The answer is "No". The Government supports the principle that individuals could appropriately be protected where AI systems are used in decision-making, however, rights relating to explanation, transparency and human oversight are already addressed through the AI Act and, where applicable, the GDPR. The proposed amendment would create a parallel national regime and uncertain interaction with existing EU laws rights and would extend beyond the approach adopted by the AI Act. For those reasons, the amendment cannot …

It would be the relevant market surveillance authority and it would depend on the AI system or the sector. Therefore, the individual market surveillance authorities would take the Senator's complaint. I will come back to her with further detail but on this occasion, I cannot accept the amendment.

To clarify, my own mumblings may not have been clear but the Bill actually says that the AI office will transmit that complaint to the relevant market surveillance authority.

I thank Senator Conway very much. I appreciate the amendment. I recognise and share the Senator's underlying concern to ensure people who expose wrongdoing in AI systems are properly protected. I do not accept that this amendment is necessary to achieve that, though. Section 62 already applies the full Protected Disclosures Act 2014 framework, as strengthened by the 2022 Act, to the reporting of AI regulation infringements, in direct implementation of Article 87 of the regulation. That framework already offers broa…

I am okay.

I oppose amendments Nos. 78 and 79. Section 102 establishes an important safeguard within the adjudication framework. While the adjudicator is responsible for independently determining the facts of the case and making findings under sections 99 and 100, the applicable market surveillance authority remains the statutory authority responsible for enforcement of the AI Act within the system. Accordingly, section 102(1)(b) permits the applicable market surveillance authority, in limited circumstances, to decline to ado…

I thank the Senator. It may be argued that the provision allows a regulator to disregard the work of an independent adjudicator and creates unnecessary additional steps to the enforcement process. The provision does not permit arbitrary disregard of an adjudicator's work. Rather, it recognises the adjudicator and the market surveillance authority perform distinct functions within the statutory scheme. The adjudicator independently determines the facts and makes the findings while the authority remains responsible f…

I will begin by thanking Deputy Ó Snodaigh for bringing forward this Private Members' motion. I thank the artists and the delegation I had the privilege of meeting earlier on today. I will also mention Senator Frances Black, who has, since I have come into this role, been articulate and mobilised on this issue. Gabhaim buíochas le gach duine. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this important topic following the tabling of the Private Members' motion by Sinn Féin on protecting the copyright of Irish artists in the…

Me, too.

I want to correct the record. The Government never had a countermotion in. We have been accepting the Private Members' motion as written.

I thank my colleagues very much for their deep interest in this. To some of the Senators, we have had an opportunity and taken notes from the previous day. Some of the Senators, if not all, will have detailed responses to some of their queries. I take Senator Higgins's point. I thank her and Senator Ruane for this amendment on biometric analysis and biometric identification. At this point, though, they are matters for the Minister for justice. As the Senator said, that terminology has been created in legislation th…

I will expressly commit to further discussions with the Minister for justice, and I will ask my officials to do that, on the Senator's valid points. On this occasion, I cannot accept the amendment.

Gabhaim buíochas to all of the Senators who raised some of the issues that we spoke about the last day and continue to debate. I understand people's concerns about us doing this at pace but I am at pains to express the genuine concern I have about leaving it any longer. As Senator Murphy said, we have a deadline of 2 August. There is no getting away from that. Equally, this legislation will deal with tech that is moving very quickly and we have to react and respond. This is not legislation that is going to sit on a…

Just to respond to that point, I am sympathetic to the intentions behind the amendments. I know that the Senators are all coming from a very good place with their amendments. However, I cannot accept them. As to the pace of Bills coming to the end of term, I will relay Senator Higgins's sentiments to the Chief Whip.

I thank colleagues for their amendments. I will speak to amendment No. 3 first and thank Senator Stephenson for it. The purpose of section 9(1)(c) in the Bill is to provide a broad statement of the function of the office to promote and foster AI innovation and literacy. The Bill is intended to give effect to the EU AI Act, and in doing so it is important that the language used in the Bill remains consistent with the terminology and objectives of the underlying regulation. Article 1 of the EU AI Act states that its …

I know the Senator’s sentiments are heartfelt, and there has been a very conscious effort to get the balance she has spoken about with AI of creativity and innovation, but also being human-centric and trustworthy. It is not for one moment the case that both are not taken into account. It is important that while we have our market surveillance and competent authorities, we also have our fundamental rights authorities which are there to advise, support and ensure that citizens' rights are considered. The feedback of …

I meant to say in my first contribution that I give the Senator my assurances that my officials will speak with the Minister for justice on the issues she raised earlier today.

In relation to amendment No. 13, this amendment appears to replace part of section 14 with what is effectively the existing section 15, dealing with resignation of members of the board, but changes the recipient of the resignation from the Minister to the Government. I thank Senator Stephenson for her amendment. However, I do not consider it necessary. The matters addressed in the amendment are already provided for in the Bill. Section 15 sets out the procedure by which a member of the board, including the chairper…

I again thank the Senator for her contribution and her amendments. The Bill already contains a clear and workable mechanism for filling casual vacancies on the board. Where a vacancy arises, the Minister is required to appoint a replacement in accordance with the Public Appointments Service process provided for in the Bill. The principal effect of the amendment would be to transfer this function from the Minister to the Government. For the reasons I have outlined in relation to earlier amendments, I do not consider…

Again, I thank the Senator for her thoughts and observations. Again, I am satisfied that all the required provisions are within the Bill.