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

Niamh Smyth (FF), Cavan-Monaghan

I recognise the objective underlying amendment No. 71, namely, to ensure that complaints concerning the office are assessed in an independent and impartial manner. I fully agree with the importance of maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the complaints process. However, I do not consider that this amendment is necessary. The proposed amendment would introduce a specific statutory requirement that in a particular category of cases, an assessment must be conducted by an independent person appointed by the board. This represents a departure from the established approach, which is to ensure independence at an institutional level rather than through the creation of bespoke procedure arrangements for individual cases. As part of the setting up of the office, the complaints procedure will be put in place and aligned with the code of practice for the governance of State bodies and the Ombudsman guidance on complaints handling, as well as relevant legislation. As with other the statutory bodies, if individuals are not satisfied with the management of their complaint, they can make a complaint to the Ombudsman.
The objective underlying amendment No. 72 is already substantially addressed through an existing provision in EU law, including the AI Act and where personal data is involved, the general data protection regulation. In particular, Article 86 of the AI Act provides a right for affected persons to obtain clear and meaningful explanations of decisions taken on the basis of the output of certain high-risk AI systems where those decisions produce legal effects or significant effects that are considered by the individual to adversely affect his or her health, safety or fundamental rights. Furthermore, the GDPR already contains protections in relation to certain forms of automated decision-making involving personal data, including safeguards relating to human involvement and the ability to contest decisions in circumstances falling within Article 22 of the GDPR. These protections continue to apply alongside the AI Act where relevant.
I would be concerned that the amendment would create a separate national rights regime that differs from and potentially overlaps with the rights and obligations already established under directly applicable EU law. This could create legal uncertainty regarding the category of AI systems covered, the relationship between the proposed right and Article 86 of the AI Act, the relationship between the proposed right and existing GDPR protections and finally the scope of the term "essential public service provider", which is not defined in the Bill. The amendment would also apply to any automated decision-making system whereas the AI Act adopts a more targeted and carefully calibrated approach that focuses on specified categories of high-risk AI systems and decisions producing legal or similarly significant effects.
In addition, the Bill is primarily concerned with governance, supervision and enforcement of the AI Act. It is not intended to establish a parallel national framework of substantive individual rights beyond those provided for under the regulation itself. I consider that introducing additional rights of human intervention and review in this manner could create inconsistency between national law and a harmonised EU framework grammar.

---

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