouping allow for the Government to do it rather than the Minister, which again allows for that increased independence. I have been critical from the outset that the entire approach of this Government and officials in Brussels, and indeed the Brussels mindset, is that we regulate AI through the lens of industry and business. That is not good enough because it leaves out the competence we need to deal with the rights and protections that are under threat from AI. If we do all this with an enterprise lens, which is what this legislation does, we do not do that. We do not bake in the competence at the outset that we need to protect our citizens from the harms AI is going to inflict on us, which we see around us already. The algorithms we are all using, which are making us addicted to products and which are prompting chatbots to push people towards suicide, are the harms AI is wreaking on society. To treat it as an enterprise issue and the governance as an enterprise-informed operation and mechanism ignores all that. What we get from Government instead is it saying we have to protect rights. It says that at the end of the sentence after talking about balance and consideration but the issue is it is not doing it. These amendments try to strengthen that independence that will ultimately help with that balance and bring in the competence about rights and protections.

I too wish to state, as I said to the Minister, how concerned I am about the short space of time we have had to really scrutinise something as important as this. The time is just too short for amendments with all the other legislation at this time of year that is piled on together. I take from the Minister of State’s opening contribution that she will be taking on board the enterprise committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny report and that is a positive thing. I agree with Deputy that we have a dedicated AI committee and it must have a role in making this the best possible legislation we can. There is the difficulty there between splitting the areas of authority and responsibility between those committees. Under any circumstances we would have needed extra time to be able to deal with this Bill in the way we needed to. The independence of the AI office is critical to all of this and to everything that comes after it. I note that while the Minister of State said it is independent, there are things in the legislation that prompt me to question that independence, especially in relation to the ministerial powers. She has a lot to do to convince us of the independence of the office. I submitted amendment No. 16 because I believe the expertise and knowledge of the new members that will comprise the board must reflect the sections of society for which they will be regulating. That is why I have explicitly included the areas of AI, human rights, equality and law, trade unions and workers' rights, consumer protection and civil society engagement. Across the proposed seven members of the new board these are areas that should be represented. If those voices are not represented on the board I cannot see how there can be independence and expertise there in terms of the oversight and regulation we need.

As I said on Second Stage of this Bill, I commend the Minister of State on bringing the Bill to these Houses. There are a few things I will mention before I get to the amendments. When the Minister of State said "recommendations contained in [the pre-legislative scrutiny report] will be considered as part of the next phase", what did she mean by the next phase? Is she talking about additional primary or secondary legislation? She might clarify that point. It was also a missed opportunity that the AI committee was not afforded time to scrutinise this Bill. Furthermore, two hours for Committee Stage of this Bill is an insufficient amount of time. I acknowledge the challenges Government has to get very important legislation over the line but if there was more time available and if this debate was ongoing, that should have been afforded. As the previous speaker said, if it is the case that there are to be next phases and if that is primary or secondary legislation, whatever about the Standing Orders, which I do not dismiss, relating to a permanent committee and a non-permanent committee, we are ready and able in the Oireachtas artificial intelligence committee to afford the level of scrutiny I think the committee on enterprise would actually be quite happy with, if that were delegated to us in whatever form, whether it be a formal or informal way, to allow us more of an opportunity. My amendments and similar amendments relate to the composition of the board. Put very simply, the AI office is different from Coimisiún na Meán, the Data Protection Commission and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, which Deputy Gibney was speaking about a moment ago, in the sense that the structure of a commission and commissioners is very different from that of a board. While I acknowledge the distributive model that is being formed under the AI Act and the one we are adopting here in Ireland and that there will be other entities and regulatory bodies that will have responsibility for the areas of regulating AI, ultimately, the technology sector will treat the AI office as part of a kind of three-way sandwich between Coimisiún na Meán and the Data Protection Commissioner. Those three entities will have probably the greatest interplay when it comes to the development of AI products in this jurisdiction. For those reasons, it is important that the Act would direct the composition of the board. If the Minister of State says that, for whatever reason, the type of composition of the board should not form part of the primary legislation, she might tell the House or give the House some comfort as to the types of experiences, backgrounds and professions that a person who is seeking to be a member of the board of the AI office would have to have. Ultimately, what we want to ensure in terms of a governance structure for the AI office is that it protects fundamental rights, but equally, that the board has an understanding of AI, the development of AI and an interest in the adoption of AI. What we know from this legislation is that the AI office will have a dual function. It will be a regulator but it will also act as a body that will advocate and promote the use of AI. It will regulate independently from the Minister and that is very clear in the legislation in terms of the enforcement of the EU regulations. On the flip side of that, however, it will have a role for communicating to the general public, and hopefully to small businesses, how AI can support and develop. Therefore, I want to ensure, as I think everyone in this House does, that the board of the AI office would have relevant competencies and a relevant mixture of experiences that could deal with both of those issues. If the Minister of State says it should not form part of the legislation, she might be able to tell the House how that can be assured in the public appointment process that will be brought to bear for the appointments to the board.

Like my colleagues, I would have serious concerns about the timescale with regard to this legislation and, as has been said, the notion that we have a dedicated AI committee and yet the only scrutiny, as such, was done by the enterprise committee. I sit on the enterprise committee. The AI committee has done a tremendous amount of work since its establishment and its members are really invested in this legislation, probably to a greater degree than the members of the enterprise committee. The notion that we would have a dedicated AI committee and its members would not be consulted in a meaningful way on this legislation leaves a funny taste. This is really important legislation given the context in which we are living and the almost daily intrusion of AI in all our lives, be it online or otherwise. The Minister of State talks about the next phase. As Deputy Geoghegan alluded to, in that next phase, whatever it may be, surely there should be some role or function for the AI committee given the expertise it has built up since its establishment. This was established with foresight. People saw the need for an AI committee within these House. It is quite ludicrous, therefore, that when we bring a Bill or piece of legislation on AI before the House, the committee relevant to that legislation is not consulted. That is something we need to examine greatly. While the enterprise committee did have pre-legislative scrutiny and will obviously issue a report, it is a halfway house compared with what it should be in terms of scrutiny by a committee that was set up and established specifically to discuss, investigate and interrogate the whole issue of AI. The amendment I propose states: Without prejudice ... the Minister shall, in so far as is practicable, endeavour to ensure that among the members of the Board there is at least one person with demonstrated expertise in one or more of the following: (a) fundamental rights law; (b) data protection law; (c) consumer protection law. The Bill provides for a board but does not specify any expertise requirements for its membership beyond general competence. The amendment requires the Minister to endeavour to ensure that at least one member has expertise in fundamental rights law, data protection law or consumer protection law. This reflects the subject matter of the AI Act, which operates at the intersection of all three. The AI Act itself requires that national competent authorities have the necessary technical and legal expertise. Given that the office's function includes supervising high-risk AI systems affecting individuals' rights, the absence of any rights expertise requirement is certainly a gap. I do not think it is too big an ask to have the correct competent people sitting on what will be one of the most important boards to come before this House and, indeed, the country. The notion that we are asking for this is also a bit ludicrous. Given what is at stake and what is contained in it, it is not a huge ask that these three competencies, in particular, would be sought to serve on this board, however they may be appointed. As I said, however, this is indicative of the rushed legislation we see before us. As Deputy Gibney has pointed out, 11 days is simply not good enough. It is not good enough in the context of the decisions we have to make in this regard. Therefore, I urge the Minister to consider the amendment seriously.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on Committee Stage. The point has been made about the process. There are two issues, one of which is the rushed nature of it. It is not that long ago that we were speaking on Second Stage here and the Committee Stage amendments deadline had already passed at that stage. There are 74 amendments. There would have been more. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for the Government to rush through really important legislation. It is not even uncommon today. This is the third piece of legislation in the last number of hours that has been rushed through. That is the aspect about that process and the opportunity for scrutiny. In fairness, both the Government and Opposition are contributing to the legislation, which is not something we always see. There are amendments from Government TDs. It is reasonable to ask what, if any, pre-legislative scrutiny deliberations or recommendations are reflected in the Bill. At this stage, there are 74 amendments here. We will be lucky to get through five or six of them. Is the Minister of State going to accept any of them or is this exercise a fait accompli, as was the experience in the previous two Bills? What does that say? In fairness, all of us here are engaging in good faith. We recognise the importance of this legislation and we are trying to improve it. Members from the Opposition and the Minister of State's own Government colleagues are submitting amendments in the same vein, essentially making the same point that we need to strengthen the governance here and look at the expertise, or the range of interests and expertise, of board members. The question has been asked, where to from here? Obviously, we have a rushed piece of legislation here now. It will go to the Seanad. The Minister of State might indicate in her response whether she has any intention of accepting any amendments or bringing forward amendments herself or whether there is more primary legislation to come. We are dealing with the legislation now. It has been on the horizon for quite some time. The Government should do a far better job in relation to it. The point that has been well made at this stage that the opportunity should have been provided, if the Minister of State and the Government were intent on providing the best piece of legislation, to hear from the AI committee and for scrutiny of the Bill through all of its Stages in these Houses.

Gabhaim buíochas as an deis labhairt ar an mBille seo inniú. As Chair of the AI committee, I think there is some frustration around it. It is mostly procedural. In fairness, the enterprise committee is the statutory committee and it is for that reason that the scheme of the Bill went there for pre-legislative scrutiny. If there was a way that any future Bills or primary legislation would come to the AI committee, that would be extremely helpful because, as colleagues across the House have said, the AI committee has developed an expertise there. What is frustrating is that the AI committee members were not informed when the scheme of the Bill was being presented at the enterprise committee for pre-legislative scrutiny. It was only by chance that I was in a committee next door, the environment and energy committee, and saw that it was happening and managed to go in. The reality of the situation, and particularly this point about rushing through legislation, is that when Government is not passing legislation, it is accused of being a do-nothing Government. When it does pass legislation, it is accused of rushing legislation. There has been talk of the AI Bill for a long time now. The other reality of the situation that people are failing to recognise is that the AI office needs to be stood up by August. There are timelines here that put pressure on Government and, indeed, on the Minister of State to get this passed. I thank the Minister of State. On Second Stage here this day last week, I would like to think I was constructive rather than critical. The Minister of State wrote to me responding directly to all of the concerns that I had raised. That is how good legislation should be made, with genuine engagement. There has been genuine engagement with the Minister of State in that regard and it speaks well of her stewardship of the Bill. I particularly welcome the Minister of State's response on the single point of contact. Colleagues have raised it here. I raised it here on Second Stage and it relates to whether our single point of contact will sit comfortably with Article 72, which provides that the contact point should be a market surveillance authority. I am genuinely pleased that in her reply, the Minister of State confirmed that oifig intleacht shaorga na hÉireann is to be designate as a market surveillance authority through an amendment to the designated regulations that are being finalised. The Minister of State might inform us in her response when those designated regulations will be finalised and whether they could be shared with members of the AI committee and, indeed, with the House. It is a significant and welcome clarification. It gives the office real standing and ensures our framework is firmly aligned with the Act. I also raised a question of co-ordination between the 15 authorities that will share this work and the role of the co-operation agreements under section 63. I welcome the Minister of State's assurance that the office will be actively responsible for co-ordinating the relevant competent authorities, that it will support joint investigation and enforcement and that it is already building practical protocols through workshops and a co-operation forum. That is reassuring. As Cathaoirleach of the Oireachtas committee on AI, I will follow how that co-ordination works in practice with great interest and see how implementation proceeds. Indeed, we will do that as a committee to ensure that it is working. On resourcing, I had stressed that Article 73 of the AI Act requires our competent authorities to have adequate technical, financial and human resources. I welcome the Minister of State's agreement that this resourcing is vital, the funding provided in 2026 to establish the office and her assurance that where additional resources are needed, they can be met through the normal Estimates process. The Act comes into force on a phased basis out to December 2028 and that gives us time to get it right. Monitoring resourcing across all the designated authorities as those phases are rolled out is crucial because a framework is only ever as strong as the bodies that deliver it. I would also ask about the independence of the office, which other colleagues have raised this evening and previously, given that the Minister of State has the power to issue policy directions. I welcome the Minister of State's confirmation that this power is limited and constrained and that it does not extend to the key adjudicative functions, the findings of the adjudicator, the determination of administrative sanctions or the role of the courts. That is an important safeguard. The Minister of State spoke here already about the area of trust. We need to ensure that trust in this office is built up and that we can trust what is coming out of the office, the chief executive of the office and the board, notwithstanding some of the points that colleagues have made about board composition and expertise. I believe this Bill will play a significant role in our preparedness for the technological changes we are seeing develop at a rapid pace and want to see it succeed, as I think we all do. The Minister of State has engaged constructively, openly and in good faith and I want to acknowledge that. This is a strong Bill, made stronger by dialogue. As it moves through these final Stages and into the work of implementation, I look forward to continuing to work with the Minister of State and my colleagues on the committee to ensure it delivers for the people we all serve. I commend the Minister of State on bringing the Bill forward. Finally, on a procedural piece, we received the Bill on Friday and amendments were to be in by Tuesday. That was extremely time-limiting. We should review it in future because a significant piece of legislation takes significant reading to identify where there are issues. If that could be looked at, I would appreciate it.

I commend the Minister of State on bringing the Bill to this Stage. Before I speak to the specific amendments, which are around the governance and the board structure, it is important that there has been general collaboration, both at the AI committee and, even more generally, around what we want to achieve with this transformational technology, because what we are debating and talking about here does not impact on merely one Department. It is impacting on virtually all areas of society. On the collaborative cross-party approach, we will not agree on every issue but I think we agree in general on the principles and about what we want to achieve as a State. We want to support innovation, deepen our understanding of AI, upskill our citizens to be able to avail of and use it, and put in the necessary guardrails to ensure that we can continue to "trust" our institutions but also know that the institutions have the safeguards in place to protect us. Given the nature and importance of the discussion, I would share colleagues' concern that there was insufficient time to consider amendments. Given some of the discussion that we are going through here in a two-hour period, I believe it will be relatively short, particularly because we will only get through discussion of the overall board of this body. That is a bit of a problem. I believe we will be constantly legislating for and examining this space, but the Minister of State in her response has to talk about how we as legislators will be able to have an input. I am very aware the technology is moving quickly. I appreciate we have to get the office up and running. I welcome the fact that the recruitment process for the CEO is ongoing and the Minister of State might update the House as to how that is happening. Specifically on the amendments, when we talk about the board of any organisation, the most important thing is what the purpose of this organisation is and, therefore, who the best people to sit on that board are. I am always cautious about being overly prescriptive about the membership of the board. What is critical is that this AI office best serves our citizens. I strongly support the approach the Minister of State is taking with regard to a distributed regulatory approach. What we need to do, and colleagues have talked about this, is ensure that our regulators are sufficiently skilled to deal with this. This cannot be another layer - a supra layer - of regulation on top of existing regulation. By that I mean that someone developing a financial product at present just has to go to the Central Bank for regulation, so if it is an AI-enabled product, the Central Bank should have sufficient regulatory power to be able to deal with this. Where there are gaps between those regulators, this office needs to be able to step in. This is where I think the role of the AI office lies. It is a co-ordinating role between our existing regulators. It also has a critical educational role and a role in building public confidence and trust in the use of AI by the State. It is in those very specific objectives that individuals will be appointed to this board, and it is critical they have that level of public trust and understanding. While I get where colleagues are coming from, I am always cautious about being overly prescriptive. This is about the objectives of the office and whether the board will best be able to support the chief executive and staff in achieving that. One thing I am concerned about, which is very important, is the issue of a youth advisory panel to ensure young people are heard in this and can influence the governance structure. The Minister of State and I were quite influential during the online safety legislation debate, as was Deputy Carrigy, on ensuring we had a youth advisory panel to work with the online safety commissioner in Coimisiún na Meán. We see it in the Office of the Ombudsman for Children and in other areas. This is critical, particularly for children and young people, who are one of many vulnerable groups, to ensure their voice has input in this. I would like to hear in the Minister of State's response a commitment to establish a youth advisory panel and an update on the CAO process, and get a clear understanding of what, if this is the board being appointed, the purpose of this organisation is and how those filling it will meet that purpose.

Being honest, I did not intend to speak on these amendments - I was going to wait until later - but when a substantial debate, which should go on for a long period in a committee room, is squeezed into two hours, it invariably turns into Second Stage speeches because it is our last chance to have a say on it. For me, this is the third leg of a bonfire. I know bonfires do not have legs but I am referring to whatever the wooden structures are that go around a serious bonfire. This is the third one we have had in one evening as we burn up our climate targets, the other two being much more obvious, namely, the Bills on LNG and the passenger cap in Dublin Airport. However, this is also part of it. As regards the section we are dealing with here, the fundamental problem that some of the amendments, and I am assuming the Minister of State will reject them all, attempt to address is the fact that the AI office is not independent and is subordinate to the Department of enterprise. Even the location of the office, subordinate to the Department of enterprise, tells us everything we need to know. This is then fleshed out in the mandate of the AI office and so on. This tells us what the mindset of the Government is in relation to AI is. It is that this is an enterprise issue that is overwhelmingly viewed through that lens. Its view is that this is a train that is moving or has already moved and we all need to get on board, and given that all the companies seem to be doing it, we need to educate all our young people in using AI. That is the whole mindset. I fundamentally disagree with that, as my colleagues on the committee will know. In general, from where we are currently standing, AI is a force for bad and not good in the world. It is accelerating genocide, climate change and mental health crises, and it is beginning to accelerate significant job loss and displacement. It is eroding workers' autonomy for those who still have jobs, and it is driving misogyny and hate. I do not deny some discrete, positive applications we have heard about for weather forecasting, healthcare and so on, but, as a whole, any objective look at the current impact of this technology will conclude that it is a negative thing. However, what we are seeing in the structure of this Bill, and we will get to the mandate in section 9 shortly, is green for go and doing everything we can to support and promote AI. It very much sees things through an enterprise frame, which is very problematic.

I thank all colleagues for their thoughtful contributions and well-placed intentions. I have an array of notes here to help me respond to them as best I can. Deputies Geoghegan and Ó Cearúil asked questions about the next phase, primary legislation to go with the non-personal data Bill to cover the pre-legislative scrutiny report's recommendations and any amendments needed for the digital omnibus and levy provision for any regulation. The next phase is primary legislation. This legislation is not only critically important but we will need to keep changing it and come back to it many times in future, unlike much of the other legislation that is established and enacted here, for example, planning law, which may be in place for the next 20 years. I cannot imagine that being the case with legislation on AI. I genuinely believe it will develop organically, but we have to start somewhere and this is the somewhere. This is what we are attempting to do tonight. Deputy Ó Cearúil was right that we have a deadline to meet; there is no getting away from that. As regards the Bills and the process, I accept that and will do my best. Unfortunately, I have no authority over the process, as the Bills Office decides that. However, I accept that Deputies feel this is being rushed. I assure them that the next phase is primary legislation, and I will take on board any requests or suggestions. I am happy to work with them on this. Deputy Gibney said this issue is being viewed entirely through an enterprise lens, and Deputy Paul Murphy said the same thing. I have said numerous times that I am very cognisant of the human-centred aspect. The Deputy might be throwing her eyes up to heaven, but the truth with regard to the AI Act is that fundamental rights are enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, including rights relating to democracy, the rule of law and environmental protection, which the Deputy called out. Member states must notify the European Commission of the designated authorities to ensure transparency and effective co-operation across the EU. Ireland's fundamental rights authorities include Coimisiún na Meán, the Data Protection Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, and the Office of the Ombudsman for Children, none of which comes under the Department of enterprise. To be fair, there is a broad scope and I certainly do not come at this issue from that narrow prism of enterprise only. While I am a Minister of State in the Department of enterprise and the office is being created by my Department, I assure Deputies that its autonomy and independence will be absolute in the legislation and there will be an arm's length approach taken to the AI office. I emphasise that this is a process and not a done deal; it will not be done and dusted tonight. I accept that Deputies would like to have more time. Two committees, the AI and enterprise committees, have responsibility in this regard. The enterprise committee has statutory responsibility for pre-legislative scrutiny. I have no authority over that, but I am always happy to go before the artificial intelligence committee to answer questions and engage in debate and discussion with Deputies. I am waiting on the enterprise committee's pre-legislative scrutiny recommendations and I will be happy to see how we can knit those into the next phase of the legislation. I hope that answers some of the calls that have been made. The pre-legislative scrutiny process was watched closely by officials. Certain matters have been incorporated, including the carve-outs in section 2 and the inclusion of the requirement for the market surveillance authorities to share the fundamental rights impact analysis reports with the AI office. However, we stand ready for the report and are eager to take the recommendations in the next phase. I hope that puts to bed concerns that people may have that are raised here tonight. Deputy Gibney raised the CEO recruitment. I do not pick the CEO. There is a very public, transparent process there, which the Deputy knows full well, I have no doubt. The position was advertised through a Public Appointments Service competition. The competition is at an advanced stage. I can tell the Deputy that, but I do not pick the CEO, so please do not indicate that I do, because I do not. I thank Deputy Gibney for her amendment. However, I do not consider it necessary to introduce a definition of service for the purpose of the 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 of the board expressly refer to the Public Appointments Service. There is no difficulty in understanding those references as drafted. As a general principle of legislative drafting, defined terms should only be used when they are necessary to assist the interpretation or operation of legislation. In this instance, introducing 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 do not propose to accept it. Regarding amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15, and 16, I thank Deputies Gibney, Lawlor, Conway-Walsh and Geoghegan for their amendments in respect of the board members of the AI office. Deputy Byrne may have raised this too. I recognise the objective behind the amendments, namely, to ensure a highly transparent, merit-based appointments process and a broad range of expertise on the board. I agree with these objectives. Indeed, the Bill already provides for a Public Appointments Service process and requires that both initial and future appointments be made, having regard to the experience and capacity of prospective members in matters connected with the functions of the office. In other words, we will be looking to ensure that the expertise required as technology develops is there. Many of the procedural requirements proposed in amendment No. 15 are already provided for under the Government's guidelines on appointments to State bodies. Those guidelines require open advertising of vacancies, publication of the criteria for the appointment, and the independent assessment process conducted by the Public Appointments Service. I do not consider it necessary to prescribe these operational details in primary legislation. However, the existing provisions provide the appropriate degree of flexibility for a newly established organisation. The office is being created in the context of emerging technology and an entirely new regulatory framework across the EU, with access to independent AI experts becoming available through 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 the appointments procedures, selection panels, or particular categories of expertise. That said, I am sympathetic to the intention. As the office matures and gains operational experience, it is important to keep under review the mix of expertise and experience required for its effective and efficient performance, and to seek to adapt accordingly. In that context, matters such as the board's composition and expertise requirements could be considered in a future phase of the office's development, should experience demonstrate a need for additional statutory measures.

I have tabled a second amendment regarding the chief executive officer. It is clear on page 22 of the Bill, which states, "The Office shall have a chief executive officer". It talks about the Public Appointments Service recruiting the board, then states: (3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), the Minister may, before the establishment day, designate a person to be the first Chief Executive Officer. (4) Where, immediately before the establishment day, a person stands designated by the Minister under subsection (3), the person shall, on that day, stand appointed as the first Chief Executive Officer for such period, not exceeding 5 years from the date of his or her appointment, as the Minister may determine. The Minister then gets to appoint the first chief executive officer. My issue is that this is where the independence starts or does not start when an office like this is established. Once again, I have done this. The Government can outsource this to the Public Appointments Service. It can detach the hiring body from the recruitment process by strengthening the role of the Public Appointments Service in it, and it has chosen not to do that. In fact, it has done the reverse, and it has given the Minister more authority for the appointment of the first chief executive officer. In those first five terms, the Government is going to establish and basically set in stone how that organisation operates. The level of influence of that first CEO is heavy for the future of the organisation. The Minister of State has talked about this not being dusted tonight, but this is legislation. Of course it is organic and we will have to revisit it over the years, of which there is no question, but this is the shot. This is the time we get to do it. We are offering genuine, researched, evidence-based amendments and they are not being heard. The Minister of State is not interested and she is offering a tiny amount of time to discuss complex legislation and a set of complex amendments, which demonstrates to me that she has no interest. It is great to hear that the Minister of State is sending letters out to everyone. I did not get a letter since Second Stage last week and I raised a number of concerns. I do not know if anybody else in the Opposition got any letters. It is great that Deputies Ó Cearúil, Byrne and Geoghegan all got letters, but I would have liked one too.

I did not get a letter.

Deputy Ó Cearúil got a letter. I did not get a letter. I have received no engagement in this process. My issue is that the Minister of State is not listening. She is not understanding what we are trying to say, and that independence is key. All of the other market surveillance authorities she is mentioning, and the fundamental rights bodies identified through the AI Act and the legislation as part of the structure are all well and good, but the AI office is the authority. By this legislation, it is essentially a part of the Department of enterprise. The Minister can interfere in it. The CEO cannot even come to a committee and comment on Government activities. That is not independent. Deputy Geoghegan referred to the dual role of this office, which is on one hand supposed to be the regulator and, on the other, supposed to promote AI. That in itself is already a conflict, which I have a difficulty with. The AI office should be distinct. The Data Protection Commission has better independence than this body, which is being set up now. The Minister of State mentioned the Data Protection Commission, which is under the aegis of the Department of justice, and Coimisiún na Meán, under the aegis of the Department of Culture, Communications and Sport, and now we have this one under the aegis of the Department of enterprise. The other two already do not work, because Grok happened and nothing has been done to combat it. We are now creating a third leg to this bonfire. It just makes no sense and it certainly does not strengthen any independence.

To address what Deputy Gibney said, I do not think it is fair to say that the Minister of State is not listening. At the end of the day, the Minister of State is sitting in the Chamber and responding to the amendments that have been made. She may not agree with the amendments but she is listening. I would say that Deputy Gibney should at least acknowledge that when the Minister of State comes before our committee, she listens to us. She may have a different opinion but I do not think that is a fair charge to level against her. The Minister of State referred to another Bill which I did not catch fully. Is it the personal data Bill?

The non-personal data Bill.

Am I right that at one stage, there was a proposal that that Bill would be included in the Bill now before these House, and a decision was taken to split those Bills? Is it the Minister of State's position now that, when that Bill is brought before these Houses, it may also include amendments to this Bill, based on what was said in the pre-legislative scrutiny? I see lots of nodding going on, which encourages me. In fairness to Deputy Ó Cearúil, he highlighted the deadline for establishing the AI office, which is why the Bill is before us today, to meet that deadline. The EU Presidency starts tomorrow. It gives me some encouragement about when the next Bill, albeit not the AI Bill, comes before these Houses. I ask, specifically with regard to that Bill, that we create some kind of structure, although I do not know how would be created, where the Minister of State could come before the AI committee to have direct discussion of whatever form, be it informal or otherwise, if it is not done within the strictures of how Standing Orders are established. Then, after the fact, maybe through the Chair and others, we could long at a more long-term structure for the AI committee to have a more formal legislative role. I acknowledge that would require changes to Standing Orders and engagement with the relevant internal committees. Ultimately, there is probably a recognition, even if the Minister of State looks around the Chamber, that most of the Deputies in the Chamber today are members of the AI committee. Even when we heard from members of the enterprise committee, such as Deputy Conway-Walsh, she acknowledged that the AI committee has an essential role and that we are building a level of expertise in this respect. Perhaps the next model could be this next Bill, and thereafter we might come back with a way in which this could be done. I hear what the Minister of State is saying in terms of being prescriptive about who should sit on the board. I understand the board and the Public Appointments Service, when it appoints people to the board, will ultimately reflect the overall goals of the Act. I disagree with Deputy Gibney. I fundamentally believe that the AI office should have a dual role. We need a statutory agency in this State that has a role in terms of the delivery of AI literacy across the board, at least to provide direction, just in the same way that regulatory divergence is provided in terms of all of the relevant agencies that are going to regulate the implementation of the EU AI Act. It should also be the case that we have a central agency that can at least give pointers to the Department of education, the Department of enterprise, the Minister of State's own Department and the Department of further and higher education. We need that kind of umbrella, overarching view because we know that AI, at a governmental level, will be implemented and is being implemented and adapted through every form of policy in areas like health, education and enterprise. I think it is a good and positive thing that we would have a statutory agency that would have both of those functions. I do not see how it dilutes investigatory and enforcement practices. There are plenty of other examples within this State where an agency has an investigatory role, a regulatory role and an advocacy role. If the Deputy reads the legislation in full, it is quite clear that the two things are very separate, and that in the performance of its regulatory functions in terms of its enforcement activity, it would be entirely independent. On the flip side, when it comes to advocacy, it is right and proper that the Government would have a role in providing some level of direction that would reflect the AI policies that are being implemented at each departmental level and that the AI office could be supported within that.

It is unfair to say that the Minister of State has not been listening because I think she has. What I would say to Deputy Gibney is that the legislation provides for the formal appointment by the Minister following a process, which is pretty standard. In fairness, I recall this role being advertised on publicjobs.ie. LinkedIn actually recommended it to me at one stage. The closing date for this was at the end of March. It would be useful to assure the House, particularly if we are looking at this office being up and running within a month - the Minister of State said that the process is coming toward a conclusion - when we will actually know who the CEO-designate is going to be. The closing date for the process was three months ago. The Minister of State is expecting it to go through publicjobs.ie. I appreciate that the Minister of State's signature is the final signature that goes on that and she does not have a role in picking the individual, but Deputy Gibney and others have made the point that whoever takes that role, because they are going to be there for the first five years, will be shaping the direction of the office. In the context of this legislation, it would be useful for the Minister of State to give us a clear indication of when the name of that individual will be known and the CEO-designate will be appointed. Again, I agree with the overall context of not being overly prescriptive, as time goes on, when we are recruiting for board members. The Minister of State might outline when that recruitment process is going to start on the basis of this legislation. I accept the Minister of State's bona fides. I agree that we should not be overly prescriptive. In her response, the Minister of State might come back to the youth advisory panel issue as well.

I have two points. One is the point that Deputy Gibney made. The Minister of State denied that she gets to appoint the CEO. For now, until the establishment of the board, she has total power in appointing the CEO. That is the truth. That is what is set out in the legislation. Afterwards, she still gets to pick the CEO. She picks the CEO from a shortlist, which is done by the Public Appointments Service, but she does pick them. The Minister of State may feel free to correct me if I am wrong in that. I am not sure her strong rebuttal of Deputy Gibney really holds up. My second point is that probably the worst thing in this Bill is the inclusion of the mandate of promoting and fostering AI innovation and literacy in the AI office. This is financial regulator stuff, where the financial regulator was promoting finance and simultaneously regulating finance. You cannot be poacher and gamekeeper at the same time. They point in opposite directions. If the Government wants to have a body whose job it is to promote AI literacy and so on, it can knock itself out, but it should not be the same person and office that is supposed to be regulating and ensuring this does not cause harm to society. That is the whole problem here. It will have both the good mandate and the bad mandate set up together in this one office. It is sitting under the auspices of, and not really independent of, the Department of enterprise, which is very much on one side of that equation. That is the fundamental problem. The Minister of State can make the case to have people advocating for fostering AI innovation and literacy and so on, but the idea that the body carrying out that function will also be the regulator is very problematic.

Artificial intelligence has made particular strides and jumps. It is in a place where we never anticipated being, if we are talking about two years ago. What we see across the board in the amendments is that they are about ensuring we have an AI office which has the capacity to be able to deliver whatever delivery looks like. A number of people, including Deputy Conway-Walsh, have said we need a huge level of skill sets. Obviously that includes technical skills, but skills are needed beyond that because artificial intelligence will cross every boundary we can possibly think of. The question around an element of independence is obviously vital, given the history we have with regulation in this State if we think back to the financial crisis, which Deputy Murphy and others have spoken about. I also highlight the other aspect of the issue. We have seen in the public domain that the Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy Lawless, had a roundtable meeting with Meta, OpenAI, Microsoft and a number of others. I think everyone welcomes the fact that conversations are ongoing with stakeholders, but we would also like to think that there will be an element of independence and that we will make determinations on what is best for Ireland, for the Irish people and more widely beyond that. Nearly every time we speak about artificial intelligence, we talk about the dangers of job displacement, which we have seen recently. Covalen is an example. We have also seen it in the case of PayPal. As much as the Minister of State will get official denials in this regard, I think it is fairly straightforward. That is not taking away from the huge room for innovation that exists. It is not taking away from the huge realities of how this can have a positive impact on healthcare in everything from diagnostics to organisation. It is vital that we have a system, a framework and an AI office that can drive this on and is able to deal with all of this. It is going to be difficult to deal with the whole issue of regulation and the fact that we want to see maximum utilisation in relation to artificial intelligence. Unfortunately, we have all seen Donald Trump's attempts to curtail technologies within the American sphere that he might not want to necessarily share out without a huge price to be paid, which we may not be willing to pay. We are in the early days. We are talking about a technology that is going to move on. It is making sure we also have capacity in that. We are discussing with stakeholders and big tech, some of whom have the ear of the American President and not necessarily in a positive way. I heard the timeline they are looking for will be much faster than what had been planned by the State. I ask that the Government does do everything it can to ensure that it has the best framework for delivering, notwithstanding there will be multiple changes because we can come up with any plan we like but it will change because this is a vastly evolving technology, which will encompass almost every facet of life. That means it is really important that we ensure we play our part in relation to regulation and seeing those dangers. We have seen the dangers related to social media companies in the recent past. This is about stating the protections we want to see, combined with the capacity, are contained in the AI office. I would also add my voice to what many others have said. As much as we want to see strategies and a framework put in place quickly, nobody appreciates the rushed nature of legislation and the way that a number of Bills have been dealt with recently in this House.

I thank everybody for their comments. On the AI office CEO appointment, I reassure Deputies that it is an independent process that is coming to a conclusion. I will inform them when that appointment has been made.

Does Deputy Gibney wish to press the amendment?

No, I will move to the next one.

Amendments Nos. 2 to 10, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 2: In page 13, line 34, after “foster” to insert “ethical and responsible”. These are examples of constructive amendments. Amendment No. 2 seeks to bring in a balance where by adding the phrase “ethical and responsible” so that it changes the remit of the office from fostering AI innovation and literacy to fostering ethical and responsible AI innovation and literacy. That is an example of the kind of balance we are looking for and that we have lip service paid to all the time but that has never been demonstrated as a meaningful commitment by this Government. Amendment No. 3 enhances the publication powers for the AI office. This is an issue with many State agencies that have a regulatory function. They are prohibited from publishing their findings. I cite the example of the Inspector of Prisons and IHREC, which has issues with codes of practice. There are so many ways in which the work of these agencies as regulatory bodies is hampered because the publication powers they have are not adequate. If we actually want a regulator with teeth who will be able to call out issues when it wishes to, we need to provide it with publication power to do so. Again, all it is doing is strengthening independence. If the Government actually wants an independent regulator that is able to deal with the responsibilities that it is trying to give it, then it needs to give it the powers to match. That is what the amendment tries to do. It simply enhances that publication power. I hope these amendments can be taken in the spirit in which they are intended, which is constructive. These are simple amendments that can enhance this legislation. I am guessing by the tone of this debate so far that none of these amendments will be accepted by the Government. It is not just this debate but the whole evening - we are in the sixth hour of supposed debates - is just theatre for the Government. We get to discuss these amendments and, as Deputy Murphy said, it becomes like Second Stage because we are all just speaking in the knowledge that we will not get to the substantive amendments we want to deal with and engage with. I put these forward in good faith and I hope the Minister of State will engage with them.

Amendments Nos. 4, 8 and 9 concern small and medium-sized businesses. They aim to expand the statutory functions of the AI office so that it not only regulates AI but also provides guidance, training and technical assistance support for small businesses, particularly SMEs, to comply with the AI Act and to adopt AI responsibly. The AI office should be more than just an enforcement body. It should offer an education and support function to help businesses to understand what is expected of them. These amendments attempt to rebalance the legislation by placing compliance support alongside enforcement. Most businesses that this legislation will impact will be SMEs. They will need clear guidance and accessible training if they are to comply confidently with the new regulatory framework.

Amendment No. 5 speaks to the promotion of responsible adoption of AI systems in workplaces and protects the legal rights of employees. A lot of people out there are very fearful of AI and what it will bring to the workplace. The amendment is geared towards the protection of existing employees and ensuring nothing we are doing through the establishment of this office will undermine that. It also calls for monitoring the use of AI systems for the purpose of workforce management, not to hand over AI to management to undermine existing workers and their rights and obligations under this Act and under artificial intelligence regulations. We also need to encourage and support the provision of training, reskilling and upskilling opportunities. This is vital in the current climate. There is a lot of fear among the entire population as to where AI is going in relation to the rights of workers and how this might be undermined unless there is strong legislation in place to ensure their rights and opportunities are strengthened. Amendment No. 7 speaks to our national climate objectives. We have already seen legislation pushed through this evening that abandoned a lot of our climate objectives. This amendment seeks to insert the following subsection: the need to ensure that the development and adoption of AI systems in the State is consistent with the national climate objective within the meaning of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, having particular regard to the energy consumption and environmental impact associated with the training, operation and deployment of AI systems. We all know the impact AI will have on energy and water consumption in particular. We have to be cognisant of that in this legislation. I ask the Minister of State to do that.

To clarify, where amendments are grouped, is the order in which the amendments are proposed that Members are called or do we have to indicate every time?

The Deputy must indicate.

My amendments relate to section 9(1)(c), which sets out the function of the office to “promote and foster AI innovation and literacy” and tries to provide more clarity as to what that will look like and mean. Perhaps in her reply to the Minister of State might address the two subsequent provisions of the Act, namely, sections 10 and 11. One is about the Minister’s ability to give an order to the AI office and the other is about the ability of the Minister to give a direction to the AI office. As I understand the provision, the Minister would have to lay before the Houses any direction that he or she might give and in respect of those directions, none of those can relate to the actual regulatory enforcement function. It is going back to the promoting and fostering AI innovation and literacy point. My first question is what the difference is between a direction and an order and how those two elements will interplay. I also ask that as there is a statutory obligation in respect of directions, those directions would be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. I ask now, in contemplation of this secondary Bill the Minister of State is promoting, that she might consider an amendment to the personal data Bill she referred to in terms of the amendment of this Act, whereby the relevant committee, that is, the Oireachtas AI committee, would be the committee that would get to view and examine these directions or at least have some form of pre-legislative scrutiny function in respect of those directions. That is down to the knitting and the weeds of what we are doing in the AI committee. We are examining policies across every Department as they relate to AI. Quite clearly, any direction the Minister gives to this AI office will concern the implementation and adaptation of AI policy across a world of areas from education to health and enterprise. I acknowledge the logic of Deputy Murphy's point about the Central Bank at one point having a dual function of regulating and of promoting Ireland as a centre for financial services. After the financial crash that dual function was got rid of and the Central Bank solely had a role in respect of the regulating of financial services. However, while there is a logic to the argument, I view these issues as entirely separate. It boils down to two different philosophies present in this House and often in our committee in respect of AI. Ultimately, for Ireland to remain competitive we must examine how AI is being adapted and we must be ahead of others in how that AI adaptation is improving competitiveness. Separately, in an agile way we have to be extremely conscious of how AI is impacting young people in education at primary and secondary level and in further and higher education. We have to be agile in the impact AI is having on future jobs for graduates coming out of college, people trying to enter college and people who are not entering college at all, to know the types of jobs we are going to have in the future. We must be agile in order that we can mandate and direct policy to ensure that we can be responsive to the disruption that AI is causing and will cause and yet harness the benefits it is going to bring. I do not think there is a fair analogy between the two things, which are financial services and AI. AI has enormous risks and potential. It almost sounds cliched to keep repeating these phrases but as Members of the Oireachtas, we are being brought on a journey in our assessment of how AI is impacting society and the thematic approach we have adopted on the committee. The general public is using AI at some of the highest levels in Europe right now and yet they have equal levels of concern and mistrust. SMEs in Ireland at OECD level apparently are doing reasonably okay. We are a bit higher and yet there is still a low level of adaptation of AI. There are whole areas of our society and country where we need to bring people on a journey. There needs to be trust and it needs to be done in a coherent way. The AI office in my view is the appropriate body to do it. Where there is this statutory function where the Minister can direct through a direction or order and where there is a role for the Oireachtas in respect of these directions or order, it would be helpful to know, even at this early stage, what kinds of directions the Minister or Minister of State might be contemplating giving the AI office. It obviously has to comport with the goals of AI literacy. Are draft directions already being considered or made? There is also the separate point I am making that if the Minister is accountable to the Houses of the Oireachtas in respect of the directions, a formal statutory role be given to the AI committee and that this be contemplated in the context of any provisions that might be put forward in the personal data Bill the Minister of State referred to earlier.

I am proposing amendment No. 6 but it speaks to the broader set of amendments. It is about what the purpose of the artificial intelligence office is. I might thread the contentions of Deputy Murphy and Deputy Geoghegan. I agree somewhat with Deputy Murphy that if the role of this office and the ecosystem we are creating is a distributive regulatory model, our critical point is about ensuring that the existing regulators are strong enough to manage their own sectors and that this body is a co-ordinating and enabling body. I would be worried if this starts to become a “thou shalt not” regulator because if it does, it will not support that agility in respect of Deputy Geoghegan's point about how we can help support business and enterprise. What it has to do is ensure that if you are an enterprise developing an AI product or service, you know you have an existing regulator that you deal with and are responsible to it. The role of this office, which is why I proposed this amendment, is that where the gaps may fall with those existing authorities, it will be in a position to identify the gaps and make the decisions. Part of how I see its role is that if an SME wants to look at deploying AI to deliver its goods or services more effectively or efficiently, this office will support and enable it in being able to do it. It will be able to have guided it through the process. It will make sure that the regulators are doing their jobs. It speaks to our vision as to where the office is. I see it as having more of a promotional and enabling role. I know where Deputy Murphy is coming from on conflicts of interest and I think that could happen. However, I believe it will inhibit innovation if there are essentially two layers of regulation. That is something we certainly want to avoid. A lot of Deputy Gibney's amendments are well intentioned. I support the idea of including ethical and responsible in what we need to do. It is a culture we need to embed. I am one of those who sees the enormous potential of AI but it all depends on how we use it. Having an ethical and responsible framework is critical and we need to embed that in enterprise as much as in healthcare, education and other spaces. I think this speaks to all of the amendments. This office should be an enabling office. It should be able to help all of us as citizens and all enterprises around the country to know how best to responsibly, ethically and safely use AI to deliver better services for our citizens or our customers.

It is appropriate that I speak at this stage because I think that gets to the point. I think the Government agrees with the Deputy that it wants to set up an enabling office. That is the wrong way to go. Fundamentally we need a “thou shalt not” regulating office to try to protect the citizens from the potentially negative impact of AI. I will speak to two of the amendments. I support Deputy Gibney's amendment on adding in the promotion of the responsible use of AI as opposed to the current proposal we have. It is amendment No. 2 and speaks of “ethical and responsible”. I presume we are going to hear that we are not going to get that, but it is really not too much to ask. Second, Deputy Lawlor's amendment No. 7 on the climate impact of AI is extremely important. Last week we had Jennie Stephens and Hannah Daly in. It is funny and I have quoted this to a few people who have been in. KPMG has a report whereby it surveys chief executives of companies and asks what they think about AI and 95% of them say that AI is really going to help us deal with climate change. I do not know why we are asking the chief executives. Let us ask climate scientists if AI is going to help us deal with climate change. I have not found one yet that says yes. Everyone says this is really a problem in terms of climate change.

A climate scientist was at the AI committee advocating for AI.

Through the Chair.

Sorry.

Does Deputy Geoghegan mean the weather forecasting guy?

Yes.

His main thing was to say this is not like the large language models, LLMs. I did not disagree with anything he said but I do not think he was making the general case that is being made that somehow AI is going to help us to deal with climate change. If we roll out the argument that a combination of AI and a stable demand for energy is going to promote investment in renewables, and load management and so on will happen at a better scale, I really think it is magical thinking. I do not think we are going to find climate scientists to make that case. Instead, what we heard from Jennie Stephens was that AI is preventing the phase-out of fossil fuels. The rapid deployment of AI has led to a dramatic increase in fossil fuel exploration, extraction and burning. The thing that struck me is that AI is being used to make fossil fuel exploration and extraction more efficient in a sense. Professor Stephens also said, "Tech companies are also collaborating with the fossil fuel industry to develop AI tools used to accelerate fossil fuel exploration and allow fossil fuels to be extracted more quickly and cheaply". She argued "AI promotes climate obstruction" and denial, delay and distraction. I thought this point was very strong: "Tech companies are now deploying many of the same strategies that the fossil fuel industry has used to squash public concern and block climate policy", strategically squashing research, discussion and awareness about the environmental impacts of AI. We also heard from Professor Hannah Daly about the reality many of us have been pointing out for a long time, which is that all the extra renewables we are adding to the grid are just being sucked up by the data centres over an extended period. For me, it did crystallise something and I felt our guests today were trapped in this a bit. Often, there is just the illusion that somehow adding more renewable capacity, in and of itself, is in some way dealing with climate change but it is not. We can add all the renewables that we want but as long as we keep expanding usage we are not getting any closer to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The climate does not really care if we have a whole load of renewables happening over here but we are still increasing or sustaining the same level of greenhouse gas burning. The amendment is good because it says that this should be central and that the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act has to apply here. We have had it disapplied on a number of occasions this evening. That is what we are generally doing this evening, but AI has to be consistent with our supposedly legally binding climate targets.

We are all aware of the huge dangers, which I will reiterate. The big one at the minute is the number of people who are worried – not from a technical point of view – about losing their job. If we are talking about an AI office, we must ensure there is significant capacity and that it engages with the State and all of its agencies from the point of view of fostering the skill sets that are required to ensure we can deliver AI solutions to improve workplaces and innovation within companies and everywhere else. A number of the amendments relate to this. We must make sure that we have an overall eye on the development of artificial intelligence and its dangers. We have seen issues with Grok, etc. We do not know where the new-found dangers will be. The fact is that we are talking about a huge amount of information and how it is taken from those who provide it, whether willingly and knowingly, and then how it is utilised. That is why it is absolutely vital that we have a framework that is ethical and responsible. I have not heard anyone speak against that. We hardly want it not to be ethical and to be irresponsible. We all recognise and have spoken about where there are obvious wins from the point of view of artificial intelligence for companies. As much as there are dangers within education, huge wins are obviously possible. It is about ensuring that the AI office has capacity for a framework to provide training, due diligence and instruction where necessary. It might not necessarily be through the AI office. The Acting Chair, Deputy McGreehan, and I spoke before about the use of the likes of Skillnet. We know that this has to be something that is delivered across all the local enterprise offices, LEOs, Enterprise Ireland and the IDA. It is about ensuring that the capacity, ambition and remit is there within the AI office and that we make sure that those within the AI office, as the previous set of amendments proposed, have the skill sets and capacity. In some respects we have had very little conversation. There has been talk about the need for the AI office to be up and running and the fact that primary legislation is needed, including to deal with issues that might not necessarily be addressed here and now, but I have heard little in relation to the AI strategy, how we develop that, and what sort of timeline we are talking about. I am going to return to the meeting with OpenAI, Microsoft, Meta and Dell. I assume there were many others there. We definitely do not want a scenario and situation where we are being directed by them. I do not think people will give out about the fact that there is a conversation but I assume it is also about making sure there is transparency in relation to that and what we are proposing around the timeline for the AI strategy. I accept that no strategy that we put in play is going to remain static right through. I am interested in seeing that. I get that, to a degree, we are all talking in generalities because even when we talk specifically to amendments I am fairly sure that we are not going to see any amendments accepted. Could we have some indication of the trajectory of what is being sought by the amendments as regards an ethical and responsible framework, ensuring that the capacity is there within the AI office, that there is a sufficient amount of independence and that we can deliver a strategy that works? We all know the necessity of a feedback loop and the constant change that will occur. While there may be engagement with the likes of the companies the Minister of State met, we must not be directed by them. That piece is vital.

I thank colleagues very much for their amendments. I will try to go through each and every one. The purpose of section 9(1)(c) is to provide a broad statement of the office's function 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, fundamental rights ... and supporting innovation." The regulation, therefore, already embodies the principle that Deputy Gibney's amendment seeks to advance. In addition, neither "ethical" nor "responsible" is defined in the AI Act or in the Bill. Introducing these 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 office's functions. 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 that 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 I do not propose to accept it. While I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, these concepts are already inherent in the AI Act framework, and the current drafting is clear and consistent with the language of the underlying regulation. Recital 8 of the AI Act states the regulation supports the objective of promoting the European-centric approach to AI and making the Union a global leader in the development of secure, trustworthy and ethical AI, reflecting the conclusions adopted by the European Council in October 2020. The same recital further notes that the regulation ensures the protection of ethical principles, reflecting recommendations made by the European Parliament in its October 2020 resolution on the ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies. Moving to amendment No. 3, the Bill already considers a number of the 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 must be published. In addition, section 9(4) provides that the office shall have all such powers as are necessary or expedient for the performance of its functions. Where research, analysis or the publication of reports is required to support the exercise of these 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 in support of the performance of its statutory functions, including but not limited to functions under section 9(1)(c) and 9(1)(d) to promote AI innovation and literacy and to enhance public awareness. I am confident the Bill already provides an appropriate framework and that the amendment is not necessary. The Government is conscious that the office is being established as a new body and its functions may evolve as the AI regulatory framework becomes more established and operational experience is gained. For this reason, the Bill seeks to provide an appropriate foundation while avoiding unnecessary prescription in the activities the office may already undertake in support of existing functions. I am nonetheless sympathetic to the objective underlining the amendment. The role of research, evidence-gathering and public reporting in supporting effective AI governance will be kept under constant review by the office as it develops and as its work programme matures. Should there be a demonstrated need to place such activities on a more explicit statutory footing in future, this can be considered in light of operational experience. Accordingly, while I appreciate the intention behind the amendment and the value of research in informing AI policy and regulation, I am satisfied the Bill already provides the office with sufficient flexibility in this regard and I do not propose to accept the amendment at this time. On amendment No. 4, section 9(1)(c) provides that the office shall promote and foster AI innovation and literacy and section 9(1)(d) provides that it shall enhance public awareness of 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 EU level, including guidelines, codes of practice and a service desk, which are intended to support and reinforce consistent implementation of harmonised rules across the EU. I am satisfied that these provisions already capture the proposed paragraphs (h), (i) and (j), and reinstating them in granular subparagraphs would result in legislative duplication without adding substantive legal effect. The Bill, through section 46, provides for the establishment of one or more AI regulatory sandboxes in accordance with Article 57 of the EU AI Act, with priority access to SMEs and start-ups free of charge, as mandated by Article 62 of the regulation. The sandbox function is the primary structural vehicle through which the office will support SME compliance, provide guidance and technical assistance and reduce regulatory barriers to AI adoption. The proposed paragraph (k) duplicates this as it is already embedded in the sandbox and real-world testing framework provided for in Chapter 3 of Part 3. Section 9(1)(f) already requires that the office is to provide advice to the Minister on any matter relating to its functions. The proposed paragraph (j) requiring the office to provide advice and technical assistance to the Minister, competent authorities, businesses and organisations is repetition of the existing function. Section 10 confers on the Minister 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 align with wider national policy priorities. While I understand the sentiment behind amendment No. 5, I am satisfied the protections are already guaranteed under the AI Act, which has direct effect in Ireland. Asserting them as part of the AI office would not strengthen them but merely duplicate what is already binding in law. The Act completely prohibits AI systems that infer employees' emotions in the workplace or educational institutions. It also bans biometric categorisations that infer sensitive traits. The AI Act imposes a binding obligation on employers as deployers of high-risk AI systems to inform workers' representatives and affected workers before putting such systems into use in the workplace. Similarly, AI-driven decisions on employment status must have meaningful human oversight. Workers have the right to demand human intervention, obtain an explanation for a decision and contest adverse outcomes. The AI Act is very clear on its interplay with other EU and national legislation. It explicitly calls out that the harmonised rules laid down in the AI Act should apply across sectors and in line with the new legislative framework, they should be without prejudice to existing Union law, in particular on data protection, consumer protection, fundamental rights, employment, protection of workers and product safety, to which the AI Act is complementary. Recital 9 of the AI states that, in the context of employment and the protection of workers, this regulation should not affect Union law on social policy and national labour law. Further, it states the regulation should not affect the exercise of fundamental rights as recognised by the member states and at Union level. Worker reskilling and upskilling in the context of AI adoption is already a matter of active Government policy, addressed through the national AI strategy, SOLAS, Skillnet Ireland, the National Training Fund and the further and higher education system in its broad mandate. The office will complement this work and work in co-operation with the relevant State actors active in this area. The point made by Deputy Ó Murchú is correct and it emphasises the cross-party and horizontal impact the Government is having on AI. The meeting he referred to is the round-table conversation the Minister, Deputy Lawless, had on enterprise, with many stakeholders around the table. It was specifically on the gaps we need to fill and whether they are widening or narrowing. Admittedly, there is a widening between SMEs and the bigger companies which have all of these systems in place. We were rightly taking a look at how we can address this with Skillnet Ireland, our ETBs, SOLAS and many other training agencies. To respond to the point made by Deputy Lawlor, the Bill seeks to provide an appropriate foundation while avoiding unnecessary measures. I am satisfied the AI Act already provides appropriate safeguards in the workplace and I do not propose to accept the amendment at this time. Turning to amendment No. 6, I agree that it is important that the emerging issues in AI regulation are identified early and that the regulators work together and effectively in responding to new challenges. The office is being established primarily to support the implementation and co-ordination of the AI Act in the State. Its functions include co-ordinating competent authorities, facilitating co-operation and information sharing, supporting enforcement activities and advising the Minister on matters relating to its functions. These functions already place the office in a strong position to identify emerging issues and share information across the regulatory system. The amendment would go further by assigning the office a potentially broad and undefined role in "addressing [areas] where regulation may not be covered by existing authorities". It is unclear what legal or operational action that would entail and how it would interact with the responsibilities of the Oireachtas, the Government, Ministers and sectoral regulators. The creation of new regulatory frameworks, the allocation of regulatory responsibilities and the identification of legislative gaps are primarily matters for the Government and the Oireachtas. The role of the office is to support effective implementation of the existing framework established by the AI Act and this Bill. That said, I acknowledge the concern underlined in the amendment. As the AI ecosystem evolves, the office's practical experience and engagement with competent authorities will place it in a valuable position to identify emerging regulatory issues and advise the Government accordingly. Indeed, section 9(1)(f) empowers the office to provide advice to the Minister on matters relating to its functions. Amendment No. 7 is provided for under the EU AI Act, which introduces the provisions concerning energy consumption and transparency. Providers of the general purpose AI models are required to document the known or 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 work to develop a robust and practical framework for the measuring of AI energy consumption and efficiency. Moreover, the Bill requires the office to have 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 wide Government policies, including climate. The AI Act is clear and strong in its emphasis on its application in accordance with the values of the Union enshrined in the charter, facilitating the protection of natural persons, undertakings, 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 function. The amendment is therefore unnecessary, and I will not be in a position to accept it. While I understand the sentiment behind amendments Nos. 8 and 9, I am satisfied that the section, within its broad mandate, places obligations on the office to promote AI innovation, adoption and competitiveness. The Bill also requires that the AI office is established to supervise AI regulatory sandboxes in accordance with Article 57 of the EU AI Act. The sandbox framework is specifically designed to provide a structured environment for innovation and testing and development, practically benefiting SMEs and start-ups that may lack the resources of larger enterprises to navigate compliance independently. The EU AI Act's sandbox provision was deliberately designed with SMEs in mind and the Bill faithfully implements that framework. In relation to the amendment regarding annual reports, the Bill provides a comprehensive accountability framework that achieves this purpose. Section 38 requires the office to prepare a strategy statement every three years setting out key objectives, outputs and strategies, including a review of previous performance. Section 40 requires that the office submit an annual report on the performance of its functions in such form and including such information as the office considers appropriate or as the Minister directs. I am satisfied that the proposed objectives of the amendment are captured within the core functions of the office. Reasserting them would merely restate what is there, maybe in more elaborate terms. Accordingly, I do not accept the amendments. Amendment No. 10 would require the office to take such measures as it considers necessary to advance the objectives specified in section 9(1) and to report on those measures in each annual report under section 40. Section 9(1) already confers on the office a comprehensive range of functions directed at precisely these objectives while section 9(4) provides that, "The Office shall have all such powers as are necessary or expedient for the performance of its functions", which already encompass the taking of measures that the proposed section 9(6) would require. Imposing a separate, open-ended obligation to take such measures as is considered necessary to advance those same objectives offers nothing of substance while potentially creating interpretive ambiguity as to the scope of the office's existing powers and duties. As regards the reporting obligation proposed in section 9(7), section 40 already requires the office to prepare an annual report on the performance of its functions, which inherently encompasses reporting on the measures taken in respect of the section 9(1) objectives. A specific and additional reporting requirement is therefore redundant. I am conscious that the office must be afforded appropriate flexibility and independence in determining how best to advance its statutory objectives, a point expressly recognised in section 9(5). The prescribing of further layers of mandatory consultation and reporting obligations of the kind proposed risks imposing an administrative burden disproportionate to any tangible benefit. Accordingly, I oppose the amendment.

I thank the Minister of State. I ask her to clarify, hopefully before the clock runs out, what is contemplated by an order as distinct from a direction under sections 10 and 11. Does the concept of an order or the concept of a direction, and that level of flexibility afforded to the Minister in this Bill, derive from specific sections of the EU regulation that we are implementing or is this a domestic measure that we are adding? Is it the Minister of State’s intention that an order or a direction would never be taken unless it was an action adopted at an EU-wide level? Does she contemplate orders or directions being issued that relate to domestic policy measures or would this happen only when it is done in concert at an EU level?

I agree with Deputy Geoghegan on that question. I appreciate the point the Minister of State made in response to my amendment but it is important to clarify what the role will be of the AI office when something falls between the designated competent authorities. I am conscious that the clock is running down, and my next point speaks to the fact that we did not get to talk to a lot of the other amendments, but I did get to raise, once again, that the Civil Service seems to have chosen to discriminate against county councillors being employed by this body. That is very unfair.

I just had a quick search through the legislation. It has the word "ethics" in it five times and the word "responsible" twice. That is in different contexts but the point is whether "ethical and responsible" is such a novel phrase. I do not think so. The response from the Minister of State, which was essentially "Computer says 'No'", does not stand up regarding the idea of including "ethical and responsible" when, as she can hear, there is plenty of support for such a phrase. It would introduce the balance we are seeking. That is a shame. I support Deputy Lawlor's amendment because the climate concerns relating to AI are very, very deep, and the text of this existing legislation does not account for it appropriately. I am very clear that I want to see AI developed in society and I want to see the benefits it can bring to society. The only way that will happen is if we have public trust in the technology and the only way we will get public trust in this technology is with the appropriate regulatory framework. This Bill does not deliver it.

In response to Deputy Geoghegan, an order is specifically related to adding to the functions while directions are related to policy. We know that national and EU policies are generally aligned. I hope that answers his question.

The time permitted for this debate having expired, I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, the section is hereby agreed to in Committee, Schedules 1 to 4 and the Title are hereby agreed to in Committee, the Bill is accordingly reported to the House without amendment, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."