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

Lynn Ruane (IND), University of Dublin

I move amendment No. 43:
In page 32, line 3, after “a” to insert “publicly accessible”.
Amendment No. 43 relates to the AI register and seeks to make that register publicly accessible. The Minister of State has stated the AI register is not currently intended to operate as a public-facing register. She also stated the AI office may in time consider making elements publicly accessible in a way that protects confidentiality and commercial and data protection interests.
It is important to note what the AI register will contain. It will contain all incidents of prohibited AI practices under Article 5 of the AI Act; all serious incidents of high-risk AI systems in the State, reported under Article 73; high-risk AI systems that are employed in critical infrastructure; and any other AI-related incidents or notifications in the State required to be reported under the AI Act. We have subsequent amendments adding to what is contained in the register, including copies of fundamental rights impact assessments for every high-risk AI system deployed in a public body.
It is strongly in the public interest that the information contained in the register is publicly accessible. Commercial interests should not prevent the public knowing information about the AI register, such as incidents of prohibited AI practices and other serious incidents involving high-risk AI systems. Prohibited practices listed in Article 5 include facial, emotional and social recognition systems, as well as other biometric identification and categorisation systems, and other AI systems that deploy subliminal techniques as purposefully manipulating individuals or trying to otherwise exploit the vulnerabilities of certain groups.
The AI register will contain the details of incidents of those prohibited practices. What commercial interests should prevent people having sight of this prohibited use? It is the commercial interest of the companies involved in the development or deployment of these prohibited technologies. This certainly should not be put ahead of the need to give the public access to information, particularly in instances where these technologies are affecting people's lives and, in some instances, their liberties and freedoms. The Minister of State has said the AI register should be seen as complementing that wider transparency framework. It is difficult to understand how this could be true if the information contained is not accessible to the public.
Amendment No. 44 provides that the register shall contain copies of fundamental rights impact assessments for high-risk AI systems deployed by public bodies. This aims to give a statutory mechanism to Article 27, which states that prior to deploying a high-risk AI system, public body deployers should perform an assessment of the impact of fundamental rights the use of such systems may produce. The assessment should contain: the deployer's process in which the high-risk AI system should be used in line with its intended purpose; a description of the period and frequency with which each high-risk AI system will be used; the categories of people likely to be affected by its specific use; descriptions of implementation of human oversight measures; and the specific risks of harm and the measures that will be taken if those risks materialise.
The AI register seems like a sensible place to create a repository of the information and, again, it is highly in the public interest for this information to be publicly available. These high-risk systems include biometric identification systems that will be deployed for the purpose of law enforcement. This is incredibly dangerous. This is technology that has profound impacts on our freedoms and civil liberties, and we should have sight of the impact assessments completed before these systems are deployed.
It is also important to highlight the dangers of creating our own definitions for the deployment of high-risk AI systems, particularly relating to the Government's recent use of the novel term, "biometric analysis", as previously discussed in another piece of legislation. Despite the fact biometric analysis requires the use of biometric identification systems, it is unclear if the deployment of biometric analysis will have to undergo the same type of fundamental rights impact assessments that are required for defined biometric practices under the AI Act.

---

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