I thank the Deputy very much for his presentation. It is very heartfelt but, equally important, it comes from his experience in both business and on the committee. I take his point on the effectiveness of LEOs. We can see some LEOs being hugely effective but maybe that is not the same across the country. We may need to do a mapping exercise to see the effectiveness of all our LEOs across the country. I concur with his presentation about the importance of our local authorities being able to develop enterprise parks.…

I thank the Deputy very much for raising this important issue. I pay my respects and express my condolences to the family of Ann Widdecombe. It was a shocking and heinous crime that happened to her. It is the same thing for the lady in Killarney. However, the points the Deputy raised are so true and accurate. Social media platforms fuel this. To allow comments like that to sit on the account of somebody who has lost their life in such tragic circumstances, with the further traumatic impact that has on her family, i…

The Deputy is right - it should not be there. It only encourages more of it and sends the wrong message to young people. I would appeal to the social media companies, particularly in the case the Deputy has raised this morning, that it be removed immediately. I am going to go and look at the Instagram account he raised today. It is shocking. We have strong regulation in place and I would appeal to the social media companies to respect that and regard it. We are establishing the national AI office, as the Deputy kno…

I thank Senators Stephenson, Higgins and Ruane, who I believe all spoke on the same matter the last day. The provisions in sections 32 and 33 are not new and do not create any precedents or special restriction on the AI office. They reflect an established model of accountability whereby senior officials and chief executives account for administration, governance and performance, while Ministers account for Government policy. The CEO is not prevented from appearing before Oireachtas committees, providing evidence, a…

Section 36(1) establishes the restriction on the disclosure of confidential information by the office's board members, CEO and staff and any external consultants and advisers engaged in the office. Section 36(2)(d) ensures that a disclosure that qualifies as a protected disclosure under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 is protected against criminal prosecution. The amendment, which would exclude persons referred to in paragraph (d) from this protection, would mean a consultant or adviser engaged by the office who…

I do not have anything further to add. I appreciate where the Senator is coming from. As I said to her before, this is phase 1. We will be coming back to this. My door is always open. We can discuss it further at a later time. On this occasion, I cannot accept the amendments.

I cannot accept the amendment.

The amendment would remove the requirement that the office submit its strategy statement to the Minister after it has been prepared. The strategy statement is an important governance and accountability document. It sets out the strategic ambitions and priorities of the office and provides a basis for assessing its performance over time. It is appropriate that the Minister, who is accountable to the Oireachtas for the legislative framework, receives the strategy statement. The requirement to submit the strategy stat…

The provision secures an important accountability and oversight function in the financial management of the office. As a publicly funded statutory body, the office will be entrusted with significant public resources. It is appropriate that mechanisms are available to provide assurance regarding the proper management and use of those resources. The power provided for in this section is supplementary to and does not replace the normal audit and accounting requirements that apply to the office. Its purpose is to ensur…

Amendment No. 42 would replace the existing annual reporting framework contained in the Bill and would remove the Minister from the process by which annual reports are laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Bill adopts a standard governance model used across many statutory bodies, whereby annual reports are submitted to the responsible Minister, who then causes them to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. This reflects the Minister's accountability to the Oireachtas for the legislative framework and …

I thank Senators Ruane and Higgins for these amendments, as well as Senator Stephenson. I will take amendments Nos. 43, 44 and 45 together. While the amendments are framed differently, they seek to achieve the same objective, namely, to require the AI register maintained by the office to be publicly accessible. Transparency is an important objective and one that is strongly reflected throughout the AI Act and this Bill. However, in considering these amendments, it is important to view the national arrangements in t…

I thank the Senator. I feel, as I am sure everyone in the room feels, the Senator's passion about this. I am of the same mindset and I know we have a real opportunity here. Unfortunately, I cannot accept the amendment because I have a deadline. I know the Senator will say deadlines are not good enough but I am concerned about the prohibitive practices piece and how AI is impacting all of society. I am equally concerned that the fundamental rights of people trump everything here. While I cannot accept the amendment,…

I want to say one other thing. It is a correction. Maybe it was me; I am not sure. It relates to section 60(2)(c) rather than section 62(c). I may have said it wrong, or maybe the Senator did. I just wanted to clarify that.

I thank Senator Higgins for speaking to this amendment and Senator Stephenson for putting it forward. I fully agree on the importance of co-operation and co-ordination between competent authorities in the implementation and enforcement of the AI Act. Indeed, one of the central purposes of the office is to facilitate co-operation, co-ordination and information sharing among the various authorities with responsibilities under the AI regulatory framework. However, I do not consider it necessary or appropriate to presc…

I thank the Senator for her comprehensive arguments on each of those amendments. As regards the use of personal data, including children's personal data, within the sandbox, I understand and support the underlying concerns motivating the amendment. Nobody in the House disputes that children's personal data warrants the highest standard of protection, including in the context of AI. Article 57 of the AI Act requires member states to establish an AI regulatory sandbox. The purpose of the sandbox is to promote AI inno…

I thank both Senators for speaking to these amendments. I will cover amendments Nos. 55 to 65, inclusive, with the indulgence of the Acting Chairperson. Before addressing individual amendments, it may be helpful to briefly outline the framework that already applies in real world testing of high-risk AI systems. Under Article 60 of the AI Act, real world testing is not unrestricted. It is one of the most heavily regulated aspects of the AI Act. Testing may only take place where permission has been granted under the …

I thank the Senator for her amendment. I recognise the objective behind the amendment but I cannot accept it. Under sections 38 and 40 of the Bill, the office is already required to prepare a strategy statement every three years setting out its key objectives as well as a review of its work, annual report and performance of its functions. Moreover, these sections are well developed and clearly specify who is consulted, the form and the manner in which the Minister may direct and what the statement or report may con…

I will respond to amendment Nos. 67 and 72. The rights set out in these amendments are already provided for directly by Article 86 of the AI Act. Article 86 is one of the principal individual rights created by the AI Act. It was introduced to address concerns that individuals may be significantly affected by decisions based on high-risk AI systems without understanding how those systems contribute to the outcome. The provision applies where a decision is taken on the basis of an output of a high-risk AI system list…

I will respond in relation to amendments Nos. 68 and 69. The purpose of amendment No. 68 is to place an expressed statutory obligation on the provider to complete any outstanding conformity assessment procedures as quickly as possible following the granting of an authorisation. I fully agree with the objective that any necessary conformity assessment procedures should be completed as soon as practicable where an authorisation has been granted under this section. However, the provisions of the AI Act already establi…

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 th…