Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Bill 2026: Committee Stage Seanad Éireann — 2026-07-09 ============================================================ Niamh Smyth (FF), Cavan-Monaghan I propose to take amendments Nos. 27, 28, 32 and 34 together. Amendment No. 27 would delete the provisions that allow the Minister, before the establishment date, to designate a person as the first CEO, who would automatically stand appointed by the establishment of the office. The provisions allowing the Minister to designate the first CEO before the establishment of the office are intended to facilitate the timely and orderly establishment of the office. As Senator Stephenson will be aware, the recruitment process for the CEO has already been undertaken and is under way through the Public Appointments Service. Removing these provisions would prevent the advancement of the CEO on the establishment day. It could risk delays in operationalising the office and carrying out its statutory functions. It would undermine the objective of ensuring that the office is operational as quickly as possible following the commencement of the legislation. The designation mechanism is limited to the first chief executive officer only, and is intended to ensure that the leadership is in place in a timely manner to support the establishment of the organisation. I am satisfied that the provision is necessary to facilitate the effective establishment of the office. Therefore, I do not accept the amendment. On amendment No. 28, while I agree with the sentiment and that the areas identified are important, the Bill already provides sufficient flexibility to ensure that the most suitable candidates can be appointed as CEO, having regard to the full range of skills, experience and leadership qualities required for the role, without the need to prescribe a statutory list of qualifying fields. Section 24 of the Bill provides that the CEO must be recruited in accordance with the Civil Service Regulation Acts and the Public Service Management Act 2004, ensuring that the appointments are made through a merit-based and transparent process. I am satisfied that the Bill already provides sufficient flexibility, and that relevant experience and expertise will be considered without the need for additional statutory prescription. In fact, many of the matters identified in the proposed amendments were already recognised as important competencies in the recruitment process for the inaugural CEO. The candidate information booklets and recruitment materials for that competition specifically identified a range of related knowledge, experience and expertise requirements, including the ones suggested by the amendment. I believe the flexibility provided in the Bill allows the board and the Minister to assess candidates holistically and to appoint the individual best placed to provide strategic leadership to the office in light of evolving regulatory and operational needs. I thank Senator Stephenson for amendment No. 32, but I do not propose to accept it. The Bill already contains a comprehensive framework governing conflicts of interest on the part of the CEO. The CEO is subject to statutory obligations regarding the disclosure of interests and must comply with the governance and ethics requirements applicable to officeholders in public bodies. The Bill also contains provisions governing the circumstances in which the CEO may be removed from office, including where he or she has become incapable of effectively performing the functions of the office and has committed stated wrongdoing. The amendment would introduce a new and potentially subjective ground for removal based on the board's view that a conflict of interest is of sufficient significance to warrant the CEO ceasing to hold the office. I am concerned that such a provision could create uncertainty as to the applicable threshold and could overlap with the existing governance and ethics framework. Where a conflict of interest arises, there are already established mechanisms to require disclosure, manage the conflict appropriately and ensure that decisions are taken in accordance with the public sector governance standards. I am satisfied that the existing provisions provide appropriate safeguards and that the additional removal grounds proposed in the amendment are not necessary. I do not propose to accept amendment No. 34 at this time. The amendment would remove the requirement for the office to furnish the relevant statement to the Minister and would instead place a direct obligation on the office to ensure that the statement is laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Bill adopts the standard approach used for many statutory bodies, whereby reports and statements are submitted to the responsible Minister, who then arranges for them to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. This approach reflects the Minister's accountability to the Oireachtas for the legislative framework and for the overall governance arrangements applying to the office. The existing provision does not restrict publication or transparency. Rather, it provides a clear and established mechanism through which documents are formally presented to the Oireachtas. Retaining the Minister's role also ensures consistency with other reporting and accountability provisions throughout the Bill. I am not satisfied that the amendment would provide any additional transparency or accountability beyond that already provided for under the existing provision. Therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendment. --- 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