George Lawlor: Demands AI Committee Be Properly Consulted

Minister, like my colleagues have raised here, I would have serious concerns about the timescale with regard to this legislation. And the notion that we would have a dedicated, as has been said, AI committee, and yet the only scrutiny as such is done by the Enterprise Committee, I sit on the Enterprise Committee myself, but I would have to say that the AI Committee has done a tremendous amount of work since its establishment, and they would be really invested in this legislation, probably to a greater degree than the members of the Enterprise Committee, so the notion that we would have a dedicated AI committee and they would not be, if you like, consulted in a meaningful way on this legislation leaves a funny taste. This is a really, really important piece of legislation, given the context in which we are currently living and the almost daily intrusion of AI on all our lives, be it online or otherwise. So can I say to you, and you talk about the next phase, as Deputy Geoghegan has alluded to, in that next phase, whatever it may be, that surely some role or function for the AI Committee, for their expertise that they have built up since their establishment. This was established with foresight, because people saw the need for an AI Committee in these houses. So it's quite ludicrous, in my view, that when we bring a bill, a piece of legislation, before the House on AI, that the committee relevant to that piece of legislation are not consulted is something that I think we need to examine greatly. Whilst the Enterprise Committee did have pre-legislative scrutiny, and obviously will issue a report, I think it's a halfway house to what it should be in terms of scrutiny by a committee that was set up and established specifically to discuss and investigate and interrogate the whole issue of AI. With regard to the amendment that I propose, it states without prejudice that the Minister shall in so far as practical 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. Fundamental Rights Law, Data Protection Law, 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. Minister, I don't think this 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 in the country. The notion that we are asking for this is a bit ludicrous also, for I believe that given what's at stake and what's contained in it, that it's not a huge ask that these three in particular competencies would be sought to serve on this Board, however they may be appointed. But as I say, this is indicative of the rushed legislation that we see before us. As Deputy Kiddingly has pointed out, 11 days is simply not good enough. It's not good enough in the context of the decisions we have to make in this regard. So I would urge you to consider the amendment seriously. Thank you.