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 3 of 18.
“I thank the Deputies for raising this issue. It seems absolutely ludicrous that this service was being provided to children aged over six and that Tusla was happy to allow it to continue but that things have suddenly changed. Deputy Lahart is right that transparency for parents is incredibly important, as is having certainty and predictability in respect of the service into the future. In today's world, we cannot leave children in a vacuum at any age, and particularly when they have previously had a service available to them up to the age of six. That cannot be allowed to happen. I appeal to Tusla to provide that transparency, certainty and predictability to parents immediately.”
“The Programme for Government: Securing Ireland's Future contains a commitment to, within the lifetime of this Government, conduct a review of the bike-to-work scheme to boost take-up among all workers. The Minister’s Department has engaged with officials in the Department of Transport in recent months in relation to this review and the terms of reference remain under consideration. I again thank the Deputy and will pass on his heartfelt sentiments to both Ministers in relation to a pilot programme for consideration.”
“While the conditionality around the BIK exemption for the tax saver scheme falls under the Tánaiste’s remit as Minister for Finance, the scope and conditions of the travel passes on offer are a matter for the individual transport providers. As with all tax policy measures, the tax saver scheme is kept under review by Department of Finance officials. It is particularly important in considering proposals in respect of tax expenditures that the Government is mindful of the public finances and the many demands on the Exchequer. The expansion of any scheme creates a cost and that cost must be recovered elsewhere. At present, there are no specific plans to amend the tax legislation in respect of the tax saver scheme, which is considered to be operating well.”
“I appreciate the sentiment of the Deputy's contribution and I do not disagree with any of it. Particularly when we look at digitalisation and the travel wallet, all of that should be considered. I will re-emphasise to the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Transport to perhaps look at this as a pilot programme. In considering proposals in respect of all tax expenditures, the Government must be mindful of the public finances and the many demands on the Exchequer. Tax reliefs, no matter how worthwhile in themselves, lead to a narrowing of the tax base and a strong and convincing case for the benefits and outcomes needs to be articulated and due consideration given to the commitment of scarce taxpayer resources for such reliefs. To be fair, the Deputy made that argument strongly.”
“It is important to note that employers are not required to take part in the tax saver or bike-to-work schemes. Where an individual's employer does not participate in the schemes, any benefits that could arise under the relevant scheme will not be available to any employees of that employer. This means that an individual cannot avail of the scheme if their employer has chosen not to participate. However, it should be noted that if an employer does choose to participate in the schemes, employer’s PRSI is not payable on the cost of the relevant benefits when they make the associated deduction from their employees’ salary payments. Thus, there is an incentive for employers to participate in these schemes.”
“Subject to meeting the conditions of the scheme, there is currently no impediment to employers who wish to provide a voucher in respect of a shared mobility service to an employee under the small benefit exemption. The current threshold for this scheme is €1,500 per annum per employee. It is for each employer to decide whether to utilise this provision. The existing schemes are implemented as tax-exempt benefit-in-kind in order to keep the implementation as simple as possible and to reduce the administrative burden on employers and employees. The schemes are designed to be as straightforward as possible to encourage uptake by employers. The proposed model is more complex than the existing scheme and is something that would require engagement with stakeholders, including employers, software providers and transport operators.”
“The schemes have similar objectives - to reduce car dependency and to encourage the use of public transport and cycling as more sustainable forms of commuting. What is being proposed is the introduction of a new scheme that would allow employees to choose to assign part of their salary to pay for shared mobility services. Specifically, the sacrificed pay could be transferred to a virtual card account operated by an approved third-party commercial provider. Under this proposal, the sacrificed pay would not be subject to PAYE, USC or PRSI, while employers would benefit from reductions in employer PRSI. The actual operation of the ticketing wallet would be appropriate to the Department of Transport but there may be limitations in terms of what the current ticketing system, primarily Leap, can support.”
“The core objective is to encourage a shift in usage towards shared modes of transport in place of less efficient, congestion-inducing and carbon-intensive private car use, particularly for frequent journeys such as commuting. However, I take the Deputy’s point that the existing architecture of the scheme is for reliable, constant and regular transport rather than the patterns that most people have, which are a bit more flexible, particularly with working from home. As the Deputy is aware, commuting employees currently have access to reliefs from benefit-in-kind, BIK, in respect of sustainable transport, namely the cycle to work scheme under section 118(5G) Taxes Consolidation Act 1999 and the tax saver scheme under section 118(5A) of the same Act.”
“I thank the Deputy for his heartfelt contribution. The proposal is to reform the tax saver commuter ticket scheme to include private shared mobility services. As somebody from a rural area where we totally rely on bus services, it sounds like a novel thing to have the shared mobility model of bikes, cars and all the rest. It is way beyond what we experience in more rural parts, but it is wonderful to hear about it from the Deputy. The key objective is to ensure and encourage behavioural change in favour of the usage of shared mobility services and would support integrated transport services like bike, scooter and car-sharing through a virtual tax saver account model.”
“In this case, Bus Éireann operates both PSO services funded by the State subvention and Expressway inter-city services, which operate on a commercial basis and do not receive any State subvention. I can assure the Deputy the Department of Transport is committed to providing investment in our public transport network, which is clear to be seen across the country. The Minister is supportive of the Government’s goals in relation to delivering an accessible, affordable and, most importantly, reliable public transport network throughout the country, including in Cork city. As I said earlier, I have taken notes of the issues that the Deputy has raised.”
“The Deputy raised that very clearly here today and I have taken note of it. The infrastructure at the depot is due to be completed by quarter 4 of 2027 to support the electric bus roll-out for future network redesign launch dates. The performance of all public transport operators is monitored by the NTA as part of the contractual arrangements in place between it and the operators. I understand the Minister for Transport and his officials continue to engage with the NTA on an ongoing basis in relation to maintaining high operational standards on all forms of public transport. That should also mean high standards and the good condition of buses that passengers have to use. The individual operators are responsible for the management and operation of services on a day-to-day basis.”
“I am glad the Deputy presented different figures from those provided in the information from the NTA. I have taken note of that because the Deputy has presented different figures for the flat fee and the 26% increase. However, I have to be factual and say to him that there are State agencies in this country that have absolute responsibility. The NTA has responsibility for the regulation of fares. It is important to outline that in order to counteract some of what the Deputy is saying. That said, I have taken note of what he said. It is important to note that the NTA continues to engage with Bus Éireann to finalise the depot layout required to accommodate 52 charge points at Capwell. I take the Deputy’s point on the introduction of new buses in certain cities, but not in Cork, as well as his point about the conditions.”
“The Tivoli bus depot is a critical enabler of the BusConnects Cork programme as it allows for the expansion of the urban bus fleet servicing the Cork metropolitan area in the short term. The Minister has been advised that substantial completion of the Tivoli temporary depot has been achieved and that fit-out works are ongoing and due to be completed shortly. This will facilitate the additional bus fleet needed for Cork, including Cork city. Regarding the upgrading of fleet, the electric bus charging infrastructure framework has been completed, and contract signing is expected shortly. Once finalised, the framework will support the delivery of charging infrastructure at Capwell depot.”
“The introduction of new onboard ticket validators also means that passengers can simply tap their Leap card and go, reducing boarding times and keeping services moving. This improves the overall reliability and punctuality of Cork city bus services. That said, it is disappointing to hear the Deputy’s presentation this morning, which speaks against all of the information the NTA is giving the Minister. As a result, passengers should enjoy greater flexibility, and they will also benefit from fare capping, which has not been previously available to passengers in Cork. This initiative is future-proofing the multimodular public transport offerings planned for the city of Cork over the next few years. The Tivoli temporary bus depot, to which the Deputy referred, is being delivered by Bus Éireann using funding administered by the NTA.”
“As Deputy Gould is aware, the NTA recently announced that from Monday 20 July passengers using Bus Éireann’s Cork TFI city bus services will benefit from faster boarding times and a simplified 90-minute fare. This means that, for the first time, passengers would be able to catch any bus in the city and transfer between buses in Cork city as often as they need within 90 minutes. To support the introduction of TFI 90, adult Leap card fares in Cork city will move to a single flat fare of €1.70. This replaces the current adult Leap fares of €1.35 to €1.55, creating a simpler fare structure while enabling unlimited transfers within 90 minutes. It means passengers can move between buses without being penalised for doing so. The main ethos of this is to keep fares reduced and as low as possible.”
“However, he is not involved in the day-to-day operations of public transport, which cover a lot of the issues Deputy Gould has raised about digital transformation, conditions of buses and shortages of buses. I want to make that distinction. The National Transport Authority, NTA, has statutory responsibility for securing the provision of public passenger transport services nationally and for the scheduling and timetabling of these services in conjunction with the relevant transport operators. It is clear this is an NTA responsibility. The NTA also has responsibility for the regulation of fares charged to passengers, which the Deputy alluded to, in respect of public transport services provided under public service obligation contracts, including Cork bus services.”
“I thank Deputy Gould for his passionate presentation this morning about bus services in Cork. I am really disappointed to hear the technology is failing passengers and bus drivers, with apps not working. We are in a day of digitalisation and digital transformation and I am in disbelief about that. I will certainly see if there is anything from my end that we can do on that. The Deputy raised the condition of the buses along with a shortage of buses. That is very disappointing to hear too and is something I will raise with the Minister. The Minister for Transport has responsibility for policy and overall funding in relation to public transport.”
“Ultimately, we want Ireland to be a leader in the development and deployment of trustworthy Al, while ensuring that creators are respected, copyright is protected and innovation continues to thrive. I look forward to a constructive discussion on these matters and to working with Deputies to identify practical ways forward that support these shared objectives.”
“I will highlight three in particular. First, my Department will facilitate discussions in the Council working party on copyright on issues as they arise in the review of the copyright in the DSM directive, and matters identified in the European Commission’s call for evidence. Second, Ireland will co-ordinate the EU’s position at the World Intellectual Property Organization's WIPO, Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights meeting in November at which Al and copyright will be an informal agenda item. Finally, a Presidency associated conference on copyright and human creativity in the Al era, organised by rights holder organisations and endorsed by my Department, will be held in Dublin on 14 October. I look forward to attending that.”
“More broadly, the national digital and Al strategy specifically recognises the need to support and engage workers during this period of significant transition including supporting workers through upskilling, reskilling and lifelong learning initiatives and to establish a national skills observatory and observatory for business Al readiness to inform labour market policy. It also recognises the need for ongoing stakeholder engagement, such as with the creative industries, to support a fair and inclusive transition. The Government remains committed to ensuring that the opportunities presented by Al are realised while supporting workers and businesses in adapting to change. As Ireland holds the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, during our term we will progress discussions on some of the important matters raised.”
“Domestically, we are progressing legislation on the establishment of Al office of Ireland, which will act as the national coordinator and enabling body for Ireland's implementation and enforcement of the EU Al Act. The office will comprise, through its board and staff, a range of expertise that is necessary for the performance of its functions, with a role in promoting innovation and enhancing public awareness in relation to rights and obligations under the Al Act. To respond to some of the commentary this evening, I am acutely aware of the importance of having the creative industries represented there. These functions align with wider Government initiatives addressing the societal and economic impacts of Al including impacts on work and employment.”
“The Al Act introduces transparency requirements that oblige providers of generative Al systems to ensure that Al-generated content can be identified as such, including through machine-readable marking and related technical measures. I know we spoke about that earlier today. This obligation will take effect from August, and from December for certain models. From August 2026, the European Commission's Al office will directly enforce provisions on GPAI systems and models and, where appropriate, encourage and facilitate the review and adaptation of codes of practice in light of emerging standards. The European Commission is also pursuing initiatives to improve the practical operation of the opt-out from the TDM exception.”
“Creators are entitled to expect that their rights will continue to be protected as Al technologies evolve. The Al Act is an important part of that response. It requires providers of general-purpose Al, GPAI, models to comply with EU copyright law and introduces greater transparency regarding the content used to train Al models. Through the transparency template and related obligations, rights holders will be better placed to understand how Al systems are developed and to exercise their rights where appropriate. Effective implementation and enforcement of these measures will be essential in maintaining trust and ensuring that innovation proceeds in a manner that respects creativity and copyright.”
“The European Commission is developing an Al strategy for the cultural and creative sector as part of the broader apply Al strategy, also due to be unveiled early in 2027. I thank all stakeholders who have engaged with the review process to date. We also encourage interested organisations and individuals to continue contributing their views and evidence to help inform future findings and recommendations. The Al Act establishes a harmonised regulatory framework for Al systems developed or deployed in the EU. The Act entered into force in August 2024, with its provisions applying in a phased manner until August 2028. The Al Act complements existing regulatory protections and is without prejudice to applicable Union or national copyright law.”
“At present, the European Commission is reviewing the 2019 Copyright in the digital Single Market, DSM, directive, including the text and data mining, TDM, exception. A stakeholder consultation, on behalf of the European Commission, has been shared with relevant stakeholders by my officials in my Department, and a national submission been made to the Commission. A final report is due to be published by the European Commission early in 2027. In parallel, the European Commission has launched a call for evidence on possible new measures to strengthen the position of creators and creative industries in the online and Al environment. The aim is to ensure that creators can better control the use of their works and enforce their rights, while supporting innovation and the development of Al technologies.”
“Intellectual property is recognised as a fundamental right under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. As I said earlier, was pleased to meet representatives of the creative sector earlier today and to engage in a constructive discussion on the implications of artificial intelligence for creators and rights holders. The concerns being raised by artists, musicians, writers and other creators are legitimate. It was interesting to hear the debate on "Morning Ireland" given by some of the artists tonight from that perspective. Al offers many opportunities, but creators must have confidence that their rights will be respected, that their works will not be used without appropriate safeguards and that innovation will not come at the expense of creativity.”
“I will begin by thanking Deputy Ó Snodaigh for bringing forward this Private Members' motion. I thank the artists and the delegation I had the privilege of meeting earlier on today. I will also mention Senator Frances Black, who has, since I have come into this role, been articulate and mobilised on this issue. Gabhaim buíochas le gach duine. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this important topic following the tabling of the Private Members' motion by Sinn Féin on protecting the copyright of Irish artists in the era of artificial intelligence. As this House is aware, Ireland is committed to ensuring that Al technologies are developed and used in a manner that is ethical, transparent and aligned with national, EU and international law.”
“I thank the Senator. I chaired a committee in the previous Oireachtas. It is very clear. It is not a new precedent. It has always been the case. Ministers like myself and many others come in and answer to the Oireachtas and to the Senator and everybody else at the committee in relation to Government policy. Members can tear us apart if that is what is required, but that is the Minister's job to come in. It is incredibly important that we do not blur lines. We are not creating a new precedent. That has always been the case. I do take exception to the use of the word “gagged”. There is no attempt in this legislation to gag a CEO of a new AI office.”
“The CEO will remain fully accountable to the Oireachtas for administration, governance and operation of the office. However, responsibility for Government policy properly rests with Ministers. Sections 32(2) and 33(7) preserve that important distinction and support clear lines and accountability. For that reason, I do not consider the amendments necessary, and I do not propose to accept amendment Nos. 35 or 36.”
“Section 32, therefore, ensures that when appearing before the PAC, the CEO can fully account for the use of public funds and the performance of that office while avoiding being drawn into debates regarding the merits of Government policy. The CEO will remain fully accountable to PAC for matters relating to administration, governance, financial management, efficiencies and effectiveness. Similarly, section 33 reflects the long-established distinction between policy responsibility and administrative responsibility in appearances before Oireachtas committees generally. The provision ensures that the CEO can account for the discharge of the office's functions and the operation of the organisation while the Ministers remain accountable for Government policy and policy objectives.”
“I do not propose to accept these amendments. Sections 32 and 33 reflect the long-established distinction between the respective roles of the Ministers and senior public officials appearing before Oireachtas committees. The CEO is accountable for the administration, management and operation of the office. Ministers, in turn, are accountable to the Oireachtas for the Government, policy and the objectives of that policy. The purpose of sections 32(2) and 33(7) is to preserve the distinction and ensure clarity in lines of accountability. The role of the PAC is to examine expenditure, governance, financial management and value for money; it is not to examine the merits of Government policy decisions.”
“I thank the Senators for their amendments. As both amendments address the same underlying issue, namely, the role of the CEO when appearing before Oireachtas committees, I will address them together. Amendment No. 35 would delete section 32(2), which provides that when appearing before the public accounts committee, the "Chief Executive Officer shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government" or "the objectives of such a policy". Amendment No. 36 would delete section 33(7), which applies the same principle when the CEO is appearing before other Oireachtas committees. The effect of these amendments would be that the CEO would no longer be expressly prohibited from commenting on, questioning or expressing views on the merits of Government policy while giving evidence before Oireachtas committees.”
“I am not satisfied that the amendment would provide any additional transparency or accountability beyond that already provided for under the existing provision. Therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendment.”
“The Bill adopts the standard approach used for many statutory bodies, whereby reports and statements are submitted to the responsible Minister, who then arranges for them to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. This approach reflects the Minister's accountability to the Oireachtas for the legislative framework and for the overall governance arrangements applying to the office. The existing provision does not restrict publication or transparency. Rather, it provides a clear and established mechanism through which documents are formally presented to the Oireachtas. Retaining the Minister's role also ensures consistency with other reporting and accountability provisions throughout the Bill.”
“Where a conflict of interest arises, there are already established mechanisms to require disclosure, manage the conflict appropriately and ensure that decisions are taken in accordance with the public sector governance standards. I am satisfied that the existing provisions provide appropriate safeguards and that the additional removal grounds proposed in the amendment are not necessary. I do not propose to accept amendment No. 34 at this time. The amendment would remove the requirement for the office to furnish the relevant statement to the Minister and would instead place a direct obligation on the office to ensure that the statement is laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.”
“The CEO is subject to statutory obligations regarding the disclosure of interests and must comply with the governance and ethics requirements applicable to officeholders in public bodies. The Bill also contains provisions governing the circumstances in which the CEO may be removed from office, including where he or she has become incapable of effectively performing the functions of the office and has committed stated wrongdoing. The amendment would introduce a new and potentially subjective ground for removal based on the board's view that a conflict of interest is of sufficient significance to warrant the CEO ceasing to hold the office. I am concerned that such a provision could create uncertainty as to the applicable threshold and could overlap with the existing governance and ethics framework.”
“In fact, many of the matters identified in the proposed amendments were already recognised as important competencies in the recruitment process for the inaugural CEO. The candidate information booklets and recruitment materials for that competition specifically identified a range of related knowledge, experience and expertise requirements, including the ones suggested by the amendment. I believe the flexibility provided in the Bill allows the board and the Minister to assess candidates holistically and to appoint the individual best placed to provide strategic leadership to the office in light of evolving regulatory and operational needs. I thank Senator Stephenson for amendment No. 32, but I do not propose to accept it. The Bill already contains a comprehensive framework governing conflicts of interest on the part of the CEO.”
“28, while I agree with the sentiment and that the areas identified are important, the Bill already provides sufficient flexibility to ensure that the most suitable candidates can be appointed as CEO, having regard to the full range of skills, experience and leadership qualities required for the role, without the need to prescribe a statutory list of qualifying fields. Section 24 of the Bill provides that the CEO must be recruited in accordance with the Civil Service Regulation Acts and the Public Service Management Act 2004, ensuring that the appointments are made through a merit-based and transparent process. I am satisfied that the Bill already provides sufficient flexibility, and that relevant experience and expertise will be considered without the need for additional statutory prescription.”
“It would undermine the objective of ensuring that the office is operational as quickly as possible following the commencement of the legislation. The designation mechanism is limited to the first chief executive officer only, and is intended to ensure that the leadership is in place in a timely manner to support the establishment of the organisation. I am satisfied that the provision is necessary to facilitate the effective establishment of the office. Therefore, I do not accept the amendment. On amendment No.”
“I propose to take amendments Nos. 27, 28, 32 and 34 together. Amendment No. 27 would delete the provisions that allow the Minister, before the establishment date, to designate a person as the first CEO, who would automatically stand appointed by the establishment of the office. The provisions allowing the Minister to designate the first CEO before the establishment of the office are intended to facilitate the timely and orderly establishment of the office. As Senator Stephenson will be aware, the recruitment process for the CEO has already been undertaken and is under way through the Public Appointments Service. Removing these provisions would prevent the advancement of the CEO on the establishment day. It could risk delays in operationalising the office and carrying out its statutory functions.”
“The Government does not ordinarily exercise a direct role in the routine administration of the statutory adjudication systems of this nature. I am satisfied that the existing provisions strike the appropriate balance between independence, efficiency and accountability. Therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendments.”
“The provisions relating to adjudicators are consistent with this approach. The independence of adjudicators does not derive from whether they are appointed by the Minister or the Government rather it derives from statutory safeguards contained in the Bill, including provisions governing their appointment, qualifications, tenure and independent exercise of their functions. I do not consider that the transfer of these functions from Minister to Government would strengthen the independence of adjudicators or improve the operation of the adjudication system. Instead, it would introduce an additional layer of administration and would be inconsistent with the broader governance framework established by the Bill.”
“It would also reduce flexibility and responsiveness in circumstances where timely co-operation between Ministers may be required. I am satisfied that the existing provision provides an appropriate and practical framework for interdepartmental co-operation and co-ordination. Therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendments. I will speak to amendments Nos. 89 to 91, inclusive. Again, I thank Senator Stephenson for the amendments. These amendments would replace references to "Minister" with a reference to "Government" in a number of provisions relating to adjudicators. The Bill adopts a governance model whereby the responsible Minister exercises certain administrative and oversight functions while remaining accountable to the Oireachtas for the operational statutory framework.”
“The existing provision recognises the responsibility. The AI regulation may intersect with a number of ministerial portfolios and provide the practical mechanism for co-operation between relevant Ministers. I do not consider it appropriate or necessary to require Government approval or involvement, in each instance, where such co-operation may be required. The Bill consistently assigns responsibility for oversight of the office and operation of the statutory framework to the responsible Minister while recognising that engagement with other Ministers may be required from time to time. Replacing references to Ministers with the Government would introduce an additional of administrative process without providing any additional safeguard or governance benefit.”
“The Government does not generally exercise direct responsibility for the detailed administration of statutory schemes of this nature, which are typically entrusted to the relevant Minister. I am satisfied that the existing provisions strike the appropriate balance between accountability and efficient administration. Therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendment. I will speak to amendments Nos. 74 and 75. Again, I thank Senator Stephenson for the amendments. The amendments would replace reference to the Minister and any other Minister with relevance to the Government. The purpose of this section is to facilitate co-operation and co-ordination between Ministers whose areas of responsibility may be affected by the implementation of the AI Act and the operation of the national regulatory framework.”
“46, again, I thank Senator Stephenson for the amendment, which would transfer the relevant function under section 44 from the Minister to the Government. Again, the governance framework established by the Bill consistently assigns oversight and administrative functions relating to the office to the responsible Minister, who is accountable to the Oireachtas for the operation of the statutory framework. The existing provision reflects the governance model and provides a clear line of accountability and responsibility. I do not consider that transferring this function to the Government would improve transparency, accountability or the operation of the AI register. Rather, it would introduce in additional layer of administration that would be inconsistent with the broader approach adopted through the Bill.”
“The removal of the CEO is a significant step and the Bill already contains appropriate safeguards and procedural protections in this regard. Replacing the Minister with the Government would not provide any additional protection or strengthen the independence of the office. Rather, it would introduce an additional layer of decision-making that is not reflected elsewhere in the governance arrangements established in the Bill. The existing approach is consistent with the governance arrangements that apply to many statutory bodies and ensures a clear line of responsibility and accountability. I am satisfied that the existing provision is appropriate and I do not propose to accept the amendment. On amendment No.”
“Replacing the Minister with the Government in provisions would not provide any additional safeguard or strengthen the independence of the office. I am satisfied that the existing provisions strike the appropriate balance between operational independence, effective governance and democratic accountability and I do not propose to accept the amendments. Amendment No. 33 would transfer the power relating to the removal of the chief executive from the Minister to the Government. The Bill already provides a comprehensive framework governing appointment accountability and removal of the CEO. The governance model adopted in the Bill is that the Minister exercises certain oversight functions in relation to the office while remaining accountable to the Oireachtas for the operation of the statutory framework.”
“29 to 31, inclusive. They would replace the Minister with the Government in a number of provisions relating to the chief executive officer. The governance framework in the Bill is based on the principle that responsibility for oversight of the office rests with the Minister, who is accountable to the Oireachtas for the operation of the legislative framework. The Bill, therefore, assigns a number of governance functions relating to the CEO and the Minister. This is consistent with the approach adopted throughout the Bill and with the governance arrangements that apply to many statutory bodies. The CEO is accountable to the board for the management and administration of the office, while the Minister retains responsibility for certain oversight functions within the statutory framework.”
“The CEO is responsible for the management and administration of the office and is accountable to the board for the performance of its functions. The Bill, therefore, places operational responsibility with the CEO and governance responsibilities with the board while maintaining appropriate ministerial accountability. The Bill already contains appropriate safeguards in relation to the CEO including recruitment through the established public appointments process, accountability to the board, statutory grounds and procedures for removal from office and restrictions on holding other offices or employment without consent. These measures provide robust governance safeguards while supporting the effective establishment and operation of the office. Therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendment. I do not propose to accept amendments Nos.”