Lynn Ruane
University of Dublin · Independent · Ireland
“The chairperson of the board of the Courts Service, Ms Justice Aileen Donnelly, said that the rise in drugs cases of a less serious kind had increased the workload of the lower courts.”
“I remember I could barely write when I started studying addiction. I was 16 when I applied for an addiction studies course. They would not let me on it because they said I was too young and it was for adults. I fought and fought. I did not know how to write an essay. I had not engaged in school since I was about 12.”
“The world is watching how Ireland has done the most extensive interrogation of drugs policy ever seen, and is waiting in hope to see what we do next to make sure that we move with the evidence. It is not just opinion.”
“I join Senator McDowell in thanking all the people we should thank for the efficient and smooth running of these Houses. He ran through them all. Even if we have had a few ding-dongs over rulings on amendments and stuff, other than that, things have moved well, as they always do. I thank the staff across both Houses.”
“There are not many things I will claim some level of expertise in, but this is one where I will claim it. I have been obsessed with it since I was about 16. I look forward to coming back in the new year, and not just for 90 minutes. We need a substantial time to discuss this report, whether three hours, four hours or six hours.”
“It will contain all incidents of prohibited AI practices under Article 5 of the AI Act; all serious incidents of high-risk AI systems in the State, reported under Article 73; high-risk AI systems that are employed in critical infrastructure; and any other AI-related incidents or notifications in the State required to be reported under the…”
The complete record
Every one of 599 lines we hold for Lynn Ruane, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 12.
“There are not many things I will claim some level of expertise in, but this is one where I will claim it. I have been obsessed with it since I was about 16. I look forward to coming back in the new year, and not just for 90 minutes. We need a substantial time to discuss this report, whether three hours, four hours or six hours. I would welcome the largest possible slot to discuss the most extensive research Ireland has ever done into drugs policy.”
“I remember I could barely write when I started studying addiction. I was 16 when I applied for an addiction studies course. They would not let me on it because they said I was too young and it was for adults. I fought and fought. I did not know how to write an essay. I had not engaged in school since I was about 12. I had been a drug user myself. I remember making a video because I could not write an essay. I got my two friends, who at that stage, aged 16, were strung out on heroin and had been on it since we were at school at 13, and I made a video essay, interviewing them. I found a video cassette the other day and hope I can get it put on something. The essay was about why they engaged in drug use so young. I could barely write an essay when I started studying this.”
“The chairperson of the board of the Courts Service, Ms Justice Aileen Donnelly, said that the rise in drugs cases of a less serious kind had increased the workload of the lower courts. There were just over 30,000 new drug cases before the District Court last year, compared with 27,000 in 2024, yet the Garda, even on national television, is saying it does not really use this law, whereas all the evidence says differently. We need to be clear that this report lays out the facts and we need to challenge people when they say otherwise. This House will have roughly 45 days off. Two people a day, on average, die in Ireland from drug-related issues. In the 45 days before we come back and sit in this Chamber, roughly 90 people will be dead while we have been off. That is the gravity of the situation with drugs.”
“The world is watching how Ireland has done the most extensive interrogation of drugs policy ever seen, and is waiting in hope to see what we do next to make sure that we move with the evidence. It is not just opinion. Some of us obviously have great emotion about the subject or certain opinions, but what is in the report is evidence-based. One of the issues we focused on was obviously section 3 but that is not the only thing in the report. An Garda Síochána has said several times, unchallenged, that section 3 is rarely used and its use has been going down over the years. I draw attention to RTÉ's report this week on the drug cases in the District Court and the headline that they are up 8% year on year.”
“I join Senator McDowell in thanking all the people we should thank for the efficient and smooth running of these Houses. He ran through them all. Even if we have had a few ding-dongs over rulings on amendments and stuff, other than that, things have moved well, as they always do. I thank the staff across both Houses. Senator Fitzpatrick mentioned the drugs report. It is important. Ireland is in a unique position. We have had requests to have that report translated into languages like Ukrainian and others, because people are watching the evidence that has been gathered in Ireland over the past five years, especially before the citizens' assembly and by all the working groups.”
“Despite the fact biometric analysis requires the use of biometric identification systems, it is unclear if the deployment of biometric analysis will have to undergo the same type of fundamental rights impact assessments that are required for defined biometric practices under the AI Act.”
“The AI register seems like a sensible place to create a repository of the information and, again, it is highly in the public interest for this information to be publicly available. These high-risk systems include biometric identification systems that will be deployed for the purpose of law enforcement. This is incredibly dangerous. This is technology that has profound impacts on our freedoms and civil liberties, and we should have sight of the impact assessments completed before these systems are deployed. It is also important to highlight the dangers of creating our own definitions for the deployment of high-risk AI systems, particularly relating to the Government's recent use of the novel term, "biometric analysis", as previously discussed in another piece of legislation.”
“This aims to give a statutory mechanism to Article 27, which states that prior to deploying a high-risk AI system, public body deployers should perform an assessment of the impact of fundamental rights the use of such systems may produce. The assessment should contain: the deployer's process in which the high-risk AI system should be used in line with its intended purpose; a description of the period and frequency with which each high-risk AI system will be used; the categories of people likely to be affected by its specific use; descriptions of implementation of human oversight measures; and the specific risks of harm and the measures that will be taken if those risks materialise.”
“This certainly should not be put ahead of the need to give the public access to information, particularly in instances where these technologies are affecting people's lives and, in some instances, their liberties and freedoms. The Minister of State has said the AI register should be seen as complementing that wider transparency framework. It is difficult to understand how this could be true if the information contained is not accessible to the public. Amendment No. 44 provides that the register shall contain copies of fundamental rights impact assessments for high-risk AI systems deployed by public bodies.”
“Prohibited practices listed in Article 5 include facial, emotional and social recognition systems, as well as other biometric identification and categorisation systems, and other AI systems that deploy subliminal techniques as purposefully manipulating individuals or trying to otherwise exploit the vulnerabilities of certain groups. The AI register will contain the details of incidents of those prohibited practices. What commercial interests should prevent people having sight of this prohibited use? It is the commercial interest of the companies involved in the development or deployment of these prohibited technologies.”
“It will contain all incidents of prohibited AI practices under Article 5 of the AI Act; all serious incidents of high-risk AI systems in the State, reported under Article 73; high-risk AI systems that are employed in critical infrastructure; and any other AI-related incidents or notifications in the State required to be reported under the AI Act. We have subsequent amendments adding to what is contained in the register, including copies of fundamental rights impact assessments for every high-risk AI system deployed in a public body. It is strongly in the public interest that the information contained in the register is publicly accessible. Commercial interests should not prevent the public knowing information about the AI register, such as incidents of prohibited AI practices and other serious incidents involving high-risk AI systems.”
“I move amendment No. 43: In page 32, line 3, after “a” to insert “publicly accessible”. Amendment No. 43 relates to the AI register and seeks to make that register publicly accessible. The Minister of State has stated the AI register is not currently intended to operate as a public-facing register. She also stated the AI office may in time consider making elements publicly accessible in a way that protects confidentiality and commercial and data protection interests. It is important to note what the AI register will contain.”
“(3) A report under subsection (1) shall include information on the performance of the functions of the Office during the period to which the report relates and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, shall include such other information in such form as the Office thinks fit or the Minister may request. (4) The Office shall ensure that, as soon as practicable after copies of an annual report are laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas in accordance with subsection (1) , the annual report is published in such manner as the Office considers appropriate.”.”
“I move amendment No. 42: In page 31, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: “ Annual report 40. (1) The Office shall not later than 6 months after the end of each financial year of the Office prepare a report on its activities during that year, and the Office shall as soon as may be after preparing the report, cause copies to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) , if, but for this subsection, the first annual report would relate to a period of less than 6 months, the report shall relate to that period and to the year immediately following that period and shall be prepared, and the Office shall cause copies to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be, but not later than 6 months after the end of that year.”
“I move amendment No. 40: In page 30, to delete lines 17 to 22 and substitute the following: “(5) The Commission shall as soon as may be after the preparation of a strategy statement under subsection (1) cause copies of it to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. (6) The Commission shall ensure that, as soon as practicable after copies of a strategy statement are laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas in accordance with subsection (4) , the strategy statement is published in such manner as the Commission considers appropriate.”.”
“If I burgle a house, I am not given 28 days to correct that and give back the television I have taken to avoid being prosecuted. What we are doing here is basically allowing a landlord to rob a renter of rent he or she cannot afford to pay and be allowed a month to correct that. How does that make sense? We are creating a scenario whereby there is an offence but somebody as privileged as a landlord gets 28 days to undo the offence he or she has just committed . I do not understand that. We are creating carve-outs for certain types of people when we would not do so for other crimes that end up in the courts. If somebody has broken the law, why are we removing the offence? Why would that 28-day period be carved out for landlords to be effectively allowed to break the law?”
“The notice period allows for a period of 28 days for the landlord to comply with the provisions of section 19 before he or she has committed an offence. We believe these provisions dilute protections for renters against landlords who seek to raise rents beyond legally permitted limits. They allow landlords who are raising rents in contravention of the 2004 Act to avoid offences for those acts by delaying the prosecution of those offences for a month. As such, we are opposing this section. I spent some time thinking about this amendment because I generally try to view the creation of offences in a very particular way, but obviously it is already an offence. If we know that somebody is breaking the law in any other situation, he or she is not afforded 28 days to adhere to the law he or she just broke.”
“I move amendment No. 22: In page 24, to delete lines 17 to 39. This amendment deletes the provisions in section 22 that amend section 19 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. Section 19 is concerned with the prohibition of rents above market rent. Our amendment removes the deletion of subsections (6A), (6B) and (6C) of section 19 of the 2004 Act and deletes the newly inserted subsections (6D), (6E), (6F) and (6G). Currently, subsections (6A) and (6C) of section 19 of the 2004 Act provide that where a landlord raises the rent in contravention of the provisions of section 19, he or she will have committed an offence. This Bill removes those subsections and substitutes the process with an initial notice served to the landlord by the RTB.”
“It feels like a bit of a trick on the public, the people who have concerns or who have spouted stuff like, "Homes should only be for the Irish." There is now a legal provision for something that already exists rather than communicating that you have to be lawfully resident in this country to access social housing. If it is the case that such a requirement is already in place, I want the Minister to explain why he is putting it into legislation when it already exists.”
“I will ask a brief question. My understanding is that you have to be legally resident to apply for social housing currently. I may be wrong on that, but I do not think I am. You already have to be legally resident. You have to be lawfully resident to receive social housing. I do not understand why a provision is going into legislation where it asserts something that is already the case. It feels performative. It feels like the Department can then say that it has introduced legislation so that people who are not legally resident here cannot get social housing.”
“It is an important answer not so much because the Minister decided to rule it out but because it is very important for the Bills Office.”
“He had got some part-time work translating and he wanted to be able to get there because he is on crutches and has one leg. He refused certain emergency accommodation and he was able to access emergency accommodation somewhere else that was more beneficial to him and enabled him to have that stability in his life. Now we have a decision by the Bills Office that says our amendment creates a cost to the State but it does not. It only supports maintaining the status quo and the current cost to the State of providing supports. It does not increase the supports or create any new supports. Can the Minister explain what is under the current framework? I assume the reason we have to write this is because it does not exist but currently, you can seek emergency accommodation regardless of whether you have refused support for the past 24 months.”
“I wonder if someone who is in emergency accommodation who refuses social housing, emergency accommodation or support within 24 months currently has access to other emergency accommodation sites? The answer to that is really important and it is really problematic then as to why the Bills Office would rule it out of order. The cost is already assumed by the State because under the existing framework, people already refuse emergency accommodation in certain sites and can seek emergency accommodation in other sites. It is not a new cost. There is a man I currently work with who refused an emergency accommodation site due to access to transport because he had lost a limb. He needed to be close to public transport and he worked as a translator.”
“It is obviously not the Minister's decision in relation to whether the Bills Office rules an amendment out of order but I would like to establish a few things as they apply to the section as a whole. What is currently ruled out of order is the deletion of a section. The section read: A housing authority may refuse to make arrangements under subsection (3) where alternative arrangements, assistance or accommodation have been refused by the person within a period of 24 months prior to seeking accommodation under section 10(1). Can the Minister communicate to me whether, if someone refuses emergency accommodation, they have access to emergency accommodation elsewhere under the current system?”
“We are saying we can remove people's emergency support if they do not take this and we may, therefore, increase the number of people on the streets because it is most likely going to be night-by-night accommodation. It will most likely not be in the daytime. When you are in the night-to-night accommodation, it is 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. This legislation will increase the number of people who are on the streets and without a home, waiting for a bed to know where they will sleep, if this coercive measure does not work. It does not make any sense. It is neither compassionate nor humane. It is really risky.”
“We have been doing it for years. Now the legislation states that if people refuse an offer, they have to be put out. Are the staff who are providing emergency supports breaking the law if they do not put them out? I know it states "may". It is fair enough that it states "may". However, it exists and people will want to use that measure. Hopefully they will not be a majority, but people will want to use it. This does not need to exist. We are going from emergency accommodation to night-by-night accommodation. I do not understand how any Department would want to risk having people on the streets. I cannot turn any which way without some news outlet or media outlet talking about the inner city, O'Connell Street and people congregating here and there. We are now creating a scenario.”
“I second what Senator Higgins said. It is incredibly cowardly to put out staff, whom no one has mentioned, to hide behind. "Oh, the poor staff." The front people are those who have no houses. They are the priority. We have to create legislation that keeps people safe and does not see people back out on the streets. We cannot say, "Oh, the poor staff. What are you saying about them?" We are legislators. We are discussing legislation. We are not discussing individual people in their jobs. If you put something in black and white in the law, it can be used. The Government is putting staff in a more difficult position. I worked in homeless accommodation for many years. You make decisions as a team. You have discretion. You know how to put someone out if they are a danger to anybody else, if there has been a fight or the use of weapon.”
“That is what I am hearing now. I am hearing that, legislatively, the Minister can remove emergency supports and a single person or a person with children may be put in night to night because that person has been offered reasonable accommodation and, for whatever reason, does not want to take it. Nobody likes staying in emergency accommodation. People have their own reasons that not everybody can understand. This will not force people onto the street, rather, the Minister sees it as forcing people out of emergency accommodation and into a home out of fear the only alternative is night by night. People will be afraid to refuse a home.”
“The impact of night-to-night accommodation on people's health is unbelievable. We have built a structure in some of the country's most vulnerable hostels with doctors, nurses, addiction specialists and key workers on site. To have a model that is night to night or 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. completely undermines and undoes the creation of a structure for a person in their everyday life. Are we going to do night to night with a family? If a family refuses what the State deems a reasonable offer, will that family be on the street ringing whatever version of the freephone currently exists for accommodation that night? I do not understand how that adds safety or security, or how it keeps people in emergency accommodation for less time. It will actually worsen it because they will still have to come back into some sort of emergency accommodation.”
“If I am reading the provision right, somebody can be removed from emergency accommodation or have their emergency supports removed because they have refused social housing. The Minister said nobody would be put out on the street. Where do they go then? The provision says there is a removal of emergency supports if you refuse accommodation. What happens if emergency supports are removed? What if someone applies this legislation and has a right to remove those supports? I do not understand what happens in that instance.”
“I ask the Minister to consider having greater guidelines or insight as to, like I said, different people's ideas of what is reasonable and what is not. It can really look different depending on the life a person has had, his or her position, or what he or she is currently experiencing in his or her housing situation.”
“Often, what we deem reasonable can look very different from where a person is looking at it. When one has privilege, access to healthcare, and his or her needs met fully, he or she can judge what is reasonable in a very different way than somebody who is in a very vulnerable situation. Reasonable for him or her can look very different. When a local authority offers somebody accommodation, like the example I used of an autistic young person and the fear around a high-rise building, that was seen as a refusal. That was registered by the local authority as “you have now refused one offer of accommodation, you have only two more and then you are going to have a period where you are not going to be offered anything.” People are already punished for giving very reasonable reasons as to why they might not take accommodation.”
“The cost in the long run to the State in impacting someone's health or family or whatever in that way means it does not make economic sense either in terms of how we support people to move safely into communities or social housing which meets their needs, rather than compounding the vulnerabilities a person already has.”
“There are people who have huge vulnerabilities and do not have access to the financial means to be able to accept an offer of support that would only put them in a more vulnerable position. On the idea that we would remove someone from emergency accommodation because they refused a social housing offer, are we saying we will remove someone from emergency support and they will just be on the street? It is quite confusing to me that any Department or policymaker would come up with a scenario where that seems like a good thing.”
“It was a wet hostel so residents had residency for many months at a time. There are women in emergency accommodation who have refused high apartment blocks because their kids have certain presentations within their autistic diagnosis where their ability to measure risk with a balcony is not there. They are actually terrified that their child will go over the balcony of a high-rise building. There are also people who refuse accommodation because it is 30 km past the city where their kids are in school, and maybe there are parents who live in the community they want to be close enough to because they cannot afford childcare and they rely on other parents to pick their children up from the school.”
“There are many reasonable reasons why someone might refuse an offer of support. If we consider the needs of a mother and her children in emergency accommodation, there are plenty of scenarios where accommodation offered might not be suitable and, therefore, may be refused. We are concerned at how the provisions of this section may lead to vulnerable people being denied emergency support in times of critical need. I worked in homeless accommodation for many years and there is no one reason people refuse social housing; there can be very different reasons. I remember one man we worked with for a long time to try to support him into the social housing he was offered and he was terrified. He had been homeless for so long and he was worried that he would be isolated. He worried that he would be away from the support networks around him.”
“We oppose section 6 as it contains some consequential amendments for section 7, which introduces residency requirements for the provision of accommodation to homeless persons. It amends section 10 of the Housing Act 1988, which provides for accommodation supports for people experiencing homelessness to provide reference to the newly created section 10A, which is inserted by section 7. We are opposing that section and the consequential amendments in this section. The section also contains some concerning provisions ,which extend the provisions of section 10(8) of the 1988 Act, which allow for housing authorities to remove people from homeless accommodation. The amendment in section 6 allows for a person to be removed from emergency accommodation if he or she refuses an offer of social housing support.”
“When we take language and give it what it is, it has the intended purpose. If we silence people from criticising Government policy or attending a committee, that is effectively gagging for all intents and purposes from a political perspective.”
“We have the Secretary General of the Irish Prison Service who comes into the justice committee, who is not even independent of the Department. We have lots of other spaces where this happens and bodies come in. It does gag. If we have a Department and a junior ministry as part of that Department and a committee cannot question the CEO of that body - and that is a committee that will have the most work to do in this country in relation to examining AI - that is effectively gagged. If they are not allowed to talk in a committee, they are not going to be allowed to talk on the news without a political line or a brief being given to them or being told, "This is the policy. If you go off the policy, then that is not in line." I am glad the Minister of State had a reaction to the word "gagged".”
“It is gagged. People might not like the language sometimes when we take it out of diplomatic speech in saying somebody cannot come in front of a committee and speak or somebody cannot have an opinion on Government policy. When we frame it in political language, it does not land as hard. When we strip it away and call it what is it, which is "gagged", it causes a reaction. That is reaction is welcome. When we look and break down language, what it means and what underpins the language we use to make something not seem as bad as it is and we strip it away and use the raw word, then it evokes the real reaction and the response is that nobody is gagging or wants to gag anyone else. It is not the intent to gag, but we wrap it up in something else and pretend that is not what it is.”
“As we know, AI is moving at a rapid rate and we have acknowledged many times throughout the Houses that politicians and policymakers are struggling to keep up with how quick it is moving. To have a CEO not be able to raise any sort of alarm with Government policy that could be way behind, or lacking in ethics, sustainability and all the stuff we mentioned, is a very bad move for any country. It is not allowing a CEO of a so-called independent body to challenge, speak to or criticise Government policy.”
“Bringing people in to work on a body and in an office that will gain such insight and expertise, which will constantly have eyes on what is happening in AI, and for that expert in the room - the CEO - to then not be able to question policy is authoritarian. This completely removes any sort of transparency in the expert of an AI office being able to question Government policy that could be terrible and could have a massive public impact on society. We are effectively covering the mouth of that person to question the policy. If we were comfortable enough as Departments, the Government and politicians, we would not feel the need to effectively gag a CEO on challenging policy.”
“I move amendment No. 35: In page 26, to delete lines 30 to 32. I will be very brief. Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 delete the provision in sections 32 and 33, which prevents the CEO of the AI office from expressing an opinion or questioning the merit of any policy of the Government or the objectives of such a policy in front of Oireachtas committees. This is another feature of this Bill which calls into question the assertion of the independence of the AI office. How can the office be truly independent of Government if the CEO cannot question the substance or objective of a Government policy? The Bill allows the Minister to issue directions to the CEO regarding policy and then precludes the CEO from making any public comments about those policies. This is not independence and, regardless of that, it is also not good practice.”
“I move amendment 28: In page 22, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following: “(4) In making an appointment or designation under subsections (2) and (3), the Board and Minister shall have due regard of the need for the Chief Executive Officer to have relevant experience of, and expertise in relation to, matters connected with at least two of the following— (a) digital rights or technology law; (b) data privacy and the General Data Protection Regulation; (c) human and fundamental rights matters or human rights law; (d) equality matters or equality law; (e) climate or energy systems; (f) public administration and governance; (g) civil society.”.”
“There are fears that the designation of a CEO for a period of five years undermines the office’s independence from the Government and the Department from the outset. The danger of the provisions of section 24, as drafted, is that a person designated as CEO could effectively be a political appointee handpicked by the Government to promote AI innovation at the expense of developing robust regulatory safeguards to prevent the potential social, cultural and environmental harm caused by AI in contemporary society.”
“The amendment would encourage the appointment of a well-rounded, public interest-focused leadership within the office’s executive, ensuring that it does not become dominated by a technical or commercial perspective. Achieving a balance between public interest protections and innovation at the level of the chief executive would promote greater independence, credibility and public confidence in the work of the office. The amendment is particularly important in circumstances where the Minister designates a person as the first CEO of the office, as the Minister is empowered to do under the Bill. Significant concern has been expressed about this provision across civil society and academia.”
“Amendment No. 28 imposes an obligation on the Minister and the Government to have due regard to the need for the CEO of the artificial intelligence office to possess specific professional experience in fields relevant to the work of the office. As drafted, the Bill does not include any provisions relating to the expertise or experience expected of the CEO of the office. The amendment specifies that the CEO should have expertise across at least two of the following fields: data protection and GDPR; human and fundamental rights; digital rights or technology law; equality law and policy; climate or energy systems; public administration and governance; and civil society engagement.”
“I move amendment No. 15: In page 18, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following: “(e) has a material conflict of interest of such significance that the person’s ability to perform their functions in an independent and impartial manner is undermined;”.”
“The way AI tools and systems are developed, deployed and governed reflects choices about power, priorities and values. While flexibility is important in a rapidly evolving environment, democratic accountability must be protected. The Oireachtas should have greater clarity regarding the scope of these matters. I hope the Minister of State can confirm to us in the Chamber today that she will allow for adequate scrutiny of this legislation, especially given that this Chamber has several Members who are on the AI committee who can devote time to it and actually engage in scrutiny of a kind that might not have been done by the enterprise committee. We will seek clarification on that as we go forward.”
“Transparency is essential to building public trust in AI regulation. Consideration should be given to whether the register, or at least significant elements of it, should be available to the public. There is relatively little in the Bill itself that explicitly centres the protection of fundamental rights, privacy, equality, non-discrimination and democratic participation as guiding principles for the exercise of regulatory powers. While rights protections may be implicit in the AI Act, the Bill should still contain a clearer statement requiring the AI office, market surveillance authorities and adjudicators to exercise their functions with regard to fundamental rights. A significant amount of detail appears to be deferred to future ministerial regulations and implementation measures.”