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

Patricia Stephenson (SD), Labour Panel

I move amendment No. 67:
In page 38, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“(3) A relevant market surveillance authority shall ensure that any affected person subject to a decision which is taken by the deployer on the basis of the output from a high-risk AI system, and which produces legal effects or similarly significantly affects that person in a way that they consider to have an adverse impact on their health, safety or fundamental rights shall be able to obtain from the deployer clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and the main elements of the decision taken, as referred to in Article 86.”.
Amendment No. 67 is seeking to create a mechanism by which a person can secure their right to a meaningful explanation where they have been significantly affected by a decision taken on the basis of output from a high-risk AI system. We discussed this on Second Stage. I received the Minister of State’s letter in this regard. I would like to note that she wrote to me outlining some of the issues I raised on Second Stage, particularly with regard to a person’s right to an explanation as to why an AI system has made a decision about them. This is important because, as I mentioned in the previous debate, in the Netherlands, social payment decisions made by an AI system discriminated against certain groups in society. They did not receive their social welfare payment as a consequence of that decision taken by a non-human.
Incidentally, that is a great example of AI putting people out of work. If we automate decisions on social welfare payments - which is probably coming down the line for most Departments - we are putting those potential civil servants out of work. Often, when it comes to job losses as a result of AI, I hear the Government talk about job losses in the technology sector, but there will be job losses in every sector of society. For example, such losses will be seen among engineers because they will be able to do their drawings online. They will also relate to civil servants reviewing applications for social welfare payments. While that may not necessarily happen in Ireland, we have seen it happen elsewhere. It might be coming for us as well, depending on how Departments choose to hire and use automated systems. We are not taking the issue of job losses seriously.
To return to the amendment, in the Minister of State’s correspondence, she said that:
The purpose of this Bill, therefore, is not to recreate those substantive rights but to establish the national supervisory and enforcement framework through which compliance with those obligations can be monitored and enforced.
This is exactly what amendment No. 72 is seeking to achieve. Currently, there are no statutory provisions in the Bill that provide for the enforcement of a person’s right under Article 86. We have to allow people the right to get a meaningful explanation as to why an AI system has made a certain decision about them on an application or in any walk of life. Otherwise, there is absolutely no transparency. We know AI systems have in-built bias, depending on who originally wrote the code.
Similarly, amendment No. 72 seeks to provide for the right of a person affected by an automated decision-making system developed by a public body to human intervention. It would allow a person to receive a meaningful explanation and a formal review of the decision conducted by a natural person, that is, a human. When we are going to start seeing automated decision-making systems rolled out en masse – it will happen – it is crucial that there is the option for people to have human intervention. If anyone has ever operated within a system where they are speaking to a chatbot, whether it is for customer service or finding out why a decision has been made, they will personally understand how difficult it can be to speak to a human. If public bodies are using automated systems to make decisions on individuals, people should be entitled to human intervention in order to hear about the decision from a human, that is, a natural person.
Amendment No. 72 inserts a subsection in section 61 of the Bill, which relates to complaints concerning infringement of AI regulation. It also provides for the enforcement of a person’s right under Article 86.

---

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