Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Bill 2026: Committee Stage Seanad Éireann — 2026-07-09 ============================================================ Alice-Mary Higgins (IND), National University of Ireland We tabled a similar amendment. I definitely support the ethical and responsible approach set out by Senator Stephenson. We put forward an amendment with a slightly different wording. The Minister of State spoke in the Dáil about terms being undefined, but the term "ethical" should be a standard that can be operated. The term "sustainable" is defined across multiple items of legislation. That is why our amendment, that is, amendment No. 4, seeks to amend section 9 and ensure that the functions of the AI office promote AI innovation that is ethical and sustainable. There is an unusual disjoint, one we have never seen before, with this legislation that is very concerning. The AI office is being given two potentially conflicting briefs. On the one hand, it is to function as the regulator of AI while, on the other, it is supposed to promote AI innovation. That is not the standard or the norm. Coimisiún na Meán does not promote or push media production; it is there to regulate. The position is the same in any of these areas. There is no drive on the part of the Data Protection Commissioner to push data products or commercial innovation in the area of data. The commissioner does not have that remit. There is, therefore, real tension in this regard that has the potential to cause dysfunction because two very different roles are being given to the same body. If we look at how the current regulatory approach is framed, there is significant concern about how this conflict might manifest. Concerns have been expressed in respect of areas like data protection, where Ireland has been perceived internationally as having failed to always act solely in the context of the regulatory imperative. There has been concern that Ireland’s economic interests may have influenced the context of Ireland’s data protection. That concern was publicly and widely expressed across Europe. The establishment of the AI office will replace the AI and digital regulation unit that currently sits within the Department of enterprise. In that unit’s correspondence to the enterprise committee on the general scheme of this Bill, when outlining the importance of the legislation and looking for it to be pushed through in that speedy way we have spoken about, the unit stated, "Maintaining Ireland’s position as the location of choice for technology companies in the EU is an overarching national imperative." To say that it is an overarching national imperative is huge language. What does it arch over? Does it arch over our social responsibilities? Is it overarching our environmental responsibilities or climate obligations? Does it surpass everything? That seems to be the case at the moment when we see ourselves as wild outliers when it comes to data centres and their consumption of electricity. We are far outstripping anyone in terms of the amount of our national and collective resources we are allowing to be absorbed by data centres. There is concern regarding that regulatory function. The Minister will understand that is why we need to see some kind of countervailing language. The current AI regulation unit, which will become this new body, stated that this is a national imperative. It also stated that encouraging and incentivising AI companies to locate here is a comprehensive, all-encompassing and critical aim. Essentially, with this language, especially the term “national imperative”, it is saying that it is essential to the survival of the State. Therefore, we are a bit worried that this new body will forget to focus on ethics and sustainability but, rather, solely focus on making AI happen. We know Ireland is one of the jurisdictions internationally that are trying to make AI happen. There are a lot of people trying to make AI happen. On a straightforward financial perspective, however, it is not. There is a huge drive to make AI delivery happen. That drive could, in fact, lead to the neglect of ethical and sustainability concerns, as well as other imperatives. If this new AI office will be picking up where the AI and digital regulation unit has left off, what will the balance and trade-offs be? This is a question regarding the AI office’s role in the promotion of innovation and its role in enforcing safeguards that may curb dangerous excesses of that innovation. We must also bear in mind that the sector we are talking about very proudly had the credo for many years of, “Move fast and break things”. That was the sector’s philosophy. We know that a lot of things have been broken. The same body is being given the job of making AI innovation move fast while trying to ensure it does not break things. In essence, that is what is being asked of this AI body. It must regulate so that things are not broken, but it must also move fast so there is quicker innovation. That will result in tension. We cannot simply say that there is no doubt that the intention in this regard is for good innovation and literacy that is empowering, rather than it simply being a matter of pawning it off to people who will have to expect their data to be used. I am passionate about digital empowerment and that literacy piece. When the Minister, Deputy Calleary, held a related role to the one the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, currently holds, I engaged with him about the idea of digital empowerment funds that would come from the State rather than companies. Those funds would be related to giving people control on the future and a voice in shaping it. When the AI office has this driver piece, it makes it critically important that such promotion is done ethically and sustainably. I would like the Minister of State to accept our amendment. I think she should. She will find future issues that arise in relation to the operations of this body easier is she is able to point to a mandate it may have in terms of ethics and sustainability. If the Minister of State will not accept the amendment, will she outline how the strong regulatory framework will be established while pursuing that overarching national imperative frame and using that language of innovation at all costs, effectively? Amendment No. 7, in this same grouping, proposes that the new artificial intelligence office should have due regard in the performance of its functions to the work of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Artificial Intelligence. My colleague, Senator Ruane, may come back in on this in a reply. As drafted, the Bill proposes that the office should have due regard to the policies and objectives of the Government and any Minister of the Government, but the Minister of State will be aware that a special committee has been established and a number of interim reports have already been produced. When substituting for my colleague on that committee, Senator Ruane, on a number of occasions, very important issues and concerns were brought to light from a wide range of sources. These are concerns from young people affected by artificial intelligence, older people affected by artificial intelligence, from the very serious lacuna and gap we have in terms of security, defence and military uses such as autonomous weapons in relation to artificial intelligence and from the environmental impacts of artificial intelligence. There is a wide range of in-depth concerns that have been flagged and have been teased out by experts speaking at that committee. I suggest that office should look to engage with the work of that committee and the interim reports to date. My colleague may come back further on this. While the committee makes its recommendations to Government, this amendment would ensure the artificial intelligence office would also be paying due regard directly to those, rather than solely if the Minister chooses to draw its attention to what the committee may recommend. It is important because it is a diverse committee. It is a cross-party committee. It allows for a nuanced approach in what might be put forward. There is a value in the office considering the policies of the Government. The office is not there to serve the Government and it will have a responsibility that is wider than any one particular government at one particular time. It should, therefore, be drawing on the widest possible expertise from civil society, from academia and from right across our Parliament. --- 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