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 4 of 18.
“Accordingly, I do not propose to accept the amendments. I do not propose to accept amendment No. 26. The Bill provides that the chief executive officer is to be recruited in accordance with the Civil Service Regulations Act and the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004 and appointed by the board with the consent of the Minister. This reflects established governance arrangements in statutory bodies and provides an appropriate balance between the board's role in selecting the chief executive officer and the ministerial accountability for the operation of the statutory body. Transferring this function from the Minister to the Government would not materially strengthen the independence of the office.”
“Transferring these functions from the Minister to the Government would be inconsistent with the broader governance framework of the Bill, under which board members are appointed by the Minister and most Government functions relating to the board are exercised by the Minister. The amendments would introduce an additional layer of decision-making without providing any additional procedural safeguards. They would also increase administrative overheads in circumstances where timely action may be required to address issues relating to board membership. The existing provision strikes an appropriate balance between accountability, due process and effective governance. I am satisfied that no policy justification has been identified for requiring Government approval for individual board removal decisions.”
“For that reason, I do not propose to accept the amendment. I am taking amendments Nos. 18 to 25 together. I do not propose to accept these amendments. The Government's model adopted in the Bill is consistent with that used for many statutory bodies. As I said, the Minister is accountable to the Oireachtas for the performance of the office and exercises a range of governance functions in relation to the board and the office. Section 19 already contains significant safeguards including specified grounds for removal, notice requirements, an opportunity for representations, consideration of the board's view and adherence to the principles of natural justice.”
“The Bill already places significant safeguards around the removal of board members, including statutory grounds for removal, notice requirements, an opportunity to make representations and consideration of the views of the board. I am satisfied that these protections provide an appropriate balance between the board's independence and ministerial accountability. The transfer of the removal function from the Minister to the Government would not materially strengthen those safeguards. The Bill adopts the standard governance models used for many statutory bodies whereby the responsibility for the appointment or removal of board members rests with the Minister, who is accountable to the Oireachtas for those decisions. The existing provisions strike an appropriate balance between accountability, due process and effective governance.”
“The amendment would also remove the flexibility contained in the Bill regarding the term of office of a replacement member. The current provision allows an appropriate degree of flexibility in managing board succession and maintaining continuity in the governance of the office while ensuring that the term limit remains in place. While I appreciate Senator Stephenson's intention of promoting consistency across the appointments framework, I am satisfied that existing provision already provides a transparent, accountable, effective mechanism for filling vacancies on the board. Accordingly, I do not propose to accept the amendment. I do not accept that amendment No. 16 would transfer the power to remove a member of the board from the Minister to the Government.”
“I again thank the Senator for her contribution and her amendments. The Bill already contains a clear and workable mechanism for filling casual vacancies on the board. Where a vacancy arises, the Minister is required to appoint a replacement in accordance with the Public Appointments Service process provided for in the Bill. The principal effect of the amendment would be to transfer this function from the Minister to the Government. For the reasons I have outlined in relation to earlier amendments, I do not consider that such a transfer would provide any additional safeguards or governance benefit. The existing approach provides a clear line of responsibility and accountability through the responsible Minister while maintaining the integrity of the Public Appointments Service process.”
“The Bill consistently assigns responsibility for board-related matters to the Minister, providing a clear line of accountability and administration. Accordingly, as the matter is already addressed in the Bill and the proposed change would merely substitute the Government for the Minister without materially altering the operation of the provision, I do not propose to accept the amendment.”
“In relation to amendment No. 13, this amendment appears to replace part of section 14 with what is effectively the existing section 15, dealing with resignation of members of the board, but changes the recipient of the resignation from the Minister to the Government. I thank Senator Stephenson for her amendment. However, I do not consider it necessary. The matters addressed in the amendment are already provided for in the Bill. Section 15 sets out the procedure by which a member of the board, including the chairperson, may resign from office and specifies when such a resignation takes effect. The only substantive change proposed by the amendment is to require resignations to be submitted to the Government rather than to the Minister. I do not consider that this would provide any additional safeguard or governance benefit.”
“The feedback of Coimisiún na Meán, the Data Protection Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, the Ombudsman for Children's Office, and the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces has been taken into consideration in order that the Bill is rounded, and is not just a one-size-fits-all or is all about innovation and creativity. I will leave it at that.”
“I know the Senator’s sentiments are heartfelt, and there has been a very conscious effort to get the balance she has spoken about with AI of creativity and innovation, but also being human-centric and trustworthy. It is not for one moment the case that both are not taken into account. It is important that while we have our market surveillance and competent authorities, we also have our fundamental rights authorities which are there to advise, support and ensure that citizens' rights are considered.”
“The proposed paragraph (j) requires the office to provide advice and technical assistance to the Minister, competent authorities, businesses and organisations. It is a repetition of its existing function. Section 10 of the Bill confers on the Minister the power to assign additional functions to the office by ministerial order, following consultation with the office and relevant Ministers. This ensures that the office's functions can evolve responsibly to alignment with the wider national policy priorities. That is all I have to say for the moment.”
“The Bill, through section 46, provides for the establishment of one or more regulatory sandboxes, in accordance with Article 57 of the EU AI Act, with priority access for the SME sector and startups free of charge as mandated by Article 62 of the regulation. This sandbox function is the primary structural vehicle through which the office will support the SME compliance and reduce regulatory barriers in the adoption of AI. The proposed paragraph (k) duplicates what is already embedded in the sandbox and real-world testing frame provided for in Part 3, Chapter 3 of the Bill. Section 9(1)(f) already requires the office to provide advice to the Minister on matters relating to its function.”
“Section 9(1)(d) provides that it shall enhance public awareness in relation to the use of AI systems and the rights and obligations under the artificial intelligence regulation. These functions complement the range of supports that are provided for in the AI Act at an EU level, including guidelines, codes of practice and a service desk, which are intended to support and reinforce a consistent implementation of harmonised rules across the EU. I am satisfied that these provisions already capture what is proposed in paragraphs (h), (i) and (j), and re-stating them in granular subparagraphs would result in legislative duplication without adding any substantive legal effect.”
“With regard to the regulatory framework there is no extra bureaucratic burden. The sandbox is there to ensure the adoption of AI and to allow SMEs comply in an easy way. That will be one of the advantages of having the AI office as the one-stop shop as the regulatory adviser. Businesses in the SME sector will be dealing the regulatory bodies they are used to dealing with in respect of the market surveillance and the competent authorities. That is very much taken into account in the establishment of the AI office. On the amendment's reasoning, section 9(1)(c) of the Bill provides that the office shall promote and foster AI innovation and literacy, which the Senator spoke to.”
“The proposed amendment would introduce a broad, stand-alone function to prepare and publish reports on research undertaken, sponsored, commissioned or assisted by the office. It is not clear what additional legal effect this would have, particularly as the office would already be capable of publishing research or reports where these support the performance of its statutory functions, including its function to promote AI innovation, literacy and enhanced public awareness. I consider the Bill already provides the appropriate framework and therefore the amendment is not necessary. On amendment No.6, I acknowledge that Senator McCarthy feels very passionately about the SME sector and how it is implicated in all of this. In my view and in my humble opinion, this is why that effort has been made to have this one-stop shop.”
“The Government is conscious that the functions of the office may evolve over time but it is important to avoid unnecessary duplication in relation to its functions. The amendment is, therefore, unnecessary and I cannot accept it. On amendment No. 5, the Bill already contains a number of provisions designed to ensure transparency and accountability in the performance of the office's functions, including requirements to prepare a statutory statement and annual report, both of which must be published. In addition, section 9(4) provides that the office shall have all such powers as are necessary for the performance of its functions. Where research, analysis or the publication of reports is required to support the exercise of those functions the office would already be able to undertake such activities.”
“To support this, the European Commission is currently undertaking a piece of work to develop a robust and practical framework for measuring AI energy and consumption efficiency. Furthermore, the Bill requires that the office has regard to the policies and objectives of the Government and any Minister of the Government insofar as the policies and objectives may affect or relate to the functions of the office. This provision is broad and captures wider Government policies, including environmental policies. The Act is clear and strong on its emphasis on application in accordance with the values of the Union as enshrined in the Charter, facilitating the protection of natural persons undertaking democracy, the rule of law and environmental protection in the uptake of trustworthy AI.”
“The Act already provides for sustainable AI by mandating energy consumption documentation for general purpose AI, promoting energy efficiency standards and utilising AI regulatory sandboxes to develop eco-friendly algorithmics safely. Furthermore, these provisions integrate with the broader EU AI Act strategy to ensure long-term environmental responsibility. The Act also encourages the development of common benchmarks and methodologies to measure and minimise the energy and other resources of AI models throughout the entire life cycle. The Act requires providers of general purpose AI models to document the known and estimated energy consumption of their models as part of their technical documentation obligations under Annex XI of the AI Act.”
“4, in much of Senator Higgins's contribution she said that this AI office was not to serve the Government. She is right. It is to serve citizens. I again thank Senators for their amendments here today and reiterate the purpose of section 9(1)(c) in the Bill is to provide a broad statement of the office's functions. I do not want to be repeating myself, but Article 1 in EU AI Act states that its purpose is "to improve the functioning of the internal market and promote the uptake of human-centric and trustworthy artificial intelligence (AI), while ensuring a high level of protection of health, safety,[and] fundamental rights". Sustainability in the development of AI is a key focus of the AI Act.”
“The regulation, therefore, already embodies the principles that the amendment seeks to advance. In addition, neither "ethical" nor "responsible" is defined in the AI Act or in this Bill. Introducing those terms in a single provision without definition and without corresponding usage elsewhere in the legislative framework could create uncertainty as to whether a different or additional standard is intended to apply to the function of the office. I consider that the existing reference to promoting and fostering AI innovation and literacy is sufficiently broad, and that the wider framework of the AI Act already ensures the innovation is pursued in a manner that is human-centric, trustworthy and protective of fundamental rights. Accordingly, I do not consider the amendment necessary and will not be accepting it. On amendment No.”
“I thank colleagues for their amendments. I will speak to amendment No. 3 first and thank Senator Stephenson for it. The purpose of section 9(1)(c) in the Bill is to provide a broad statement of the function of the office to promote and foster AI innovation and literacy. The Bill is intended to give effect to the EU AI Act, and in doing so it is important that the language used in the Bill remains consistent with the terminology and objectives of the underlying regulation. Article 1 of the EU AI Act states that its purpose is "to improve the functioning of the internal market and promote the uptake of human-centric and trustworthy artificial intelligence (AI), while ensuring a high level of protection of health, safety,[and] fundamental rights" while supporting innovation.”
“Just to respond to that point, I am sympathetic to the intentions behind the amendments. I know that the Senators are all coming from a very good place with their amendments. However, I cannot accept them. As to the pace of Bills coming to the end of term, I will relay Senator Higgins's sentiments to the Chief Whip.”
“For the present, I am satisfied the Bill strikes the right balance between transparency, accountability, expertise and flexibility. I am satisfied that the Bill already provides for a merit-based appointments process, caters for a wide range of relevant expertise and diversity within the composition of the board, and provides the flexibility appropriate for a newly established organisation operating in a rapidly evolving regulatory environment. For those reasons, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 8 to 12, inclusive.”
“However, many of the detailed procedural requirements proposed are already provided for under existing Government policies and administrative arrangements. The Bill strikes the correct balance between the role of the Public Appointments Service in identifying suitable qualified candidates and the Government's role in making appointments to State bodies. For that reason, I do not consider it necessary to replace section 13 with a more prescriptive statutory framework. I have spoken to amendment No. 11, which proposes introducing a definition of "Service". A general principle of legislative drafting is that defined terms should be used only where they assist in the interpretation or operation of the legislation. In this case, introducing the definition of "Service" would not materially improve the readability or operation of the Bill.”
“The functions of the office are wide ranging and will continue to evolve. As the AI governance framework develops, the expertise required by the board may, likewise, change over time. The Bill already contains a mechanism for ensuring that the board members possess appropriate expertise in matters connected to the office's functions. I feel like I am repeating myself but I do have to try to respond to each of the amendments. I am satisfied this is already catered for in the wide range of relevant expertise and diversity within the composition of the board. I recognise the objective behind amendments Nos. 10 and 11, namely, to establish a highly transparent and independent appointments framework.”
“In addition, access to independent technical expertise will be available through the structures established at EU level, including the EU scientific panel. It is important that the appointments process can evolve in response to the practical needs of the organisation as it develops. I do not consider it appropriate at this stage to prescribe in primary legislation detailed requirements in relation to appointment procedures, selection panels or particular categories of expertise. In response to amendments Nos. 9 and 12, I agree with the sentiments underlying these amendments. It is important that the board collectively possesses a broad range of expertise and perspectives. However, I do not agree that a prescriptive, statutory requirement for particular categories of board members is necessary.”
“Many of the procedural requirements contained in these amendments are already reflected in the Government's guidelines on the appointments to State boards. Those guidelines require open advertising of vacancies, publication of appointment criteria, an independent assessment process conducted by the Public Appointments Service, and consideration of diversity and skills requirements. I do not, therefore, consider it necessary to replicate these operational arrangements in the primary legislation. I consider the existing provisions provide the appropriate degree of flexibility for a newly established organisation. The office is being created in the context of an entirely new regulatory framework under the EU AI Act and in a rapidly evolving technological environment.”
“The Bill already provides for a Public Appointments Service process and requires both the initial and future appointments to be made having regard to the expertise and capacity of prospective members in matters connected to the functions of the office. Section 13(3) of the Bill specifically provides: The Minister shall agree with the Public Appointments Service the selection criteria and procedures that are to apply ... having regard to the desirability that the members of the Board will have experience of, and shown capacity in, matters connected with the functions of the Office. Accordingly, the Bill already provides a mechanism for ensuring that board members possess relevant expertise and experience.”
“10 and 11 would replace section 13 with a significantly more prescriptive appointments framework. They would require a detailed Public Appointments Service competition process to be set out in primary legislation, prescribe expertise requirements for selection panels and place additional constraints on the appointments process. Amendments Nos. 9 and 12 would require specific categories of expertise to be represented on the board, including expertise related to AI, business and enterprise, human rights, equality, consumer protection, trade union and worker's rights issues and civil society engagement. While I understand the intention behind these proposals, I do not consider it necessary or appropriate to prescribe these matters in such detail in primary legislation.”
“While they differ in their detail, there is a common objective in them all, that is, to ensure a transparent and merit-based appointments process, a broad range of expertise on the board and governance arrangements that support the effective discharge of the office's functions. I agree entirely with these objectives. Indeed, they are objectives that are already reflected in the Bill. Taken together, these amendments would substantially alter the governance and appointments framework of the board. Amendment No. 8, to which Senator Higgins spoke, would replace section 12 with a detailed statutory framework governing the size and composition of the board, gender balance requirements, terms of office, reappointment arrangements and other operational matters. Amendments Nos.”
“The provisions concerning the appointment of members to the board expressly refer to the Public Appointments Service and there is no difficulty in understanding those references as drafted. As a general principal of legislative drafting, defined terms should be used only when they are necessary to assist the interpretation or operation of legislation. In this instance, to introduce a definition of "service" would not materially improve the readability or operation of the Bill. For those reasons, I do not consider the amendment necessary and therefore cannot accept it. On amendments Nos. 8 to 12, inclusive I thank Senators Murphy, Stephenson, Higgins and McCarthy.”
“It is not me, it is the wonderful officials the Members see here and the great team that is working incredibly fast to get the AI office up and running and to get the legislation through. In relation to the director of the AI office, that job has been advertised publicly through PAS and is available for everyone to see. I will get a little bit more into that as I get into the individual amendments. I thank Senator Stephenson for her amendment. However, I do not consider it necessary to introduce a definition of "service" for the purpose of this Bill. The references to the Public Appointments Service in the Bill are limited in number and are clear and unambiguous in their context.”
“Gabhaim buíochas to all of the Senators who raised some of the issues that we spoke about the last day and continue to debate. I understand people's concerns about us doing this at pace but I am at pains to express the genuine concern I have about leaving it any longer. As Senator Murphy said, we have a deadline of 2 August. There is no getting away from that. Equally, this legislation will deal with tech that is moving very quickly and we have to react and respond. This is not legislation that is going to sit on a shelf for 20 years, as lots of legislation does because it can and stands the test of time. This is legislation that has to respond to technology and therefore it will be something that we will have to come back to as the technology develops. We will have to react and respond quickly and be as agile as we possibly can.”
“On what the Senator said around biometric analysis and biometric identification, the two terms that she questions, we will speak with the Minister for justice. I am happy to discuss it with him. I will ask my officials to engage further on the issues that the Senator has raised today.”
“This includes risk management, data governance, technical documentation, record-keeping transparency, provision of information to deployers, human oversight, accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity. Following the assessment, providers should draw up EU declarations of conformity and mark compliance with conformity. The assessment must be repeated where the system or its intended purpose is substantially modified. Risk management and data governance providers must implement risk management systems and ensure that training, validation and testing data are appropriate, relevant and sufficiently represented. Regarding human oversight, accuracy and cybersecurity, high-risk AI systems must be designed to allow effective human oversight and meet minimum standards of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity.”
“Section 2(3) expressly provides: "A word or expression used in this [Bill] that is also used in the Artificial Intelligence Regulation has, unless the context otherwise requires, the same meaning in this [Bill] it has in that Regulation." The proposed definition is already provided for in Article 3(35) of the AI Act. We are talking about high risk. It is important to note that, before placing high-risk AI systems on the EU market or putting them into services, providers must ensure that the system complies with the requirements set out in the AI Act. One of those key obligations is that providers must carry out conformity assessment to demonstrate compliance with the AI Act.”
“I thank my colleagues very much for their deep interest in this. To some of the Senators, we have had an opportunity and taken notes from the previous day. Some of the Senators, if not all, will have detailed responses to some of their queries. I take Senator Higgins's point. I thank her and Senator Ruane for this amendment on biometric analysis and biometric identification. At this point, though, they are matters for the Minister for justice. As the Senator said, that terminology has been created in legislation that he has introduced. Under the Bill that we have deliberately drafted, the terms and expressions used in the EU AI Act have the same meaning in domestic legislation. This came up in places in the previous debate.”
“The Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Bill is a key enabler of this ambition. This comprehensive and sophisticated Bill, once enacted, will demonstrate our commitment to fostering and promoting responsible Al innovation and adoption, both in Ireland and in Europe. I thank the Senators most sincerely for their forbearance in my responses and for their constructive engagement with the Bill. I look forward to working with the Senators. This is not a done deal. This is not finished or complete. This is a Bill that we will have to come back to and I am more than open and happy to do that.”
“Our national digital and Al strategy sets out Ireland's ambition to strengthen our position as an EU centre of excellence and digital regulatory hub, which supports competitiveness and innovation while protecting the health, safety and fundamental rights of our citizens. That is the essence of it. We cannot bury our head in the sand and ignore what we have been told by the Draghi report. The Draghi report clearly states that across Europe we have stifled businesses, as those Senators who are on the enterprise committee will be aware, with regulation and red tape. We are trying to ensure that we give space for innovation and creativity. Here is our opportunity to do it and we must grasp it. This ambition is to be realised through a modern, cohesive and well-resourced regulatory framework for the digital economy.”
“That gives certainty to people. I note that the Bill is a technical instrument that will ensure that the rights and protections provided for in the EU's Al Act, will be rigorously asserted in Ireland, for the benefit and protection of Irish citizens. This Bill neither adds to nor alters the obligations on businesses under the Al Act. It is mandatory under the Al Act for EU member states to give effect to these national provisions by 2 August 2026. We have obligations and commitments that we must live up to. In addition to enabling Ireland to meet its EU obligations, this Bill delivers on key commitments in the programme for Government to position Ireland as a leader in the digital economy and artificial intelligence.”
“The Bill carefully balances ministerial accountability to the Oireachtas for public policy with regulatory independence in operational matters of the Al office. The Government is committed to ensuring that our competent authorities are adequately resourced, which has been raised here, to fulfil their obligations. The Government provided funding in 2026 to support the establishment of the national Al office. In response to Senator Keogan's point that the Government is spending millions of euro, the facts are there was €1.5 million, which is arguably not a huge amount, for the establishment of the AI office, not millions of euro. We need to be factual about these matters. Relevant competent authorities and market surveillance authorities will continue to be resourced through their existing governance and budgetary arrangements.”
“In terms of the enterprise piece, we have been clear and mindful to respond to what has come out of the Draghi report that we do not burden people, businesses and public bodies with more regulation, and that they have that one point of contact but continue to work with their existing regulators whom they have relationships built up with. The designation of the Al office, as I said, the SPOC, in accordance with Article 72(2) of the Al Act for liaison with the European Commission and other member states on Al-related matters. That harmonisation is incredibly important. The designation of the AI Office as an MSA is formally given effect by a designation regulation, which will be finalised before the end of July. This will be an amendment to the first designation regulation in July 2026, which designated the first eight MSAs for the Al Act.”
“The Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Bill establishes the national Al office of Ireland as an independent statutory body with a central co-ordinating role in Ireland's Al regulatory framework. The Al office is designed to support consistency in how the various market surveillance authorities, MSAs, carry out their responsibilities across different sectors, ensuring that enforcement is coherent and co-ordinated rather than fragmented. The Bill designates the Al office of Ireland as a single point of contact, SPOC. We do not want people to have to go all over the place to get the information.”
“It is about the protection of young people and I hope I have emphasised that enough. I re-emphasise that the purpose of the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Bill 2026 is to provide for the implementation in Ireland of the Al Act, an EU regulation, which is something we all want. This Bill is a landmark moment for Ireland's digital regulatory framework. Al is a transformative technology which offers extraordinary potential for our economy and citizens and realising that potential requires appropriate oversight and accountability. That speaks to the balance that we need to strike. This Bill delivers exactly that. It fulfils Ireland's EU obligations, giving effect to Europe's pioneering Al Act in domestic law by ensuring we have the national infrastructure in place to supervise and enforce it effectively.”
“Senators should keep that in the back of their minds as well. I hope I have answered some of the issues Senator Joe Conway raised. I will continue to do that and work with the Senator closely too. Senator Harmon asked that regulation be human centred. I hope I have answered that. On the constitutional piece, I have been back to Deputy Lawlor in a comprehensive way. If there is more we need to do on that, I am certainly open to doing that. That is as specific as I can be. I thank the Senators most sincerely because I know the thoughts and contributions they have made here tonight are heartfelt. I hope the Senators know mine are heartfelt too. I am extremely conscious that this is seen not only through an enterprise prism. It is about the protection of citizens.”
“I know there is sincerity in the Senator talking about amendments and strengthening that. I will take that at a later point. Senator Murphy also raised the point about thinking about this on a all-island basis. I am certainly up for that because we know with technology there are no borders. That is why we are responding and working with our European colleagues with the EU AI Act and moving that on quickly. There are 27 member states, we are all affected the same and as far as I am concerned, borders do not come into it. I am trying to be as specific as I can and I ask the Senators to bear with me. I hope I have answered some of the queries Senator Stephenson raised around fundamental rights and AI jobs. On the AI jobs piece, the number of AI jobs in this country has doubled since 2023. That is a fact. There is huge demand for it.”
“We have a big opportunity - we are taking the opportunity that we have got with the European Presidency - to ensure that the protection of children online is a priority for us, not only in my Department but in the Department of culture as well. Youth voices was raised in the Dáil last night by Deputy Malcolm Byrne. I will certainly take that on board and see how we can do that in a proactive way. Senator Murphy raised the amplification of discrimination. I note it would be something Senator Ruane would feel strongly about as well. The Senator spoke about the manipulation of behaviour and about the exploitation of vulnerabilities of people and children. That speaks to the point as to why we have to move quickly. We cannot sit around on this for the next year thinking about it.”
“It has been worked on by wonderful colleagues and officials, who get lots of bashing around the place, the same as Government TDs and Ministers have got in the past. They have done incredible work here. They have been working on this for the past 18 months and longer, before I was in the role. They know exactly what they are doing here. It is not rushed on their part at all. If Senators have read this legislation, as Senator Conway has, they can see that. Senator Nelson Murray talked about children and youth voices and being silent on children. I would cite the Ombudsman for Children. I met the Ombudsman for Children and I will continue to do that. On the Children's Rights Alliance, I have met it and will continue to do that. If there is any way we can strengthen this Bill to protect children, I will take that.”
“There is the artificial intelligence committee, which I have had the opportunity to go in and speak in front of. I thank the Senators on the committee for their work. I know Senator Ruane, having worked with her previously, feels passionately about this stuff, and rightly so. However, the recommendations that I can take, and that is beyond my control, are from the Oireachtas committee with responsibility for enterprise. I am awaiting its report. When I get that report, I assure the Senators that I will sit down with my officials and we will go through those recommendations line by line to see to how we can make this legislation better. Senator Joe Conway said the legislation is quite impressive. It is.”
“We do not know and cannot see into the future, and Senator Conway is absolutely right on that. I am also deeply uneasy about it and that is why I am moving quickly. It is incredibly important that we have the AI office established and the expertise within that to ensure our citizens are protected. I am not shying away from displacement but we need to have the expertise in place that can show us and guide us with facts around where the jobs are being most affected and how we can reskill, upskill and try to mitigate against that as much as possible. I accept that Senators feel the pace is moving quickly but I am telling them why it has to move quickly and I am giving assurances that there will be a second phase to this where we will have more time. A number of Senators raised the fact that two committees have oversight of this.”