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. 68:
In page 38, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
“(2) Should a request be authorised under subsection (1) , the completion of necessary conformity assessment procedures shall be undertaken without undue delay.”.
This section provides for derogations for conformity assessment procedures to take place. The article in the EU AI Act states that this is to provide time for the assessment to happen, so it should then happen as soon as possible. We need to include the wording "undue delay" because we do not want companies to wait for longer than is necessary. They could be operating systems that have not gone through conformity procedures and that could potentially be putting out damaging tech into our societies and communities without any oversight. Derogation should only be allowed for the shortest possible time period. The specific parameters of the AI Act should be transposed, which will not necessarily have happened. This is requesting that the wording of "undue delay" be added when it comes to conformity assessment procedures.
Amendment No. 69 is similar. Before high-risk AI systems can be put onto the market, they will be subject to strict conformity assessments. That is a good thing. They determine whether the system meets certain requirements of the AI Act, including in relation to risk management, data governance, technical documentation, record-keeping transparency and the provision of information, human oversight - which is crucial - and accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity, which is also crucial.
Derogations from the usual approval process for high-risk AI systems can be sought by providers in certain circumstances wherein a market surveillance authority can temporarily allow these high-risk systems to be used for a period while they are being assessed. According to the AI Act, derogations can be sought in certain justified circumstances, including for public safety and environmental protection reasons, but also in urgent situations where law enforcement or civil protection authorities might seek to use these systems without full approval. Given the potential risks posed to the fundamental rights and protections of citizens by high-risk AI systems, it is imperative that derogations are only granted in the most limited of circumstances and, where they are sought, that a full conformity assessment is undertaken without undue delay.
I recognise that there might be instances where high-risk systems have to be used without going through the proper conformity assessment, but with regard to that piece around undue delay, we do not want any legislative misunderstanding about the period in which that derogation can be allowed. Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 provide for conformity assessments to be undertaken without that delay after a derogation is granted. While recognising that there will be circumstances where a derogation may be needed, the assessment has to come as soon as is practically possible. This would ensure that high-risk systems that are operating subject to a derogation can ultimately be terminated or suspended if it is demonstrated that they do not meet the specified criteria, preventing temporary derogations from posing undue harm to members of the public because that is a risk. It is a risk that we might provide a derogation for a particularly high-risk system. If it has not gone through the conformity assessments, we do not know where the risk might be for society.

---

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