Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Bill 2026: Committee Stage
Seanad Éireann — 2026-07-09
============================================================

Alice-Mary Higgins (IND), National University of Ireland

I am going to speak to amendments Nos. 8, 11 and 15 in this group. Amendments Nos. 8 and 11 seek to remove the provisions in the Bill regarding the establishment of the board, and appointments to the board, of the AI office and replace them with more suitable provisions. As was outlined by Senator Stephenson, they are in place for other statutory bodies. The amendments take the format from the IHREC and adapt it for appropriate use in the case of the AI office. This is an established way of working and operating. We know it can work. It also addresses some of the concerns we have around the provisions in the Bill.
The Minister of State has said that both the first CEO and the first board members are being recruited through open PAS competitions, but those appointments are not happening under the provisions of this Bill. As such, we do not know what selection criteria and procedures were followed in this process and the provisions of the Bill as drafted in section 13(3), that "the Minister shall agree with the Public Appointments Service the selection criteria", is, presumably, not implemented, given that the section is not in effect. The Minister of State might clarify the criteria and procedures in place for the selection process for the first CEO and board. We have been told they are going to come into effect immediately but this is putting the cart before the horse. We have been told that their selection is already under way even though the Bill has not passed.
An important feature of our amendments is the requirement that the prospective candidates appointed to the PAS for involvement in the selection process to recommend an appointment would also have relevant expertise in areas that are important to ensure that appropriate appointments are made. Those areas include human rights, equality matters, climate, digital rights and digital privacy. We want persons with understanding of those issues to be the persons in a position to oversee the selection process and make recommendations to the Government.
AI is rippling through many facets of our lives. It is an extraordinarily impactful, volatile and, in many senses, dangerous edifice. Even this first CEO and board matter. We are facing into a period when we know that AI has considerable question marks over its viability, financial viability and environmental impacts. The speed at which it is moving and the level of risk associated with it at every level - social, environmental, financial, fiscal, economic and ever other level - is so high that this first CEO and board matter.
The Minister of State might say that, down the line, we can apply selection criteria and procedures for any new CEOs and board members, and will reference the tight timeline. The issue remains that the first CEO and board will not be appointed through the procedures outlined in the Bill. There is a lack of transparency about those appointments as CEO and to the board. They will be making such crucial early decisions.
Our amendments seek to ensure the selection processes are applied from the first instances, approaching the appointment of the first CEO and board with more transparency from a governance perspective. Amendment No. 15 also inserts a new provision that would preclude an individual from becoming a member of the board of the AI office or disqualify them from acting as a member of the board in circumstances where that person has a material conflict of interest that undermines his or her ability to perform the functions expected of board members. This amendment seeks to strengthen the independence, integrity and public credibility of a key part of Ireland's AI governance framework.
AI regulation will involve oversight of very powerful commercial actors whose financial interest may be impacted directly by regulatory decisions.
When a prospective board member has a commercial, financial or professional holding that is a conflict of interest, and where there is a risk that those decisions made at board level could be influenced or even perceived to have been influenced by those interests over the public good, that is a concern. Even the appearance of undue influence reduces and undermines public confidence in this new regulator in this crucial area.
By explicitly legislating in respect of a person who has a material conflict of interest that compromises their ability to act or can be seen as compromising their ability to act independently and impartiality, the amendment establishes an important safeguard against regulatory capture, ensuring those with important roles in the governance of the oversight of AI regulation do so free from competing interests. That is our amendment No. 15, which is part of the same grouping.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-07-09/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:55:11+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-07-09