Niamh Smyth
Cavan-Monaghan · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“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.”
“63 would reduce the current period of 14 working days to a period of no more than seven days. The purpose of section 49 is to balance regulatory intervention with fair procedures.”
“I am going to take time after this debate to look at the Instagram account the Deputy raised today to see for myself. I do not disbelieve the Deputy. It upsets me so much to see that is allowed. Where is the monitoring of it?”
“These are: prohibited practices under Article 5; serious incidents reported under Article 73; high-risk AI systems referred to in annexe III in accordance with Article 49(5); and any other AI-related incidents or notifications required to be reported under the regulation.”
“The Government will continue to benefit from the expertise of the office in the deployment and implementation of AI-related policy and regulation.”
“I know that when you go to public meetings like those in question, there are tough stories from parents and you may feel a little inadequate sometimes in being able to deal with these things as quickly as possible. I am glad the Deputies used their time here today to make the presentation and to campaign for the parents.”
The complete record
Every one of 868 lines we hold for Niamh Smyth, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 18.
“These are: prohibited practices under Article 5; serious incidents reported under Article 73; high-risk AI systems referred to in annexe III in accordance with Article 49(5); and any other AI-related incidents or notifications required to be reported under the regulation. While I support the objective of ensuring that the office is visibly overseeing fundamental rights impact assessments carried out by public bodies deploying high-risk systems, I am satisfied that this objective is already met in the Bill. Section 60(2)(c), read with Article 27(3), already ensures that every such notification made by a public body deployer is sent to the office, through the relevant market surveillance authorities, and the existing paragraph (d) of section 43(2) already captures that material within the register. On this occasion, I oppose the amendment.”
“Additionally, under Article 71 of the AI Act, the European Commission, in collaboration with member states, is required to set up and maintain an accessible and public available EU database containing information concerning high-risk AI systems and the market surveillance authorities, MSAs, are obliged to report on serious incidents to the EU AI office and our own AI office. As I mentioned, the AI Act and this Bill already contain a broader framework for the fundamental rights oversight through the designation of relevant fundamental rights bodies, the powers of market surveillance authorities, complaints mechanisms, incident reporting obligations and enforcement powers. In particular, section 43 establishes the AI register, maintained by the AI office, and subsection (2) sets out an exhaustive list of what it must contain.”
“In practical terms, the provision of Article 27 of the AI Act requires organisations to think systematically about how high-risk AI systems may affect people, identify and mitigate potential risks, establish appropriate oversight and complaints mechanisms, document their findings and demonstrate compliance before the system is put into operation. Last year, the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation published its guidelines for the responsible use of AI in the public service to provide practical information and resources for all public servants and Government officials on how to design, develop, deploy and maintain AI solutions responsibly.”
“It must also document the actions that will be taken if risks materialise, including governance arrangements, procedures for managing incidents and the mechanisms through which affected individuals can make complaints and seek redress. Where an organisation has already completed a data protection impact assessment under GDPR or the data protection directive for law enforcement functions, the fundamental rights impact assessment does not replace that work. Instead, it should build upon and complement the existing data protection impact assessment, DPIA, ensuring that the broader fundamental rights considerations are also addressed.”
“The assessment must describe how the organisation intends to use the AI system and the processes in which it can be involved. It must also explain how often the system will be used and over what period. The organisation must identify the individuals or groups who may be affected by the system and consider any risks of harm that could arise from it. These risks should be assessed in light of information provided by the AI system's provider, including any known limitations, risks or conditions of use. In addition, the organisation must explain what human oversight measures will be put in place to supervise AI systems and ensure that the human decision-makers can intervene, where necessary.”
“Those obligations are directed towards ensuring that the deployer assesses and mitigates risks before deployment and that competent authorities can exercise appropriate oversight, where required. I refer to the requirement in Article 27 for a fundamental rights impact assessment for every high-risk AI system deployed by a public body prior to its first use. This obligation applies primarily to public bodies and private organisations providing public services and users of certain high-risk AI systems, identified in annexe III of the Act. The purpose of the assessment is to identify and evaluate any potential negative effects that the AI system could have on individuals' fundamental rights and freedoms before it is deployed.”
“It is important to distinguish between transparency and publication. The Government supports transparency. However, a regulatory register may contain information relating to, as I said, investigations, commercially sensitive information and so on. The Bill seeks to strike a balance between public transparency and effective regulatory oversight. On section 44, I thank the Senator for the amendment. Having transparency and accountability around deployment of high-risk AI systems by public bodies is a legitimate and shared objective. The Bill already pursues that directly. The AI Act establishes obligations in relation to fundamental rights impact assessments for specific categories of high-risk AI systems.”
“As the office becomes established and experienced in gaining and operating the regime, it may be appropriate to consider whether certain information contained in the register could be published in a manner that promotes transparency, while also protecting confidentiality, information, security considerations, commercial interests and personal data. I also do not consider it necessary to prescribe in primary legislation the specific means by which information would be published. The office should retain flexibility regarding how information is made available to the public, as technologies and publication practices evolve. Accordingly, I am satisfied the Bill strikes the appropriate balance between transparency, accountability and effective regulation. I do not propose to accept either amendment.”
“For that reason, information held on the register may include material that is commercially sensitive, security related, subject to confidentiality obligations, related to ongoing supervisory or enforcement activity, or may involve data protection considerations. While I support the objective of transparency, I do not consider it appropriate at this stage to place a statutory obligation on the office to make the entire register publicly accessible. Such a requirement could create difficulties for information required for careful assessment before publication, where disclosure could prejudice investigations, undermine supervisory activity, compromise security interests or affect legitimate commercial interests.”
“That database is intended to provide a significant level of public transparency, and will contain information that is publicly accessible, reachable and user-friendly. Public authorities deploying certain categories of high-risk AI systems are also required under the AI Act to register those systems in the EU database, ensuring a substantial degree of transparency regarding the use of such systems. The AI register established under section 43 serves a different purpose. It is intended primarily as a regulatory and supervisory tool to assist the office in carrying out its oversight functions. It may contain information relating to prohibited AI practices, serious incidents, ongoing investigations, enforcement activities and other notifications received under the AI Act.”
“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 the context of the broader transparency framework already established at European level. In particular, Article 71 of the AI Act requires the establishment of a European database of certain high-risk AI systems.”
“It does not give the Minister any role in drafting, approving or altering the content of the annual report. The annual report remains a report of the office and is an important mechanism through which the office demonstrates transparency and accountability in the performance of its statutory functions. The Bill already contains comprehensive requirements regarding reporting, publication and accountability, and I am satisfied these provisions provide an appropriate balance between operational independence and democratic oversight. Retaining a consistent reporting framework throughout the Bill also provides clarity and coherence in the governance arrangements applying to the office. Accordingly, I do not accept the amendment.”
“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 governance arrangements applying to the office. The existing provisions already ensure the activities of the office will be reported publicly and will be made available to both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Minister's role in this process is administrative and accountability based.”
“Rather, it provides a mechanism that may be used where circumstances warrant additional examination or assurance. Similar oversight and accountability provisions are found in the legislation governing a range of statutory bodies. Therefore, I am satisfied the provision represents an appropriate safeguard and forms part of the overall governance and accountability framework established by the Bill. Accordingly, I will not accept the amendment.”
“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 ensure that, where necessary, an examination of the office's books and records may be undertaken in the interest of transparency, accountability and sound financial governance. The existence of the powers does not imply any routine or ongoing interference in the management of the office.”
“The Bill also contains a range of provisions designed to ensure transparency and public accountability, including requirements related to publication and reporting. The removing of the requirement to submit the strategy statement to the Minister would weaken an important accountability mechanism without providing any corresponding governance benefit. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the existing provision is appropriate. I do not propose to 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 statement to the Minister does not undermine the independence of the office. Rather, it forms part of the normal accountability arrangements that apply to statutory bodies throughout the public sector.”
“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.”
“Removing one function from the framework risks upsetting that balance without delivering any clear additional safeguard. For that reason, I oppose the amendment.”
“If there are concerns regarding the handling of commercially sensitive information, those concerns are better addressed to the governance arrangements, confidentiality obligations and authorisation procedures, rather than disapplying one particular statutory function. The amendment may create legal uncertainty. A disclosure may simultaneously support several statutory functions, for example, promoting AI literacy, enhancing public awareness and facilitating regulatory co-operation. It may become difficult to determine whether a disclosure falls within or outside the exception. The Bill is carefully drafted so that all of the office's statutory functions can be carried out effectively while maintaining appropriate confidential protections.”
“There is no clear policy basis for singling out one function. The office will need to engage with businesses, researchers, start-ups, public bodies and civil society organisations in carrying out its innovation and literacy role. Restricting disclosures in connection with that function could make it more difficult for the office to provide guidance, education resources and practical support. Confidential information remains protected in any event. Section 36(4) narrowly defines confidential information as commercially sensitive information or information expressly designated as confidential by the office. The existence of the innovation and literacy functions does not weaken those protections.”
“This is not an unrestricted permission to disclose information. Any disclosure must be necessary and connected to the exercise of a statutory function. The function in section 9(1)(c) is to promote and foster AI innovation and literacy. That function is intended to support awareness, understanding, capability building and innovation in AI. It is not a vehicle for sharing confidential information obtained by the office in the course of regulatory activities. The amendment appears to assume that the innovation and literacy functions create a unique risk of disclosure. However, many of the office's other functions may require extensive engagement with stakeholders, including facilitating co-operation between authorities, supporting information sharing and enhancing public awareness.”
“The office will need to engage extensively with external consultants and advisers for expertise because the field of AI is so broad and is rapidly growing and evolving. Removing the protection for consultants and advisers would mean that someone in that category who discovers evidence of wrongdoing or a crime while working for the office would commit an offence by reporting it. While I understand the concern behind the amendment, which is that confidential commercial information should not seep out through consultants, I believe it is important that they are not stripped of the safeguards that allow them to report suspicious wrongdoing. For that reason, I cannot accept that amendment. Section 36(2)(a) permits disclosure only where it is made in the performance of the functions of the office.”
“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 becomes aware of suspicious wrongdoing could not make a protected disclosure without risking prosecution under section 36(3). In addition, section 36(2)(f) allows disclosure to An Garda Síochána where the person believes the information may relate to an offence.”
“The Government will continue to benefit from the expertise of the office in the deployment and implementation of AI-related policy and regulation. These sections do not diminish the independence of the office; they preserve the constitutional and administrative distinction that has long underpinned accountability across the public service. The chief executive officer remains fully independent in carrying out the functions of the office and remains fully accountable to the Oireachtas for the discharge of those functions. However, Government policy is properly a matter for Ministers, who are elected representatives and are directly accountable to the Houses of the Oireachtas for policies they adopt. For that reason, and in keeping with established governance arrangements across the public service, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 35 or 36.”
“The CEO remains entirely free to explain how a policy is being implemented, the resources required to implement it, any operational difficulties arising in the implementation and the practical consequences for the work of the office. The distinction has been blurred between commenting on the effect of policy and commenting on the merits of policy. Nothing in these sections prevents the CEO from informing an Oireachtas committee that a policy has operational consequences, that its implementation has challenges or that there are resource implications or unforeseen effects. The sections do not affect the ability of the office or the CEO to provide advice to the Minister under section 9(1)(f) or through other official channels.”
“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, answering questions, identifying operational challenges or explaining the impact of policy decisions on the work of the office. The provision recognises that the assessment of Government policy is a matter for Ministers, who are democratically accountable to the Oireachtas.”
“I appeal to members of the public who find harmful content online to make a complaint to Coimisiún na Meán, Hotline, An Garda Síochána and, more importantly of course, to the platforms themselves to remove the content immediately.”
“New rules to address the challenge of AI have been adopted recently and will come into force on 2 August. The Government favours this European-wide approach to the digital services, which will make it more straightforward for serve providers to comply and regulators to oversee. Digital services are provided across borders and our response should be the same. Along with supervising and enforcing regulation, raising awareness is another tool to combat harmful content online. Coimisiún na Meán is working in this area. I will take a moment to thank Hotline, which does incredible work in this area, and An Garda Síochána.”
“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 knows, and it is incredibly important that the regulations be adhered to in respect of the prohibited practices piece. The regulation is designed to ensure that illegal and harmful content - there is no question that it is harmful content - is more likely to be identified, removed and militated against.”
“To comply with that provision, platforms are required to use robust age assurance measures. As the Deputy knows, the Government is working with our European colleagues to come up with an age limit on access to social media platforms. I think that is a must. The Government is developing an age verification tool to support compliance with that obligation. It will only confirm to a platform whether a person is over or under 18. No other personal information is revealed to the platform, so it will meet high standards for protection of privacy. That tool will be offered as a service on the digital wallet, on a voluntary basis. Coimisiún na Meán, as Ireland's online safety and media regulator, plays an important and central role in supervising and enforcing the regulatory framework.”
“We have a robust online safety framework in Ireland that should be respected and regarded. It comprises the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act 2022, the EU's Digital Services Act, and the terrorist content online regulation. Together, they place obligations on online platforms, including social media platforms, to put measures in place to prevent and limit the spread of illegal and harmful content on their services. Last July, the framework was enhanced when the online safety code came into full force. The code includes provisions designed to strengthen the protection of children online. For example, it obliges designated video-sharing platforms to implement measures to ensure that under-18s do not have access to adult-only material, such as pornography.”
“I am going to take time after this debate to look at the Instagram account the Deputy raised today to see for myself. I do not disbelieve the Deputy. It upsets me so much to see that is allowed. Where is the monitoring of it? The Deputy and I both sat on the Oireachtas committee where we had companies in and were promised that social media platforms would not be the wild west any more. What the Deputy has presented today certainly does not concur with that sentiment. I thank the Deputy for raising the important issue of online safety. It is a priority for me and across the Government, particularly when it comes to the protection of children, women and young people. It is one of the key themes of Ireland's EU Presidency and it is an explicit whole-of-government priority in the national digital strategy, published in February of this year.”
“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, is just not acceptable. I really am of the view that the likes of The Irish Times or the Irish Independent would not be allowed to publish comments like that. They fuel that hate and allow it to continue and be exacerbated. To perpetuate that kind of vile commentary online is shocking.”
“That is what gives them the fire in their belly every day of the week to get up and run their businesses. We need to make finance more accessible to them. Regarding the proposal the Deputy made for the publicans, I like his term "social anchor". I agree with that, particularly in country parts and in small towns and villages. In my town, we went from 46 pubs down to two or three that are in business today. In today's world, we do not need 46 pubs, however, those who remain and continue to invest in those pubs and that industry are incredibly important. They are a social anchor and should be supported as well. I have a very detailed reply to give the Deputy, and I will share that with him.”
“At that local level, we find that many businesses are operating from a back shed, particularly in country parts, and along highways and byways. It is about providing the facilities, ecosystem and infrastructure. Our local authorities are very energised about doing that. We need to find ways of channelling that energy and to give them the finances and the infrastructure to do it. I concur with that. I am working with the Minister, Deputy Burke, to see what avenues and finance we can provide to our local authorities to achieve that. The Deputy is right about access to finance. We hear all the time that the pillar banks are not always the easiest for the SME sector to do business with and are not always the great risk-takers that our SMEs have to be and need to be.”
“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. In my experience of the Cavan and Monaghan area, we have nowhere to develop. There may be no finance or no obvious channel of finance for the local authority to do it. Enterprise Ireland and IDA are incredibly agile and energetic Government agencies.”
“Officials from my Department provided an update on progress at the Competitiveness Summit on 13 July. For priority actions, 65.4% have either been implemented or are on track, while 34.6% are partially implemented and considered in progress. I will let the Deputy come back in.”
“The aim behind one of the themes in the plan, "Regulating for Growth and Controlling Costs", is to ensure that the regulatory costs faced by Ireland's businesses are kept to a minimum. The action plan includes measures to support the development of a more effective regulatory system that seeks to support sustainable economic growth while controlling overall cost levels, because we know they have grown exponentially and, in some cases, have got out of control for people trying to stay in business. One such measure is the introduction of the red tape challenge across government to significantly reduce regulation and administrative burden for SMEs, which is incredibly important. Work on the red tape challenge is under way, and progress will be closely monitored. Implementation of the action plan is at an advanced stage.”
“The forum's independent report and recommendations will be presented to the Government and published on 22 July. I thank that committee for its incredible work in respect of that forum. It has been very helpful to us in our Department. These recommendations will aim to help businesses remain competitive and resilient in an increasingly challenging economic environment. The Action Plan on Competitiveness and Productivity was published by the Department in September 2025. It contains 85 actions. Actions are important. We need to consider these not just as recommendations but as actions that we can take as a Government to ensure our competitiveness and productivity performance.”
“A key cross-cutting priority will be reducing administrative burdens and improving the business environment and ecosystem. My Department will advance simplification measures to ensure EU rules are proportionate, effective and supportive of enterprise. When we say that, we are not saying that it somehow becomes the Wild West to do business. That is not it. It is about giving that gold stamp of approval to businesses, but also taking away the regulatory burden. "Simplifying" is probably a better word. The Minister, Deputy Burke, is leading the way on all this and established the cost of business advisory forum in June 2025, delivering on a programme for Government commitment. Its purpose is to examine key cost drivers and assess the impact of the rising cost of regulatory pressures on businesses in Ireland.”
“We have to have the relevant conversation knowing that, in the background, the evidence is available from the Draghi and Letta reports that right across Europe, not just in Ireland, we may have lost sight of what is required a little by being so correct about how we do things. We have laid huge burdens on the SME sector in particular. As the Deputy rightly stated, SMEs do not have huge human resources departments. They are multitasking, as they have to, and they are very much the backbone of this country. In light of that, we are using our Presidency to ensure we are harnessing competitiveness, including by paring back on the regulatory and bureaucratic burden that has been on businesspeople in this country for a very long time.”
“I thank the Deputy, including for the energy he brings to the Oireachtas committee with responsibility for enterprise. He and his colleagues come from a genuine business background, so he is speaking from experience. That makes a huge difference at Oireachtas committees and in feeding into the work of the Department with me, the Minister, Deputy Burke, and the other Minister of State, Deputy Dillon. It is very helpful and very much appreciated. I thank the Deputy for the energy and experience he brings to his role. I want to outline the Department's priorities for Ireland's Presidency of the Council of the European Union, centred on building a more competitive, innovative and resilient European economy. The Deputy's question is particularly around the regulatory burden.”
“Tusla's early years inspectorate promotes and monitors the safety and quality of care and support of children in Tusla-registered early years services in accordance with the Child Care Act 1991 (Early Years Services) Regulations 2016. The ECCE programme currently provides for exemptions to the upper age limit in certain circumstances, as I have outlined, to support children with additional needs. The provisions of the exemptions provide an opportunity to ensure that these arrangements continue to meet the needs of children and families while remaining consistent with the objectives of the ECCE programme. I will relay to the Minister the Deputies' heartfelt remarks on behalf of these most vulnerable children and their families.”
“I know that when you go to public meetings like those in question, there are tough stories from parents and you may feel a little inadequate sometimes in being able to deal with these things as quickly as possible. I am glad the Deputies used their time here today to make the presentation and to campaign for the parents. I will relay their very heartfelt sentiments to the Minister, Deputy Foley, this afternoon. The Minister wishes to acknowledge the role of the Tusla's early years inspectorate, which is the statutory regulator of early years services in Ireland. Regulation includes registration, inspection and, where necessary, enforcement. Regulation is very important. It is the gold stamp of approval for any service. The question here is one of why now when the service has already been in place for what I imagine is many years.”
“I totally concur with the Deputies' appraisal of the response to the effect that there is an avenue open now for Tusla, the provider and the Department of education to sit down and find a pathway forward. There may be a narrow window, but anything can be done within six weeks. It would seem deeply unfair that, because there may be discrepancies related to two children, 60 children and their wider network of family, parents and friends would be impacted. To give to any family the traumatic news that perhaps within six weeks' time their child will not have a place seems deeply unfair. Therefore, I appeal to Tusla to sit down with the provider and the Department of education to find a pathway forward, take away the uncertainty and give predictability to parents as quickly as possible. Once again, I thank both Deputies.”
“In its published report, the NDA concluded that it is in the best interest of children with additional needs to transfer to primary school with their age cohort. All cases are examined on their own merits. While many children granted an ECCE overage exemption will reach the age of six years while in their final year in ECCE, overage exemptions are not granted to children who have already reached the age of six.”
“Under the early childhood care and education, ECCE, programme, the provision of an exemption to the upper age limit where a child has special or additional needs is made under review by the Department of children in conjunction with the Department of Education and Youth. It is a requirement that any request for an exemption to the upper age limit under the ECCE programme must include a letter from a medical specialist or therapist specifically recommending why an ECCE service would meet the child's specific needs in a more appropriate way than a primary school. In deciding on applications for exemptions to the ECCE age limits, the Department of children is guided by a review of the exemption to the upper age limit process carried out by the National Disability Authority, NDA, for the Departments of children and education in 2018.”
“Should the providers wish to lawfully provide services for children who do not have a school placement, they can consider seeking approval to become an education provider pursuant to section 14 of the Education (Welfare Act) 2000. The service providers could alternatively reach a private arrangement with the parents of the children to provide services in accordance with the home tuition scheme. However, this could only be operated separately and distinctly from the existing registered early years service. The question is how to accommodate 60 children, as Deputy Moynihan noted. The service providers were requested to revert to the terms of their registration status.”
“It is absolutely crazy that because of this, parents might either have to leave their job or find an alternative, possibly unregulated or unsuitable, education setting for their children. Tigers Childcare and Nexus Preschool provide a full daycare service, as the Deputies alluded to, which opened in 2024. The service is registered to provide care and education to children between two and six years of age across two distinct services at the same address, both with their own staffing teams. The service was inspected on 4 March 2026. During that inspection, the service was found to be operating outside of its registered status in regard to two children over the age of six who were in attendance on the day of inspection.”