As I said on Second Stage of this Bill, I commend the Minister of State on bringing the Bill to these Houses. There are a few things I will mention before I get to the amendments. When the Minister of State said "recommendations contained in [the pre-legislative scrutiny report] will be considered as part of the next phase", what did she mean by the next phase? Is she talking about additional primary or secondary legislation? She might clarify that point. It was also a missed opportunity that the AI committee was not afforded time to scrutinise this Bill. Furthermore, two hours for Committee Stage of this Bill is an insufficient amount of time. I acknowledge the challenges Government has to get very important legislation over the line but if there was more time available and if this debate was ongoing, that should have been afforded. As the previous speaker said, if it is the case that there are to be next phases and if that is primary or secondary legislation, whatever about the Standing Orders, which I do not dismiss, relating to a permanent committee and a non-permanent committee, we are ready and able in the Oireachtas artificial intelligence committee to afford the level of scrutiny I think the committee on enterprise would actually be quite happy with, if that were delegated to us in whatever form, whether it be a formal or informal way, to allow us more of an opportunity. My amendments and similar amendments relate to the composition of the board. Put very simply, the AI office is different from Coimisiún na Meán, the Data Protection Commission and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, which Deputy Gibney was speaking about a moment ago, in the sense that the structure of a commission and commissioners is very different from that of a board. While I acknowledge the distributive model that is being formed under the AI Act and the one we are adopting here in Ireland and that there will be other entities and regulatory bodies that will have responsibility for the areas of regulating AI, ultimately, the technology sector will treat the AI office as part of a kind of three-way sandwich between Coimisiún na Meán and the Data Protection Commissioner. Those three entities will have probably the greatest interplay when it comes to the development of AI products in this jurisdiction. For those reasons, it is important that the Act would direct the composition of the board. If the Minister of State says that, for whatever reason, the type of composition of the board should not form part of the primary legislation, she might tell the House or give the House some comfort as to the types of experiences, backgrounds and professions that a person who is seeking to be a member of the board of the AI office would have to have. Ultimately, what we want to ensure in terms of a governance structure for the AI office is that it protects fundamental rights, but equally, that the board has an understanding of AI, the development of AI and an interest in the adoption of AI. What we know from this legislation is that the AI office will have a dual function. It will be a regulator but it will also act as a body that will advocate and promote the use of AI. It will regulate independently from the Minister and that is very clear in the legislation in terms of the enforcement of the EU regulations. On the flip side of that, however, it will have a role for communicating to the general public, and hopefully to small businesses, how AI can support and develop. Therefore, I want to ensure, as I think everyone in this House does, that the board of the AI office would have relevant competencies and a relevant mixture of experiences that could deal with both of those issues. If the Minister of State says it should not form part of the legislation, she might be able to tell the House how that can be assured in the public appointment process that will be brought to bear for the appointments to the board.
Sentiment score: 0.30
I did not get a letter.
Sentiment score: 0.00
To address what Deputy Gibney said, I do not think it is fair to say that the Minister of State is not listening. At the end of the day, the Minister of State is sitting in the Chamber and responding to the amendments that have been made. She may not agree with the amendments but she is listening. I would say that Deputy Gibney should at least acknowledge that when the Minister of State comes before our committee, she listens to us. She may have a different opinion but I do not think that is a fair charge to level against her. The Minister of State referred to another Bill which I did not catch fully. Is it the personal data Bill?
Sentiment score: 0.09
Am I right that at one stage, there was a proposal that that Bill would be included in the Bill now before these House, and a decision was taken to split those Bills? Is it the Minister of State's position now that, when that Bill is brought before these Houses, it may also include amendments to this Bill, based on what was said in the pre-legislative scrutiny? I see lots of nodding going on, which encourages me. In fairness to Deputy Ó Cearúil, he highlighted the deadline for establishing the AI office, which is why the Bill is before us today, to meet that deadline. The EU Presidency starts tomorrow. It gives me some encouragement about when the next Bill, albeit not the AI Bill, comes before these Houses. I ask, specifically with regard to that Bill, that we create some kind of structure, although I do not know how would be created, where the Minister of State could come before the AI committee to have direct discussion of whatever form, be it informal or otherwise, if it is not done within the strictures of how Standing Orders are established. Then, after the fact, maybe through the Chair and others, we could long at a more long-term structure for the AI committee to have a more formal legislative role. I acknowledge that would require changes to Standing Orders and engagement with the relevant internal committees. Ultimately, there is probably a recognition, even if the Minister of State looks around the Chamber, that most of the Deputies in the Chamber today are members of the AI committee. Even when we heard from members of the enterprise committee, such as Deputy Conway-Walsh, she acknowledged that the AI committee has an essential role and that we are building a level of expertise in this respect. Perhaps the next model could be this next Bill, and thereafter we might come back with a way in which this could be done. I hear what the Minister of State is saying in terms of being prescriptive about who should sit on the board. I understand the board and the Public Appointments Service, when it appoints people to the board, will ultimately reflect the overall goals of the Act. I disagree with Deputy Gibney. I fundamentally believe that the AI office should have a dual role. We need a statutory agency in this State that has a role in terms of the delivery of AI literacy across the board, at least to provide direction, just in the same way that regulatory divergence is provided in terms of all of the relevant agencies that are going to regulate the implementation of the EU AI Act. It should also be the case that we have a central agency that can at least give pointers to the Department of education, the Department of enterprise, the Minister of State's own Department and the Department of further and higher education. We need that kind of umbrella, overarching view because we know that AI, at a governmental level, will be implemented and is being implemented and adapted through every form of policy in areas like health, education and enterprise. I think it is a good and positive thing that we would have a statutory agency that would have both of those functions. I do not see how it dilutes investigatory and enforcement practices. There are plenty of other examples within this State where an agency has an investigatory role, a regulatory role and an advocacy role. If the Deputy reads the legislation in full, it is quite clear that the two things are very separate, and that in the performance of its regulatory functions in terms of its enforcement activity, it would be entirely independent. On the flip side, when it comes to advocacy, it is right and proper that the Government would have a role in providing some level of direction that would reflect the AI policies that are being implemented at each departmental level and that the AI office could be supported within that.
Sentiment score: 0.16
To clarify, where amendments are grouped, is the order in which the amendments are proposed that Members are called or do we have to indicate every time?
Sentiment score: 0.00
My amendments relate to section 9(1)(c), which sets out the function of the office to “promote and foster AI innovation and literacy” and tries to provide more clarity as to what that will look like and mean. Perhaps in her reply to the Minister of State might address the two subsequent provisions of the Act, namely, sections 10 and 11. One is about the Minister’s ability to give an order to the AI office and the other is about the ability of the Minister to give a direction to the AI office. As I understand the provision, the Minister would have to lay before the Houses any direction that he or she might give and in respect of those directions, none of those can relate to the actual regulatory enforcement function. It is going back to the promoting and fostering AI innovation and literacy point. My first question is what the difference is between a direction and an order and how those two elements will interplay. I also ask that as there is a statutory obligation in respect of directions, those directions would be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. I ask now, in contemplation of this secondary Bill the Minister of State is promoting, that she might consider an amendment to the personal data Bill she referred to in terms of the amendment of this Act, whereby the relevant committee, that is, the Oireachtas AI committee, would be the committee that would get to view and examine these directions or at least have some form of pre-legislative scrutiny function in respect of those directions. That is down to the knitting and the weeds of what we are doing in the AI committee. We are examining policies across every Department as they relate to AI. Quite clearly, any direction the Minister gives to this AI office will concern the implementation and adaptation of AI policy across a world of areas from education to health and enterprise. I acknowledge the logic of Deputy Murphy's point about the Central Bank at one point having a dual function of regulating and of promoting Ireland as a centre for financial services. After the financial crash that dual function was got rid of and the Central Bank solely had a role in respect of the regulating of financial services. However, while there is a logic to the argument, I view these issues as entirely separate. It boils down to two different philosophies present in this House and often in our committee in respect of AI. Ultimately, for Ireland to remain competitive we must examine how AI is being adapted and we must be ahead of others in how that AI adaptation is improving competitiveness. Separately, in an agile way we have to be extremely conscious of how AI is impacting young people in education at primary and secondary level and in further and higher education. We have to be agile in the impact AI is having on future jobs for graduates coming out of college, people trying to enter college and people who are not entering college at all, to know the types of jobs we are going to have in the future. We must be agile in order that we can mandate and direct policy to ensure that we can be responsive to the disruption that AI is causing and will cause and yet harness the benefits it is going to bring. I do not think there is a fair analogy between the two things, which are financial services and AI. AI has enormous risks and potential. It almost sounds cliched to keep repeating these phrases but as Members of the Oireachtas, we are being brought on a journey in our assessment of how AI is impacting society and the thematic approach we have adopted on the committee. The general public is using AI at some of the highest levels in Europe right now and yet they have equal levels of concern and mistrust. SMEs in Ireland at OECD level apparently are doing reasonably okay. We are a bit higher and yet there is still a low level of adaptation of AI. There are whole areas of our society and country where we need to bring people on a journey. There needs to be trust and it needs to be done in a coherent way. The AI office in my view is the appropriate body to do it. Where there is this statutory function where the Minister can direct through a direction or order and where there is a role for the Oireachtas in respect of these directions or order, it would be helpful to know, even at this early stage, what kinds of directions the Minister or Minister of State might be contemplating giving the AI office. It obviously has to comport with the goals of AI literacy. Are draft directions already being considered or made? There is also the separate point I am making that if the Minister is accountable to the Houses of the Oireachtas in respect of the directions, a formal statutory role be given to the AI committee and that this be contemplated in the context of any provisions that might be put forward in the personal data Bill the Minister of State referred to earlier.
Sentiment score: 0.24
A climate scientist was at the AI committee advocating for AI.
Sentiment score: 0.00
Sorry.
Sentiment score: -0.08
Yes.
Sentiment score: 0.40
I thank the Minister of State. I ask her to clarify, hopefully before the clock runs out, what is contemplated by an order as distinct from a direction under sections 10 and 11. Does the concept of an order or the concept of a direction, and that level of flexibility afforded to the Minister in this Bill, derive from specific sections of the EU regulation that we are implementing or is this a domestic measure that we are adding? Is it the Minister of State’s intention that an order or a direction would never be taken unless it was an action adopted at an EU-wide level? Does she contemplate orders or directions being issued that relate to domestic policy measures or would this happen only when it is done in concert at an EU level?
Sentiment score: 0.22