Gabhaim buíochas as an deis labhairt ar an mBille seo inniú. As Chair of the AI committee, I think there is some frustration around it. It is mostly procedural. In fairness, the enterprise committee is the statutory committee and it is for that reason that the scheme of the Bill went there for pre-legislative scrutiny. If there was a way that any future Bills or primary legislation would come to the AI committee, that would be extremely helpful because, as colleagues across the House have said, the AI committee has developed an expertise there. What is frustrating is that the AI committee members were not informed when the scheme of the Bill was being presented at the enterprise committee for pre-legislative scrutiny. It was only by chance that I was in a committee next door, the environment and energy committee, and saw that it was happening and managed to go in. The reality of the situation, and particularly this point about rushing through legislation, is that when Government is not passing legislation, it is accused of being a do-nothing Government. When it does pass legislation, it is accused of rushing legislation. There has been talk of the AI Bill for a long time now. The other reality of the situation that people are failing to recognise is that the AI office needs to be stood up by August. There are timelines here that put pressure on Government and, indeed, on the Minister of State to get this passed. I thank the Minister of State. On Second Stage here this day last week, I would like to think I was constructive rather than critical. The Minister of State wrote to me responding directly to all of the concerns that I had raised. That is how good legislation should be made, with genuine engagement. There has been genuine engagement with the Minister of State in that regard and it speaks well of her stewardship of the Bill. I particularly welcome the Minister of State's response on the single point of contact. Colleagues have raised it here. I raised it here on Second Stage and it relates to whether our single point of contact will sit comfortably with Article 72, which provides that the contact point should be a market surveillance authority. I am genuinely pleased that in her reply, the Minister of State confirmed that oifig intleacht shaorga na hÉireann is to be designate as a market surveillance authority through an amendment to the designated regulations that are being finalised. The Minister of State might inform us in her response when those designated regulations will be finalised and whether they could be shared with members of the AI committee and, indeed, with the House. It is a significant and welcome clarification. It gives the office real standing and ensures our framework is firmly aligned with the Act. I also raised a question of co-ordination between the 15 authorities that will share this work and the role of the co-operation agreements under section 63. I welcome the Minister of State's assurance that the office will be actively responsible for co-ordinating the relevant competent authorities, that it will support joint investigation and enforcement and that it is already building practical protocols through workshops and a co-operation forum. That is reassuring. As Cathaoirleach of the Oireachtas committee on AI, I will follow how that co-ordination works in practice with great interest and see how implementation proceeds. Indeed, we will do that as a committee to ensure that it is working. On resourcing, I had stressed that Article 73 of the AI Act requires our competent authorities to have adequate technical, financial and human resources. I welcome the Minister of State's agreement that this resourcing is vital, the funding provided in 2026 to establish the office and her assurance that where additional resources are needed, they can be met through the normal Estimates process. The Act comes into force on a phased basis out to December 2028 and that gives us time to get it right. Monitoring resourcing across all the designated authorities as those phases are rolled out is crucial because a framework is only ever as strong as the bodies that deliver it. I would also ask about the independence of the office, which other colleagues have raised this evening and previously, given that the Minister of State has the power to issue policy directions. I welcome the Minister of State's confirmation that this power is limited and constrained and that it does not extend to the key adjudicative functions, the findings of the adjudicator, the determination of administrative sanctions or the role of the courts. That is an important safeguard. The Minister of State spoke here already about the area of trust. We need to ensure that trust in this office is built up and that we can trust what is coming out of the office, the chief executive of the office and the board, notwithstanding some of the points that colleagues have made about board composition and expertise. I believe this Bill will play a significant role in our preparedness for the technological changes we are seeing develop at a rapid pace and want to see it succeed, as I think we all do. The Minister of State has engaged constructively, openly and in good faith and I want to acknowledge that. This is a strong Bill, made stronger by dialogue. As it moves through these final Stages and into the work of implementation, I look forward to continuing to work with the Minister of State and my colleagues on the committee to ensure it delivers for the people we all serve. I commend the Minister of State on bringing the Bill forward. Finally, on a procedural piece, we received the Bill on Friday and amendments were to be in by Tuesday. That was extremely time-limiting. We should review it in future because a significant piece of legislation takes significant reading to identify where there are issues. If that could be looked at, I would appreciate it.

Sentiment score: 0.29