Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Bill 2022: Second Stage (Resumed)

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Picking up where I left off, section 43(2) of the Bill refers to Garda management being responsible for giving clear directions to gardaí in their use of cameras but mentions the use of discretion. There are many instances where discretion is needed. We should not be over-prescriptive in a lot of areas but this is not one of them. It is unfair not to be clear with the Garda in this regard. This goes back to my point about the absence of a central piece in this legislation.

Section 11(1) provides that a person will be guilty of an offence if he or she falsely conceals, destroys or in other ways gets rid of information gathered by a recording device. However, it is silent in regards to someone turning off a device to ensure the information does not exist in the first place. This is a far easier option for anyone seeking to conceal behaviour. It is important we look at this from both sides. The vast majority of gardaí will be absolutely compliant but it only takes a small number to bring the force into disrepute. This again comes down to the need to have more detail about the use of these technologies written into the legislation, rather than codes of practice which are not legally enforceable to the same degree. I understand these sorts of technologies seem like an incredibly useful tool in policing but the reality is far more complicated than the producers of some of these technologies would have us believe. There is no conclusive evidence that body-worn cameras improve safety for police officers. There have been many studies around the world on these cameras and any metadata analysis which has taken place has not found any statistically significant changes.

It is important that we protect our police force in taking on the challenges they must sometimes face. I reinforce the point that this is not a case of resisting something that could protect people who are doing a very dangerous job. Some of them are my neighbours and others are the sons and daughters of my friends. I am acutely aware we have to protect people on both sides. It may well be the case that cameras give a feeling of safety and their use may not be backed up by evidence. Gardaí should feel as safe and protected as possible in doing their work. They face incredible risk while doing vital work to protect our communities but they deserve more than the illusion of safety. It is not clear that body cameras provide any more than that.

Much more research is needed before we enact a programme of introducing body cameras across the whole Garda force. It would make far more sense to operate a pilot programme to ensure the cameras will be effective in achieving what we want them to achieve. We also need to stack this up against the infringement of privacy rights of individuals who will be filmed by gardaí as they are minding their own business walking past officers on the street. While that may well not be the way this technology is to be used, it will be especially significant if real-time facial recognition technology could be used in these body cameras. That is one of the central points I want to make.

To be clear about what real-time facial recognition systems entail, most of them follow a similar pattern. Using artificial intelligence, AI, the system detects the presence of a face within an image. The system will then analyse the detected face and create a number of relevant data points used to identify one person from another. Then the system will compare those data points against pre-existing records and should, in theory at any rate, be able to recognise the person in the frame. Imagine for a second the number of faces a system operating on a CCTV camera on Grafton Street would scan and the number of data points it would collect in order to find the person being sought. To start with, there would need to be a significantly large database to create and store these highly sensitive data from innocent people who are of no interest to the Garda and who would be passively surveilled without their knowledge.

The sheer number of security breaches in Government Departments over the past few years should be enough to give us significant pause for thought. I feel like I am talking in a vacuum about this legislation because this central piece is so absent that it is very difficult to imagine what is proposed. I am probably looking at worst-case scenarios but I do not know what the Minister is bringing forward.

Deputy Simon Harris

Sure.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

The data protection risks are massive and the Garda's record on data protection is spotty. It has unresolved issues regarding the use of CCTV, automatic number plate recognition, ANPR, drones and body cameras. There are also Data Protection Commission, DPC, investigations outstanding. The Garda does not have adequate data protection systems in place for the data it currently possesses. This Bill would mean that the force would be required to process multiples of the data it currently collects.

In addition, facial recognition technology is not effective. It is well documented that it produces false results wrongly identifying suspects. This is important. Let us look at what is happening elsewhere. A study of the London police in 2019 found that in 81% of cases facial recognition technology identified the wrong person. It was particularly weak in identifying the faces of anyone who is not a white male. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has warned that facial recognition disproportionately flags ethnic minorities, women and disabled people, prompting concerns that it will exacerbate social inequality. I would have thought it would be critical to look at this aspect before facial recognition technology is used.

The definition of "recording devices" in the Bill has been left intentionally broad by the Department. I know there is an element of future-proofing with technologies. Things have been invented in the last five years that 20 years ago we could not even have thought of. I accept, therefore, that there is future-proofing, but not all future technologies should be used for policing purposes. I cannot say what these are and nor can the Minister because we do not know what is going to be invented. The generality of this section is concerning, including regarding the ethics and accuracy of the devices we currently have. We have no idea what future concerns there will be about future technologies. Potentially, there are major problems when issuing a blank cheque concerning future technologies. There must be some ongoing review of what might be used and what protections need to be in place.

In its submission to pre-legislative scrutiny of this legislation, the Policing Authority cautioned that the use of new technologies should not be automatically assumed to be unquestionably good or a panacea for every problem. The use of each type of recording device and specific technology needs to be evaluated individually. Each has specific aspects, and there will be a different degree of risk depending on what the device is intended to be used for. We must give consideration to both sides of this issue and to proportionality.

Let us take drone technology as an example. These would be covered under the definition of "recording devices" in this Bill. The Article 29 working group on data protection has already examined the use of drones for law enforcement and concluded that their use for surveillance should require a higher level of approval and the data processed should be further scrutinised by a human operator. Too much is simply being left unsaid in this Bill. It is unacceptable to not have sight of the proposals. I have made this point several times in my contributions, particularly regarding facial recognition technology. It is unacceptable to leave so many of the vital aspects of this Bill up to the codes of practice and not subject to Oireachtas oversight.

Speaking before me yesterday, my colleague from Kildare North, Deputy Patricia Ryan, referred to the number of gardaí per head of population. It is way below the national average in counties Kildare and Meath. In some cases, this figure stands at half of that average. This is partly to do with the continuous growth of population in these counties. I imagine that Fingal is probably a little similar.

Deputy Simon Harris

Yes.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It is difficult to focus on this issue because Kildare is within the Dublin metropolitan area, but these are areas that have had significant population changes. County Kildare doubled its population between 1971 and 1995 and it has since doubled its population again. The Minister will know from his constituency that the services do not match the growth in population. The number of gardaí is a case in point in this regard. This matters for the kind of policing we get. We get more reactive policing because there is simply no time for gardaí to go into schools or for community gardaí. For years, Kildare was the only county that did not have even one community garda.

One of my concerns, which I have expressed several times, is risk for members of the Garda. For members to respond to call-outs on their own is high risk. No body camera is going to protect that person. I refer to not having enough gardaí in a location to respond to serious calls. We have seen this in a high profile case where a garda, unfortunately, lost his life when he was responding on his own. I think that happened in County Louth. We must look at where these risks are and they must be mitigated. We cannot view one approach as a solution in respect of making things safer for gardaí. A multiplicity of things will be required. I would have said that the inadequate number of people to respond is a bigger risk than identifying individuals by digital devices or whatever. I ask the Minister to take this point seriously. We are told constantly that resources are down to the Garda Commissioner and the issue has nothing to do with the Oireachtas. It does, however, if there is not a fair distribution. I must be going on about this for 20 years. I have met Garda Commissioners and assistant commissioners and made submissions. I know others have done exactly the same. This issue must be addressed because we cannot grow a population without growing the resources to go with it. Otherwise, we are only creating problems.

Deputy Alan Dillon

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important Bill, which contains new and enhanced powers for An Garda Síochána to operate recording devices and robust safeguards for such recording. An Garda Síochána plays such a vital role in all our communities and in society. Its members are those on the front lines who protect us every day, keep our people safe and serve our communities. In recent weeks, however, we have seen some serious incidents where gardaí have been seriously injured. We must address this issue in the Oireachtas and condemn such actions.

In modern society, fully digitalised systems need to be incorporated. It is crucially important that An Garda Síochána has access to the latest technologies to counter such challenges. Across all EU member states and globally, we see that modern police services must adapt and be up-to-date regarding their digital tools and technologies to keep our communities safe and to protect citizens and themselves. The principal objective in this Bill is to provide such tools to An Garda Síochána.

I will touch first on the pros of the Bill. Deploying body-worn cameras will certainly improve the accurate recording of incidents, allow for the prosecution of offenders and protect Garda officers from assault. These are certainly benefits. Not only will this benefit gardaí, but civilians may also be protected from Garda misconduct, which cannot be forgotten. I support the inclusion of the amendments brought forward by the Minister, one such being the use of facial recognition technology, to improve this Bill. Before its introduction, however, I ask that all data protection impact assessments and human rights assessments be carefully considered and thoroughly investigated.

I note the points made previously by Members in this House that facial recognition technology can lead to mass monitoring and profiling and unintended consequences around surveillance. We should in no shape or form be using it to racially profile any member of the public. Through those assessments and studies, we will have a better picture of its introduction.

The second point is around the violation of rights. We must enforce strict guidelines for gardaí when they are routinely collecting, retaining, storing and searching through the tremendous amount of personal data of members of the public they will have at their discretion. We certainly do not want to utilise this technology inappropriately, which may put our people's rights at risk. That is an important element. If the facial recognition technology ends up being approved, our right to privacy must be protected. Our rights to free assembly and association and the right to equality and non-discrimination must also be protected. There is still a high degree of discretion left to the codes and practices so we should be more transparent around how the Garda will use these body-worn cameras. We require a statutory code of practice to set the standards for the use of these body-worn cameras.

The third point is the ambiguity of the recording devices. We should be more specific about the term "recording devices" and the types of devices we will use. It is quite ambiguous. While body cameras have been specified, the recording devices have not been distinguished. These devices can range from tablets to mobile phones to drones. While additional emerging technology may be highly utilised or may provide more beneficial effect to the Garda force, these technologies can simultaneously pose a threat of significant human rights violations. A drone, for example, poses significant privacy risks since we cannot be certain about what data are being collected, who is collecting them or the data processing procedure around that type of technology.

The fourth point is about public concern. The public are concerned that body-worn cameras may add an unfair bias to a garda's version of events due to the camera being under the exclusive control of the garda. That is an important point. We must reinforce the point that fully trained and qualified gardaí will be utilising the cameras effectively and appropriately, and in a transparent manner in the way the data will be processed. The Bill must facilitate a human rights impact assessment, as I said previously, around data protection.

This type of technology is relatively new and therefore the research in this area is still a developing field. We must be mindful of that. We should not automatically assume the new technology will only contribute positively to policing or justice issues. We must be meticulous about the enforcement of body-worn cameras and we must be very detailed about the access to these devices and the manner in which they will be used.

Deputy Louise O'Reilly

The changes being brought forward here were suggested as part of the report of the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland. Moves in the direction of using body camera technology can be of benefit to both the public and the Garda, so long as gardaí receive sufficient training and so long as data are treated sensitively and protected. I echo the points made by Deputy Catherine Murphy about the lack of detail. It is quite difficult to engage where there is that lack of detail. Body camera and dashcam technology have been used in many police services across the European Union and beyond for some time. The appropriate use of such technology would be welcome during the course of policing in this State - that is a fact - but we have to learn the lessons from other jurisdictions and learn where there have been difficulties. This is something the Garda wants and something it is now going to get, which is welcome, but we would be foolish if we were to say it is not something that is without problems. We know there are problems with the use of this technology.

Not only will the footage act as a deterrent for those wishing to assault or intimidate gardaí during the course of their work but it will also help to capture evidence of crimes in real time, as well as help when witnesses may have to come into court to support the evidence. That might be lessened. It would be good if some of the burden could be taken off witnesses and if we could do something that would avoid them being retraumatised, or diminish that. However, it goes without saying that body cameras can also offer additional protection to those engaging with gardaí. The Garda itself has acknowledged this. Let us not pretend they will not provide this dual function. They will be a form of protection for An Garda Síochána but they will also be a form of protection for people engaging with members of An Garda Síochána. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, has outlined concerns related to an infringement of the right to privacy and has highlighted the broad definition of recording devices, as outlined previously. It has suggested they could be used for covert recording. While it has been stated that body cameras will not be used for covert surveillance, the legislation could still be used to do this due to the broad definitions in the Bill. Only a change to the legislation by way of amendment will truly resolve this.

Recording devices will not address the core failure in terms of the ability of An Garda Síochána to police and do its job effectively and that is the lack of garda numbers. In Dublin, for example, there are 18% fewer members of An Garda Síochána than there were in 2009, despite substantial population growth in the city and county. Everyone deserves to be safe in their community and to know that their local gardaí have sufficient resources and staffing levels to protect them. Many gardaí working overtime are doing so to cover policing duties that other stations are unable to meet due to a nationwide shortage.

I have deep concerns with regard to racial profiling and the use of facial recognition technology. That is not just my concern; those concerns are shared by human rights organisations. The evidence of that happening is available internationally. We do not need to reinvent any wheels. We simply need to look at where this technology has been used and failed and not repeat those mistakes.

Deputy Paul Murphy

People Before Profit will not be supporting this Bill. We are opposed to any attempt to use the current crises, including the growth of quite horrifying anti-refugee protests, influenced by racist and far-right ideas, as an excuse to add another layer to the powers and scope of policing in this State. I listened to the Minister and most of the Opposition speakers express broad support for the Bill. That was generally couched in terms of how transformative this new technology can be in freeing up gardaí, saving thousands of hours of Garda time and revolutionising policing. We should be clear and honest that body cameras, greater use of drone footage, CCTV or especially facial recognition technology will not do any of those things. They will not revolutionise policing for the better. I can predict very confidently that if this Bill is passed, we will still be back here in the same sort of position in two or three years' time with another list of requests for greater powers, laws and resources and with the same promise that it is only with these ones that we will actually be able to change the game and have an impact on crime and so on.

It is the rhetoric we always hear about extra powers being given and new laws on special criminal courts, public order Acts, etc. In this case, the promise is that technology will save us, if only we use it. There is no evidence for that. In fact, and particularly for facial recognition technology, it comes with very significant question marks over it and very significant problems from international evidence. There is a growing worldwide movement that is resisting it and pointing out the harm and damage that can result from it. We have the benefit of being able to look and learn from other states before we make this very retrograde and disastrous move.

It is shocking that the Minister, and in particular the Green Party, seem determined to ignore the evidence of the harm that this can do. It is extraordinary that we are told the Minister will bring an amendment on Committee Stage to facilitate facial recognition technology, therefore avoiding any real pre-legislative scrutiny of such a major change and development because it comes in at such a late stage. The ICCL has pointed out that neither facial recognition technology nor ANPR were in the general scheme of the Bill and, as such, were not subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny.

I want to comment in more detail on the proposed amendments the Minister says he will introduce on facial recognition technology. I will refer at some length to the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, on this. It has experience of facial recognition technology and a very strong attitude to it. It says these technologies threaten our privacy and free speech rights. It also says that when they are used by police and immigration enforcement, they serve as yet another dangerous system to abuse black and brown people on a massive scale. The ACLU says big tech companies are profiting from these abuses because they are the ones developing and selling facial recognition to Government agencies. It also states that it is their communities, in particular communities of colour, that face the harmful consequences. The union maintains that it knows first-hand how tech companies collaborate with immigration and law enforcement agencies to build large-scale surveillance tools that facilitate and fuel racist systems that harm both immigrants and US citizens.

The ACLU believes facial recognition technology is racist from how it was built to how it is used. It states that it has been used by police departments to wrongfully arrest black men by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, and Customs and Border Protection, CBP; to target and track immigrant families; and by the FBI to surveil Black Lives Matter demonstrators exercising their first amendment rights.

The ACLU maintains that facial recognition massively expands the government's power to track movements and target people based on their race, religion, political affiliation or speech. It suggests that while everyone's rights are at stake, black and brown people are harmed the most when this racist technology collides with our racist systems. In the words of Amnesty International:

...facial recognition risks being weaponized by law enforcement against marginalized communities around the world. From New Delhi to New York, this invasive technology turns our identities against us and undermines human rights.

The ICCL points out in its briefing that in Belgium, Luxembourg and Morocco, facial recognition technology is banned or greatly restricted. In the US, cities that have banned police use of facial recognition technology include Boston, Oakland, Portland and San Francisco.

In the UK, huge questions have emerged about the accuracy of the technology, with studies in some cities suggesting 80% inaccuracy in the application of facial recognition technologies. Given all of this, the Minister's unquestioning support for it is baffling. We agree with the ICCL statement that facial recognition technology has no place in Irish policing. Despite this, we are told that this technology will save us. It is particularly ironic that it is touted as some sort of response to racist and far-right attacks on refugees, when globally it is recognised as contributing to racist policing and the targeting of vulnerable minorities.

I am not reassured by bland guarantees of oversight and safeguards because the truth is we have a consistent problem with holding gardaí in this State to account. I remember the late Dara Quigley, who was an articulate, powerful writer and campaigner on many issues. I worked alongside her in particular on water charges. The sharing of her image by the Garda when she was in a clearly distressed state has never been properly investigated nor anyone held to account. Similarly, the history of GSOC investigating abuses and errors in policing in this State does not inspire confidence in any oversight or accountability when this new technology is rolled out.

Given the body of evidence globally on facial recognition technology, how it is being misused and abused, how inaccurate it is and how it seems to be pushed by big tech companies in their own interests, it is unconscionable that the Green Party in particular, which has an on-paper commitment to civil liberties, can support this. If Green Party Members had any principles left, they would oppose it and refuse to support any amendment that the Minister brings to facilitate this. The real problems communities face, such as antisocial activity, drug crimes and violence against persons, in particular against women, cannot be addressed solely by a policing response, and they cannot be addressed by some magic new technology. For that reason, we will not support the Bill.

Deputy Emer Higgins

I wish to share time with Deputy Murnane O'Connor.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Emer Higgins

I welcome the Bill. This positive and proactive legislation will improve not only how we tackle and prevent crime but also how we protect members of An Garda Síochána as they work to keep us and our streets safe.

I know there has been discussion and criticism of some parts of the Bill. I refer in particular to the potential implications for privacy and civil liberties. I very much welcome the open discussion, which it is important to have. I also welcome the consultation that took place when drafting this legislation with groups such as the ICCL, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, the Data Protection Commissioner and the Local Government Management Agency, LGMA. While it is vital that we make full use of new and emerging technologies and systems that have yielded good results in other jurisdictions, it is critical that we do it in a way that acknowledges the data-driven world we live in. We live in a world where people's private data are a hot commodity. That is the reason they must be treated with a massive amount of respect. I am very reassured by the safeguards that have been baked into this legislation that address many of those concerns.

An important part of the legislation is the provision to place a statutory obligation on the Garda Commissioner to prepare codes of practice around the use of CCTV and recording devices. The codes of practice will require the approval of the Minister for Justice. I understand that work is already under way on these codes and that they will ensure strict standards are applied around confidentiality, security, storage, access and retention of data.

It must be said that trust in An Garda Síochána is extremely high among Irish people. An Amárach Research survey published last year found that 81% of people had trust in the Garda. We have very high levels of positive public engagement. That is because the Garda do brilliant work, often in massively challenging and difficult circumstances. The results of public attitude surveys certainly ring true when I speak to people on the ground in my area in Lucan, Clondalkin, Palmerstown, Newcastle, Rathcoole, Saggart and Brittas. Their experience of dealing with the Garda is overwhelmingly positive.

Giving gardaí the tools to better investigate and detect criminality will only improve that relationship further. Those tools will allow for recording by body-worn cameras, helicopters, aircraft, Garda dogs, drones, mobile devices and tablets. They will also extend the powers governing Garda use of CCTV and ANPR technology to help to prevent crime and to prosecute those involved in criminal activity. Providing powers for An Garda Síochána to access third-party CCTV on a live-feed basis will support the Garda in carrying out its functions and will be subject to strict guidelines and oversight.

CCTV is often raised with me by constituents. People feel it could be better used to combat illegal dumping, fly-tipping and antisocial behaviour. Therefore, it is positive that CCTV and camera footage will now be more widely used by An Garda Síochána, and used in a way that does not place anyone's personal data or privacy in harm's way. I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill. It is positive, proactive and it will improve how we tackle and prevent crime. Critically, it will also improve how we protect members of An Garda Síochána, as they protect us.

Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor

The Minister is aware that if one asks for the truth, one will get a perspective. Providing our police service with the use of body-worn cameras for gardaí and the expanded use of ANPR technology assists in obtaining the right perspective.

Body-worn cameras are widely used across the EU as an effective tool for evidence-gathering in the investigation of crime. I join my colleagues in Fianna Fáil in condemning in the strongest possible way attacks made on a member of An Garda Síochána. It is important that they, and other front-line workers, are protected when carrying out their duties.

There is a range of robust legislative provisions available to the Garda authorities in circumstances where threats or assaults are made against gardaí. Attacking a member of An Garda Síochána carries a maximum sentence of seven years in prison and assault causing harm carries a maximum life sentence. However, criminal legislation is kept under review and the Government is committed to taking further action to protect gardaí and front-line workers, as necessary.

It is welcome that the Government will also enact the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2022 this year, which will increase the maximum penalty available for the offence of assault causing harm, from five years' imprisonment to ten. I very much welcome that.

We have a long, proud history of policing with co-operation and anything that assists that is welcome. I have, however, one concern. A critical component of the use of facial recognition technology remains unpublished. Does the Minister intend to advance the proposal on Committee Stage and will this allow sufficient time for detailed scrutiny that the use of this technology demands? I have concerns about that, as other speakers have expressed. Everybody has a right to privacy.

I will firmly support this Bill. My son and son-in-law are gardaí. I know the work they do. I can only say they do great work, as do all gardaí. I compliment them on their work. It is important that any safety aspect we can implement to help our gardaí and the great work they do, is crucial.

I will ask the Minister about the recruitment of gardaí. I know he will be aware that it has become a considerable issue. I know he has been recruiting, but we need to do more to incentivise young women and men into An Garda Síochána. I ask that we do more on that. I am delighted to support this legislation with anything I can do.

Deputy Martin Browne

Recent attacks on members of An Garda Síochána and other instances in which gardaí have been engaged in crowd control, given heightened tensions at certain events in recent times, have reinforced the case for body cameras to be deployed and used. We are talking about enhancing the ability of gardaí to effectively and safely carry out their duties, which include ensuring the safety of the public and of course, their own safety, deterring any potential illegal or criminal behaviour and providing evidence where necessary.

Other jurisdictions have been using this technology for years and it is about time we gave our gardaí similar resources. If we are to expect our gardaí to be able to fully and effectively fulfil their roles in a manner that ensures the safety of the community they serve and has tangible results, we must give them the tools to do so. Unfortunately, we have seen a lethargy on the part of Fine Gael, which has led the Department of Justice for more than a decade, to provide our gardaí with this level of technology. I say that before making any mention of Garda numbers.

I am supportive of this measure. Body camera footage can act as a deterrent in cases of people who may wish to assault or intimidate gardaí as they carry out their work. A measure that can help to avoid this kind of assault from happening is important for gardaí and the effective policing of the communities that count on them. It also has the capacity to provide protection to our gardaí from spurious campaigns to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, thereby saving on resources and avoiding gardaí being unnecessarily taken from front-line duty.

However, it can also have a direct impact on the ability to provide supportive evidence in cases of assault. Court cases such as these can be traumatising for their victim who, without the assistance of body camera footage, have to recount their trauma over and again. The role body cameras can play in this regard is positive.

As with all technology that has the ability to capture data, we have to strike the right balance between protection and privacy. This requirement is fully justified and while some oppose it because of privacy concerns, the Garda Representative Association, GRA, has expressed its eagerness to ensure that its members will be properly trained to understand the correct situations in which it may be necessary to use these devices and to prevent overuse of this system, ensuring appropriate discretion. My constituency, like many others, has its own problems and the Garda faces its own challenges. Assaults are up, as are crimes against the person.

Equipping gardaí with the technology that enhances their ability to protect themselves and their communities is an important development. We need to strike the correct balance between what is proposed and other technology out there. However, it does not let the Government off the hook when it comes to the need for adequate Garda numbers and the provision of the resources that would enable our gardaí to work as effectively as we would wish.

Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this crucial Bill and I unreservedly support its progress on Second Stage. Regrettably, already this year, we have seen a number of serious assaults on gardaí. An officer was assaulted at an anti-asylum seeker protest in County Cork on 19 January. A traffic garda had part of his finger bitten off in a vicious attack in Ballymun on Friday, 20 January. Let us not forget the arson attacks on the homes of a Dundalk garda in recent years, which was the third attack on a Garda home in and around Dundalk in 18 months. This is on top of the murder of Detective Garda Adrian Donohoe and the tragic killing of Garda Tony Golden.

While all gardaí accept policing has its risks, there can never be any excuse for these disgraceful attacks. There were 144 attacks on gardaí in 2012. Last year, there were 241 attacks and, yet, basic measures such as body cameras are being stalled and are not due to be rolled out until 2024. Providing digital technology, including body cameras, dashcams and drones, to gardaí will help the prosecution of people who have committed crimes, as well as giving gardaí an additional tool to boost their personal safety.

The main purpose of the Bill is to provide a robust statutory framework for the use of digital recording devices to support their key functions, such as the investigation, detection, prevention and prosecution of criminal offences; safeguarding against and preventing threats to public safety and public order, and in matters relating to the security of the State. This includes the use of automatic number plate recognition, ANPR, CCTV and body-worn cameras as recommended in the report of the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland.

I will raise a number of items specifically relating to the Bill. First and foremost, the use of such technology is controversial and has been opposed by the ICCL, which feels that digital recording and surveillance tools will impact people's rights to privacy; protection of personal data; freedom of expression; non-discrimination; protest and association. However, police in the UK have had body cameras for ten years. Any concerns being expressed about civil liberties have been addressed by other European nations.

In addition, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, has ensured that safeguards contingent on the EU artificial intelligence Act, will be put in place on the use of the technology, subject to data protection rules. Once legislation is agreed, deployment of these devices, including related timelines, will be an operational matter for the Garda Commissioner.

Body cameras need to be piloted and training organised, but where is the plan? Will training be online or in person, or will it be hands-on? The unprecedented €2.14 billion allocated to An Garda Síochána under budget 2023 includes the provision of €3 million for preparatory work to support the introduction of body-worn cameras, along with €6 million for new ballistic vests to protect front-line gardaí. However, the problem is there is no specific timeframe. There is no prioritisation of the implementation.

Second, the Bill will repeal and replace the CCTV provisions in section 38 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005. It will set out how CCTV schemes should be managed to reflect changes in the law on foot of the introduction of the data protection regulation and the law enforcement directive. I welcome this, as it provides clarity on the roles and responsibilities of both An Garda Síochána and local authorities in CCTV schemes. The Bill will also provide a statutory basis for the recording of 999 calls, which are transferred to the Garda, and for the recording of other emergency and non-emergency lines or numbers that will be specified in and governed by a code of practice.

Third, the Bill provides a statutory basis for the expanded use of automatic number plate recognition technology. This will facilitate other bodies that have networks of ANPR cameras to transfer their ANPR records to An Garda Síochána. This provision allows access to live feeds and permits An Garda Síochána to approve access internally for a period of up to 72 hours. It also provides for access to data retained by third parties as a result of the operation of CCTV. This will help the prosecution of people who have committed crimes, as well as give gardaí an additional tool to prohibit the kind of aggression and violence that some officers have experienced in recent months.

In addition, I welcome the provision within the Bill for the installation and operation of CCTV on Garda premises for the purpose of safeguarding persons or property and for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of offences. The powers in this Bill must be subject to sufficient controls and oversight to ensure their use is necessary and proportionate at all times, as there are potential implications for the right to privacy and the data protection rights of individuals.

Overall, the Garda ethos is based not on force of arms but on its relationship with the community.

That ethos has served us well but we need to keep our gardaí safe. The Bill needs to be enacted before the body cameras can be deployed. I hope they will be brought into operation as quickly as possible. Attacks on gardaí injure not just the victims themselves but communities as a whole.

Deputy Matt Shanahan

I was reviewing questions and previous statements in the House regarding the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland's recommendation for the introduction of body-worn cameras. Policing organisations around the world have found such devices can help to improve front-line capability with the accurate recording of incidents, expedite analysis, enhance situation awareness and sometimes protect police from harm. They could probably do a lot more than that.

There is overwhelming support within An Garda Síochána for the introduction of body cameras. If we are going to legislate in this House, the first thing we must do is engage with stakeholders who are on the front line and listen to what they have to say. It is fair comment to say that the policing environment in this country has changed very much over the past decade or two and, unfortunately, it seems to have changed even further over the past number of months. This is a significant concern for all gardaí and for anybody who is trying to uphold the law in this State. Unfortunately, we will have to be more radical in terms of policing, management and penal reform and the Bill is just one of the legs of that stool.

Members have spoken about facial recognition. As the Ceann Comhairle will attest, we had a delegation in Leinster House yesterday from the Japanese embassy. If one were to speak to those people about where facial recognition is going and has already gone in Japan, one would realise that we are light years behind in that regard. I accept the fact that people have concerns as to the preservation of their digital identity but that can be worked out in the context of policy and management protocols.

Another point to note in the context of this Bill relates to the pervasive use of phones by the public to record their interactions with An Garda Síochána but gardaí do not have the right to make a reciprocal recording. Almost two years ago there was a tragic incident where a public figure in this country harassed a garda online and that garda subsequently took his own life. That is reprehensible but it is happening all of the time. It is even happening outside the gates of Leinster House when there are protests going on. We have to arm our public services and our police force appropriately and the Bill will do that.

I accept that there is the potential for data loss and data abuse and that has to be managed. I also accept that we need to have a rigorous system to protect access to information and digital identities in respect of the information that these cameras will deliver. However, regarding concerns expressed about GDPR, I was a member of the council in Waterford three years ago. We had major littering problems. People were backing up their cars and fly-tipping in certain areas but we could not deploy cameras to record the number plates of cars because of GDPR. That policy has softened somewhat but we are not fully there yet. At times we seem to fall down a rabbit hole and tie our own hands in terms of what we need to do.

On balance, I accept the assertions of An Garda Síochána that this tool is needed for better policing and that it can be appropriately used and managed. From that point of view, I support An Garda Síochána and the Bill.

Deputy Seán Canney

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I come from a rural constituency and while we do not experience much antisocial behaviour, we do experience antisocial activity such as dumping on private roads and on bogs. There is a bog beside my home that we spent last summer cleaning up. The clean-up cost the community approximately €5,000 and the council approximately €18,000. We have it secured now and it is right but we could not get anybody for the littering because we could not find the name of anybody on any bag and could not use CCTV footage given it would breach data protection rules.

In the same way, we have had a spate of robberies in rural houses in my area in north Galway over the past number of months. Data protection is of no comfort to the people in these houses when they return from a walk or a trip to the shop to find that their house has been ransacked and their goods stolen. They feel powerless. Gardaí are trying to detect those involved but they do not have the tools that are necessary in this age to tackle these crimes. The criminals themselves have moved on and their technology has improved enormously. Gardaí need to have the support of the public, which they do, and of whatever technology they can get. We can get caught up with issues of privacy, data protection and all of that but it would be great if the registration number of a car coming off the motorway, going into a rural area and coming back out a few hours later, could be recorded. That is an important tool of detection for gardaí.

The body cameras that gardaí will get are a necessary defence for them. Gardaí are human beings; they are members of families and communities and we must have more respect for them. Most people have respect for them but it is beginning to slip away a little bit. There are some who will challenge anybody in a uniform just because they feel he or she represents the establishment. In that context, it is important that we give gardaí as much protection as possible. This is related to the attractiveness of being a garda. It is important that we reassure young people who want to join An Garda Síochána and their parents, who might be worried about them joining, that they will be properly equipped to protect themselves and to detect crime.

It is important that we provide the tools necessary for the detection and conviction of criminals but also that we provide the basis for the prevention of further crime. If crime pays, it will continue but if crime is detected and people are punished for it, that is the best statement we can make. People say that our jails are overcrowded, there is no room and there is a revolving door, and that is true. However if we find people who are robbing houses and farms, taking stock and farm implements and selling them on, there must be a serious penalty for them. If they are on social welfare, for example, their payments should be stopped immediately. The only effective way to treat people who are robbers is to hit them in their pocket. That is very important. I might be a bit hard on the criminals but I know people who have been robbed in their houses and two years later, they are still coming to terms with it. They feel that their house has been desecrated. They do not feel comfortable in the homes that they might have spent the past 40 years living in and raising their families in.

We have to be on the side of the people who are being robbed. We also have to be on the side of the communities involved in community alert schemes and those who are working to try to help one another. We have to make sure that the laws are there to back up law-abiding people and to deal with the criminals. I will support the Bill because it is important. The training of staff and the retention of data is important. The equipment must be workable at all times, unlike in the past when CCTV cameras were erected in the middle of towns but there was nobody monitoring them. I have seen this so many times. Cameras were put up in playgrounds but no monitoring station was attached to them. Something was put some place, it was locked up and never seen again after that. It is important that whatever we do into the future, we do it in a way that is effective. We must buy the equipment, install it and make sure it is maintained, policed and used for its intended purpose. That is very important as well.

An Ceann Comhairle

Thank you, Deputy Canney. I got a bit confused there at the start because I obviously misheard you. I thought you were having a problem in your constituency with people jumping into bogs but it was "dumping" into bogs.

Deputy Seán Canney

It is my Galway accent.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

People are not let into the bogs anymore.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are reassured, anyway, by that. We will move to the Government slot now, with Deputies Ó Cathasaigh and Devlin sharing time.

Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh

Deputy Devlin is first.

An Ceann Comhairle

Maybe the younger Deputy could go first?

Deputy Cormac Devlin

That is Deputy Ó Cathasaigh.

Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh

I have limited time to contribute. I welcome the many provisions in the Bill that will support the work of An Garda Síochána and the essential duty it performs in this State. We are lucky to live in a democracy where there is policing by consent and the police force is, in general, held in such high regard. It is, of course, imperative that the State provides all the safeguards it can to best protect members of An Garda as they daily place themselves in the line of danger while performing their duties and, therefore, I welcome the many provisions of the Bill in that light. The principle of consent is an important one. It is an aspect of the social contract that co-creates the State among its people and involves a delicate balancing act between rights to individual liberty placed against the constraints the State may place on that liberty for the common good. These choices and how we make them characterise the nature of the State.

I am concerned by the Minister's signalled intention to introduce amendments on Committee Stage to govern the use of facial recognition technology, FRT. That represents a large shift in that balance of freedoms and constraints. It is evident that he believes it is consequential, given that he devoted almost five minutes of his opening remarks to this issue. He outlined many powerful arguments in favour of FRT and they deserve careful consideration but many people, including many of the previous speakers across the House, have raised concerns with regard to civil liberty implications but also the current efficacy and accuracy of the technology. There is a growing body of evidence that FRT can be inherently biased, with divergent error rates across demographic groups having been exposed. The poorest accuracy is consistently found in respect of subjects who are female, black and between 18 and 30 years of age. For example, in the UK more than 1,000 young black men were removed from a so-called gang database when it was uncovered that they had no gang affiliation at all.

I am conscious of moves to legislate on this issue at EU level. The artificial intelligence Act, published by the Commission in 2021, is currently working its way through the legislative process at EU level but is not anticipated to be complete until 2024 at the earliest. With that timeline in mind, it may be more appropriate for us to delay legislating for the use of live searches using FRT in particular until that EU position is finalised.

Given the gravity of this issue, would it not be more appropriate to allow the Bill to progress through the Houses of the Oireachtas without the introduction of FRT amendments on Committee Stage and to then return to the issue through stand-alone legislation that would allow for meaningful public consultation, including a full pre-legislative scrutiny process, on the introduction of FRT to policing in Ireland?

Deputy Cormac Devlin

I welcome the opportunity to examine the Bill. The Minister will be aware that I raised this issue on several occasions in the past year. I welcome the introduction of the Bill, which has long been sought by gardaí and their representative associations. The Bill provides for the use of body-worn cameras by gardaí and the expanded use of ANPR technology. It also contains provisions relating to CCTV footage and the recording of phone calls. It is essential that good oversight of data protection be initiated from the outset. Body-worn cameras are widely used across the EU as an effective tool for evidence gathering in the investigation of crime. They can protect both the public and gardaí.

The Bill does not deal with the usage of body-worn cameras by private security firms. The sector is eager for action in this area to provide protection for its staff and members of the public. I hope that matter will be examined in the near future.

I thank An Garda for its efforts to prevent and investigate crime and antisocial behaviour. It is not an easy job and Garda members are on the front line. They place themselves at risk on our behalf every day. I am sure all parties across the House are grateful for their efforts and service. Thanks is not enough, however. As an Oireachtas, we need to provide legislation to support front-line gardaí. This Bill legislating for body cameras is such a measure. I welcome the commitment of the Government to enact this year the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which will increase the maximum penalty for the offence of assault causing harm, from five years' imprisonment to ten.

However, further action from the Minister is required to deal with the attacks on gardaí and first responders. Mandatory minimum sentences should be introduced. There should be no tolerance for attacks on members of An Garda Síochána, the fire brigade, the ambulance service and other first responders in our society.

Deputy Mark Ward

For many years, Sinn Féin has been calling for the introduction of body cameras for gardaí to assist them in keeping communities safe. The Bill has been long delayed and the Government should have got its act together many years ago. As noted by previous speakers, other European countries have been using body cameras for more than a decade. Fine Gael has been in government for almost 11 years but it is only now introducing this legislation. What priority has it placed on protecting front-line gardaí and keeping communities safe? It is important that there be proper regulation in place for the protection of the public, as well as of gardaí while using these cameras on duty. Restrictions on when and where these devices are used and the protection of data captured on them must be in place alongside the legislation. Sinn Féin will closely examine the legislation and table amendments where necessary to ensure gardaí and communities get the protection they need.

Too many communities simply do not feel safe. Year after year, Fine Gael in government has left An Garda understaffed and under-resourced. The Dublin region experienced the largest loss of gardaí since 2009. It lost a total of 757 gardaí in that time. My area, which covers Clondalkin, Lucan, Palmerstown, Rathcoole, Newcastle, Saggart and Brittas, experienced a big decrease in Garda numbers during that time - a total of more than 6% of all gardaí. Fine Gael, the so-called party of law and order, has decimated policing in my area. Communities in certain parts of my area feel abandoned and unsafe. The biggest decrease in my area is in the number of community gardaí. In 2020, we had 86 community gardaí across all the areas I mentioned. That number has dropped to 64 in the past two years. Areas such as Saggart, Rathcoole and Newcastle have experienced the fastest growth in the State. Those communities want gardaí physically present, particularly in the evenings. The presence of gardaí who walk the beat and speak to residents builds strong relationships and offers communities a sense of security.

I welcome that the Bill is being debated today but it should not have taken the harrowing scenes in Ballyfermot to force the Government to act. I will put that despicable incident into context. The two young gardaí who were attacked were not from Ballyfermot Garda station; they were from my local Garda station, in Ronanstown. They were only in Ballyfermot on that night to provide overtime cover due to the lack of gardaí in Ballyfermot. That is just not good enough. Gardaí have been left vulnerable and put at risk. While I welcome the introduction of body cameras, I would much rather there be additional bodies to wear those cameras rather than just having the cameras themselves.

An Ceann Comhairle

I call Deputy Mattie McGrath, who might be sharing time with his colleagues.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

Tá siad imithe. Déanfaidh mé mo dhícheall. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. It is a temporary appointment, for good reason. I wish the Minister, Deputy McEntee, all the best in her future. It is a wonderful and joyous occasion for her and I hope it all goes well.

The general scheme of the Bill contained the objective of providing a legal basis for law enforcement use of body cameras, along with other recording devices such as mobile phones. The proposal would also expand the use of CCTV footage and ANPR technology. Emphasising the role of the technology in enhancing law enforcement practices, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, stated in May that employing controversial facial recognition technology could revolutionise An Garda to manage child exploitation, which is very serious, as well as missing person and murder cases. The technology would also help to exonerate innocent parties by revealing their whereabouts at the time of a crime.

If enacted, the Bill would allow An Garda to input an image of a perpetrator into a system that would provide instant access to images taken in public places of the suspect or those who resemble the suspect.

This process, according to the Department of Justice, would enhance the speed and facility with which gardaí could locate and identify suspects. We would all welcome that. It would be great if it happened. These proposals, however, have been the subject of significant criticism from data protection and human rights perspectives, notwithstanding that they include a number of safeguards. For example, rigorous human rights and data protection impact assessments must be completed before the legislation can be finalised. Also, the Bill would need to comply with the GDPR Act.

While the original general scheme of the Bill did not include face recognition technology – this is very important and I want the Minister to understand it, as I hope he will – it is now almost certain that its use is to be pushed through by the Government on Committee Stage. That is not very good and I am not in favour of it. If I could support the Garda Síochána 1,000%, I would. All my life I have been in community alert. Our community alert group, set up in Newcastle in 1985, was the second in the country. It is still active and engaging. There is a two-way street and the changes proposed need to be reversed.

I recently attended a very pleasant function, the Cahir Garda party for senior citizens. I sometimes have a Minister come to it. It has been running for 24 years and I have been involved in it every year. It took place last Friday evening in Cahir House Hotel. I could not say enough about it. It is the best PR machine the Garda could have. Almost 200 senior citizens sat down for a meal, proudly facilitated by David Walsh of Cahir House Hotel and his staff and the Cahir gardaí. Superintendent Eddie Golden provided the music with a wonderful band. Inspector Mark Allen attended and poured out the tea, coffee and everything else with the community gardaí. It was just spectacular. Transition year students from Coláiste Dún Iascaigh and the McGrath School of Irish Dance provided entertainment. The school is run by my niece, so I declare an interest. Cahir Men's Shed, a group of eight, played for hours. The event started at 4 o'clock in the evening. The real party started at 5 p.m. and went on until maybe 10 p.m. People I have not mentioned also took part. I did not meet our new superintendent. I compliment Superintendent Eddie Golden. He was in Cahir Garda station but has now transferred to Thurles. I also pay tribute to Chief Superintendent Derek Smart, who is now imithe elsewhere. We have lost our chief superintendent in Tipperary.

I compliment the community garda team, including Jenny Gough and Judy Davern. They kindly got a loan of the bus from the Limerick Garda division and connected the people. You would think the old people were loaded into paddy-wagons but they were not paddy-wagons. "Loaded into" is the wrong phrase to use. The old people were encouraged in and helped. They experienced great joy at the party, with the gardaí ag rince leis na daoine go léir in their uniforms. Transition year students and Cahir and Clonmel scout groups were also present. There was a massive meitheal effort to bring joy. There was no party over the two years of Covid, so it was great to be back. The party has been going on for 24 years and it was wonderful. I commend all the sponsors. Members of Cahir choral society came to sing. All sorts of groups were involved. The Garda could not buy that kind of publicity or engagement from all the places in the hinterland, including Ballyporeen, Skeheenarinky, Ard Fhíonáin, An Caisleán Nua, Bansha, Kilmoyler, Poulmucka and New Inn. There were people from all around and they were delighted to be back with a bang. I danced the night out with many like me. As Joe Dolan used to say, "Send them home sweating." By God, did I go home sweating. The sweat was pouring off me because I am not as fit as I thought I was. We had a great night. I compliment all concerned.

I acknowledge all the activities of the community gardaí. The Government does not support the Garda in enough things, and that is why I am saying I have concerns about facial recognition. The gardaí will be able to feed in images. The Government seems determined to push through this. It did not go through prelegislative scrutiny although the other parts of the Bill did. It must go through it, even though I want to give every tool of the trade that I can to the Garda and condemn anyone who attacks, splits, threatens or intimidates members of the Garda, or indeed takes compromising videos. The provision should not be included. We must be very careful about how videos from body cams are stored and ensure they will not be released. Some videos taken on phones, not body cams, have been released. We have seen that. They can do awful damage.

I am a big supporter of An Garda Síochána but there are bad apples in every organisation. We have seen this. I myself was a victim of false allegations and was brought through the courts. It cost me a lot of money given the legal representation. I spent 18 days in the Circuit Court and cleared my good name, but sin scéal eile. There are many areas about which I hope to talk to the Minister.

Lisa Temple, from near Bray in the Minister's constituency, was treated horrifically by An Garda Síochána. A mob – a heavy gang – came along from the Bank of Ireland. They were no better than thugs. They went into the house when the woman's two young daughters were there. What went on was obscene.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh)

I would prefer it if the Deputy did not mention specific names.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

Okay, but it is happening under our eyes. It is happening in the Chair's county too, and mine. It was gardaí in the Chair's county who tried to get me locked up. Anyway, I know some Members here might like to see me locked up. Thanks be to God, everybody here has a good name.

This legislation is worrying as well as everything else. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, along with six academics working in the area, wrote an open letter to the Minister for Justice in November noting the use of facial recognition technology also raises serious and challenging issues concerning individual privacy and data rights, in a world where population-level mass surveillance is no longer a dystopian fiction but an easy thing to implement. What we need are bodies, not body cams, because the force is depleted. We have fewer than 100 recruits in Templemore at the moment but should have 300. We must examine why young men and women are not opting to join An Garda Síochána. We must make the organisation a safe place to work. We must have respect for its members, make the job rewarding for them, and give the backup.

We had representations from people in Lisronagh. The Minister's predecessor met them. There were major attacks and marauding gangs going around. Gardaí and beangardaí were going up and down the street on their own at 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock in the morning with no backup. They tell us we cannot use the term "beangarda" anymore. I will use it anyway. In the Chair's own town, Lismore, Cappoquin and Ballymacarbry, numbers are being totally depleted. Garda stations that used to have a sergeant and three or four gardaí no longer have them. They need them because people need them to be physically present.

I am all for number plate recognition, especially off the motorways because of the gangs that travel down them and carry out heinous crimes. Already people are becoming increasingly desensitised to facial recognition technology to unlock phone handsets or move through airport passport control. Such uses produce databases of unique biometric facial identifiers that can be combined with larger profiling databases. I resent this and totally object to it. Where are the data stored? Who has it? Big tech companies are making a fortune out of it. We are becoming monopolised as a human race, which should not be happening. Technology is good if used right and in the right place.

As the ICCL letter notes, in Ireland greater consideration and consultation – including with the Data Protection Commission – are needed before any legislative proposals of the kind in question are even published. In addition, there is major EU-level legislation pending that considers face recognition technology and that would potentially force immediate changes to the rushed Irish legislation.

We should therefore make haste slowly here. Now is not the time for the Department of Justice or the Government to rush such measures through this House. Civil liberty and privacy campaigners have expressed great concern over the move, highlighting what they see as a possibility of discrimination. We will see discrimination.

I was speaking about An Garda Síochána and the community gardaí and the whole division in Tipperary a minute ago. We do not have enough gardaí and so they are pulled off community duties. The Garda station in Clonmel is a hovel. You could not call it anything else. Several Ministers for Justice and Taoisigh have visited. The issue was first raised in this Chamber by the former Ceann Comhairle, Seán Treacy, who is now dead, 50 years ago. We badly need this station. We now have a site and planning and design has been done but there is no sign of the airgead. It was lumped in with a bundle of different Garda stations that then fell off the train. This included Bandon and Sligo. It is now bundled with another Garda station in Cork but it is also in a bundle with the children's law court. When getting a builder for a design and build contract, a law court is a completely different animal from a Garda station. Law courts normally have a fine facade and are fine big buildings like the new courts out near the Phoenix Park. You need totally different architects because they require totally different designs as they are totally different buildings. The courthouse should be removed from that bundle. Let the children's court come under a separate contract because you are fishing in a different pond for different kinds of builders, architects, designers and so on to deliver such a building. It is a completely different project and I do not know why it has been put in here. I believe it was put in as a delaying tactic, which is wrong.

On the Prison Service, with the indulgence of the Chair, I will pay tribute to Assistant Chief Officer, Trevor Darling, who retired from Limerick Prison in the past ten days. He was one of the really good prison management officers. I also wish the governor of Cork Prison, Peter O'Brien, who is soon to retire, well. He is also a highly respected prison officer and has also given excellent service. It is the same with all of the retired gardaí, many of whom attended the function last week that I have mentioned. I am glad that they gave their service and survived. We know that a number of gardaí have made the ultimate sacrifice and given their lives. We saw what happened at Lordship Credit Union. We can have no truck with people who assassinate members of An Garda Síochána in cold blood in this country. It should not be tolerated. Where there are complaints, which do arise, there must be proper channels and processes to deal with them. People often come to my clinics who have issues with different gardaí in different Garda stations. If there was to be this facial recognition on the body cams, it would have to be used very sensitively.

The Minister mentioned body cams and CCTV. Schemes have been held up in my town of Fethard, in Clonmel and all over Tipperary over concerns about data storage from the county council and An Garda Síochána. I am the chairman of a community alert group that installed one of the first such systems 20 years ago in a little village, An Caisleán Nua. The Garda made us take it down despite the fact that the Garda crime prevention officer at the time - his name eludes me but he is now retired - had come out to okay it and told us where to put the cameras. This was at a community house, Tigh na nDaoine, which is a wonderful place. The system was locked. Only An Garda Síochána had the key to the secure cabinet so only gardaí could access it. We had to take it down. That left a bad taste in the mouth of the community because we had raised funds to cover the cost, which was about €6,000, and then had to remove it. Gardaí regularly go into the shops there. My sister is a shop owner in the village. They often solve crimes by looking at the private CCTV. I cannot understand why we have delayed community CCTV for so long. Gardaí often use it. I know of a woman who was beaten up and robbed at the Ballymacarbry community centre. Tá aithne ag an gCathaoirleach Gníomhach ag an áit sin. The Halfway House, in the Acting Chair's area, which is now closed, had CCTV. It was able to identify the number passing and the gardaí were able to solve that crime and get that criminal for his heinous crime because of that help. Despite that, we could not put up CCTV in the community.

There is too much red tape, too much baloney and too many issues. The scheme in Clonmel needs to be renewed and it is now being renewed and extended. I salute the work of councillors and members of An Garda Síochána who are trying to progress this. It has been slow. I attend most of the county joint policing committee meetings and this is discussed ad infinitum. However, there is no replacement for the man on the beat. We had an excellent garda in Newcastle, who succumbed to cancer, Sergeant Niall O'Halloran. He was tremendous. He was on duty 24-7, even when he was not rostered. Most people who wanted his mobile number had it. We now have Garda John Walsh, who came out to us. I thank the superintendent for leading him out to us and for making sure he stayed in our area, which is made up of Newcastle, Ardfinnan, Ballybacon and Grange. Garda Walsh covers these and other areas with Garda Philly Ryan and Garda Donovan from Ballyporeen. They do an excellent job. They know the people. They have to. People go in to sign a form for a passport or something else. The garda will say "Hello Pat", "Hello John", "Hello Mary" or whatever. The people can have confidence in them. Something might jig their mind and remind them they saw something. That could be the solving of a crime but there needs to be that two-way street. People have to respect their gardaí and they have to respect the community.

The Minister will have to support the text alert groups. They are raising funds every day to keep the texts coming out in respect of crime. It is gardaí who decide when they are sent out. It may be, for example, when there is a suspicious vehicle. I am not saying they are sent out foolishly or anything like that but it is an awful drain on the community alert groups. That should be funded. It is great back-up for the Garda and it has run criminals out of communities. People mobilise, get the Garda, run around in cars and form a kind of meitheal. I am not advocating violence or anything like that but they frighten them off and criminals leave the area. The text alerts are a wonderful system.

Property marking is now being rolled out nationally from Tigh na nDaoine in Newcastle, An Caisleán Nua, which I mentioned. The Minister must come and visit some time. A previous Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the late Brian Lenihan, visited many years ago. Property marking is vital. Everyone knows they have be able to identify their property. There should be a proper number applied with proper equipment. My colleague, Senator Keogan, and her husband have a property marking machine and bring it to different communities. They are expensive machines and people have to be trained to use them but they are brilliant. An Garda often has warehouses full of stolen items but people cannot claim them. People may identify their machines, expensive hoovers and expensive lawnmowers but, if they have no identification on it, they cannot claim it. Property marking is very important. You have a property number. You turn the machine upside down and, in some secret place, that number is there. It cannot be rubbed off. The number is then paired up and the equipment is returned to its rightful owner.

I wish the Bill well but there is a lot of teasing out to be done. The Minister must make haste slowly. He has to take out this facial recognition because too many people, including myself, are opposed to it. I would vote against the whole Bill just to stop that part.

Deputy Réada Cronin

Sinn Féin supports the proposal on body cams provided there is strict supervision, monitoring and protocols. As has been already outlined by some of my comrades, we have concerns about facial recognition provisions being introduced to a Bill that has already gone through prelegislative scrutiny. It is really not good enough. It goes without saying that technology must be always used in a way that ensures a careful balance between privacy and the protection of the citizen through the most serious and rigorous regulation and supervision. It is impossible to overstate the need for all of this. Training and oversight are, therefore, critical. Something with such a big reach demands equally big responsibility, responsibility that must be demanded and upheld constantly by our gardaí. Gardaí are still undervalued and under-resourced. I say this as a Deputy for Kildare, which has one of the lowest ratios of gardaí to residents in the State, and as the daughter of a garda who loved his job and who gave himself to it, heart and soul. Like millions of people in this State, I am horrified by the appalling way in which our gardaí are being treated by a tiny number of far-right thugs, who are actively and cynically exploiting the concerns of ordinary local people in their communities for their own ends. These thugs could not give a ha'penny damn about them, their lives, their families or their futures.

They will happily go on to their next crusade, their next grudge, and leave decent, ordinary people in the wreckage they have created. I have grave concerns, as do many of my colleagues, that some eejit of a young fella, riled up by the hard men with their incendiary talk of rape and burning people out of their homes, will destroy the lives of other people as well as his own. Our young, impressionable people, no matter how old they are or how tough they think they are, need protection from these cowards masquerading as patriots who do not even know their national flag from the flag of the Ivory Coast. Parents taken in with this rubbish would want to think long and hard about the impact they could be having on their own children. They need only look at any school gate and see the rainbow of colours walking in and out on any given day. Our kids have friends from many different nations and play with them every day.

There is no leadership from the Government on this and I ask the Government to take its head out of the sand and lead on what is in front of it. Most Irish people do not have a white supremacist bone in their body. What is annoying a lot of these communities is that they see their small community spaces being given over and taken over by the great and the good, who are going to be making an absolute fortune out of many of these contracts. The Government has a duty to prevent violence and tragedy. It has a duty to our people and to our gardaí. There is no use wringing our hands about it later on when lives are shattered and futures stolen.

I commend the gardaí who have experienced scurrilous approaches from these far-right thugs. I want to let them know we appreciate their calm in the face of such outright thuggery. I would also like to take the opportunity to mark the retirement of our local superintendent in Kildare, Martin Walker, who is retiring on Friday after 40 years in the service. I thank him on behalf of everybody in Kildare for his commitment to us and the force.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I am glad the Minister is here. In his speech, he acknowledged that Members inside the House and people outside the House would have different viewpoints. I certainly have a very different viewpoint on this Bill. Let me also say that I have the greatest respect for the gardaí on the ground. Many is the time I have had little respect for the management, as with all institutions. That was not helped by my introduction to the Dáil in February or March 2016, when the first document I read was the O'Higgins report in respect of Sergeant McCabe. I do not think we can mention that man's name often enough with respect and with gratitude for what he did. That was my introduction. I have read many reports after that from High Court judges and various people on Garda behaviour. When I talk about Garda behaviour, I talk about it from the top down. In my role as a Deputy and as a mother, I am the first to ring the guards in the expectation that they will come and that I can trust them and tell them what is happening. I am talking here about what has happened with the Garda. The Minister will remember the Morris tribunal. He might remember the price of that and the foolishness of thinking those matters were confined to one geographical area in Donegal. Had anybody at the time thought to look at that, we might have pre-empted what happened subsequently with Sergeant McCabe but we did not do that, of course. Then there was the collusion between the Garda and the Northern Ireland police force, the Smithwick tribunal. There is any amount of examples.

The Minister must forgive me if I come from a very sceptical position. I adopt that same position in respect of my own role as a Deputy and this institution. I constantly question myself and all institutions because they end up protecting themselves and they do not end up serving the people they are there to serve, including councils and local authorities that have taken on the mantle of corporatisation. We did have councils that served. Institutions are always in danger of serving themselves and becoming more important than the people they are there to serve.

The title of the Bill seems innocuous: Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Bill 2022. The Minister's speech failed utterly to tease out the balance that must be made between the fundamental right to privacy and the infringement, intrusion or invasion of that right for the common good or public safety. That is a very delicate teasing out. Top of the list has to be the fundamental right to privacy. We take that away at our peril. When we take it away, we must do it in a way that is measured, necessary, proportionate and only for a certain length of time. Those safeguards are not here at all for me to see and I have done my best. I welcome some of the provisions. I welcome the mandatory human rights assessment and that there is an acknowledgement that there must be a data processing assessment and so on. I welcome those provisions. The Minister must forgive me for straying again but it is all relevant. When we were debating Report Stage of the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Bill 2022 yesterday, one of the things that was lacking from the title was putting it in context, which is for what various groups, such as the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and various organisations on the ground, asked. We should enshrine in the title the fundamental principles of human rights and then the legislation derives from that. That was not done. It certainly has not been done here. The title is minimalist and underestimates what we are doing.

I try to stay away from my own opinion even though I am after telling the Minister I am very sceptical. I do my best to read the documents of the experts who went before the Joint Committee on Justice. I welcome the report of the joint committee and the work that went into prelegislative scrutiny. I am often standing here criticising the fact that prelegislative scrutiny has not happened. In this case, it did happen and I want to acknowledge that. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties states that it has concerns about this Bill which proposes to significantly expand the ability of gardaí, including civilian and reserve gardaí, to monitor people's behaviour in public spaces. It states that this will impact people's rights to privacy, data protection, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and will engage protections against non-discrimination. I do not think we can disagree about what is set out here, maybe on the extent to which the Bill is infringing those rights. I think the Minister will accept that it is infringing. That has been acknowledged.

It is important to address the right to privacy because it is not set out anywhere. The right to privacy is protected by Bunreacht na hÉireann, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights. Of course it may be limited and I am sure the colleagues to my right more learned than I are going to talk about that. The right to privacy is protected in all of these legal instruments. The Data Protection Act 2018, which is fundamental, gives effect to the General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR, with which we are all semi-familiar, and the law enforcement directive. Parts 5 and 6 of the 2018 Act concern the processing of personal data by data controllers who are competent for their role. Local authorities and the Garda have utterly failed to comply with their obligations in the operation of CCTV cameras.

That is not my opinion; that is the Data Protection Commissioner's opinion and I understand that the Data Protection Commission is continuing in its investigations into Garda stations and 31 local authorities. In general terms, article 5 of the GDPR sets out key principles which are central to data protection, namely:

Lawfulness, fairness and transparency; purpose limitation [so we do not have creep. If there is a reason and a purpose it should be set out clearly.]; data minimisation; accuracy; storage limitation; integrity and confidentiality; and accountability.

I thank the Library and Research Service for setting this out for us in the Bill digest, and I want to thank the ICCL, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, and all of the other organisations that have made submissions and helped us. The Bill digest states:

the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights allow for an encroachment upon the right to privacy where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. The use of technology for law enforcement purposes gives rise to such an infringement on the individual’s right to privacy and data protection. [It has to be done in proportionate and necessary way.] To ensure that such infringements are necessary and proportionate, the European Data Protection Supervisor recommends:

“... a law enforcement measure, if and when assessed to be necessary, should then be analysed according to whether it would be more proportionate if it were limited to only serious crimes." [and it goes on to expand on that.]

With respect to video-surveillance [which is an integral part of this, in all its forms, including drones], the EDPS also stated that such "systems should not be installed if they are not effective in achieving their purposes, for example, if they merely provide the illusion of greater security".

In all my political career I have heard certain segments of people on the ground and councillors crying out for more CCTV cameras. I remember doing a lot of research at the time and gathering up the research papers and there was no evidence to justify the installation of CCTV cameras in the manner in which they were being installed. If we fast forward to 2023 it is more than 22 years later and the evidence on what we are putting through here is, at the very least, inconclusive. The Minister talked about evidence this morning when he was interviewed and I noticed that there was a complete failure to follow up on what that evidence is because I would love to see it. I have read all of those documents and the evidence on the surveillance we are carrying out is, at best, contradictory and inconclusive. These organisations have asked us to be careful in what we are doing, and that includes the Policing Authority. They are of graded opinions on what they find of concern. The ICCL is the most outspoken on its concerns. The Policing Authority had great concerns as well, although it saw some advantage in the Bill. It said it depended on how it was managed and protected and on the oversight.

I see the Chair of the Committee on Justice, Deputy Lawless, is here, and I have already thanked him for the committee’s work and detailed scrutiny of the Bill. We have 15 recommendations from that committee, having looked at and listened to all of these submissions. It recommended:

that the Codes of Practice covering Head 2 ensure that the information and data collected by body-worn cameras... and CCTV devices will not use Facial Recognition Technology [that is recommendation no. 1]... and will not be used to racially profile members of the public.

I will leave it to the Chair of the committee to go through the recommendations but what jumps out at me is that it recommended: "a pilot scheme to trial the use of recording devices and BWCs" [body-worn cameras].

Part 2 of the Bill concerns the operation of recording devices by the Garda. This part does not include CCTV or ANPR. It includes the use of a device that is remotely controlled and can be attached to an animal. It states that its use must be “necessary and proportionate” and in line with “an applicable code of practice”. There are no codes of practice to be seen anywhere. I would have thought we would have seen those. I read some explanation that there cannot be a code of practice because of the complexity of procurement and that this has to be sorted out first to see what is appropriate. I welcome the fact that if we are going to go with this the recording devices have to be overt, although I am concerned that the term “in so far as practicable” is in the Bill.

Part 3 of the Bill looks at the use of ANPR. Again, it must be "proportionate” and "data sharing" agreements are mentioned. I am concerned about the “focussed monitoring” of a particular vehicle for up to three months. I am also concerned with the way that can be authorised without the District Court and that the District Court can make in camera decisions on authorisations and renewals. I understand this was not discussed during pre-legislative scrutiny but I can be corrected on that. I mention the statutory basis for recording phone calls to and from the Garda station. This follows on from the Fennelly Commission and there was no statutory basis up until now for the recording of phone calls. Gardaí have been operating illegally or with no legal status, monitoring or taping people’s phone conversations.

Then we have the change to the legal framework for the authorisation and installation of cameras. This is particularly interesting for me, coming from 17 years in the local authority. Under statute, only Garda personnel and local authorities will be authorised to operate such schemes. Why is that? It is because the Data Protection Commission is still carrying out investigations? I am subject to the Minister’s correction on that. The Data Protection Commission has previously investigated the use of CCTV for law enforcement purposes and found several infringements. This Bill is seeking to correct that situation. However, my difficulty is the Data Protection Commission is still carrying out its investigations, and these are the most serious infringements without any contract or written agreement between the local authority and the Garda or a third party operator. There are many other infringements and we are not waiting for that investigation to be completed. What I have read is of serious concern to me. I was part of a local authority that saw the operation of those CCTV cameras without any clarity or legal basis. The legal basis that was there was infringed by both the Garda and the local authority personnel. That is of serious concern to me.

Then there is part 6 of the Bill, which concerns the power of a member of the Garda to process live feeds of third party CCTV. The listeners need to know we are giving the power to the Garda to access, in whatever manner is appropriate, remotely or otherwise, CCTV cameras somewhere else outside of Garda operation and operated by a third party. We are going to do that without any judicial authorisation in certain situations. In other situations there will be judicial authorisation and then that authorisation can go on for quite some time. I have huge difficulties with that.

I have already welcomed the mandatory human rights assessment. I am nearing the end of my time so I will stick to quotes from the organisations. The European Convention on Human Rights stated that the use of surveillance technology should be particularly precise, considering their invasiveness and the potential for the sophistication in technology to increase over time. The test of being "necessary and proportionate" is mentioned 16 times in the Bill. The staff in my office outlined this, as did the staff in the Library and Research Service. However, there are no criteria in the Bill which define how this test will be carried out. As mentioned already, the ICCL talks about the vast expansion of the surveillance powers of the Garda, without sufficient evidence that these developments are necessary in an Irish context and under our international obligations, proportionate to the risk they pose to a range of rights.

The Policing Authority is not known to be very radical, and it has done great work during Covid. I read all of its reports and it expressed concerns about the use of recording devices such as drones. It expressed concern that they would become normalised and recommended that the legislation set out the principles and standards of accountability and oversight. We have all the other worries about profiling and bias, which are built into the technology as I understand it. We also have concerns over policing in certain areas and there is generally a whole range of concerns that I would have thought should have been teased out in the Minister’s speech.

While we want to protect the Garda, it must be done within the context of human rights and in a limited way for a limited purpose that is proportionate and necessary. That is not what is happening here. That is not what the ICCL believes is happening. It tells us that it will go on to look at facial recognition technology, which was never discussed, yet, the Ministers, Deputies Harris and McEntee, state that they will produce an amendment. Deputies have been deprived of the process of pre-legislative scrutiny on that. It will be brought forward as an amendment.

The ICCL is concerned that the Bill will enable gardaí to routinely collect, retain, store and search vast amounts of the personal data relating to members of the public. It believes that facial recognition technology has no place in Irish policing and goes on to clarify why that is the case . It has great concerns about the live feed, which I share, relating to the Garda accessing third-party video or CCTV footage with or without District Court judge approval, depending on the situation.

This legislation is wrong. The Garda needs protection. There could be a place for cameras, depending how they are monitored, how the data is collected, who uses them, when they are used and when they are switched off. I noted various comments about domestic violence by the Minister. I am a little cynical in that regard, particularly as someone who has repeatedly addressed the issue of domestic and gender-based violence in the House and what is lacking in that area. Suddenly, body-worn cameras will be a great asset when a garda attends a domestic incident. I am a little cynical about such use. The Minister might clarify whether that was discussed with Women's Aid and all the other organisations that have been in contact with Deputies.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Mattie McGrath)

We must adjourn the debate. Before that happens, I wish to inform the House that I have agreed that Deputies Lawless and O'Callaghan can contribute during the first slot when the debate recommences.

Deputy James Lawless

Yes. I think I was next in line.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 2 Feb 2023

Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Bill 2022: Second Stage (Resumed)

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Feb 2023