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

Niamh Smyth (FF), Cavan-Monaghan

Gabhaim buíochas to all of the Senators who raised some of the issues that we spoke about the last day and continue to debate.
I understand people's concerns about us doing this at pace but I am at pains to express the genuine concern I have about leaving it any longer. As Senator Murphy said, we have a deadline of 2 August. There is no getting away from that. Equally, this legislation will deal with tech that is moving very quickly and we have to react and respond. This is not legislation that is going to sit on a shelf for 20 years, as lots of legislation does because it can and stands the test of time. This is legislation that has to respond to technology and therefore it will be something that we will have to come back to as the technology develops. We will have to react and respond quickly and be as agile as we possibly can.
It is not me, it is the wonderful officials the Members see here and the great team that is working incredibly fast to get the AI office up and running and to get the legislation through. In relation to the director of the AI office, that job has been advertised publicly through PAS and is available for everyone to see. I will get a little bit more into that as I get into the individual amendments.
I thank Senator Stephenson for her amendment. However, I do not consider it necessary to introduce a definition of "service" for the purpose of this Bill. The references to the Public Appointments Service in the Bill are limited in number and are clear and unambiguous in their context. The provisions concerning the appointment of members to the board expressly refer to the Public Appointments Service and there is no difficulty in understanding those references as drafted. As a general principal of legislative drafting, defined terms should be used only when they are necessary to assist the interpretation or operation of legislation. In this instance, to introduce a definition of "service" would not materially improve the readability or operation of the Bill. For those reasons, I do not consider the amendment necessary and therefore cannot accept it.
On amendments Nos. 8 to 12, inclusive I thank Senators Murphy, Stephenson, Higgins and McCarthy. While they differ in their detail, there is a common objective in them all, that is, to ensure a transparent and merit-based appointments process, a broad range of expertise on the board and governance arrangements that support the effective discharge of the office's functions. I agree entirely with these objectives. Indeed, they are objectives that are already reflected in the Bill.
Taken together, these amendments would substantially alter the governance and appointments framework of the board.
Amendment No. 8, to which Senator Higgins spoke, would replace section 12 with a detailed statutory framework governing the size and composition of the board, gender balance requirements, terms of office, reappointment arrangements and other operational matters.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 would replace section 13 with a significantly more prescriptive appointments framework. They would require a detailed Public Appointments Service competition process to be set out in primary legislation, prescribe expertise requirements for selection panels and place additional constraints on the appointments process.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 12 would require specific categories of expertise to be represented on the board, including expertise related to AI, business and enterprise, human rights, equality, consumer protection, trade union and worker's rights issues and civil society engagement. While I understand the intention behind these proposals, I do not consider it necessary or appropriate to prescribe these matters in such detail in primary legislation. The Bill already provides for a Public Appointments Service process and requires both the initial and future appointments to be made having regard to the expertise and capacity of prospective members in matters connected to the functions of the office. Section 13(3) of the Bill specifically provides:
The Minister shall agree with the Public Appointments Service the selection criteria and procedures that are to apply ... having regard to the desirability that the members of the Board will have experience of, and shown capacity in, matters connected with the functions of the Office.
Accordingly, the Bill already provides a mechanism for ensuring that board members possess relevant expertise and experience.
Many of the procedural requirements contained in these amendments are already reflected in the Government's guidelines on the appointments to State boards. Those guidelines require open advertising of vacancies, publication of appointment criteria, an independent assessment process conducted by the Public Appointments Service, and consideration of diversity and skills requirements. I do not, therefore, consider it necessary to replicate these operational arrangements in the primary legislation. I consider the existing provisions provide the appropriate degree of flexibility for a newly established organisation.
The office is being created in the context of an entirely new regulatory framework under the EU AI Act and in a rapidly evolving technological environment. In addition, access to independent technical expertise will be available through the structures established at EU level, including the EU scientific panel. It is important that the appointments process can evolve in response to the practical needs of the organisation as it develops. I do not consider it appropriate at this stage to prescribe in primary legislation detailed requirements in relation to appointment procedures, selection panels or particular categories of expertise.
In response to amendments Nos. 9 and 12, I agree with the sentiments underlying these amendments. It is important that the board collectively possesses a broad range of expertise and perspectives. However, I do not agree that a prescriptive, statutory requirement for particular categories of board members is necessary.
The functions of the office are wide ranging and will continue to evolve. As the AI governance framework develops, the expertise required by the board may, likewise, change over time. The Bill already contains a mechanism for ensuring that the board members possess appropriate expertise in matters connected to the office's functions. I feel like I am repeating myself but I do have to try to respond to each of the amendments. I am satisfied this is already catered for in the wide range of relevant expertise and diversity within the composition of the board.
I recognise the objective behind amendments Nos. 10 and 11, namely, to establish a highly transparent and independent appointments framework. However, many of the detailed procedural requirements proposed are already provided for under existing Government policies and administrative arrangements. The Bill strikes the correct balance between the role of the Public Appointments Service in identifying suitable qualified candidates and the Government's role in making appointments to State bodies. For that reason, I do not consider it necessary to replace section 13 with a more prescriptive statutory framework.
I have spoken to amendment No. 11, which proposes introducing a definition of "Service". A general principle of legislative drafting is that defined terms should be used only where they assist in the interpretation or operation of the legislation. In this case, introducing the definition of "Service" would not materially improve the readability or operation of the Bill.
For the present, I am satisfied the Bill strikes the right balance between transparency, accountability, expertise and flexibility. I am satisfied that the Bill already provides for a merit-based appointments process, caters for a wide range of relevant expertise and diversity within the composition of the board, and provides the flexibility appropriate for a newly established organisation operating in a rapidly evolving regulatory environment. For those reasons, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 8 to 12, inclusive.

---

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