Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Bill 2026: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Remaining Stages
Seanad Éireann — 2026-07-15
============================================================

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

I move amendment No. 37:
In page 28, after line 36, to insert the following:
"(3) Engagements under this section shall be subject to the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004 and, where relevant, the Civil Service Regulation Acts 1956 to 2005.".
Amendment No. 37 looks to the issue of the engagement of consultants and advisers. While there are careful measures in relation to those who are hired as staff of the proposed office, consultants and advisers may be taken on under such terms and conditions as are considered necessary or expedient. "Expedient" literally means that it can be done quickly or simply. There is nothing in relation to what measures will exist, including to ensure no conflicts of interest and to ensure best practice. All the careful checks and balances that are proposed for the staff have no equivalent for consultants and advisers. The legislation simply refers to expediency and how their fees are to be paid. There is a real concern here because there is quite a likelihood that the consultants and advisers taken on will have been consultants and advisers to, or even direct employees of, those bodies that are to be regulated. There is a concern that there is not an appropriate check and balance in relation to issues such as conflicts of interest and ensuring proper safeguards. I will come to that more specifically.
Again, amendment No. 37 relates to provisions in section 35 allowing for the engagement of consultants and advisers where it is considered necessary or expedient. The previous section, section 34, outlines the arrangements for the appointment of staff to the office and requires that appointments be subject to the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004 and the Civil Service Regulation Acts 1956 to 2005. The safeguards in those Acts – for example, sections 54 and 55 of the Act of 2004 – include that it would be an offence for someone to recklessly make an application for a position that was false or misleading in a material respect. They also deal with issues such as conflicts of interest.
Currently, there are no clear safeguards in place around the engagement of the office with consultants. As set out, the decision to engage consultants and advisers is purely at the discretion of the office. There are no protections against those who might commit the offence of being misleading in their dealings with the office. There are no protections in relation to conflicts of interest. There is not even clarity on which functions of the office consultants may be hired in relation to, including, potentially, consultancy in relation to the crucial areas of regulation, for example.
Amendment No. 37 simply seeks to apply the same kinds of safeguards and standards that apply to the staff of the office under the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004 and, where relevant, the Civil Service Regulation Acts, to the hiring of consultants and advisers. Again, this is our endeavour to ensure that we do not end up in a situation where consultants become a risk in terms of unexamined or undisclosed conflicts of interest that could permeate or affect the operation of the office.
The related amendments, Nos. 37 a and 37 b , point to why this matter is so important. They relate to further concerns as to the role consultants and advisers are going to play within the AI office, particularly when we consider the "move fast and break things" mentality and the conflict between the AI-promotion function and the regulatory role the office is meant to play in ensuring no damage is caused by AI, including the very high-risk AI we have been discussing. There is a tension between the promotion role and the regulatory role. We are concerned about how this plays out, particularly for consultants.
The prohibition on the unauthorised disclosure of confidential information includes a reference to consultants who may disclose confidential information. This is what amendment No. 37 a tackles. A couple of points arise in this regard. Section 36(1) states:
Subject to subsection (2) , a person shall not disclose confidential information while performing functions as—
(a) a member of the Board or a committee of the Board,
(b) a member of the staff of the Office,
(c) the Chief Executive Officer,
(d) a consultant engaged by the Office or other person providing services ...
There is an assumption here that consultants are being given access to confidential information. That goes back to the issue of there being no safeguards in terms of conflicts of interest. It is clearly envisaged by this section that consultants will be given access to confidential information that relates to the functions of the board.
The other really important point is the fact that there are exceptions to the disclosure of confidential information set out in this section. The exceptions include where the disclosure of the confidential information by a person referred to in that subsection, which may be just a consultant hired for a particular purpose, is allowed when it is made in the performance of the functions of the office. However, when we go back to the functions of the office, we see that they include promotion of AI innovation. Are we creating a scenario whereby a consultant can disclose confidential information for the purpose of promoting AI innovation? We are in a very dangerous space there. What are the limits? Is a consultant allowed to divulge confidential information to the CEO of a multinational tech company if he or she believes the disclosure of that information will foster or promote AI innovation?
The AI regulation unit has stated that retaining these companies in the country is an overarching national imperative. Are we looking at situations where confidential information will be shared by a consultant, without any trace of accountability, with those companies because that is deemed to be in the interests of AI innovation? Presumably, as part of its function to promote AI innovation, the AI office also wants to retain these companies. Can we have clarity around how confidential information will or will not be shared with companies to incentivise them to stay in Ireland or to encourage them to expand their interests in Ireland? Can it be shared by consultants who have been employed without checks as regards conflicts of interest?
I have serious concerns around the discretion the Bill gives to consultants to disclose confidential information and to have as a cover this function of promoting AI. The same discretion is given to the CEO and staff of the office. That is problematic in itself but it is particularly concerning when persons who are acting without a proper screening for conflict of interest may be in a position to disclose that information.
Amendment No. 37 a seeks to prohibit entirely consultants from being able to disclose confidential information. It would mean they are not allowed to disclose information and there are none of the exemptions that are attached to the office disclosing that information. A consultant should not have leeway to say he or she is disclosing confidential information for the purposes of any of these functions that are in the office. Amendment No. 37 b seeks to prohibit the disclosure of confidential information where it is done in the performance of a function to promote AI innovation.
I hope the Minister of State will accept these amendments, or at least give them very serious thought, because there are gaps in terms of a regulatory system and where one creates ambiguities, gaps or areas with lack of oversight, it opens the system up to potential abuse or even perceived abuse. I ask the Minister of State to address these concerns and look to the disclosures measures. If she accepts either of these approaches to try to close that gap and indicates what checks and balances will be in place with regard to the operation and function of consultants by the office, I might accept that.

---

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/2026-07-15/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-27T06:52:16+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-07-15