I move amendment No. 1: In page 11, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “ “Service” means the Public Appointments Service;”. This first set of amendments speaks to the establishment of the board but first I wish to address the parliamentary scrutiny, or lack thereof, of this legislation, which is so disappointing. It is 11 calendar days since the text of this Bill was published. We have had four Dáil sitting days and seven working days to scrutinise this absolutely crucial Bill. Providing 11 calendar days between publishing the text and enacting the law is not parliamentary scrutiny. That does not give us as members of the Opposition any opportunity to engage properly with this legislation and provide for amendments. It is a disgrace. I have valuable insights and I want to work on the governance of AI. I established a State agency, which is arguably the most independent State agency. I was its inaugural director between 2014 and 2016 and later I led it for four years as chief commissioner. I have knowledge I can contribute to this. I worked in the tech sector for eight years. I have a lot to add. I sit on the AI committee and the culture, communication and sport committee where we regulate the tech sector. I attended the pre-legislative scrutiny at the enterprise committee and I could even see, between those three committees, the gulf in understanding. AI is technical, complex and we have learned a lot on the AI committee but we were not given the opportunity to engage effectively with this Bill. Instead it went through pre-legislative scrutiny at the enterprise committee and now it is being rushed through the Dáil even though the Government has known it is coming down the track for years. I am genuinely disgusted at how this is being handled. It is a travesty of democracy that this is all the opportunity we get to discuss it. My amendments in this grouping are amendments Nos. 1, 15 and 20. They speak to the Public Appointments Service process for the appointment of the board. A lot of these amendments, especially in the first half of the legislation, are to strengthen the governance of this office to make it more independent. Although the Minister of State said in her statement she appreciates the independence of the office, that this is reinforced by it being a stand-alone body, etc., there are multiple clauses in the Bill that go against that. We will speak later to the fact the Minister gets to appoint the first CEO without any involvement by the Public Appointments Service and the fact the CEO cannot comment on government policy. Besides that, the appointment of the board itself should strive towards the greatest level of independence. These amendments try to essentially put in place a gold standard through the involvement of the Public Appointments Service, as distinct from the Department, so the office can act on its own. I am familiar with the State boards process. I have issues with the process as it stands. There is a bang of window-dressing off it at times. Obviously it was moved and developed because there was criticism of the fact that Ministers in the past were cherry-picking appointments at board level across many State agencies. Regardless, it is better at least than direct appointments by the Minister. It is important we use the mechanisms that are available to us in the Public Appointments Service to appoint board members and these amendments set out to do exactly that and to make sure we can do that. Also, rather than the Minister having that oversight, other parts of the amendments in this grouping allow for the Government to do it rather than the Minister, which again allows for that increased independence. I have been critical from the outset that the entire approach of this Government and officials in Brussels, and indeed the Brussels mindset, is that we regulate AI through the lens of industry and business. That is not good enough because it leaves out the competence we need to deal with the rights and protections that are under threat from AI. If we do all this with an enterprise lens, which is what this legislation does, we do not do that. We do not bake in the competence at the outset that we need to protect our citizens from the harms AI is going to inflict on us, which we see around us already. The algorithms we are all using, which are making us addicted to products and which are prompting chatbots to push people towards suicide, are the harms AI is wreaking on society. To treat it as an enterprise issue and the governance as an enterprise-informed operation and mechanism ignores all that. What we get from Government instead is it saying we have to protect rights. It says that at the end of the sentence after talking about balance and consideration but the issue is it is not doing it. These amendments try to strengthen that independence that will ultimately help with that balance and bring in the competence about rights and protections.
Sentiment score: 0.02
I have tabled a second amendment regarding the chief executive officer. It is clear on page 22 of the Bill, which states, "The Office shall have a chief executive officer". It talks about the Public Appointments Service recruiting the board, then states: (3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), the Minister may, before the establishment day, designate a person to be the first Chief Executive Officer. (4) Where, immediately before the establishment day, a person stands designated by the Minister under subsection (3), the person shall, on that day, stand appointed as the first Chief Executive Officer for such period, not exceeding 5 years from the date of his or her appointment, as the Minister may determine. The Minister then gets to appoint the first chief executive officer. My issue is that this is where the independence starts or does not start when an office like this is established. Once again, I have done this. The Government can outsource this to the Public Appointments Service. It can detach the hiring body from the recruitment process by strengthening the role of the Public Appointments Service in it, and it has chosen not to do that. In fact, it has done the reverse, and it has given the Minister more authority for the appointment of the first chief executive officer. In those first five terms, the Government is going to establish and basically set in stone how that organisation operates. The level of influence of that first CEO is heavy for the future of the organisation. The Minister of State has talked about this not being dusted tonight, but this is legislation. Of course it is organic and we will have to revisit it over the years, of which there is no question, but this is the shot. This is the time we get to do it. We are offering genuine, researched, evidence-based amendments and they are not being heard. The Minister of State is not interested and she is offering a tiny amount of time to discuss complex legislation and a set of complex amendments, which demonstrates to me that she has no interest. It is great to hear that the Minister of State is sending letters out to everyone. I did not get a letter since Second Stage last week and I raised a number of concerns. I do not know if anybody else in the Opposition got any letters. It is great that Deputies Ó Cearúil, Byrne and Geoghegan all got letters, but I would have liked one too.
Sentiment score: 0.12
Deputy Ó Cearúil got a letter. I did not get a letter. I have received no engagement in this process. My issue is that the Minister of State is not listening. She is not understanding what we are trying to say, and that independence is key. All of the other market surveillance authorities she is mentioning, and the fundamental rights bodies identified through the AI Act and the legislation as part of the structure are all well and good, but the AI office is the authority. By this legislation, it is essentially a part of the Department of enterprise. The Minister can interfere in it. The CEO cannot even come to a committee and comment on Government activities. That is not independent. Deputy Geoghegan referred to the dual role of this office, which is on one hand supposed to be the regulator and, on the other, supposed to promote AI. That in itself is already a conflict, which I have a difficulty with. The AI office should be distinct. The Data Protection Commission has better independence than this body, which is being set up now. The Minister of State mentioned the Data Protection Commission, which is under the aegis of the Department of justice, and Coimisiún na Meán, under the aegis of the Department of Culture, Communications and Sport, and now we have this one under the aegis of the Department of enterprise. The other two already do not work, because Grok happened and nothing has been done to combat it. We are now creating a third leg to this bonfire. It just makes no sense and it certainly does not strengthen any independence.
Sentiment score: 0.08
No, I will move to the next one.
Sentiment score: -0.30
I move amendment No. 2: In page 13, line 34, after “foster” to insert “ethical and responsible”. These are examples of constructive amendments. Amendment No. 2 seeks to bring in a balance where by adding the phrase “ethical and responsible” so that it changes the remit of the office from fostering AI innovation and literacy to fostering ethical and responsible AI innovation and literacy. That is an example of the kind of balance we are looking for and that we have lip service paid to all the time but that has never been demonstrated as a meaningful commitment by this Government. Amendment No. 3 enhances the publication powers for the AI office. This is an issue with many State agencies that have a regulatory function. They are prohibited from publishing their findings. I cite the example of the Inspector of Prisons and IHREC, which has issues with codes of practice. There are so many ways in which the work of these agencies as regulatory bodies is hampered because the publication powers they have are not adequate. If we actually want a regulator with teeth who will be able to call out issues when it wishes to, we need to provide it with publication power to do so. Again, all it is doing is strengthening independence. If the Government actually wants an independent regulator that is able to deal with the responsibilities that it is trying to give it, then it needs to give it the powers to match. That is what the amendment tries to do. It simply enhances that publication power. I hope these amendments can be taken in the spirit in which they are intended, which is constructive. These are simple amendments that can enhance this legislation. I am guessing by the tone of this debate so far that none of these amendments will be accepted by the Government. It is not just this debate but the whole evening - we are in the sixth hour of supposed debates - is just theatre for the Government. We get to discuss these amendments and, as Deputy Murphy said, it becomes like Second Stage because we are all just speaking in the knowledge that we will not get to the substantive amendments we want to deal with and engage with. I put these forward in good faith and I hope the Minister of State will engage with them.
Sentiment score: 0.16
I just had a quick search through the legislation. It has the word "ethics" in it five times and the word "responsible" twice. That is in different contexts but the point is whether "ethical and responsible" is such a novel phrase. I do not think so. The response from the Minister of State, which was essentially "Computer says 'No'", does not stand up regarding the idea of including "ethical and responsible" when, as she can hear, there is plenty of support for such a phrase. It would introduce the balance we are seeking. That is a shame. I support Deputy Lawlor's amendment because the climate concerns relating to AI are very, very deep, and the text of this existing legislation does not account for it appropriately. I am very clear that I want to see AI developed in society and I want to see the benefits it can bring to society. The only way that will happen is if we have public trust in the technology and the only way we will get public trust in this technology is with the appropriate regulatory framework. This Bill does not deliver it.
Sentiment score: 0.29