I move amendment No. 72: In page 41, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: “(6) A person affected by an automated decision-making system deployed by a public body or an essential public service provider shall have a right to human intervention, a meaningful explanation of the decision, and a formal review conducted by a natural person.”.

I move amendment No. 74: In page 42, line 1, to delete "The Minister and any other relevant Minister" and substitute "The Government".

I move amendment No. 75: In page 42, line 7, to delete "Minister and any other relevant Minister" and substitute "Government".

I move amendment No. 78: In page 68, lines 27 to 29, to delete all words from and including "or" in line 27 down to and including line 29. Part 6 of the Bill provides for a general administrative sanctions regime to be utilised by the applicable market surveillance authorities, allowing administrative fines to be imposed on those in breach of their obligations under the AI Act. Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 relate to the procedure following an adjudication of an infringement or breach of the AI regulation. In circumsta…

I am wondering about the guardrails that are in place if a market surveillance authority can just refuse to accept a finding. Are there criteria or grounds laid out under which it can refuse to accept that finding? If we are just saying it can refuse to accept a finding and, therefore, adopt that finding and act upon that finding within its own practices, it does not really strike me that we are holding these market surveillance authorities to account in any way. If we are just saying they can refuse to accept a fi…

I move amendment No. 79: In page 69, to delete lines 9 to 14.

I move amendment No. 89: In page 75, line 4, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Government”.

I move amendment No. 90: In page 75, line 17, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Government”.

I move amendment No. 91: In page 76, line 36, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Government”.

I move amendment No. 92: In page 96, line 26, after “oath” to insert “or affirmation”.

I will reiterate a little bit of what Senator Black said. The intended purpose of the Bill is to ensure companies involved in the occupied Palestinian territories are not profiting from their involvement on illegally stolen land, but there is a risk. I read the transcript of the debate on Report and Final Stages in the Dáil so I understand the Minister's perspective on this. There are Palestinians living within Israeli communities, particularly in East Jerusalem, given the way the occupation has taken place there w…

Both Senator Black and I talked about The Netherlands and Belgium. I would add that Spain's language is that Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory is what it is banning trade with, and obviously the ban of advertising and services. In Norway, they use the language that it is forbidden to import goods originating in the Israeli settlements within Palestine. In The Netherland's legislation, they say that it is unlawful settlement in the Israeli occupied territories listed in the EU postcode list. …

I also acknowledge the Palestinian ambassador for joining us, Senator Black and her team and Conor O'Neill for the incredible for the incredible work they have done for the last eight years, and all the activists because they are the people who have actually got us to this stage. Without the continued political pressure from everyday people in Ireland, I do not believe we would be here. The Minister said last week and again today that there is a view that we are not going far enough. As I said last week, it is not …

It was not in the programme for Government but when asked and pushed that it be with services, it was included.

The legal justification for not including services is empty and weak. Technical arguments are given for why implementation will not work but we had 18 hours of pre-legislative scrutiny in the foreign affairs committee, in which the legal pathway and the implementability of services was made crystal clear. I cannot fathom that we are moving ahead with this course, while acknowledging that we are in breach of our obligations under international law. It is quite extraordinary. Briefly, on the ceasefire and peace plan …

I want to come in on that point, but first, both the Tánaiste and Taoiseach were asked during Leaders Questions if they would pass the occupied territories Bill. The only legislation which existed at that time was Senator Frances Black's occupied territories Bill, which did include services. It is disingenuous to say that that is not what the electorate believed and understood from that contribution. Only Senator Black's Bill was in existence, so there was no Bill with anything else in it. The Taoiseach and Tánaist…

Under current EU rules, the norm is a 55% origin threshold for products. If less than 55% of a product is made up of materials from a particular area, it is not considered as originating from that area. We need a much broader definition under this Bill because we cannot contribute in any way to the continuation of the settlements. Any good that has any part coming from the illegally occupied settlements must be considered, for the definition of the Bill, to have the whole scope of it. We cannot to be participating …

I move amendment No. 10: In page 5, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following: “Prohibition of trade in State of certain services 7. (1) The sale or offer for sale to a person in the State of a service provided, or to be provided, in an illegal settlement in a postal code to which this Act applies shall constitute an offence. (2) “illegal settlement” in this section means any residential area, outpost, or economic zone established, supported, protected or otherwise administered by Israel, in violation of int…

Today, there is going to be a meeting of the HSE drugs group with those living with Friedreich's ataxia and their families, who have travelled to Dublin. They are desperate for Skyclarys to be made available on the scheme. The drug is the only one that can slow down the cruel and debilitating disease that is Friedreich's ataxia. I have spoken on this before. I hope today brings an end to the fight of these families for access to the much-needed drug. I also raise the issue of legal aid. We are confronted yet again …

These amendments, in essence, make provision for a use-it-or-lose-it clause. Amendment No. 6 states: "An alteration of a permission referred to in subsection (3) shall be considered a material alteration if substantial works have not commenced 2 years from the point the permission was granted." We need this use-it-or-lose-it clause because we have a situation where people are receiving planning permission but are not actually commencing that permission. Now they will be allowed to extend the permission further on a…