Amendment No. 1 is in the name of Senator Keogan who is not present and, therefore, the amendment falls.
Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Bill 2022: Committee Stage
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
Amendment No. 2 is in the name of Senator Ruane. It has been organised that Senator Flynn will deputise for Senator Ruane.
I move amendment No. 2 :
In page 7, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
“(b) does not include any devices or systems that are capable of processing the record made under paragraph (a) with facial recognition technology,”.
The amendment would enhance the definition of "recording device" to clarify that no data collected with a Garda recording device could be processed with facial recognition technology, FRT. We have had this argument many times in this Chamber. FRT has been proven again and again to have inaccurate bias when used in other countries.
The Artificial Intelligence Act in Europe will include a ban on live facial recognition. The amendment reflects all these factors and would ensure that the legislation would have to come back to the Oireachtas for approval before any facial technology could ever be used with a Garda recording device.
I know where Senators Ruane and Flynn are coming from on this, although I do not necessarily agree with them. My understanding is that if facial recognition technology were to be used at a point in the future - I know there is desire in certain quarters for that - and if that were to pass, it would have to come back to this House anyway. It could not be done under this legislation even as it is currently framed with or without this amendment. Maybe the Minister can comment on that.
What Senators Ruane and Flynn are proposing is to prohibit the use of devices that are capable of processing using FRT. Under the Data Protection Act 2018, specific primary legislation would be necessary for the use of FRT. This Bill would retain the status quo.
We have obviously introduced plans to bring forward a separate Bill looking at facial recognition technology. Separate legislation will ensure that we have time to tease out and debate the issues we know have been discussed previously. I will say again on the record, however, that I believe it is absolutely essential that gardaí have access to FRT for very serious crime, including threats to national security, critical infrastructure, homicide, rape, aggravated sexual assault, child sexual abuse and abduction, including child abduction. Gardaí should have the tools available to them to be able to work against the most serious violent offences committed against vulnerable victims. That will be done at a later date. It is not necessary that the amendment be included in the Bill because we will have to bring back separate legislation.
We share the concerns as raised by Senator Flynn and, indeed, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, and we are prepared to support this amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 2 agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5
Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 15, 16, 21 to 23, inclusive, 25, 34, 35, 38 to 41, inclusive, and 44, 47, 57 and 60 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 3:
In page 8, line 36, to delete “Public Expenditure and Reform” and substitute “Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform”.
Amendment No. 3 is a technical amendment to update the expenses provision of the Bill to reflect the change in the name of the Department. As Senators are aware, the Government formally agreed to change the name of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform with effect from 1 February.
Amendment No. 4 is a minor technical amendment to ensure the wording is clear that the recording device can operate on an animal if the recording device on the animal is in a place that the member would be entitled to be in. This includes a public space or any place where the member of Garda personnel has the power of entry authorised by law, or a place that they have express or implied permission to be, for example, a shop or a car park or a place where they are for the performance of their functions.
Amendment No. 15 is a minor technical drafting amendment to ensure it is clear that the offences relate specifically to the operation of the recording devices under Part 2. Amendments Nos. 16, 44, 57 and 60 are minor technical drafting amendments to include the word “to” after “damage”.
Amendment No. 21 serves to clarify that it is the utilisation of automatic number plate recognition, ANPR, that is referred to in subsection (1). While ANPR is operated on a recording device, it is considered more consistent to refer to the utilisation of ANPR in this section.
Amendments No. 22 and 23 are further minor drafting changes to ensure consistency in these references in the section. The definition of the utilisation of ANPR in section 13 includes the operation by a member of Garda personnel of ANPR from a recording device.
Amendment No. 25 is a minor technical amendment to subsection (1) that will remove the word “data”. This is because the utilisation of ANPR is defined in section 12. The definition includes the processing of ANPR data, which is also defined in section 12.
Amendment No. 34 is a technical amendment to subsection (1) that will clarify that the reference to “that period” refers to the aforementioned three-month period in that subsection and not any other period. Sections 17 and 18 contain a number of references to a period of three months. The three-month period is the maximum period in which ANPR data may be utilised to monitor the movement of a particular vehicle and section 17 provides that the approval shall be for a shorter period if, in the opinion of the member of An Garda Síochána, granting the approval is reasonably required. Conditions may also be attached to the approval. Section 18 allows for a judge to approve focused monitoring beyond three months.
Amendment No. 35 will remove the reference to “data”. Again, this is because the utilisation of ANPR is defined in section 12. The definition includes the processing of ANPR data, which is also defined in section 12.
Amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 41 ensure there is consistency in references to the District Court in section 18. Amendment No. 40 serves to clarify that it is the last renewal that must still be valid when making an application for renewal.
Amendment No. 47 is a simple technical drafting amendment to change the word “under” to “specified in”. This will improve the wording of subsection (2)(b)(i) and align it with the language used under section 22, where it refers to the purposes set out in section 21(3).
I also bring to the attention of Senators that I intend to introduce further drafting amendments on Report Stage that will again be technical in nature. Those amendments will be done on the basis of further consultation with the Office of the Attorney General. This is to ensure that the language in the Bill provides as robust a legislative basis for recording devices as possible.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 9
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 10, lines 2 and 3, to delete “if the recording device was in the same location as the member,” and substitute “if the member were in the same location as the recording device,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 8 to 12, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 10, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
“(2) A member of Garda personnel shall operate, or cause to be operated, a recording device where they are requested to do so by an individual with whom they are engaged in the course of their duties.”.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 would require gardaí to turn on their bodycams if requested to do so by a member of the public. Amendment No. 5 would give an absolute right to citizens to request that a garda turn on their bodycam. Amendment No. 6 would give a qualified right whereby a garda can refuse to turn on their camera if they believe that doing so would put a member of the public at harm. This is our compromise amendment.
I said at the outset of this Bill that it is very important that we put in place protocols governing the use of Garda bodycams and material that is going to be gathered in regard to members of the public in a public place or, indeed, in a private place, for example, a home. Those protocols have to be tight, as I have said to the Minister before. They need to guarantee the safety and privacy of citizens but they also need to guarantee the safety and privacy of the material that is gathered in this regard.
I have a real reservation about giving anybody, including people who are deliberately causing trouble, the right to demand that a garda turn on the camera. I see that as being fraught with difficulty. We know from many examples the way gardaí are treated on the street. The protocols should govern whether Garda cameras are used or not and the extent to which gardaí are given discretion as to whether they are used are not. The provision of an absolute or even a qualified right for citizens to demand that they must be switched on is going to cause more hassle and trouble than do good. I have grave reservations about this amendment.
To clarify, we are taking amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 8 to 12, inclusive.
That is correct.
Am I in a position to move amendments at this point?
We are on amendment No. 5. The Senator can speak to the grouping but we are only dealing with amendment No. 5 at this point.
In other words, I can speak to amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 10 at this point.
Yes, you can speak to amendments Nos. 8 to 12, inclusive.
Am I in a position to move amendments at this point?
You can move them when we reach the amendments and you can speak to them now.
That is fine. I was not here to move amendment No. 1, nor would I have been able to move it. With regard to these matters, including the use of bodycams, the point is that all types of recording devices or systems used by An Garda Síochána should, at the very least, be specified in a relevant code of practice. Ideally, there should be a list of all approved devices but, in the absence of that, there should be a proper code of practice. This is an issue that may be the subject of a proposed amendment by Senator Keogan and others on Report Stage.
With regard to amendment No. 8 and the rationale with regard to retained automatic number plate recognition data, the first thing to note is that the notion of retained ANPR data is not defined in this Bill. It is unclear if it refers to a retained pool of data pertaining to all vehicles or a retained pool of ANPR data strictly pertaining to vehicles of interest on a watchlist. Again, I am handicapped in that I am not in a position to move amendments that are now under consideration, the technical reason being that an email has not yet been received by the Seanad Office authorising me to do so.
The Senator can speak to the grouping.
I can speak to them and, hopefully, we will get white smoke before it comes to the question of moving them. The amendments, such as amendment No. 8, would not allow searches of retained ANPR data to be carried out in respect of protests without the requirement of reasonable grounds to believe there is a significant threat to public safety or order. To allow otherwise could have a chilling effect on the right to protest and must be safeguarded against.
As to the question of training for gardaí, before equipment is introduced, it ought to be tried and tested and the policies and code of conduct should be tried and tested. An amendment that would require that there be a pilot scheme and proper analysis of the workings of that pilot scheme is important. The issue here is to ensure that gardaí have proper training and to avoid a situation where evidence would be found to be inadmissible because of insufficient training of gardaí or improper use of devices.
What is important is to avoid running a grave risk of problems arising.
Section 9 should ensure that pilot schemes are carried out for each type of device prior to the deployment and that such schemes should test the effectiveness of the device for a specified purpose and facilitate a human rights impact assessment, a privacy impact assessment and a data protection impact assessment, where necessary.
Notwithstanding what Senator Ward said about the possibility of people requiring that a body-worn camera be switched on, it is clear that body-worn cameras must, as an additional safeguard, be worn on a location on the body and in such a manner that maximises the camera's ability to capture video footage of the activities taking place and involving a member of the Garda. There have been reports in other jurisdictions of situations in which police forces covered body-worn cameras or undertook activities to switch them off and so on. If there are to be body-worn cameras, it is important that they are properly worn and not worn in a way that would undermine their efficacy.
I confirm that the Seanad Office has received confirmation that Senator Mullen will substitute for Senator Keogan when we reach the relevant amendments.
Are we discussing amendment No. 5?
Yes, we are still on amendment No. 5.
We are discussing amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 8 to 12, inclusive. The proposal is to make clear that Garda personnel would be required to turn on their cameras when asked to do so. This would ultimately be a matter for the code of practice, which is dealt with in section 43. This will outline clearly the circumstances in which Garda personnel have to turn on their cameras, including how they should react to a request to do so from members of the public. The codes of practice will be published and made available for representations prior to their finalisation. The Garda Commissioner will engage with relevant bodies or agencies on these matters and there will be an opportunity for members of the public to have a say and contribute to the overall consultation process before the finalised codes are published.
Separately, if a member of Garda personnel turns off a body-worn camera where he or she should not or refuses to turn it on in a situation where the codes of practice clearly state the camera should be on, there is potential for the garda to be subject to disciplinary proceedings or for a complaint to be made. In addition, at the end of each year, a High Court judge will provide a report to the Taoiseach outlining how this legislation has been used, where there have been issues or breaches and the types of discipline applied.
The cameras have not yet been procured. The features of the device will depend on the type of device the Garda acquires. The Garda issued a request for information on 12 September and is seeking information on a pre-record facility. It is generally the case in other countries that we have looked at that such devices would have the capability of capturing a short period of time before the turning on of the device. That might be 15 seconds or ten seconds but it would only be when gardaí turn the cameras on. This would also be made clear in the codes of practice.
On amendment No. 8, it is important that gardaí are allowed to evaluate the potential security threat and the level of threat posed to public security and safety, which may evolve over the course of a day, or hours and minutes as things can escalate quickly, as we know. This is an operational matter which should be separate from the Bill. Anything beyond that would be addressed in the codes of practice, which, as I said, will be drawn up by the Garda Commissioner in consultation with stakeholders and members of the public.
The Garda decision-making model is a framework which gardaí deploy to assess risk at the earliest stages of decision-making to ensure consistency of decision-making, even in the most dynamic circumstances, which can be applied in circumstances where immediate action is needed. As recent public order incidents have shown, it should not be the case that a Garda member is the only person in a crowd who does not have a recording device or have the ability to record clearly and truthfully what is happening on the ground. The execution of criminal penalties is a purpose under the law enforcement directive and one of the circumstances outlined in section 9(3) of the Bill, in which a member of Garda personnel can use a recording device. That is when gardaí are executing a court order or warrant. On that basis, I cannot accept this amendment.
On amendment No. 11, the Senator wishes to ensure that all subjects are notified of recording in progress by An Garda Síochána. There might be circumstances in which that is not possible. If, for example, there is a crowded environment where there are hundreds of people, it might not be possible to alert everybody. In an extreme circumstance, if there is a hostage situation, a garda will not be able to tell everybody or give warning to all individuals present so it is important that gardaí have discretion to apply this provision. Again, this will be set out clearly in the codes of practice. There are circumstances in which it would be impossible for a member of An Garda Síochána to notify every single person that he or she is being recorded. It is on that basis that I cannot accept this amendment.
On amendment No. 12, the location and manner in which the camera is worn will be decided on and this will be done through the procurement process. I have seen some of the options that have been looked at. This depend on the device but it can be on the left, right or centre of a person's chest or on headgear that is worn. It is something that would be visible and would not be concealed or hidden. It is visible and people would be able to see that the garda is wearing it. The type of camera to be used is yet to be decided but is being worked through at the moment. I think I have addressed all of the amendments and outlined why they are not necessary. Many of them fall under the codes of practice, which are addressed in section 48 and will be set out at a later date.
On amendments Nos. 5 and 6, the Minister outlined why she is not accepting the amendments and Senator Ward also made points on them. I have seen communities overpoliced. People might think that I am anti-Garda but I am far from it. We need a certain level of Garda protection for all citizens. That is common sense. What we are talking about is fairness for people. If the body-worn camera is one-sided, civilians will not have a choice.
From living on a halting site in Ballyfermot, I have seen how gardaí can and do abuse their power. We all have to be honest about that. That is my side in standing up here. I mention the injustice that ordinary citizens experience, let that be members of the Traveller community or people from working class areas. I am a qualified youth worker. Numerous times before I ever came here, I saw young people in Ballyfermot aged 15 or 16 being intimidated by gardaí on the streets. They were stopped and searched so we already see that happening. This should not be one-sided as there is no justice in that. That also extends to amendment No. 9.
While I get what Senator Ward said, I hope that he and the Minister will understand that when you live in a working class area and see intimidation and abuse of power first-hand it is a horse of a different colour. That is why Senator Ruane’s amendment seeks to protect people in civil society.
Forgive me if she has addressed this already but I ask the Minister if it is the case that the legislation will require, or is it her intention, that all types of recording devices or systems to be used by An Garda Síochána will be ones that are specified in the code of practice to which she referred.
They would have to be set out but they have not been decided on yet. That can only be done when a decision has been taken. I know this is referred to in a later amendment but there will be a pilot and the intention is that it will be up and running in the middle of next year. It will allow us to tease through any issues that may arise and that would necessitate any changes.
I accept Senator Flynn's bona fides in saying where the amendments are coming from. I spent a lot of time in my professional career defending the people Senator Flynn spoke about and the High Court jurisprudence is littered with cases that have been taken against unjustifiable and arbitrary decisions by gardaí to stop and search people and so on. The Senator is right about that.
My concern is that this amendment will not fix that. The danger with some of these amendments is that they abdicate the responsibility for a robust policy. That policy needs to set down when a garda should use the camera, when a garda must use the camera and when a garda must not turn off the camera. It also must set out all the reasons that go with that because there cannot be a situation where a garda is selectively recording. In welcoming this legislation, I said that it protects gardaí from false accusations and the suggestion that something was or was not said.
Equally important is that it also protects citizens from overzealous gardaí. An Garda Síochána on the whole is a fantastic organisation, as I have said, but that does not mean there are not bad gardaí or gardaí who step over the line. The wearing of cameras will put a restriction on a bad garda's activity. If there is a garda who feels he or she can behave with impunity, as Senator Flynn noted, there will be a recording of that behaviour and disciplinary procedures will follow from it.
Provision in this regard should be set out in the protocol. Putting all those provisions into the legislation is a bad idea because it means they are absolutely inflexible and we would have to come into the House to change, update or make them more rigorous, as the case may be. They need to be flexible and under the control of Garda management and the relevant bodies that monitor gardaí to ensure they can be changed, updated and strengthened if that is required. Supporting and passing this legislation is done on the clear understanding that there will be protocols that set out in the clearest and strictest terms for members of An Garda Síochána the circumstances in which these bodycams will be used and the treatment of the data thereafter. The protections being sought in these amendments must be set out in the protocols rather than in the Bill.
Amendment No. 11 relates to notifying people that the cameras are on, whether in a public or private place. I stress that I am not anti-gardaí - far from it - but I have seen numerous times in certain areas in Dublin situations in which people's doors were kicked down, etc. A lot of gardaí already wear bodycams. We need to be realistic in this regard. On a morning last April, I saw a situation where a pregnant woman not allowed to use the toilet in her trailer. She was told she could not use it and her husband was trying to protect his wife, who was more than 20 weeks' pregnant. The first thing a pregnant woman wants to do in the morning is go to the toilet, end of story; let us be straight about it. This woman was living in a trailer. The gardaí told her the bodycam was on but some people are not educated about them. Gardaí should at least notify people in private or public spaces as to whether their bodycams are on. That is provided for in our amendment No. 11.
The proposal in amendment No. 11 is reasonable. At the very least, gardaí should be required to inform people that recording has commenced. I cannot imagine why there would be any objection to that.
On the last point, as I outlined, gardaí absolutely will notify people but there may be circumstances where they cannot do so. If they are in a crowded area, for example, where a protest develops into a riot and one garda shouts to tell everybody about the camera, not everyone will hear that. It is just not possible to require that absolutely everybody be informed in that scenario. In an extreme situation such as a hostage scenario, gardaí will have no ability to tell everybody involved. In general, however, the intention is that people will be warned and given notice that the device is being turned on. This amendment would require everybody to be informed. If a situation escalates quickly and, where multiple people are present, it is simply not possible to notify everybody, there potentially is a problem. That is why I cannot accept the amendment. We are talking about legislating for a scenario in which it might not be possible for a garda to give everyone that notice.
Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 9 relate to turning on or off the cameras. We are all in agreement that we are introducing significant new powers for An Garda Síochána, which means we must ensure strict rules and regulations are in place. As Senator Ward noted, the way to put in place those rules and regulations to which gardaí must adhere in turning on or off their cameras is by way of the codes of practice. At the moment, unfortunately, the situation is one-sided against gardaí in that they are generally the only parties not using a recording device in certain scenarios. This will level the playing field. As I said, the codes of conducts will not be agreed upon and introduced until there is consultation with all relevant stakeholders and an opportunity for the public to engage.
I apologise for being late as I was at a meeting of the justice committee. I ask the Minister to clarify a couple of points. When we hear the Garda appealing for dashcam footage from ordinary road users, is there any problem with the use of such material evidentially? I sometimes wonder whether I can go around my neighbourhood willy-nilly with my dashcam on or if there is any control on my doing so as a local vigilante or whatever I might be. Second, do gardaí have dashcams right now or is it intended that as we go forward, squad cars will have dashcams installed? It is a bit strange that gardaí are asking members of the public to come up with material the Garda may not have. I wonder what the situation is in this regard.
On the latter question, many of the new cars that have been purchased have that inbuilt technology, whereas the older cars do not.
Is that dealt with in the Bill?
It will allow for this to be part of the overall system. My understanding is that, at the moment, if gardaí are asking for dashcam footage from a separate car, such footage would have to be specific to a case for which they are seeking information or data in the same way as applies with CCTV, automatic number plate recognition, ANPR, or anything else. The new Garda cars have this technology built in but the older ones do not. The intention is that as we update the fleet and invest in it, all Garda cars will have it.
Is there an admissibility argument in respect of dashcam footage harvested from members of the public? Is there a GDPR issue with producing that kind of material in court or is it used purely for the purposes of background investigation?
My understanding is that it is for the court to decide whether such footage is admissible. It certainly can be used in the development of a case or as part of gathering information. I can clarify that for the Senator. My understanding is that the decision on whether anything is admissible will still very much be a matter for the courts even if this legislation is enacted.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 10, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
"(2) A member of Garda personnel shall operate, or cause to be operated, a recording device where they are requested to do so by an individual with whom they are engaged in the course of their duties, except where the member reasonably believes that the making of a recording would be harmful to the individual or another member of the public.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 7 in the name of Senator Keogan is ruled out order as it involves a potential charge on Revenue.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 10, to delete lines 14 to 17 and substitute the following:
"(b) safeguarding against, and the prevention of, threats to public security, including securing public safety and public order, where there are reasonable grounds to believe there is a significant threat;
(c) the protection of the security of the State.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 10, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
"(c) is requested to do so by a member of the public,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 11, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:
"(g) has received sufficient training to make them suitably qualified to use the relevant device, and after receiving sufficient data protection training so as to render them proficient in operating the device in accordance with legislation regulating the use of data, and
(h) after a pilot scheme in respect of that device has been completed, and the results of which have been assessed and published.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 11, lines 12 and 13, to delete ", when operating the device in a dwelling, and where appropriate, notify the occupants at the start of the operation and record the notification" and substitute "notify all subjects of the recording at the start of the operation and record the notification".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 10
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 11, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
"(c) is worn in a location and manner that maximises the camera's ability to capture video footage of the Garda member’s activities.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 10 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
Amendments Nos. 13, 56 and 64 are related and shall be discussed together by agreement.
Amendment No. 13 will insert a new section in Part 2. Amendment No. 56 will insert a new section in Part 5, while amendment No. 64 will insert a new section in Part 7. This is to ensure that where there is a power for An Garda Síochána to use recording devices, there is also a power to process the data gathered from those devices. There will be new sections included in Parts 2, 5 and 7 to ensure that where there is a power for An Garda Síochána to use recording devices under the Bill, there is a power to process the data gathered from the devices. There are specific references to processing in Parts 3, 4 and 6 relating to ANPR, recording of telephone calls and the processing of third-party CCTV. Legal advice has indicated that it would be better to include explicit references to processing in Parts 2, 5 and 7 to ensure no ambiguity in An Garda Síochána's powers to process all data gathered under the Bill.
I also wish to make Senators aware that if any minor consequential amendments arise from the inclusion of these sections, these will be brought on Report Stage, subject to engagement with the Office of the Attorney General.
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 11, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
"Power to process data obtained under this Part
11. A member of Garda personnel may, for a purpose referred to in section 9(2), and in accordance with an applicable code of practice, process data (including personal data) obtained as a result of the operation of a recording device under this Part.".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No.14 in the name of Senator Ruane has been ruled out of order due to a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
SECTION 11
Government amendment No. 15:
In page 11, line 25, after “device” to insert “under this Part”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 16:
In page 11, line 28, to delete “permits the damage or destruction of” and substitute “permits damage to, or the destruction of,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 17 to 20 inclusive, No. 58 and No. 61 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 11, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
“(e) turns off, or causes not to be operated, a recording device, including before or during an act of violence or use of force;”.
Does the Senator wish to comment on the amendment?
I will not comment but am opening to listening to the Minister's comments on amendments Nos. 17 and 18.
This is very much in line with the discussion we have just had regarding when and where a member of An Garda Síochána can turn on or off the devices. This will be clearly set out in the code of practice. Obviously, if members veer off the code of practice and turn a camera off when they should not or do not turn it on when they clearly should, they are open to disciplinary proceedings. That said, we need to take into account the circumstances in which an incident arises. There might, for example, be a physical assault that happens in a split second which does not allow a garda to turn on the device, even though he or she might like to. All of these issues have to be taken into account in the code of practice and it is not for us to outline such matters in this legislation. Gardaí need to be able to respond as quickly as possible but at the same time, to the Senator's earlier point, we need to make sure there is not any abuse of this particular piece of technology. It is a very important piece of technology that gardaí will have and we cannot allow it to be abused in any way. That is why the code of practice will be extremely important
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No.18:
In page 11, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
“(2) A member of Garda personnel who knowingly turns off his or her recording device before he or she uses force, commits an abusive act or act of violence, or otherwise commits an offence, for the purposes of making that information or any document derived therefrom unavailable as evidence, shall be guilty of an offence.” .
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No.19:
In page 11, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
“(2) A person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, shares information with any party (including video or audio information) gathered by a recording device shall be guilty of an offence.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 11, line 33, after “subsection (1)” to insert “ or subsection (2)”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14
Government amendment No. 21:
In page 13, line 2, to delete “operation of a recording device” and substitute “utilisation of ANPR”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 22:
In page 13, line 3, to delete “operation” and substitute “utilisation” .
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 23:
In page 13, line 5, to delete “operation” and substitute “utilisation”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 15
Amendments Nos. 24, 46, 50, 53, and 63 are related and may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 24:
In page 13, line 9, after “designate” to insert “in writing”.
I wish to apologise regarding the previous amendments. I thought we were going through them separately. On the question of the sharing of images, that falls under other legislation, including the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act, known as Coco's law. Under that legislation, it is a crime to share information that gardaí may have. I offer my apologies to the House because I thought we were coming on to that next.
Regarding amendment No. 24 and all the amendments in this group, in the interests of transparency for the designation and application processes in the Bill, it is considered appropriate that the legislation should refer to the fact that such designations will be in writing. It was always the intention that designations would be writing and amendments Nos. 24, 46, 50 and 53 serve to make this clear in the relevant sections. Amendment No. 63 comprises a small drafting change to ensure consistency in references to the operation and installation of CCTV across the Bill. Similar wording is used to sections 25 to 27, inclusive, in Part 5.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17
Government amendment No. 25:
In page 14, line 11, to delete “data”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 26 to 33, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 are physical alternatives while amendment No. 31 is a physical alternative to amendments Nos. 32 and 33.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 14, to delete lines 13 to 17 and substitute the following:
“only if that utilisation has been authorised by a judge of the District Court under section 18.” ,
These amendments are similar to previous amendments tabled. They are concerned with safeguarding but I know that they are not going to be accepted, unfortunately.
Amendments to sections 17 and 18 deal with focused monitoring and have been grouped together. These are designed to replace the requirement for an authorisation from a garda ranked not below superintendent with an authorisation instead being required from a District Court judge. The proposed changes make it inoperable, essentially, as the provisions will cease to make sense. For example, the Bill with the proposed amendments would effectively be stating that the relevant judge of the District Court is independent of the investigation by virtue of section 17(2)(b). Focused monitoring, and ANPR in particular, beyond three months is subject to judicial authorisation and, therefore, accepting these amendments would mean that our Bill states that judicial authorisation is required at the very beginning of the overall investigation while retaining the requirement for the same judicial authorisation for beyond three months. It just makes the process unworkable, particularly in the day-to-day context. As the Bill stands, if gardaí are going beyond the three months for any grant of an authorisation, a judge of the District Court must be satisfied that it is justified, having regard to the information on the oath.
Section 17 provides An Garda Síochána with a power to utilise the ANPR for focused monitoring for specific and limited purposes. We are talking mainly in respect of arrestable offences, matters relating to national security or offences that have a penalty of five years or more. For example, this could be to monitor the movements of a particular vehicle that might be associated with a burglary gang. Section 18 allows a superintendent or a higher ranked officer to apply to a judge for continued focused monitoring, as I have mentioned, for beyond the three months. As I mentioned previously, each year a High Court judge will have to report to the Taoiseach on the operation of this Part and this includes the use of focused monitoring.
There are numerous safeguards in this section. An officer may only approve the monitoring of the movements of a particular vehicle where: he or she believes, on reasonable grounds, that the vehicle in question is connected to an investigation relating to an arrestable offence or matters relating to the security of the State; he or she is independent of the investigation of the offence or the matters relating to the security of the State; and he or she is satisfied that the focused monitoring is necessary and proportionate with regard to the purpose of the investigation. These are strong safeguards to have in place and any judicial authorisation beyond this is not automatic, with An Garda Síochána required to outline a summary of results. This is both necessary and proportionate.
I wish to speak to amendment No. 27. I understood the Minister to say that if this amendment were to be accepted, the situation, scheme, as it were, or system would be unworkable. I do not quite understand the Minister’s logic on that. Essentially, this amendment would require that any tracking would be required to be approved by a District Court judge instead of just a Garda sign-off. For ANPR to work, all number plate data is logged and, subsequently, that pool of data is checked against a watchlist of number plates of vehicles of interest. This Bill proposes the processing of all number plate data, then providing access to the number plate data that Garda are interested in. As I understand it, the Court of Justice of the European of Union has repeatedly warned that accessing targeted data out of vast masses or pools of data must only happen subject to judicial approval. I heard the Minister give her response and I suspect she has already given the response to this amendment. However, I am not clear on why making the requirement of District Court approval ab initio would make it unworkable, if that is what the Minister is saying.
We are talking about applying this to any type of investigation relating to an arrestable offence or matters relating to security of the State. The three-month cut-off where one would have to go to a judge afterwards is a maximum. The intention is that there would be less than three months applied where one is specifically focused on targeting a particular individual relating to a particular case. If a judge has to be sought for every single case of this kind across the country in every jurisdiction, it is timely, prohibitive and not proportionate to what we are talking about here. Regarding anything beyond three months, it is clear that one would have to go to a District Court judge and outline the clear reasons this should be applied beyond three months. The intention is that it would not even go as far as the three months for any particular case. It has to go through a certain level of checks within An Garda Síochána to the superior rank. We need to be proportionate and not prevent the Garda from being able to act swiftly and respond quickly to an issue or incident as it arises. Having to go to a District Court judge for every possible arrestable offence can be prohibitive and can delay certain things for the Garda in gathering evidence.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 14, to delete lines 18 to 20 and substitute the following:
“(2) A judge of the District Court may approve an application under this section, having regard to the information contained in the application, if—”.
I will withdraw this amendment so that Senator Keogan or others may table an amendment on Report Stage if they wish.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 14, line 18, to delete “A member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of superintendent” and substitute “A judge of the District Court”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 14, line 32, to delete “member of the Garda Síochána” and substitute “District Court judge”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 14, lines 35 and 36, to delete “member of the Garda Síochána” and substitute “District Court judge”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 14, to delete lines 38 to 41 and in page 15, to delete lines 1 to 12 and substitute the following:
“(4) An approval under this section shall be in writing and shall specify—
(a) the vehicle that is to be the subject of focused monitoring,
(b) the name of the District Court Judge and the date of approval,
(c) the conditions (if any) subject to which the approval is granted,
(d) the date of expiry of the approval, and
(e) any additional matters that may be specified in an applicable code of practice.
(5) A District Court judge referred to in subsection (2) may, following an application made by a member of Garda personnel, and taking into account the matters referred to in that subsection, vary, subject to subsection (3)(a), the duration of an approval granted under this section at any time before the expiry of the approval. The total duration of an approval granted under this section, howsoever extended or varied, shall not exceed the duration of 3 months.
(6) An Garda Síochána shall create and maintain a written list of applications for focused monitoring, which shall contain the details of each application and the reasons why each application was approved or refused, or varied under subsection (5), and any further information provided for in an applicable code of practice.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 14, line 40, to delete “and rank of the member of the Garda Síochána” and substitute “of the District Court judge”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 15, line 4, to delete “A member of the Garda Síochána” and substitute “A District Court judge”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 18
Government amendment No. 34:
In page 15, line 20, to delete “that period” and substitute “the 3-month period”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 35:
In page 15, line 20, to delete “utilise the ANPR data” and substitute “utilise ANPR”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 15, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
“(2) In making an application under subsection (1), the member shall have regard to the necessity and proportionality of the measure pursuant to an order under this section, taking into account the impact of such on the fundamental rights of individuals.”.
This issues is similar to previous ones. This relates to searches of ANPR data by An Garda Síochána. The issue here is that the principles of necessity and proportionality and the impact of the measure on people’s fundamental rights should be considered in all of these matters. That is all that needs to be said about it at this point.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 seek to include the impact of such focused monitoring on the privacy and fundamental rights of the individual or individuals concerned. The Senator is essentially asking that a garda of any grade make such an evaluation on privacy and fundamental rights when obviously that is taken into account. Gardaí are also trained to make decisions based on necessity and proportionality. This goes beyond what is required by gardaí to make a legal evaluation. It is unfair to ask them to do that. I absolutely respect a person’s right to privacy; everybody is entitled to that. However, people cannot use privacy to evade investigation, arrest or prosecution. As I mentioned, the focused monitoring in particular is only permitted in an arrestable offence, which is an offence punishable by imprisonment for at least five years, or matters relating to national security. The same safeguards I mentioned would apply here as well - there must be reasonable grounds, the person who is recording must be independent of the investigation of the offence and satisfied the focused monitoring is necessary and proportionate with regard to the purpose of the investigation. Again, there will be a report to the Taoiseach by a High Court judge at the end of the year to make sure this is being used appropriately.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 15, line 31, after “paragraph (c)” to insert the following:
“, and the impact of such focussed monitoring on the privacy and fundamental rights of the individual or individuals concerned”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 38:
In page 15, line 34, to delete “of the District Court” and substitute “to whom an application under subsection (1) is made”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 39:
In page 16, line 1, to delete “judge” and substitute “judge of the District Court assigned to the Dublin Metropolitan District”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 40:
In page 16, line 8, to delete “any previous” and substitute “the last”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 41:
In page 16, line 20, to delete “District Court district to which the judge is assigned” and substitute “Dublin Metropolitan District”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 19
Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 16, lines 23 to 39, to delete all words from and including “(1) A” in line 23 down to and including line 39 and in page 17, to delete lines 1 to 15 and substitute the following:
“(1) A member of Garda personnel shall make an application to a member of the Garda Síochána—
(a) of a rank of superintendent or above that may be specified in the applicable code of practice having regard to the rank or grade of the member of Garda personnel making the application, or to the type or the duration of the retention of the ANPR data concerned, and
(b) who is independent of the investigation, inquiry or the matters relating to the security of the State, as the case may be, to which the application relates in order to search ANPR data that has been retained by the Garda Síochána (in this section referred to as “retained ANPR data”) following applications under section 17 and/or section 18.
(2) A member of the Garda Síochána to whom an application is made under subsection (1) may approve the application concerned if he or she believes on reasonable grounds that searching the retained ANPR data may be of material assistance for one or more of the following purposes:
(a) the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences;
(b) safeguarding against, and the prevention of, threats to public security, including securing public safety and public order, where there are reasonable grounds to believe there is a significant threat;
(c) the protection of the security of the State;
(d) any other inquiry or investigation into any matter, having regard to the functions of the Garda Síochána.
(3) An approval under subsection (2) may be granted subject to such other conditions as the member of the Garda Síochána granting the approval considers appropriate, having regard to the information contained in the application.
(4) The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána shall cause to be created and maintained a written list of applications to conduct a search of ANPR data retained by the Garda Síochána, which shall contain the details of the application, whether the application was granted or refused, the reasons for granting or refusing the application, as the case may be, the name and rank of the Garda who sought the request, the name and rank of the Garda who either granted or refused the application, the date of the approval or refusal, the name and rank of the Garda who carried out the search, the date of the search, the objective of the search, the specific information searched, the personal data processed during the search, and a written explanation of how the approved measure met the principles of necessity and proportionality, and any other matters that may be specified in an applicable code of practice.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 43:
In page 16, line 27, after “type” to insert “of”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 20
Government amendment No. 44:
In page 17, line 23, to delete “permits the damage or destruction of” and substitute “permits damage to, or the destruction of,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 21
Amendment No. 45 is ruled out of order as a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 45 not moved.
Government amendment No. 46:
In page 18, line 9, after “designate” to insert “in writing”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 47:
In page 18, line 19, to delete “under” and substitute “specified in”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 19, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:
“(6) (a) The Commissioner shall be prohibited from recording a line that could be used to provide tip-offs, leads or confidential information.
(b) Any evidence gathered from a recording of a line that could be used to provide tip-offs, leads or confidential information shall be inadmissible in court.”.
Obviously, this amendment seeks to insert a provision to the effect that "The Commissioner shall be prohibited from recording a line that could be used to provide tip-offs, leads or confidential information." In their work, members of An Garda Síóchána rely on intelligence from within their community and within the community. Sometimes tip-offs, leads and confidential information come from phone lines. However, if sources think they are being recorded or could be traced, this may well deter people from coming forward. This amendment seeks to ensure that those phone lines are protected so that gardaí can gather intel that essential for doing their job.
I was not fully sure as to the reason behind this amendment. There is probably a view that certain people would not want to speak to someone directly and that they would prefer to leave a voicemail. The provisions in this section allow the Garda Commissioner to designate telephone lines or numbers that are to be recorded, for example, 999 lines or fixed penalty notice lines. There could also be a particular tip-off line, if that was something that the Commissioner decided. Obviously, it would have to be made clear to people that they were being recorded. The intention behind something like this or a particular type of line like this would be to gather information for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences. Why would you prohibit the recording of a line that could potentially provide that information? Obviously, people will be made aware that they are being recorded. Once they are made aware that they are being recorded, it is important that that line and the information can be used for the detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences. I appreciate what the Senator is saying in that the view is perhaps that people will not phone up and they would prefer to speak to someone directly. I think it is more often the case that people would prefer to leave a comment anonymously and not have to talk to somebody directly and give further details. That is the basis that we are working off here.
As I stated earlier in response to Senator McDowell, the admissibility of evidence is ultimately a matter for the courts. Again, it is not clear why the Senator is proposing to remove that confidence from them by proposing to declare that information gathered from any line as tip-offs may not always come through the confidential line that the Senator referenced, and will be inadmissible. It is for those reasons that I cannot accept the amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.
Section 22 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
Government amendment No. 49:
In page 19, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:
“Offences under this Part
23. (1) Where a member of Garda personnel records a telephone call to or from the Garda Síochána on a telephone line or number that the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána has not designated under section 21(2) that person shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) A person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, knowingly does any of the following:
(a) falsifies, conceals, destroys or otherwise disposes of data (including personal data) recorded by the Garda Síochána from telephone lines or numbers designated under this Part;
(b) permits the falsification, concealment, destruction or disposal of the data (including personal data),
for the purpose of making that data or any document derived therefrom unavailable as evidence, shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) A person who induces, coerces, threatens or requests, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, a member of Garda personnel to act in a manner contrary to subsection (2) shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable on summary conviction to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) or (3) shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 23 and 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25
Government amendment No. 50:
In page 20, line 12, after “apply” to insert “in writing”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 51, 52, 54 and 55 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 20, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
“(c) state the precise technological and software specifications of the cameras to be used,”.
I believe that this Bill needs more discussion on Report Stage. Moving on to amendments Nos. 51, 52, 54 and 55, they are really simple and would require gardaí, when setting up CCTV schemes, to provide clear information about the kind of cameras being used and to inform affected members of the public of their privacy rights in relation to CCTV. Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 would require local authorities, when setting up CCTV schemes, to provide the information to the relevant communities. I get it, and again, I am going to talk about the halting site in Ballyfermot that I come from. Since I was a child, the local authority has recorded CCTV footage on the site. People can feel intimidated and insecure. There is a camera at the very end of the site and one at the top of the site. It does not serve a purpose, because if you go to the council about dumping or if there is an incident and you contact the Garda about it, the matter is not dealt with. The community was not even consulted around the use of these cameras. I am just providing an example. Obviously, I get that it is not about any area in particular, but I am just giving an example of that area in Ballyfermot and how people feel. I think that we need to have further discussions going forward before the Bill completes Report Stage. I thank the Minister for being here today and for listening to our amendments. It should also be noted that the amendments did not come from Senator Ruane or I personally, because we are safe. We are okay. They are for the wider community, working class people and those who are overpoliced. It is probably the third or fourth time I am saying it, but for the record, it is not about being anti-Garda. It is the abuse of power that we really need to consider today, and how the ordinary person living in these areas that are overpoliced and over-monitored by CCTV footage feels. I thank the Minister for her time today.
The intention behind this particular part of the Bill is to rectify issues that have arisen whereby communities have not been able to roll out CCTV in recent years because of GDPR concerns that were raised by the Data Protection Commissioner a number of years ago now. This clarifies how they can be rolled out and used, and where they can be used. It is very much about the local authority working with the gardaí. Obviously, every local authority has public representatives and has a very public forum, so any decisions that are taken are taken by the public representatives working with the local authority on behalf of the community. I think people generally see the use of CCTV as something positive that enables us to gather evidence where crimes have been committed and to deter crimes from happening where people know that there is CCTV in place. Again, there will be very strict codes of conduct to make sure that CCTV is monitored and used effectively and in the right way, so that there is no misuse of it.
In terms of the specific amendments, the current technical specifications for community CCTV schemes are already available on the gov.ie website. That is something that can be looked at. It would be a matter for the Commissioner to specify whether or not the technical and software specifications are included in the application process. As I have mentioned, further details on the requirements for community CCTV schemes will be set out in the codes of practice. I know that a lot is going into the codes of practice, but it is important that that is set out separately. Members should be aware that where there are amendments to a community CCTV scheme under an authorisation - for example, if additional cameras are included, if the technology or the camera results in significant additional processing or if the coverage of the CCTV is altered, if there are any changes at all - there is a requirement to notify the Garda Commissioner and to provide a data impact assessment to him or her. It will also be an offence to fail to notify the Garda Commissioner of the amendments specified in section 29(1), and in the case that a new authorisation is required, to fail to comply with the requirements of section 29(5). The Data Protection Act and any provisions relevant to the use of CCTV apply in this regard. The focus has been on trying to rectify a problem that has been there from the outset. It is absolutely the case that CCTV schemes will have to be used appropriately. There will be partnership between the Garda and the local authorities, and local representatives will be very clearly working with the authority to ensure that they are used effectively too.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 20, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
“(c) state the means by which the public and local residents will be appropriately notified of the use of cameras and their relevant rights,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 26
Government amendment No. 53:
In page 21, line 7, after “apply” to insert “in writing”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 21, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
“(c) state the precise technological and software specifications of the cameras to be used,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 21, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
“(c) state the means by which the public and local residents will be appropriately notified of the use of cameras and their relevant rights,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 27 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
Government amendment No. 56:
In page 25, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
“Power to process data obtained under this Part
32. A member of Garda personnel may, for a purpose referred to in section 25(1), and in accordance with an applicable code of practice, process data (including personal data) obtained—
(a) pursuant to an authorisation given under this Part, and
(b) where the authorisation was given to a local authority under section 26, pursuant to access given to members of Garda personnel under subsection (4)(a) of that section.”.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 32
Government amendment No. 57:
In page 25, line 35, to delete “permits the damage or destruction of” and substitute “permits damage to, or the destruction of,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 25, after line 37, to insert the following:
“(4) A person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, shares information with any party (including video or audio information) gathered by CCTV shall be guilty of an offence.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 32, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 33 to 39, inclusive, agreed to.
Section 40 deleted.
SECTION 41
Amendments Nos. 59, 62 and 66 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 59:
In page 31, to delete lines 1 to 3.
Section 40 was proposed for deletion from the Bill and amendments Nos. 59, 62 and 66 are consequential on its deletion. The intention behind section 40 was to provide for those limited circumstances where a person refuses to provide An Garda Síochána with CCTV footage of a crime. However, after meeting with various stakeholders, concerns were voiced to my Department regarding the scope of the power that was created by this section, where there was no judicial authorisation or approval process set out in the legislation. The Department has listened to the concerns raised and I am proposing to remove the section after requesting and receiving further legal advice. An Garda Síochána has other ways in which it can obtain data from unco-operative third parties.
Amendment No. 59 is a consequential amendment and will remove section 41(3) of the offence provision for section 40. Amendment No. 62 is also consequential to the removal of section 40. It will remove the reference to section 41(3), which is to be deleted from the Bill. Amendment No. 66 is a technical amendment to the Long Title to reflect the removal of section 40.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 60:
In page 31, line 10, to delete “permits the damage or destruction of” and substitute “permits damage to, or the destruction of,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 31, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:
“(5) A person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, shares information with any party (including video or audio information) gathered by CCTV shall be guilty of an offence.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 62:
In page 31, line 16, to delete “or (3)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 41, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 42
Government amendment No. 63:
In page 31, line 29, to delete “operation” and substitute “operation, or both,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 42, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
Government amendment No. 64:
In page 32, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
“Power to process data obtained under this Part
43. A member of Garda personnel may, for a purpose referred to in section 42(1), process the data (including personal data) obtained pursuant to the operation of CCTV in accordance with an authorisation under this Part.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 65:
In page 32, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
“Offences under this Part
44. (1) A person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, knowingly does any of the following:
(a) falsifies, conceals, destroys or otherwise disposes of information (including visual or audio information) gathered by CCTV to which this Part relates;
(b) permits the falsification, concealment, destruction or disposal of the information;
(c) causes damage to or destroys the CCTV or part thereof;
(d) permits damage to, or the destruction of, the CCTV or part thereof, for the purpose of making that information, any document derived therefrom or the CCTV or part thereof unavailable as evidence, shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) A person who induces, coerces, threatens or requests, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, a member of Garda personnel to act in a manner contrary to subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.”.
Amendment No. 65 will extend the offence provision for Parts 2, 3, 5 and 6 relating to the making of data unavailable as evidenced in Part 7 with the insertion of a new offence. For sections within this Part, the offences set out mirror those in other Parts of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 43 to 46, inclusive, agreed to.
TITLE
Government amendment No. 66:
In page 5, lines 17 to 19, to delete all words from and including “to” in line 17 down to and including “offence;” in line 19.
Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
Pursuant to Standing Order 154, it is reported to the Seanad that the Title has been amended.
Bill reported with amendments.
When is it proposed to take the next Stage?
Dé Máirt seo chugainn.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 31 October 2023.
When is it proposed to sit again?
Amárach ar 10.30 a.m.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar athló ar 6.17 p.m. go dtí 10.30 a.m., Dé Céadaoin, an 25 Deireadh Fómhair 2023.
The Seanad adjourned at 6.17 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 25 October 2023.