Patricia Stephenson
Labour Panel · Social Democrats · Ireland
“A number of us on this side of the House have concerns around what this is opening us up to. We are concerned that we do not have the correct protections and safeguards in place to ensure that the supply will be State-owned and State-led because it is not included in the definitions in the legislation.”
“The world is literally on fire in some places. We have a forest fire in Ireland for the first time in years perhaps. I know we sometimes have them in the Mourne Mountains in the North. This is cause for concern, not just for future generations but for us today.”
“I thank the Minister for coming in. This is a really positive step. I am delighted she is pushing it forward. By and large, the oral contraceptive is incredibly safe. A lot of well-studied medicines are available. Over-the-counter oral contraception has been recommended by the WHO since 2019.”
“I move amendment No. 1: In page 7, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following: “ “emergency” means a situation where the State is experiencing a significant and protracted physical disruption of gas supply, or other catastrophic deterioration of the supply situation, and where— (a) all relevant market-based measures have been fully…”
“The Department has stated this facility "will provide the resilience required to support our energy transition" and that "the reserve will only be used in genuine emergencies", yet there is no definition in this Bill of what the Government means by an emergency and when that would apply.”
“We also have to be mindful of the burden it will place on pharmacists without the correct resourcing for pharmacies to deliver the scheme to safeguard against them withdrawing from this or any future scheme simply because they feel they do not have the resources to deliver it in a timely manner.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,369 lines we hold for Patricia Stephenson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 28.
“I also acknowledge the Palestinian ambassador for joining us, Senator Black and her team and Conor O'Neill for the incredible for the incredible work they have done for the last eight years, and all the activists because they are the people who have actually got us to this stage. Without the continued political pressure from everyday people in Ireland, I do not believe we would be here. The Minister said last week and again today that there is a view that we are not going far enough. As I said last week, it is not that there is a view that we are not going far enough, it is that we are just not compliant with international law. We are not meeting our obligations under international law. I cannot believe we are passing legislation which is knowingly non-compliant with international law.”
“These are existing examples that this Bill would be greatly strengthened by, if we chose any of them and, therefore, had that safeguard to ensure that Palestinian goods can move freely.”
“Both Senator Black and I talked about The Netherlands and Belgium. I would add that Spain's language is that Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory is what it is banning trade with, and obviously the ban of advertising and services. In Norway, they use the language that it is forbidden to import goods originating in the Israeli settlements within Palestine. In The Netherland's legislation, they say that it is unlawful settlement in the Israeli occupied territories listed in the EU postcode list. Therefore, the other countries in Europe which are introducing similar legislation have this safeguard in place and they specifically recognise that there are Israeli settlements on stolen Palestinian land and putting the safeguards in place for that.”
“The assurance the Minister tried to give on Report Stage, that the DPP will know whether a good originates from a Palestinian trader, is not very clear. It is certainly not legally clear in the Bill as written.”
“Crucially, we are referring to the 1967 territory, since significant swathes of land have been stolen up to this point. Despite what the Minister outlined on Report Stage in the Dáil, there are still concerns that the Bill states goods cannot be imported if they come from specific postcodes - "the importation of goods originating in a postal code to which this Act applies is prohibited." I know it is not the intention of the Minister or the Department but we believe there is a risk. The amendments in this grouping are designed to provide a safeguard and a definition for the postcodes, and to ensure there is no risk of Palestinian goods being impacted by this legislation. As Senator Black said, similar language is being used in Belgium and the Netherlands.”
“I will reiterate a little bit of what Senator Black said. The intended purpose of the Bill is to ensure companies involved in the occupied Palestinian territories are not profiting from their involvement on illegally stolen land, but there is a risk. I read the transcript of the debate on Report and Final Stages in the Dáil so I understand the Minister's perspective on this. There are Palestinians living within Israeli communities, particularly in East Jerusalem, given the way the occupation has taken place there with Israelis moving into Palestinian land. It is really about avoiding unintended consequences. I know the Minister agrees we would not want any Palestinians negatively impacted by this or facing any economic impact should they try to trade.”
“I am wondering about the guardrails that are in place if a market surveillance authority can just refuse to accept a finding. Are there criteria or grounds laid out under which it can refuse to accept that finding? If we are just saying it can refuse to accept a finding and, therefore, adopt that finding and act upon that finding within its own practices, it does not really strike me that we are holding these market surveillance authorities to account in any way. If we are just saying they can refuse to accept a finding by an adjudicator that they just do not like and does not work with what they are doing, I find that incredibly problematic. At the very least, if we had some sense of safeguards or guardrails in place like a series of grounds upon which it can do that, that would be something.”
“What is the purpose of it if the authority is going to follow only those findings it accepts? Public confidence and trust in regulation and oversight of AI systems are fundamental to this whole process. If suspected breaches have taken place and an adjudicator finds that there has been some sort of breach but an AI market surveillance authority can decline to adopt that finding, it is an issue in terms of the process but also in terms of how people perceive the AI regulation system and process and can have faith that they are working.”
“When an infringement is deemed by an independent adjudicator to have been committed, the relevant market surveillance authority is empowered under the Bill either to adopt the finding or adjudication, or indeed to decline it. Concern has been expressed by a large swathe of civil society representatives regarding the provision that empowers market surveillance authorities to decline to adopt a finding or adjudication under the section. We are proposing the deletion of the section as a consequence. Allowing a market surveillance authority to decline to adopt an adjudicator's findings risks undermining the whole purpose of the adjudication process. If the authority can just say it is going to opt out, not going to acknowledge the finding or not going to proceed with or act on it, then what is the purpose of the adjudication process?”
“I move amendment No. 78: In page 68, lines 27 to 29, to delete all words from and including "or" in line 27 down to and including line 29. Part 6 of the Bill provides for a general administrative sanctions regime to be utilised by the applicable market surveillance authorities, allowing administrative fines to be imposed on those in breach of their obligations under the AI Act. Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 relate to the procedure following an adjudication of an infringement or breach of the AI regulation. In circumstances where an independent adjudicator finds a breach of the AI Act, this will include a finding as to the amount of the administrative fine that should be imposed and the date by which it must be paid.”
“I move amendment No. 72: In page 41, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: “(6) A person affected by an automated decision-making system deployed by a public body or an essential public service provider shall have a right to human intervention, a meaningful explanation of the decision, and a formal review conducted by a natural person.”.”
“I move amendment No. 71: In page 40, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following: “(3) Should the Office be the subject of a complaint under this section, any assessment under subsection (2) shall be conducted by an independent person appointed by the Board.”.”
“I understand that but the Bill states it is the office that will be handling that complaint. I believe the Bill states that this is the case. Certainly, my reading and interpretation of the Bill is that the AI office will be responsible for a complaint concerning its own actions. The Bill says the office will handle these complaints and that is where our concern lies. If that is the case, it is bad governance. If the Minister of State is saying that this is actively not the case, I will take that, go back and read the Bill. If it is the case, we might bring amendments later down the line in a new form of legislation.”
“For clarity, the AI office normally handles complaints about other organisations such as social media companies but were I to make a complaint about a decision made by the office, who would handle that complaint? What is the process behind that? The Minister of State may have said it and I might have missed it but in simple terms, who would be responsible under this legislation for that complaint?”
“The Minister of State could not investigate a complaint against her and I could not investigate a complaint against me so the office should not be able to investigate a complaint against it. It is a sound amendment and I really hope the Minister of State takes it on board.”
“Requiring an independent person appointed by the board to conduct the assessment will strengthen confidence in the complaints process, ensure impartial decision-making and help maintain trust in the State's AI regulatory framework. I know that this came through in the Dáil as well and the Minister of State did not accept there. This is a good and sound amendment that will bring about independence, accountability and fairness within the system. We need the public to trust the AI office. The Minister of State would agree with that. There are serious concerns around independence, governance and the role the Minister plays in direction and so on. We spoke about it previously. We are talking about the need for an independent complaints process.”
“While the AI office would ordinarily be responsible for assessing the complaints, if the complaint concerns the office's own actions or decisions, it would be put in a position of reviewing and assessing a complaint about the office itself. The amendment, therefore, proposes that in such circumstances, the assessment is carried out by an independent individual appointed by the board of the AI office as opposed to the office itself so that there is an appropriate gap between who is carrying out the assessment of a complaint and the subject of the complaint. Where the office is itself the subject of a complaint, we are of the view that it is incredibly inappropriate for the office to assess that complaint internally as this risks creating a conflict of interest.”
“I move amendment No. 70: In page 40, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following: “(3) Should the Office be the subject of the complaint in question, the Office shall ensure its assessment under subsection (2) is conducted by an independent person appointed by the Office.”. As a regulator, complaints against the office should be dealt with independently. This section deals with complaints with market surveillance authorities. If the complaint is about the office, it should not investigate itself. That feels like a no-brainer. It aims to address any potential conflict of interest where the office is effectively subject to a complaint concerning an infringement of the AI regulation.”
“I move amendment No. 69: In page 38, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following: “(2) Should a request be authorised under subsection (1) , a conformity assessment, in accordance with Article 43, shall be undertaken without undue delay.”.”
“This would ensure that high-risk systems that are operating subject to a derogation can ultimately be terminated or suspended if it is demonstrated that they do not meet the specified criteria, preventing temporary derogations from posing undue harm to members of the public because that is a risk. It is a risk that we might provide a derogation for a particularly high-risk system. If it has not gone through the conformity assessments, we do not know where the risk might be for society.”
“I recognise that there might be instances where high-risk systems have to be used without going through the proper conformity assessment, but with regard to that piece around undue delay, we do not want any legislative misunderstanding about the period in which that derogation can be allowed. Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 provide for conformity assessments to be undertaken without that delay after a derogation is granted. While recognising that there will be circumstances where a derogation may be needed, the assessment has to come as soon as is practically possible.”
“Derogations from the usual approval process for high-risk AI systems can be sought by providers in certain circumstances wherein a market surveillance authority can temporarily allow these high-risk systems to be used for a period while they are being assessed. According to the AI Act, derogations can be sought in certain justified circumstances, including for public safety and environmental protection reasons, but also in urgent situations where law enforcement or civil protection authorities might seek to use these systems without full approval. Given the potential risks posed to the fundamental rights and protections of citizens by high-risk AI systems, it is imperative that derogations are only granted in the most limited of circumstances and, where they are sought, that a full conformity assessment is undertaken without undue delay.”
“Derogation should only be allowed for the shortest possible time period. The specific parameters of the AI Act should be transposed, which will not necessarily have happened. This is requesting that the wording of "undue delay" be added when it comes to conformity assessment procedures. Amendment No. 69 is similar. Before high-risk AI systems can be put onto the market, they will be subject to strict conformity assessments. That is a good thing. They determine whether the system meets certain requirements of the AI Act, including in relation to risk management, data governance, technical documentation, record-keeping transparency and the provision of information, human oversight - which is crucial - and accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity, which is also crucial.”
“I move amendment No. 68: In page 38, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following: “(2) Should a request be authorised under subsection (1) , the completion of necessary conformity assessment procedures shall be undertaken without undue delay.”. This section provides for derogations for conformity assessment procedures to take place. The article in the EU AI Act states that this is to provide time for the assessment to happen, so it should then happen as soon as possible. We need to include the wording "undue delay" because we do not want companies to wait for longer than is necessary. They could be operating systems that have not gone through conformity procedures and that could potentially be putting out damaging tech into our societies and communities without any oversight.”
“If public bodies are using automated systems to make decisions on individuals, people should be entitled to human intervention in order to hear about the decision from a human, that is, a natural person. Amendment No. 72 inserts a subsection in section 61 of the Bill, which relates to complaints concerning infringement of AI regulation. It also provides for the enforcement of a person’s right under Article 86.”
“We know AI systems have in-built bias, depending on who originally wrote the code. Similarly, amendment No. 72 seeks to provide for the right of a person affected by an automated decision-making system developed by a public body to human intervention. It would allow a person to receive a meaningful explanation and a formal review of the decision conducted by a natural person, that is, a human. When we are going to start seeing automated decision-making systems rolled out en masse – it will happen – it is crucial that there is the option for people to have human intervention. If anyone has ever operated within a system where they are speaking to a chatbot, whether it is for customer service or finding out why a decision has been made, they will personally understand how difficult it can be to speak to a human.”
“We are not taking the issue of job losses seriously. To return to the amendment, in the Minister of State’s correspondence, she said that: The purpose of this Bill, therefore, is not to recreate those substantive rights but to establish the national supervisory and enforcement framework through which compliance with those obligations can be monitored and enforced. This is exactly what amendment No. 72 is seeking to achieve. Currently, there are no statutory provisions in the Bill that provide for the enforcement of a person’s right under Article 86. We have to allow people the right to get a meaningful explanation as to why an AI system has made a certain decision about them on an application or in any walk of life. Otherwise, there is absolutely no transparency.”
“Incidentally, that is a great example of AI putting people out of work. If we automate decisions on social welfare payments - which is probably coming down the line for most Departments - we are putting those potential civil servants out of work. Often, when it comes to job losses as a result of AI, I hear the Government talk about job losses in the technology sector, but there will be job losses in every sector of society. For example, such losses will be seen among engineers because they will be able to do their drawings online. They will also relate to civil servants reviewing applications for social welfare payments. While that may not necessarily happen in Ireland, we have seen it happen elsewhere. It might be coming for us as well, depending on how Departments choose to hire and use automated systems.”
“67 is seeking to create a mechanism by which a person can secure their right to a meaningful explanation where they have been significantly affected by a decision taken on the basis of output from a high-risk AI system. We discussed this on Second Stage. I received the Minister of State’s letter in this regard. I would like to note that she wrote to me outlining some of the issues I raised on Second Stage, particularly with regard to a person’s right to an explanation as to why an AI system has made a decision about them. This is important because, as I mentioned in the previous debate, in the Netherlands, social payment decisions made by an AI system discriminated against certain groups in society. They did not receive their social welfare payment as a consequence of that decision taken by a non-human.”
“I move amendment No. 67: In page 38, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “(3) A relevant market surveillance authority shall ensure that any affected person subject to a decision which is taken by the deployer on the basis of the output from a high-risk AI system, and which produces legal effects or similarly significantly affects that person in a way that they consider to have an adverse impact on their health, safety or fundamental rights shall be able to obtain from the deployer clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and the main elements of the decision taken, as referred to in Article 86.”. Amendment No.”
“When the Minster for justice, Deputy O’Callaghan, was in the Chamber passing legislation with definitions that diverge from the AI Act, he said: When it comes to domestic Irish legislation we are perfectly entitled to use our own definitions and our own interpretations or interpretation and that is what has been done in this legislation. The idea that we can choose to define words in any given way in our legislation is quite incoherent and inconsistent with the implementation of the AI regulation. There needs to be a concerted effort to promote that cohesion across different Departments. I hope the Minister of State will consider this amendment. It is simply about making the role she holds easier when coherence is put on a statutory footing.”
“However, the term “biometric analysis” does not feature in the AI Act. We have concerns that it may avoid the safeguards provided for in the regulation by not having that language within it. Using novel definitions of AI technology that are considered high risk in the AI Act is not consistent or coherent with the implementation of the AI regulation. The implementation of the AI regulation will involve co-ordination across government. AI will affect many, if not all, parts of our lives and it will touch on the responsibilities of a wide range of Departments. There should be a reflection on how effective that co-ordination is to ensure that proper enforcement of safeguards contained in the AI Act. The idea that we have coherent policy across different Departments is fundamental.”
“I move amendment No. 65 a : In page 37, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “CHAPTER 6 Policy coherence Report on policy coherence 53. The Minister shall publish, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, a report on policy coherence by Government departments, on the implementation of the Artificial Intelligence Regulation.”. This is around policy coherence and reporting of same. Amendment No.65 a calls for a report that looks at the coherence in the implementation of the AI regulation across various Departments. As was discussed in relation to amendment No.1, the Minister for justice recently passed legislation permitting the use of biometric analysis by An Garda Síochána. The AI Act contains many safeguards regarding the use of biometric technology by law enforcement.”
“I move amendment No. 61: In page 35, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following: "(c) inform the provider or prospective provider that the proposal shall come into provisional effect immediately unless otherwise specified in the notice provided to the provider or prospective provider, and".”
“I move amendment No. 60: In page 34, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: "(6) The Minister, in consultation with the Office, shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act and annually thereafter, undertake and publish an ethical review of the operation of this section and, following such a review, may make regulations in relation to the ethical operation of this section.".”
“I move amendment No. 59: In page 34, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following: "(5) In making a determination under subsection (4), the market surveillance authority shall have due regard for the potential impact of this testing on— (a) climate; (b) environmental protection; (c) biodiversity, and; (d) our obligations under the Paris agreement.".”
“I move amendment No. 58: In page 34, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following: "(5) In making a determination under subsection (4) , the market surveillance authority shall have due regard for the potential impact of this testing on the fundamental rights of those exposed to the high risk system, with particular regard to the fundamental rights of vulnerable persons.".”
“I move amendment No. 57: In page 34, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following: "(5) In making a determination on permitting or refusing to permit testing, the market surveillance authority shall have due regard for the potential impact of this testing on the fundamental rights of those exposed to the high risk system.".”
“I suspect the Minister of State might say the fundamental rights of any individual will be protected through other instruments or statutes, perhaps through the EU AI Act itself, but given the potential risk to individuals - again I will use Grok since it was such a recent and major example - the potential for people's fundamental rights to be undermined with these high risk systems is endless. Therefore, putting that on a statutory footing really does matter. We can point to other directives or constitutional rights and all of these things but this is such new legislation that, by not including that we are inadvertently, or advertently, sending the message that fundamental rights are not as important as the testing of these products.”
“57 provides that: In making a determination on permitting or refusing to permit testing, the market surveillance authority shall have due regard for the potential impact of this testing on the fundamental rights of those exposed to the high risk system. The "fundamental rights of those exposed to the high risk system" is really the main point here. We are legally and statutorily obligating companies that are engaging in high-risk systems while performing real world testing - us, existing in the real world and not in a safe sandbox, as I know has been discussed earlier - to consider fundamental rights.”
“61 talks about how it "shall come into provisional effect immediately unless otherwise specified in the notice provided to the provider", so the provider will take the system off immediately, as soon as they possibly can, due to the severe risk they pose. A fair appeals process can still be included within that. The provider can appeal and if the appeal finds the testing is not damaging then the provider can reinstate that. If there are any concerns around any high-risk systems being implemented that have the potential to endanger society they should be immediately removed for the period during which that appeal takes place. The outcome of the appeal might that in fact it is a high-risk system and it should be taken down and therefore, we would have been correct in doing so immediately. Amendment No.”
“Yes. I will speak to amendment No. 61, which is linked to what Senator Higgins was just referring to on the 14-day notice period for revocation or amendment of a real world testing permit for high risk systems. I will add to what Senator Higgins discussed. The idea there would be a 14-day window through which a harmful, high-risk system is allowed to continue implementing or using the practice that has been found to break some sort of regulation is nuts. The Grok AI scandal is a perfect, recent example of how the provider could maintain that system for a 14-day period even though we know it had harmful impacts on society. That is why my amendment No.”
“I thank the Minister of State for coming back to the House. I know when we left off we were talking about the question that Senator Ruane talked about, which is the term "gagging" and how it can be evocative and uncomfortable because no one wants to feel they are doing that. However, we strongly believe the provisions laid out in this Bill will make it very difficult for the CEO to express opinions on Government policy and to be scrutinised as a witness in committees. In order for the CEO to properly regulate and support Government policy, they need to be able to say what is good but also what is bad, and the provisions laid out in this Bill do not allow for that. That is why we have amendments Nos. 35 and 36. They are to allow the CEO to have opinions on Government policy and to appear before committees.”
“If the free contraception scheme, the new State-funded IVF for women with endometriosis and the free hormone replacement therapy are covered under that, it seems even smaller in many ways. It is shockingly small compared with the overall health budget. I appreciate that the Minister of State cannot answer this on the fly because the Department has not got the data yet, but it is something to consider when we examine the overall health budget versus the women's health budget. The latter feels very small, worryingly small, including when we take into account the decades of underinvestment.”
“I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Butler. On the €180 million, the annual health budget last year was €27 billion. I am aware that women's health supports are covered in the annual health budget. In that context, the €180 million since 2020 for women's health feels shockingly small. I have tabled a parliamentary question on this and the Department's response will share the breakdown of where the €180 million goes. It is a question around the commitment to multi-annual funding for research and how we are using that funding. I appreciate that the Minister of State will not have the answers because the Department is getting the breakdown of the €180 million for me at the moment.”
“There is a commitment to pledge €2 million into research, which is fantastic. Is that going to be multi-annual funding for women's research? We have a huge gender gap when it comes to women's research in Ireland. Ireland is not awash with senior academics in women's health. We have loads of early and mid-career people who are fantastic. How can we build them up to ensure that the funding in place for their academic research to prosper? I welcome the perinatal mother and baby unit. We have spoken about this in Chamber before. How can we extend that? Perinatal is obviously acute crisis. What are we doing to expand the postnatal supports into the community? The Year of Care campaign has called for a year of holistic support. That is focused community support, both physically but also mental recovery from the birth.”
“There is no mention of adenomyosis, PMDD and PMOS, which was previously known as polycystic ovary syndrome, PCOS. These are all hormone related conditions affecting women which are poorly understood. The plan has some mental health initiatives, which I am sure the Minister of State engaged with as well in her capacity. The commitments to suicide and self-harm reduction are brilliant. I am not sure if that strategy is going to incorporate PMDD. Will it be taking holistic care and interdisciplinary care into account? I also welcome the national menstrual health awareness campaign. Again, linked to that, is that going to include PMDD? Up until that point, it has been missing. Is that going to link into the Department of education in secondary schools to ensure that menstrual health and PMDD are being taught to girls and boys equally?”
“I welcome the prominent role that endometriosis has in this action plan. We still have no official statistics in Ireland about how long women are waiting for diagnosis and finally to be told that the pain is not in their heads and their pain is real. I am pleased to hear of the roll-out of the State-funded in vitro fertilisation, IVF, for women with endometriosis who are experiencing fertility issues. It is something that I have called for in this Chamber before. It is important, therefore, that we get early diagnosis for endometriosis instead of women languishing for years in pain, by which time they might have aged out of the eligibility for the IVF scheme. I wish to ask about some of the elements that are missing from the plan.”
“It could drastically improve diagnosis for endometriosis and adenomyosis in Ireland. I wish to highlight a very worrying aspect regarding the treatment of women-specific conditions. I have talked about medical gaslighting before. There is also the issue of gatekeeping. I have been contacted by women whose GPs are refusing to send them to gynaecologists. There are clinicians in the private health system who refuse to sign off on medical forms so women can avail of the endometriosis surgery abroad interim scheme, ESAIS. Women have been told that the pain in their heads or just bad periods. I am sure the Minister of State has heard similar things in her experience. It is kind of part of the ongoing oppression of women in Ireland that their pain is downplayed and they refuse to get objective investigation into their systems.”
“What is the Department is doing to attract expert clinicians to provide for women's health in Ireland? I was recently contacted by a woman called Aisling who had a successful endometriosis treatment in Ireland after undergoing the EndoSure test in the UK, which diagnosed her with both endometriosis and adenomyosis. Initial tests in Ireland found nothing wrong with her, so her GP would not refer her on to a consultant. She was fobbed off with hormonal contraceptives, which did absolutely nothing. She had to pay out of pocket for the tests in the UK. Aisling did find an excellent GP who helped her get treatment, but GPs like this seem to be rare. Will the HSE be looking into and investigating the EndoSure testing procedure for Ireland? Will she provide a timeline for exploring that and doing that investigation?”