Alice-Mary Higgins
National University of Ireland · Independent · Ireland
“We are signing up to be customers of liquefied natural gas - potentially fracked gas, potentially coming from a country that is busily fighting against climate action and trying to fast-track our route to destruction. We will be doing that every year in the budget and every day in the terminal.”
“We are not getting solid measures on those safeguards. The other safeguards we have, which are our planning laws and climate laws, are being either fast-tracked or suspended. We are suspending the existing safeguards and are not putting hard safeguards into this Bill, and we are being asked to go on faith.”
“Nonetheless, I have some practical questions. We need a little more on what the emergency is because it is not sufficient to say we will deal with it then. The emergency is the ground on which the Minister of State is asking for the normal planning process and the climate Act to be suspended. We need to know what the emergency is.”
“It should happen only after all relevant market-based measures have been implemented. Those market measures should include the demand-reduction strategies that are eligible under N-1, including demand reduction by large energy users, and should have been implemented, exhausted and proven insufficient.”
“Sure there is detail in it but the key issue is that what he is asking of the Oireachtas, which is to agree to it being built, is on the argument of there being an emergency. It should be very clear what the emergency is. I mentioned previously that the committee said our N-1 obligations could be met through demand management.”
“It comes from real places with real communities that are immediately and terribly impacted by fracking, as well as having an impact on the atmosphere that surrounds our beautiful planet, which we are destroying. As the Minister of State said, it impacts not just on business but on the liveability of large portions of this planet.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,900 lines we hold for Alice-Mary Higgins, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 38.
“We are only now seeing an option for limitation in trade and goods and a prohibition of trade and goods from illegally occupied territories. This is only coming now. I do want to commend Ireland and others who have made it very clear and who are legally correct that this is a qualified majority vote issue, but we are even seeing attempts to knock the process back and push the decisions on that to an unanimity requirement. We do not have much time and we have a number of amendments to get through so I cannot go into great detail here. Here is the thing. The Minister has absolutely confirmed that compliance with the International Court of Justice advisory opinion requires prohibition of the trade in both goods and services. She has said she plans to deliver that prohibition on the trade in services through co-operation at European level.”
“It outlines that within six months of the passing of this Act she would lay before Houses of the Oireachtas a report outlining the application of the Act, any relevant EU-level proposals regarding trade with illegal Israeli settlements has taken place. The Minister’s position is we will do partial compliance on the goods bit and that compliance with the services part, which she has acknowledged is actually a requirement for compliance in terms of the International Court of Justice ruling, will be done through the work and co-operation at European level and that those changes will be made. Where we are now is that after tens of thousands of deaths of children, families and in a situation which has got worse and worse, we still have not had action from the European Union.”
“I move amendment No. 16: In page 7, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following: “Report on EU policy relevant to compliance 11. The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report outlining the application of the Act, any relevant EU-level proposals regarding trade with illegal Israeli settlements to ensure compliance with its international legal obligation, as identified by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion of 19 July 2024, and detailing any further steps Ireland may take to ensure compliance through the implementation of national policy.”. The amendment looks at the core idea of the two-pronged approach the Minister has spoken of at such length.”
“If olives are taken from stolen land and then processed by being pickled or stuffed with almonds or pimentos down the line in Israeli territory, will that get captured or not? Maybe it will fall through, and that is the danger. Particularly with natural products like olives, there is a danger whereby processing may occur and that could fall outside this definition. That is the kind of concern. It is just a very practical concern.”
“I will give a very clear example of this. There is a question about parts and components. In the technology area and so forth, part of something may be produced in the occupied Palestinian territories and then that component goes into a final product. We are still contributing to the maintenance of the illegal situation if we allow components, whether 20%, 10%, 15%, 30% or 45%, to be purchased. We are contributing to the economic viability and profitability of businesses operating in illegally occupied territory by illegal settlers. It is doing that job. At a very blunt level, if we look again to goods, there is a concern with the originating thing. The last meaningful processing of a good can be where it is determined.”
“To come up with something that is not backed by anything we have heard in the public domain - that the public policy exemption cannot apply to services - is unacceptable and, frankly, irresponsible. I will hand over to others. We are keen to move forward. We have a number of amendments to get to.”
“Rather than the long path to persuasion that we have been taking for a decade while everything has got worse followed by another long path to persuade others on services, it would actually require action. There was value in a case potentially being taken. Even in the worst-case scenario, if Ireland somehow did lose such a case, we would then simply have to adjust the law. There is no other penalty or consequence. There is no downside to taking the ambitious step. I regret that the Minister has come into the House with arguments that undermine other countries that might have the courage to take action in relation to services and take a narrow interpretation of public policy which is in conflict with every legal expert. If the Minister were to say that she wishes to wait and so forth, that would be one thing.”
“We are not asking the Minister to break EU law, and it is disingenuous and dangerous to suggest that is what is being requested. We are asking that the public policy exemption be interpreted in the way all these legal experts have said can be done. No legal experts have credibly come forward to say this cannot be done. The committee as a whole stated that we believed the right thing to do was to move ahead, take that action as a public policy exemption and say that these were our grounds. By the way, what would happen if a case was taken? The committee was absolutely confident that such a case would set a useful precedent and would force EU action not only in respect of goods and services.”
“For the reasons explained, they said, the prohibition of settlement goods and services, to the extent that they fall within the scope of EU law, is also justified by public policy. They saw no objective reason services might be differentiated from goods. They continued: "We take the view that a ban such as that provided for in the Bill, and which could be extended to services, would be justified on grounds of public policy". That is the evidence the committee heard and no one contradicted it. Even one of those who came in with the contrary perspective on the occupied territories Bill, Professor Graham Butler, said, "I am in total agreement with what Professor Koutrakos said about the existence of the exception even if it is not explicit for services in the same way as it is for goods". The public policy exemption is there as the tool.”
“When we looked at this as an obligation originally, in 2017, we published our advice that was clear around the public policy exemption. We made it very clear how it could be used. The Government, on the legal advice it had then, denied it. In 2024, the Government finally accepted that the public policy exemption does offer a narrow pathway to ban trade with settlements at the national level. A distinction was not being made at that time between trade in goods and trade in services. The Minister has said that trade is trade and that includes goods and services under international law. In the foreign affairs committee, Professor Koutrakos and Professor Tridimas explicitly stated that public policy provides a derogation, not only from the free movement of goods but also from the freedom to provide services.”
“It is an objective within EU law, the EU legal structure and the treaty to avoid a situation where interpretation of EU law would make it impossible for member states to fulfil their international legal commitments. The intention is that member states can abide by international law. There is nothing in the treaty that says European law should be prioritised over international law. It is the absolute contrary. Measures and principles, like the public policy exemption, are put into European law to ensure member states can meet their international obligations. There is an obligation under international law to ban trade in services and it is not correct to say otherwise. In the hearings we had in the foreign affairs committee, we had two of the world's leading experts in.”
“This idea that we balance one obligation against another obligation, this kind of creation of an artificial separation between European and international law, is unhelpful from a country which is supposedly leading discussions on international law for the next few months. I urge the Minister to rethink this, just for pure accuracy, because it may be a useful thing to say right now but it is not useful or correct. Professor Panos Tridimas and Professor Takis Koutrakos, two of the most eminent experts in EU law, have stated in respect of this clash that the understanding of public policy in EU law follows also in this regard. This is about the public policy exemption, and it is not like a minor technical thing around customs. It is a key principle.”
“As embarrassing as it would be, I would prefer if we were just honest about the lack of courage. What the Minister outlined is actually a disservice in terms of international law. It would be better to say we lack courage than to put forward wrong arguments at a time when an understanding of international law is so crucial. It is profoundly incorrect to say that there is a balancing between international law and European law, or that there is a tension there. Let us think what it means to suggest that there is a tension between European law and international law. What an irresponsible thing that is, frankly, to be saying at a time like this in the world. The fact is that European law sits within international law. In fact, a number of mechanisms have been put into European law to ensure there is compliance with international law.”
“I will come back later in the discussion to the two-pronged approach because there is a timeline on that if the Minister is serious about compliance and about Ireland's role.”
“It did not take a decade. Spain has acted and has included the advertisement of services, which means it goes beyond goods. The principle of going beyond goods has already been established by Spain and we are rolling it back a bit. There is an amendment in this grouping to at least step up to where Spain is, which takes the important step of breaching the idea that it is goods only. It is a first and important step. We called on other countries to leap forward and do this. Spain put its head above the parapet and then we ducked our heads down a little. That is not good enough. A ban on goods is not good enough. A ban on goods is not compliant, is not strong enough in scale and is not the leadership we should be providing.”
“The Government chose to only tackle goods. Of course it contributes to a lowering of the collective ambition at European level if the supposed leaders and champions, who are holding on so tightly to their name as leaders and champions, are saying goods are enough. The Minister told me in the committee that she believes Europe should be banning goods and services. By saying she believes Europe should do that and then setting an example for Europe of only tackling goods, it kind of weakens the message. Can we stop congratulating ourselves on being the first Parliament? We are technically getting around the fact Spain did it by another mechanism. The point is that Spain did it. Senator Black, Conor O'Neill and I, hosted by Lynn Boylan, met with many Spanish parliamentarians a year ago. They listened and they acted. They did it very quickly.”
“Legal experts told us clearly it is legally defensible and, not only that, but it would be useful to legally defend it. That is the point I made earlier. It was useful that countries acted individually and that there were legal cases taken. That forced the EU to act. It is useful when countries take the lead and that gets challenged because it forces the EU to come into compliance. That is also a two-pronged approach, if you want to take leading action that demands a response from the European Union. This is Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh's point. Precedent can be good or bad. Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh talked about the value of precedent by ambitious implementation and ambitious action. She also talked of the danger when you lower the bar in terms of ambition. This is a concern. Ireland is clear on what it wants. It wants services in there.”
“On the same day his birth certificate was authorised, he died. That is what is happening in these places we are going to buy services from. If you want to set up a business on that land you have taken and you want to sell services, we are all part of pretending that is okay by some logic. It does not matter if a big company is part of it - it is never okay. The Minister referred to the two-pronged approach to compliance. I will bring amendments later in respect of a timeline for that approach. The problem is when you lower the bar. This is something Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh spoke about eloquently to the committee. The committee heard, as to the practical implementation of it, that the Government can do it and that it is doing it to Russia.”
“Where is the carve-out under international law that says you only do the bits that serve your economic interests? If we have an à la carte approach to international law and say it is okay not to do something because of wider economic interests, what signal does that send to everybody else who has an economic interest that might be suited by breaching, ignoring breaches or being complicit with breaches of international law? It is not acceptable under the law and is not acceptable to the public, who do not want to see bodies on the ground or the many cases we do not have time to go into. I was looking at one case just the last day of a three-month-old whose father begged the Israeli forces to shoot him if they needed to shoot somebody, when they were denying his three-month-old access to an ambulance.”
“That is the first line in the Bill, yet the Minister said, I think, on Committee Stage in the Dáil that this would be partial compliance. There is a real question about knowingly putting forward legislation that is only partially compliant. It is really ambiguous. Others have mentioned constitutionality. It is a problem from a legal perspective, potentially, but certainly from the perspective of commitment to international law. When the Minister spoke on Second Stage, the rationale she gave did not stand up. I will come back to the two-pronged approach. The Minister said the reasons for this approach were that she wanted it to be legally defensible and practically enforceable, and that she was mindful of Ireland's wider economic interests. Where does that sit under international law?”
“The advisory opinion confirmed an interpretation the Government of that time had resisted. The then Government participated in the historical case that led to the ICJ advisory opinion. Its Attorney General argued in favour of the prohibition of trade and the Minister's comment is, considering the ICJ advisory opinion in the wider context of international law, the only reasonable reading of the opinion is that a complete prohibition on trade with Israeli settlements is required. In relation to being compliant with the ICJ, the Minister said she believed more needs to be done. She has said we are moving towards compliance. The Bill is to provide for compliance by the State with an international legal obligation.”
“Ireland has championed international law and said it will be a centrepiece of our values as we enter the EU Presidency, but there is a misalignment between the Minister's understanding of international law, as she has set it out and as the Attorney General has set it out, and what she is actually doing here. The International Court of Justice paragraph 278 is crystal-clear that all states are under an obligation to abstain from entering into economic, trade or investment relations which contribute to the maintenance of the illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. That is clear. That is the Minister's comment on the advisory opinion. The advisory opinion is only the highest authority in the world telling us what the law already was. We said that was the case in 2017, and we were correct.”
“I will not reiterate a huge amount of what has been said. We have been saying for almost a decade that international law obliges us. This is not a lovely gesture or taking a stand in an abstract way, or a gesture of solidarity or even a sanction or boycott; it is compliance with international law. The Minister will be aware of the deep crisis international law is facing at the moment. I think Arundhati Roy described the western liberal order as sitting beneath the rubble in Gaza. International law has been in the firing line in what we have seen in recent years. International law's strength is in its implementation. It is in countries acting and taking it seriously.”
“It is in that context that I am asking the Minister to keep track of it. This is not an infallible mechanism and it is not one which was done as part of due diligence. It was done when forced to be done by individual states giving leadership, as Ireland should be giving leadership in relation to this question of trade at all.”
“That is why it is appropriate that we not simply be complacent on how these postcodes and so forth will operate but that we have a strong monitoring role in relation to them and we bear in mind that they are something the European Commission was forced to introduce. In that context, it is very appropriate that there would be a review as to the operation. I know the Minister mentioned a review. Explicitly, whether or not the Minister wished to take in Syria, Lebanon and so forth, the key point on Gaza is that we monitor how that system within the European Union is going to accurately reflect the illegal settlements that are certainly planned and, indeed, extractive colonies that are explicitly planned for Gaza, including by some of those who have been participating in EU discussions about the future of Gaza.”
“It was the UK then which was part of it. It was Denmark and, I believe, Belgium. In a row, each country started labelling the postcodes in terms of illegal settlements. The fact that they acted then created a situation where a case was taken about their actions, and that case being taken set the precedent that forced the EU as a whole to act. It is a really important example, in terms of the discussion we are going to have later, that this postcode system, which we will rely very heavily on here, was only brought in by the pressure of individual states giving leadership and acting beyond what the European Union was doing or claimed it had to do. That is what created these codes as a starting point.”
“This will be my last time to come in on this, but it is important to specify it is particularly in relation to Gaza, which is an occupied Palestinian territory, but in terms of what postcodes are going to look like in relation to that and the question of illegal settlements. That is why I am asking the Minister to review. I understand her rationale for saying she wants to use this mechanism that is in place. Just for context I will make this sole point, which will relate very heavily to the debate we are going to have shortly on services. The very fact of these being labelled and there being a marking when things are coming from illegal settlements and settlements was not something the European Union or the Commission just did. They did it because they were forced to do it by individual countries taking action. That was really important.”
“I ask the Minister to give strong consideration to these amendments. If she cannot accept them at this point, I would like an indication of how she intends to tackle these issues.”
“The minister, Israel Katz, has spoken about this. It has been clear that the 200,000 people it has displaced will not be allowed to return. That is what its minister is saying. On the 1.2 million displaced in Lebanon, Israel has been clear on its absolute intention to occupy Lebanon as far as the Litani river and to demolish the towns and villages in those areas of occupation. That is why I am suggesting that it might be worth slightly expanding the frame in order to capture illegal Israeli settlements in any occupied territories. These are important questions and the same principles and points of international law must apply. We must not be in any way complicit in colonial expansion and exploitation by the Israeli state and the breaches of human rights that accompany them.”
“There are people involved who have been absolutely clear on their plans for the colonial exploitation as Gaza. They have been as transparent as they can be. I have worded the amendment in that context but also because we sadly need to recognise the fact that Israel has not limited its interest in illegal occupation to the occupied Palestinian territories. Israel is currently illegally occupying large parts of Syria. It has stated that it intends to stay there for an unlimited time. These parts of Syria contain towns. Just like individuals in occupied Palestine, individuals in these towns are now effectively subject to Israeli occupation. I am referring to towns like Abdin. I could list many other towns. Israel has also been very clear about its intention not to withdraw from southern Lebanon.”
“I am speaking purely about the effective operation of the provisions of the Minister's Bill. In amendment No. 4, I have suggested that, in addition to the question of the postcodes set out by the customs union, the phrase "corresponds to an illegal Israeli settlement in an occupied territory" be included. I have worded that in a particular way, and not only because I think it could address those issues of illegal Israeli settlements in occupied territories that have not been captured by the European Union's postcode system as a result of expansion in the West Bank or the appalling carve-up we are seeing in Gaza at the moment. It was disappointing to see Ursula von der Leyen tweeting about a meeting she attended about reconstruction plans in which Jared Kushner took part via a phone call.”
“Will we be waiting for the EU to assign postcodes in respect of settlements in Gaza? How will we be tackling the core issue of illegal settlements and illegal occupation in Gaza? These are issues that need to be monitored along with those that have been highlighted by others. Even if the Minister cannot accept the amendment, I suggest she commit to report on this anyway so that we can be confident as to how this mechanism is working out and that illegal Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land are not traded with, having failed to be brought into the net of this Bill because of a technicality of the European postcode documentation. I will highlight another matter because I am concerned that the postcode mechanism may prove inadequate in the ways I have signalled. The intent is clearly there.”
“It asks for a review and a report on postal codes and whether they are working as an appropriate mechanism for delivering on the purpose of the Bill. Within six months, there would be an examination of the extent to which the EU postal codes accurately capture illegal Israeli settlements. I say this in a number of contexts. One is the astonishing - perhaps it is not astonishing given the signals the world has sent Israel - and shocking expansion of Israeli settlements, including expansion into territories where there have never been settlements before and zones, such as the EEZ, which are core to the possibility of a two-state solution. The expansion of settlements needs to be monitored. There is also the question of potential future settlements in Gaza. I would like to be clear.”
“The key purpose of the Bill is to take steps to prevent trade relations that contribute to the maintenance of Israeli settlements in the illegally occupied territories. We need to keep that in mind. It is not about targeting the geographic origin of goods. The actual purpose is explicitly in relation to settlements. You could argue that targeting the goods of Palestinians in those territories could compound the situation by narrowing the market for them. It is almost working against the purpose of the Bill. I will not expand further on that, as others have done so. I will speak to two other amendments I have in this grouping. One of them tackles a number of issues and may be a way to address this. It is an amendment in respect of the postcode system. It asks that there would be a review. This is amendment No. 17.”
“The issues have been spelled out well by others and I will not reiterate them. I do not believe it is an intentional consequence but it is an example of how the tools need consideration. The failure to make proper distinctions in this is somewhat reminiscent of the issue relating to Morocco and Western Sahara, where the European Commission's measures that were supposedly for the population of Western Sahara ended up indirectly benefiting settlers. We have a kind of reversal of that now, where measures intended to target goods from settlements and settlers may indirectly target Palestinians. We should bear in mind this is not really the core purpose of the Bill. It is not around a particular good; it is around what the purchase of the good facilitates.”
“If somebody is already breaking the conditions, they should not get two weeks to cover their tracks. There should be a stop, and where necessary an investigation by the market surveillance authority. That concludes my amendments in this grouping and I will pass over to my colleague to speak to the remaining amendments.”
“Article 76 of the AI Act sets out the powers of the market surveillance authority to ensure compliance and to say they can suspend or terminate testing if serious incidents occur or if the conditions of the testing permissions are not met by the provider. When those two things happen, the off-switch has to happen right away. This is a time when the State needs to move fast. It is positive that there is a mechanism to allow the suspension, termination and modification but we have put seven days in the amendment. I personally think it should be, not later than seven days. Two weeks is simply too long. Not only does it allow the damage to continue but it also creates the space for a spin to be generated around the damage, for the minimising of it and the potential removal of relevant evidence. It is not okay.”
“63, seeks to shorten the maximum timeframe within which a provider must comply with a request by a market surveillance authority to suspend, terminate or modify the testing of a high-risk AI system in the real world. As the Bill is drafted, providers are provided with a 14-day period within which the suspension, termination or modification of the testing should take effect. Bear in mind, that is 14 days after alarm bells have been raised, in which they can continue to experiment in the real world, on real people, on real infrastructure within real public service systems. When the market surveillance authority says "stop", they need to stop. They should not get two more weeks.”
“It reflects Article 60, paragraph 3 of the EU AI Act, which states: The testing of high-risk AI systems in real world conditions under this Article shall be without prejudice to any ethical review that is required by Union or national law. When the Minister of State states we are just implementing what is there, there are a lot of choices. There are choices around excluding vulnerable groups, like I mentioned earlier. There are choices around particular categories of data. There are choices around the ethical framework and I ask the Minister of State to choose to have an ethical review on an annual basis. One of the listed functions of the office in the Bill is AI innovation. I am moving to a slightly different note. My last amendment, No. 63, is in this grouping. This amendment, No.”
“These areas are really not areas for testing or experimenting. The Paris Agreement and an environmental assessment in terms of doing things, is it worth doing it and is the cost worth what we get, needs to be part of the calculation, in general, in regard to AI, but particularly to the testing and experimenting related to AI in the real world. I am coming to near the end. Amendment No. 60 seeks to provide for an ethical review of the testing of high-risk AI systems on an annual basis. There are obvious ethical concerns arising from this section. It is important we have a clear sight of the concerns and our amendment provides to undertake an annual ethical review of the operation of this section of the Bill. I do not think annual is too much in the context of an area that is so fact moving and when the risks are so clearly delineated.”
“The Dublin Inquirer has done incredibly important reporting on that. The national usage Uisce Éireann was suggesting is less than how much one individual data centre reported for itself so the figures are all up on this. These are factors. This relates to AI systems, high risk systems that could result in massive energy consumption. There is also the question of AI systems related to critical infrastructure in paragraph 2, which might involve the supply of water, gas, heating, electricity or the management or operation of what is called critical digital infrastructure. Paragraph 5 could include AI systems being given access to essential public and private services and infrastructure in their testing phase. It could include things like eligibility for healthcare services and categorising responding to emergency calls.”
“There is an intrinsic link between the use of AI and energy consumption. Ireland is an absolutely absurd outlier, with a quarter of our electricity going to this one industry. It is wild. We are far away from anything like what the norm is anywhere else in relation to this matter. There is the energy issue, but there is also the water issue. We have seen in the United States huge issues in relation to the environmental impact on water of these AI systems. When you test or train a system that is all energy usage and it is also water usage. I am sure the Minister of State is hearing from people who get frustrated when they are told to turn off their taps when they are brushing their teeth and then they see data centres down the road guzzling water.”
“59, witnesses and stakeholders who have spoken to the Joint Committee on Artificial Intelligence have expressed real concern as to how their data will be processed in the development of high-risk AI systems and whether their fundamental rights will be imperilled. This is a genuine concern on the ground from representative bodies of all kinds. They want the primary legislation to give effect to the EU AI Act, which acknowledges the need for fundamental rights and privacy, and speaks about vulnerable persons. Amendment No. 29 provides that in making a determination to permit the testing of a system in the real world, the market surveillance authorities shall have due regard to the potential impact of such testing on climate, biodiversity, environmental protection and our obligations under the Paris Agreement.”
“I should say that within that "vulnerable persons" category are those from ethnic minority backgrounds who have been shown to have been mistreated and impacted. With regard to testing in real-world conditions, there is talk of testing it on law enforcement, on the administration of justice, which could be on an asylum application, which is life or death for some people, on access to education, which is the absolute core foundation of people's life chances, and on essential services like healthcare, where there is vulnerability upon vulnerability. These are serious points. Everybody is vulnerable when they are seeking to engage with education, the justice system or healthcare. Then there are people who are even more vulnerable. On amendment No.”
“We use the term "vulnerable persons" because there is precedent for that term in Irish law. The intention is to capture within it the wide range that we know of. I have sat in on the AI committee, and I substitute regularly for Senator Ruane. We have heard from older people, younger people, people with disabilities, people with mental health difficulties, people with limited literacy or digital literacy, and people from marginalised communities and backgrounds. A lot of different vulnerable communities are being captured here. I point to the obligation to look at special measures for vulnerable persons that is in the original EU AI Act. We want to know how that is being applied to the crucial decision to let an AI model test itself on real people in the real world.”
“The excellent research done by Abeba Birhane during her time in UCD, and in her work at MIT, has shown this. It is a known fact that there are huge issues of prejudice and discriminatory applications. This is an opportunity to try to comply with fundamental rights and privacy protections. The amendment seeks to ensure that any decision to permit or facilitate testing is informed by an assessment of the potential impacts, shifting the focus beyond purely technical or commercial considerations, and requiring regulators to assess the human consequences of high-risk systems. The amendment specifically highlights the fundamental rights of vulnerable persons who are likely to be disproportionately affected by AI system errors, bias, discrimination or misuse, and, therefore, require special consideration.”
“Under the Bill, providers must apply to relevant market surveillance authorities for permission to conduct testing of their high-risk AI systems. The Bill does not provide sufficient information as to what are the aspects of a system, or the potential impacts that the market surveillance authority will be considering when making the decisions. We know that they have to apply, but we do not really know what is getting properly considered or how it is getting considered. The real-world use of experimental systems, or systems that are being tested, can expose individuals to very serious risks and harms before those systems have been demonstrated to be safe or, crucially, non-discriminatory. We know there is a very real situation of discrimination and prejudice with AI systems.”
“The risk management measures outlined under Article 9 of the EU AI Act include detailing how identified risks can be eliminated or reduced, including detailing the risks that cannot be eliminated. This information will be extremely useful for the relevant market surveillance authorities when making an informed decision on permitting the testing of high-risk AI systems in real-world conditions. That is what we are trying to ensure as part of the process. Amendment No. 58 is an important amendment that seeks to ensure that fundamental rights considerations are an explicit factor in decisions on the granting of permissions for the testing of high-risk AI systems in the real world, with particular reference to the rights of vulnerable persons.”
“55 and 56 seek to ameliorate the damage by requiring that the approval of any application for the testing of high-risk AI systems in real-world conditions would be subject to a clearly established risk management system, as referred to in Article 9 of the EU AI Act, being presented to the relevant market surveillance authority making the approval decision. It is the minimum that a risk management system would be presented and be part of the process, and that is what is envisaged in Article 9 of the EU law. Clearly establishing these risk management systems should facilitate the relevant market surveillance authorities in making better, safer and more informed decisions with regard to approving any high-risk AI system for training in real-world conditions, in the real world, on real people.”
“Will that be done for the sake of AI innovation and to promote it? A lot of what we are doing that affects society seems not to be about AI helping us to do what we want to do as a society, but how society can help AI as an incredibly overleveraged new economic experiment, with the money flowing to a very few individuals, predominantly. It is about how society can help to make that work. That is the fear I have. It is real-life experimenting with high-risk AI systems, not just AI helping people to find their way or provide maps or food services. These are identified high-risk areas. Amendments Nos.”