I commend the Minister of State on bringing the Bill to this Stage. Before I speak to the specific amendments, which are around the governance and the board structure, it is important that there has been general collaboration, both at the AI committee and, even more generally, around what we want to achieve with this transformational technology, because what we are debating and talking about here does not impact on merely one Department. It is impacting on virtually all areas of society. On the collaborative cross-party approach, we will not agree on every issue but I think we agree in general on the principles and about what we want to achieve as a State. We want to support innovation, deepen our understanding of AI, upskill our citizens to be able to avail of and use it, and put in the necessary guardrails to ensure that we can continue to "trust" our institutions but also know that the institutions have the safeguards in place to protect us. Given the nature and importance of the discussion, I would share colleagues' concern that there was insufficient time to consider amendments. Given some of the discussion that we are going through here in a two-hour period, I believe it will be relatively short, particularly because we will only get through discussion of the overall board of this body. That is a bit of a problem. I believe we will be constantly legislating for and examining this space, but the Minister of State in her response has to talk about how we as legislators will be able to have an input. I am very aware the technology is moving quickly. I appreciate we have to get the office up and running. I welcome the fact that the recruitment process for the CEO is ongoing and the Minister of State might update the House as to how that is happening. Specifically on the amendments, when we talk about the board of any organisation, the most important thing is what the purpose of this organisation is and, therefore, who the best people to sit on that board are. I am always cautious about being overly prescriptive about the membership of the board. What is critical is that this AI office best serves our citizens. I strongly support the approach the Minister of State is taking with regard to a distributed regulatory approach. What we need to do, and colleagues have talked about this, is ensure that our regulators are sufficiently skilled to deal with this. This cannot be another layer - a supra layer - of regulation on top of existing regulation. By that I mean that someone developing a financial product at present just has to go to the Central Bank for regulation, so if it is an AI-enabled product, the Central Bank should have sufficient regulatory power to be able to deal with this. Where there are gaps between those regulators, this office needs to be able to step in. This is where I think the role of the AI office lies. It is a co-ordinating role between our existing regulators. It also has a critical educational role and a role in building public confidence and trust in the use of AI by the State. It is in those very specific objectives that individuals will be appointed to this board, and it is critical they have that level of public trust and understanding. While I get where colleagues are coming from, I am always cautious about being overly prescriptive. This is about the objectives of the office and whether the board will best be able to support the chief executive and staff in achieving that. One thing I am concerned about, which is very important, is the issue of a youth advisory panel to ensure young people are heard in this and can influence the governance structure. The Minister of State and I were quite influential during the online safety legislation debate, as was Deputy Carrigy, on ensuring we had a youth advisory panel to work with the online safety commissioner in Coimisiún na Meán. We see it in the Office of the Ombudsman for Children and in other areas. This is critical, particularly for children and young people, who are one of many vulnerable groups, to ensure their voice has input in this. I would like to hear in the Minister of State's response a commitment to establish a youth advisory panel and an update on the CAO process, and get a clear understanding of what, if this is the board being appointed, the purpose of this organisation is and how those filling it will meet that purpose.

Sentiment score: 0.25

It is unfair to say that the Minister of State has not been listening because I think she has. What I would say to Deputy Gibney is that the legislation provides for the formal appointment by the Minister following a process, which is pretty standard. In fairness, I recall this role being advertised on publicjobs.ie. LinkedIn actually recommended it to me at one stage. The closing date for this was at the end of March. It would be useful to assure the House, particularly if we are looking at this office being up and running within a month - the Minister of State said that the process is coming toward a conclusion - when we will actually know who the CEO-designate is going to be. The closing date for the process was three months ago. The Minister of State is expecting it to go through publicjobs.ie. I appreciate that the Minister of State's signature is the final signature that goes on that and she does not have a role in picking the individual, but Deputy Gibney and others have made the point that whoever takes that role, because they are going to be there for the first five years, will be shaping the direction of the office. In the context of this legislation, it would be useful for the Minister of State to give us a clear indication of when the name of that individual will be known and the CEO-designate will be appointed. Again, I agree with the overall context of not being overly prescriptive, as time goes on, when we are recruiting for board members. The Minister of State might outline when that recruitment process is going to start on the basis of this legislation. I accept the Minister of State's bona fides. I agree that we should not be overly prescriptive. In her response, the Minister of State might come back to the youth advisory panel issue as well.

Sentiment score: 0.21

I am proposing amendment No. 6 but it speaks to the broader set of amendments. It is about what the purpose of the artificial intelligence office is. I might thread the contentions of Deputy Murphy and Deputy Geoghegan. I agree somewhat with Deputy Murphy that if the role of this office and the ecosystem we are creating is a distributive regulatory model, our critical point is about ensuring that the existing regulators are strong enough to manage their own sectors and that this body is a co-ordinating and enabling body. I would be worried if this starts to become a “thou shalt not” regulator because if it does, it will not support that agility in respect of Deputy Geoghegan's point about how we can help support business and enterprise. What it has to do is ensure that if you are an enterprise developing an AI product or service, you know you have an existing regulator that you deal with and are responsible to it. The role of this office, which is why I proposed this amendment, is that where the gaps may fall with those existing authorities, it will be in a position to identify the gaps and make the decisions. Part of how I see its role is that if an SME wants to look at deploying AI to deliver its goods or services more effectively or efficiently, this office will support and enable it in being able to do it. It will be able to have guided it through the process. It will make sure that the regulators are doing their jobs. It speaks to our vision as to where the office is. I see it as having more of a promotional and enabling role. I know where Deputy Murphy is coming from on conflicts of interest and I think that could happen. However, I believe it will inhibit innovation if there are essentially two layers of regulation. That is something we certainly want to avoid. A lot of Deputy Gibney's amendments are well intentioned. I support the idea of including ethical and responsible in what we need to do. It is a culture we need to embed. I am one of those who sees the enormous potential of AI but it all depends on how we use it. Having an ethical and responsible framework is critical and we need to embed that in enterprise as much as in healthcare, education and other spaces. I think this speaks to all of the amendments. This office should be an enabling office. It should be able to help all of us as citizens and all enterprises around the country to know how best to responsibly, ethically and safely use AI to deliver better services for our citizens or our customers.

Sentiment score: 0.24

I agree with Deputy Geoghegan on that question. I appreciate the point the Minister of State made in response to my amendment but it is important to clarify what the role will be of the AI office when something falls between the designated competent authorities. I am conscious that the clock is running down, and my next point speaks to the fact that we did not get to talk to a lot of the other amendments, but I did get to raise, once again, that the Civil Service seems to have chosen to discriminate against county councillors being employed by this body. That is very unfair.

Sentiment score: 0.14