Like my colleagues, I would have serious concerns about the timescale with regard to this legislation and, as has been said, the notion that we have a dedicated AI committee and yet the only scrutiny, as such, was done by the enterprise committee. I sit on the enterprise committee. The AI committee has done a tremendous amount of work since its establishment and its members are really invested in this legislation, probably to a greater degree than the members of the enterprise committee. The notion that we would have a dedicated AI committee and its members would not be consulted in a meaningful way on this legislation leaves a funny taste. This is really important legislation given the context in which we are living and the almost daily intrusion of AI in all our lives, be it online or otherwise. The Minister of State talks about the next phase. As Deputy Geoghegan alluded to, in that next phase, whatever it may be, surely there should be some role or function for the AI committee given the expertise it has built up since its establishment. This was established with foresight. People saw the need for an AI committee within these House. It is quite ludicrous, therefore, that when we bring a Bill or piece of legislation on AI before the House, the committee relevant to that legislation is not consulted. That is something we need to examine greatly. While the enterprise committee did have pre-legislative scrutiny and will obviously issue a report, it is a halfway house compared with what it should be in terms of scrutiny by a committee that was set up and established specifically to discuss, investigate and interrogate the whole issue of AI. The amendment I propose states: Without prejudice ... the Minister shall, in so far as is practicable, endeavour to ensure that among the members of the Board there is at least one person with demonstrated expertise in one or more of the following: (a) fundamental rights law; (b) data protection law; (c) consumer protection law. The Bill provides for a board but does not specify any expertise requirements for its membership beyond general competence. The amendment requires the Minister to endeavour to ensure that at least one member has expertise in fundamental rights law, data protection law or consumer protection law. This reflects the subject matter of the AI Act, which operates at the intersection of all three. The AI Act itself requires that national competent authorities have the necessary technical and legal expertise. Given that the office's function includes supervising high-risk AI systems affecting individuals' rights, the absence of any rights expertise requirement is certainly a gap. I do not think it is too big an ask to have the correct competent people sitting on what will be one of the most important boards to come before this House and, indeed, the country. The notion that we are asking for this is also a bit ludicrous. Given what is at stake and what is contained in it, it is not a huge ask that these three competencies, in particular, would be sought to serve on this board, however they may be appointed. As I said, however, this is indicative of the rushed legislation we see before us. As Deputy Gibney has pointed out, 11 days is simply not good enough. It is not good enough in the context of the decisions we have to make in this regard. Therefore, I urge the Minister to consider the amendment seriously.

Sentiment score: 0.12

Amendment No. 5 speaks to the promotion of responsible adoption of AI systems in workplaces and protects the legal rights of employees. A lot of people out there are very fearful of AI and what it will bring to the workplace. The amendment is geared towards the protection of existing employees and ensuring nothing we are doing through the establishment of this office will undermine that. It also calls for monitoring the use of AI systems for the purpose of workforce management, not to hand over AI to management to undermine existing workers and their rights and obligations under this Act and under artificial intelligence regulations. We also need to encourage and support the provision of training, reskilling and upskilling opportunities. This is vital in the current climate. There is a lot of fear among the entire population as to where AI is going in relation to the rights of workers and how this might be undermined unless there is strong legislation in place to ensure their rights and opportunities are strengthened. Amendment No. 7 speaks to our national climate objectives. We have already seen legislation pushed through this evening that abandoned a lot of our climate objectives. This amendment seeks to insert the following subsection: the need to ensure that the development and adoption of AI systems in the State is consistent with the national climate objective within the meaning of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, having particular regard to the energy consumption and environmental impact associated with the training, operation and deployment of AI systems. We all know the impact AI will have on energy and water consumption in particular. We have to be cognisant of that in this legislation. I ask the Minister of State to do that.

Sentiment score: 0.09