Select Committee on Justice debate -
Wednesday, 5 Jul 2023

Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Bill 2022: Committee Stage

An Cathaoirleach

I do not believe we have received any apologies. A few members are not present but they may join us over the course of the meeting. I welcome the Minister and her team. Today's meeting has been convened to consider the Committee Stage of the Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Bill 2022. The usual caveats apply. If any divisions are called, members must be physically present. I know Deputy Brophy and a few others are attending online. In the event of a division, I will ask members to come to the committee room.

I will invite the Minister to make a brief opening statement before we turn to the Bill proper.

Minister for Justice (Deputy Helen McEntee)

As the committee is aware, the Bill will deliver on two important commitments in the programme for Government. It will implement the recommendations of the report of the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland which called for the use of body-worn cameras to enhance front-line policing capabilities. It will also extend An Garda Síochána's use of CCTV and automatic number plate recognition, ANPR, to prevent crime and to aid with the prosecution of those involved in criminal activity. I do not propose to introduce amendments on Committee Stage or Report Stage. However, I will consider general processing provisions for Parts 2, 5 and 7 in the Seanad. This is essentially to ensure that every Part makes specific mention of processing.

One the key features of the Bill is the introduction of body-worn cameras. The Garda Commissioner and Garda representative bodies have long called for the introduction of body-worn cameras. This technology has the potential to deter attacks on Garda members and where attacks occur, it can provide strong evidence to bring perpetrators to justice. Policing organisations throughout the world have found that body-worn cameras can help improve front-line capability with the accurate recording of incidents. It can expedite analysis, enhance situational awareness and protect police from harm.

I would like to address my intention, and that of the Minister, Deputy Harris, to introduce facial recognition into this Bill on Committee Stage. As Deputies will no doubt be aware, following consultation with Government colleagues, the use of facial recognition technology, FRT, will be provided for separately in the new Garda Síochána digital management and facial recognition technology Bill 2023. That Bill will be drafted on priority basis to provide for the safe and ethical use of facial recognition technology to assist the Garda to investigate the most serious crimes which are subject to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

A number of safeguards will be included in that Bill, including that any use of FRT not provided for will be prohibited. A code of practice will be required. Mass surveillance and profiling will be prohibited. The operation of the Bill will be kept under review by a High Court judge. My aim in proposing new legislation is to introduce a limited form of retrospective FRT, which can assist An Garda Síochána to search CCTV footage and data which it already has and already manually works through in a quicker and more effective manner. This would save valuable Garda time but more importantly, it would be a vital tool in investigating serious crime, in preserving life and in protecting national security.

Retrospective FRT is a tool to help members of the Garda manage the evidence they gather as part of investigations into the most serious crimes, such as murder, rape, terrorism, serious organised crime and child sexual abuse. A current Garda investigation can involve teams of gardaí spending several months trawling through thousands of hours of CCTV footage manually, potentially to find only a short few clips which can lead to the identification of a suspect or victim. In no area is this more warranted than when it comes to child sexual abuse. Reducing the amount of time it takes for Garda members to go through video footage will be of particular benefit where time is of the essence following a very serious crime being committed. The identification of a suspect in a serious crime, finding a missing or abducted child or, as I said, where a child is subject to child abuse would be a crucial benefit of the proposed Bill.

As the Deputies will welcome, the new FRT Bill will undergo pre-legislative scrutiny by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, which will be able to invite experts from across this complex area to discuss its provisions. I will be returning to the Cabinet with heads of this Bill after the summer recess, with the general scheme expected to be published thereafter.

I think we can all agree on the need to progress today's Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Bill soon as possible as the introduction of body-worn cameras by members of An Garda Síochána is long overdue. This modern technology is a key tool for front-line gardaí. It represents a practical expression of our commitment to build stronger and safer communities. I believe it is essential to the deliver on Government's aim to ensure An Garda Síochána is a leading-edge modern police service, fit for the digital age. Today's Committee Stage is another significant step towards the enactment of this important Bill. It will provide the necessary legislative underpinning for the use of body-worn cameras and other technologies. I look forward to working with the committee to finish the task of improving safety for members of An Garda Síochána as well as assisting them in investigating crime.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the Minister for those opening remarks. I know the committee is keen to progress with the body camera legislation. From my own constituency work I know that many gardaí on the beat are also looking forward to having body cameras available to them. I know the committee is very supportive of that. I note there will be a separate Bill for the facial recognition technology piece, which is a wise approach. I look forward to engaging in the pre-legislative scrutiny in this committee. As it is a complex area, it is important that we do it due service.

We now move to consideration of the Bill.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

May I ask a question?

An Cathaoirleach

It is not normal, but I will allow it.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

The Minister just said that she will introduce amendments to sections 2, 5 and 7 in the Seanad. Is that right? I just did not catch what she said.

Deputy Helen McEntee

It will be Parts 2, 5 and 7.

The Bill deals with two things, namely, the recording of information and then the processing of that information. While it is implied in all the sections that processing would be needed, it is not explicitly referenced. We will be referencing the processing of the information in all the different sections of the Bill.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Does processing mean how gardaí will work with it?

Deputy Helen McEntee

It is how they process the information, how they store it and how it is altered. It is how they gain access to the information they have through the CCTV footage plus the ANPR, the body-worn cameras and the various different means.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Is that not sufficiently significant that it should be dealt with here?

Deputy Helen McEntee

It is implied, but we just want to make sure there is no ambiguity that processing is part of it. It goes into detail in each section. We want to ensure there is no ambiguity that in each area where information is gathered there is also an element of processing to it.

An Cathaoirleach

I share the Deputy's concern and I did not twig it when the Minister mentioned it. To alleviate that concern, would I be right in saying that this relates to processing in the context of a data processor as opposed to a data controller and that the data protection regime would therefore apply? Is that what she means?

Deputy Helen McEntee

Processing of or in relation to data, including personal data, means an operation or a set of operations that are performed on the data or set of data whether by automated means or not. It is the collection, recording, organisation, structuring and storage of the data. It also means altering the data so if somebody has, for example, three minutes of footage, he or she may want to reduce it to ten seconds for use as evidence. It covers retrieval and consultation. This needs to apply to each section of the Bill.

It is a technicality; it is implied. By putting it in each section, we are ensuring that there will be no ambiguity and that the processing must apply to every element of the gathering of data.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the Minister. It will probably be preferable if the amendments would come to the committee in the first instance, but we are where we are. The amendments will return to the Dáil, according to procedure, and will then go to the Seanad and back again.

Deputy Helen McEntee

It is the same amendment for every one of these changes; it is just a question of making the changes to the various sections of the Bill, as I have just outlined.

An Cathaoirleach

Why did we did not have those amendments for today?

Deputy Helen McEntee

We did not think the change was needed, but the legal advice is that we should put it into every section in order to ensure that the position is absolutely clear.

An Cathaoirleach

The legal advice came before today but not in time to have the amendments submitted. Is that the position?

Deputy Helen McEntee

It is an issue around drafting and having it just in time for today. As I read out, that is exactly what we are talking about in the context of inserting these amendments. It does not change the application of each section at all; it is just to have it expressly included.

An Cathaoirleach

I understand the position. I know that we are coming to the end of the term but for future reference, it would be better to have amendments brought to the committee rather than flagging a matter. It is different when a Report Stage amendment is being flagged in circumstances where we may be able to return to it. When we know what it is, we would ask then on behalf of the committee that we would have a chance to consider it when it comes before us. This is rather than coming in and saying that an amendment will be made in the Seanad, when one knows what it is already and that it should be done at the committee in the first instance.

Deputy Helen McEntee

I should probably have just read it out in my opening statement because it is exactly what is in each section.

An Cathaoirleach

Does the Minister want to do that now?

Deputy Helen McEntee

That is just what I have done.

An Cathaoirleach

My apologies. That is what the Minister just read.

Deputy Helen McEntee

That statement replicated what I said earlier. These amendments came in at the last minute.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

This interferes with our proper scrutiny of the Bill, which is a problem. I attach no fault to the Minister but I do not believe that this just arose today. It should have been dealt with earlier. I do not know what the amendments will do. Their effect may be completely banal, but I would have rather seen what is proposed included in the Bill, which is what we should be considering.

Deputy Helen McEntee

I absolutely assure the Deputy that these are just technical amendments. They replicate in all sections what is in one section. There is absolutely no doubt that that applies to everywhere we say we are gathering data, whether it is by means of the drones, on CCTV or on body-worn cameras, where there has to be an element of processing. We cannot gather the data without being able to process it. I apologise because this-----

Deputy Thomas Pringle

When we put forward amendments like that to emphasise something, we are told they are not necessary and that what we are proposing is already stated in the Bill. Now, however, the Minister is stating that it has already been stated in the Bill but that, just to be doubly sure, she wants to make these amendments anyway.

An Cathaoirleach

Any Deputy has the ability to flag on Committee Stage that they want to introduce amendments on Report Stage, so it is procedurally fine. However, from the point of view of good practice, I am just flagging that, if possible, I would prefer, when something is known about, that amendments be introduced on Committee Stage in order that we might have an opportunity to consider what is proposed. Procedurally, any member can do that at any stage and can flag amendments.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

We do not even know what the amendments are, so how can we-----

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister has just read out what they involve..

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Perhaps she might read it out again, please.

Deputy Helen McEntee

It is already in Part 3. We are talking about replicating that in Parts, 2, 5 and 7.

An Cathaoirleach

I do not believe there are any amendments being tabled against it in Part 3, or that look to query it, vary it or anything like that. We will note that point. I might ask the Minister to circulate a briefing note for the information of the committee members later today in order that they might have some further information on the matter, engage on it further and bring it up in the Dáil, if they so wish.

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 4

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 8, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

“(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, nothing in this Act constitutes a legal basis for real-time automated processing by or on behalf of any person of live feed from CCTV in a public place, with a view to using biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying one or more individuals, unless such processing is reasonably necessary for—

(a) locating a specific potential victim of crime, including a missing child,

(b) preventing a specific, substantial and imminent threat to life or physical safety or of a terrorist attack, or

(c) apprehending or prosecuting a person suspected of having committed an offence—

(i) to which Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between relevant Member States applies, and

(ii) for which a person of full capacity and not previously convicted may be punished by a term of imprisonment for a term of 3 years or by a more severe penalty.”.

It is unfortunate that we had another process discussion just now. As the Minister is aware, there has been much disquiet with the process heretofore and with the insertion of the facial recognition section into the Bill on Committee Stage. Government and Opposition Deputies felt collectively that this was not appropriate. The Minister has listened to that, which is justifiable and a good move. Still, much of the goodwill we have towards wanting to support the Bill has been eroded.

The amendment probably relates more to the facial recognition element that we assumed was going to be in the Bill. It probably stands on its merits in any event, but I would be interested in hearing the Minister’s view on it. The amendment deals with real-time recording. Unfortunately, there is a history within An Garda Síochána of not being able to deal with data in a 100% professional and sensitive way. That has been to the detriment of a number of individuals. In one particular case I am aware, there was sharing of inappropriate material within An Garda Síochána.

The amendment states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, nothing in this Act constitutes a legal basis for real-time automated processing by or on behalf of any person of live feed from CCTV in a public place, with a view to using biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying one or more individuals, unless such processing is reasonably necessary for—

The amendment then lists the number of reasons why it might be justifiable, namely:

(a) locating a specific potential victim of crime, including a missing child,

(b) preventing a specific, substantial and imminent threat to life or physical safety or of a terrorist attack, or

(c) apprehending or prosecuting a person suspected of having committed an offence—

Further criteria are then listed. The amendment is about real-time recording and I just want to get the Minister’s view on it.

Deputy Helen McEntee

Because of language used, namely, "with a view to using biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying one or more individuals", I feel that this would be better placed in the legislation relating to facial recognition technology that will be brought forward in the new term.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

Does the Minister have a view on it?

Deputy Helen McEntee

On using real-time recording.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

Yes.

Deputy Helen McEntee

We have decided that this is not going to be applied for in the context of facial recognition. Obviously, there will be further discussion and debate but the heads of the Bill that will be drafted will be based on clearly prohibiting, as I said at the outset, mass surveillance and the use of live facial recognition and that it would only apply retrospectively, and only in instances of threats to national security, homicide, rape and aggravated sexual assault, child sexual abuse, abduction and the most serious offences where life sentences would apply. That is the approach we are taking. There is much debate on this matter at European level. Many member states use facial recognition technology. Some of them use it in a live context and others only use it retrospectively. There are various levels of oversight in the context of how it is applied for and how it is provided.

As we go move forward, the joint committee will the opportunity to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny of the heads of the proposed Bill. At that stage, all of these issues can be fleshed out. Again, there will obviously be an opportunity to amend what is proposed. As of now, however, the intention is that this will only apply retrospectively.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

An Cathaoirleach

The point is perhaps moot, but it is still useful to have that discussion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 4 agreed to.

Sections 5 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 9

Deputy Patrick Costello

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 10, to delete lines 9 and 10 and substitute the following:

“(c) a recording device that is remotely controlled, including a device affixed to or part of an unmanned aerial vehicle operating in and recording—

(i) a public place, or

(ii) any other place—

(I) under a power of entry authorised by law,

(II) to which he or she was expressly or impliedly invited or permitted to be,

(III) in which he or she is present for the purposes of the performance of his or her functions as such a member,”.

Section 9(1)(a) refers to instances where cameras can only be used in a place where, essentially, a garda is entitled to be. Section 9(1)(b) allows for the camera to be placed on an animal and then to be used in a place where a garda is entitled to be. Section 9 (1)(c) provides for the use of a drone but does not contain any of the caveats contained in the two preceding paragraphs. It is very important to put those caveats in because if someone managing a crowd control situation launches a drone that is hovering above that crowd, lots of other things will be filmed. That drone could be filming, and essentially be present in and searching, a private home. That would be the case in a suburban environment. That would not be a public place, a place under a power of entry authorised by law or a place to which An Garda Síochána was expressly or impliedly invited or permitted to be. It would also not be a place in which a garda would be present for the purposes or performance of his or her function as such a member of the force. However, the drone would still be there and would be searching.

The caveats we allow to underline the fact that these cameras should be operated in a place where gardaí are already legally entitled to be should be inserted in section 9(1)(c). At a minimum, the section as proposed runs the risk of contributing to an illegal search that will later be thrown out by the courts, undermining the legislation as a result.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I support Deputy Costello's amendment. This is a potentially serious issue. The proposed provisions should be included in the Bill.

Deputy Helen McEntee

Deputy Costello outlined the provisions setting out where the person can go. This applies to where the garda is with the piece of technology. If it is a body-worn camera, it is obviously worn by the garda who will need permission to go to a certain place. If it is worn by a dog or a member of the canine section of An Garda Síochána, the person will be with the dog. If it is a phone or device which a garda decides to use in circumstances where he or she believes it is necessary to record, the garda will obviously be present. Where we cannot apply this is where a drone is used and the garda and drone are not in the same place. The garda could be in a control room or on the ground somewhere so the provision will not apply in that case.

The Bill will provide for a legal basis for the use of recording devices on drones. There will have to be engagement with the Data Protection Commission, DPC, and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, among other bodies, to set out a code of practice to make sure these devices are used in the correct manner, as far as possible. The code of conduct or practice, which will probably be discussed in later amendments, will be made public. The commissioner will have the ability to engage with me and the bodies I mentioned. Members of the public will also be able to comment or raise issues or concerns they have.

Given their nature, it will not possible to get the consent of all those who a drone, aircraft or helicopter flies over. It could fly over 20 houses literally for one second, so it will not be physically possible to do get consent in such cases. However, we have to ensure that where information is not required, certain images are blurred or not used. This can be done through the code of conduct or code of practice. The nature of operating a drone is that the operator is not with the drone. This comes back to the code of conduct, which is not set out in the Bill. It will be an operational matter but there will be a very clear process for An Garda Síochána to set out in the code of conduct how it will work. The Deputy and I, as well as anybody else, including members of the bodies I mentioned, will be able to engage in that process.

Deputy Patrick Costello

My concern remains that there is a potential for an illegal search. From what the Minister is saying, if something is used remotely, we cannot necessarily apply the legality of its entry into places. I appreciate the member of the Garda and the drone are at a remove. That is why I seek to apply controls and limits to the drone as much as to the Garda operator. The drone is essentially an extension of the operator in this case. It seems that this will run the risk of producing evidence that will be deemed to have been the result of an illegal search. This would undermine the Bill.

Deputy Helen McEntee

Gardaí would be able to operate this in limited circumstances. We are not talking about flying drones indiscriminately over people's houses. This would be for a very specific circumstance and prior authorisation would be required from a senior member of An Garda Síochána. The code of practice would have to be adhered to and the drone would have to be operated by a trained member of An Garda Síochána. There is oversight of all of this. I was given the example of where footage of a serious road traffic collision is captured to try to get a sense of what is happening and get a full picture of the scene which would not be possible from the ground. Another example would be a hostage situation. There are a number of different scenarios but this will be used in limited circumstances. As I said, by their nature, these devices can fly over thousands of houses but that is not the information being sought. Gardaí will have to adhere to the code of conduct. Any change to the code of conduct would have to be done publicly and people will have an opportunity to contribute to that process.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

The Minister has talked about an abuse of the code of conduct. Is that specified anywhere in the Bill?

Deputy Helen McEntee

Yes, it is set out in Part 8. Section 43(3) states:

(3) Before submitting a draft code of practice to the Minister under this section, the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána—

(a) shall cause an assessment of the impact of the proposed draft code on the human rights of individuals affected by the code [ ... ]

(b) shall consult with the following [ ... ]

(i) the Minister;

(ii) the Policing Authority;

(iii) the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission;

(iv) the Garda Síochána Inspectorate;

(v) the Data Protection Commission;

(vi) the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission,

(c) may, where appropriate, consult with the Local Government Management Agency,

(d) shall ensure that the draft code of practice is published on the website of the Garda Síochána in order to allow persons a period that he or she shall [ ... ] make written representations in relation to the draft code, and

(e) may consult with any other person appearing to the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána to have an interest in the matter

This means basically that everybody and anybody can engage on this.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

It is very important that people have an opportunity to examine where these data are going to be used. Deputy Costello has raised a real risk, particularly given the lack of training of garda personnel who have used and handled CCTV footage previously, which has been spoken about and widely reported, and is known. How can we be sure training will take place and footage will be handled properly in these cases? That needs to be laid out strongly in order that everybody has confidence that this information will be handled properly and the process will be carried out properly.

Deputy Helen McEntee

As is the case with any specialist unit or team within An Garda Síochána, training is provided. As this is introduced, specialist training will be provided for people to be able to use this.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Sorry, Minister, but that clearly has not happened recently.

An Cathaoirleach

Please make contributions through the Chair.

Deputy Helen McEntee

It is about striking a balance. I fully appreciate people's privacy rights. It is vital that people's privacy is protected when they are at home and in their own environment. We always have to strike the right balance between ensuring the Garda has tools available to it, with proper oversight, codes of conduct and other mechanisms in place, and ensuring the Oireachtas and the various bodies I have mentioned have the ability to examine exactly what the Garda is doing. We cannot tie the hands of gardaí. We have to allow them to be able to deal with crime and do their jobs as effectively and efficiently as possible. What we are trying to do throughout this Bill in many ways with CCTV footage and the processing and gathering of data is to establish how we can do this in a way that respects people's rights but ultimately allows gardaí to do the job they are supposed to do, namely, keep people safe, deal with difficult situations and address national security threats that arise. It is about finding that balance. I believe we have done so with the safeguards we have put in place.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the Minister. On the broader point, I introduced drone regulation legislation in the previous Dáil. The DPC issued a guidance note on the operation of drones and the data protection implications. Deputy Costello mentioned unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, otherwise known as drones, and they are referred to in the amendment.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I am concerned about the training of members of An Garda Síochána who will deal with this information. The 2019 report from the Data Protection Commissioner stated that "the Garda members operating the scheme were unaware of the full range of technical features of their own CCTV system". It also stated: "The members of An Garda Síochána operating a number of the schemes inspected had received no training on the operation of the CCTV systems and the correct handling and protection of the personal data involved".

The Minister is right that this is about protecting people. Surely, the protection of people is also about making sure the operators are trained properly so that the law can be implemented properly and in a safe manner to protect people in the future. Training and everything else are vitally important. The information that gardaí were not being training properly is from as recently as 2019. Has the situation changed or is there anything in this legislation that will also ensure adequate training is a requirement for those operating this system?

Deputy Helen McEntee

It is very much an operational matter. I do not think we should put in legislation how or when training must happen. As far as I am concerned, it is a given that where new structures or requirements are in place, people are trained to operate those. It could be said that with CCTV, because there are so many hours of footage, many people are required to trawl though all that. That is why we are looking to use new ways to process that information as quickly as possible. We would then need fewer people who were highly trained and skilled in doing so and information could be accessed much more quickly. Obviously, a lot of people are needed when there are hundreds of thousands of hours of CCTV footage to be trawled through. We are trying to make this quicker and more efficient. The fewer people we need, the fewer we have to train as well, so there is a plus in how we are trying to introduce new ways to process. How training is applied is very much a matter for the Garda Commissioner, but it is set out here that somebody must have relevant training, and that is something that will have to be applied by the Commissioner. The specific type of training is not something we can plug into legislation.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the Minister and Deputies. We have moved on from the UAVs and ended up talking about training. There have been reasonable points all round, but we may be getting a little outside the scope of the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 9 agreed to.

Sections 10 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 17

Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I might bring forward further amendments to this section on Report Stage. I wanted to highlight that. I will probably bring forward some to section 18 as well.

An Cathaoirleach

The Deputy does not have to, but does he wish to say briefly what they might be?

Deputy Thomas Pringle

No, I have not fully worked it out yet.

An Cathaoirleach

That is noted. I thank the Deputy.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 18

Deputy Patrick Costello

I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Sections 18 to 35, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 36

Question proposed: "That section 36 stand part of the Bill."

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I might bring forward an amendment to this section on Report Stage.

An Cathaoirleach

That is noted.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 37 and 38 agreed to.

SECTION 39

Question proposed: "That section 39 stand part of the Bill."

An Cathaoirleach

I think Deputy Costello has withdrawn his opposition to this section.

Deputy Patrick Costello

Yes. I spent enough time this morning lecturing people on quoting former Chief Justice Denham, so I will spare the committee that.

An Cathaoirleach

I thought there was no limit to how much you could do that.

Deputy Patrick Costello

I will spare the committee that and withdraw my opposition.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 40 to 42, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 43

Deputy Patrick Costello

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 33, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:

"(d) shall cause a public consultation and public information campaign to be carried out,".

We talk a lot about policing by consent and that fundamental principle. I brought similar amendments to previous Garda Bills we have dealt with here. It is incredibly important to include public consultation from the beginning and make it a requirement. This serves several purposes. It first ensures people know what the rules are and that they know the law. As we all know, ignorance of the law is no excuse, but this is a chance for people to understand how the Garda operates, how our police service operates, and for them to feed into that through consultation. Again, we spend a lot of time talking about policing by consent, which is very important. This public consultation is an important part of policing by consent.

An Cathaoirleach

It seems very reasonable.

Deputy Helen McEntee

I refer to our previous conversation where the Garda Commissioner publishes the draft codes of practice on the website. That is obviously to allow for the period of consultation. While it does not say public consultation, the intention is this allows for engagement with the Policing Authority, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, the Data Protection Commission, DPC, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, the Garda Síochána Inspectorate, the Garda associations and then the public. Thus, while it is not explicitly stated as being a public consultation, I believe that is how it is set out. If there are to be any changes to the code of practice, those would have to go back through that process as well, so it cannot be a case that one code is put in place and then the Garda starts to tweak, amend and change it. It would have to go back to the public and the various groups if changes were to be made.

Deputy Patrick Costello

While I appreciate the public consultation might be implied in the Bill, as with the processing, ensuring it happens by naming it would be beneficial and improve the overall Bill.

Deputy Helen McEntee

It would absolutely have to happen. It is the case the Commissioner would have to engage in this process and would have to do so by law. What would be useful, and I think we have seen that with other legislation we have passed afterward without expressly stating it, is that there be information campaigns so we work on making people aware of what the law now is, be it through adverts or campaigns. Gardaí themselves must be able to engage and understand, as we are constantly changing and updating the laws. They must be aware of how the law has changed. It is about being able to do that when the Bill has passed. Engaging with the relevant agencies would be a good approach as well. I am happy to work with the Deputy on that.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

This may be a wee bit flippant, but the Minister outlined that she is going to table amendments to strengthen this, yet we hear we do not need this amendment because it is already implied in the Bill. There is a bit of a conflict there. Perhaps the Minister could outline where exactly it shows there will be public consultation. It says there will be consultation with IHREC but it does not refer to public consultation or consulting the public. I wonder where it is implied.

Deputy Helen McEntee

The piece I outlined before is where it is actually written down. It is not that it is not there and is implied. It is outlined in section 43(3) that "Before submitting a draft code of practice to the Minister under this section, the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána ... shall ...". The following paragraphs then outline all the people the Commissioner must engage with. Thus, while it is not called a public consultation, it is to my-----

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Is that an implied public consultation? If I were the Commissioner, I would say I have ticked all the boxes and contacted all those people and that is it.

Deputy Helen McEntee

The reason for the previous need to make amendments is because we do not have it physically written in each section, so we are simply amending it to ensure the focus on the processing of data is physically written in each section. In this case, it is physically written rather than implied. These are all the things the Commissioner will have to do before he or she can publish and make official the codes of practice. It is an opportunity for people to consult and engage in that way, but it does not expressly state at the top that this is a public consultation.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Maybe I am being silly, but the way I read this, a Commissioner could tick all those organisations, including the Garda Síochána Inspectorate, the Data Protection Commission, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and the Local Government Management Association, off the list by sending the code of practice to them and saying that is the consultation and good luck to the public.

Deputy Helen McEntee

It states "shall". Therefore, because it uses the word "shall", it means that he has to. The word "shall" implies that this has to happen.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

The word "shall" means it has to happen. It states "shall consult with". Yet, it does not list the public anywhere in that.

Deputy Helen McEntee

It states that it "shall ensure that the draft code of practice is published on the website of the Garda Síochána in order to allow persons a period that he or she shall specify to make...". The term "persons" relates to everybody.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Where does it state that?

Deputy Helen McEntee

It is in section 43(3)(d). It states "shall ensure" - it means it has to be done - "that the draft code of practice is published on the website of the Garda Síochána in order to allow persons a period that he or she shall specify to make written representations". That covers that. The term "persons" covers everybody or anybody. Obviously, the other provisions are more specific, where it states the groups that must be engaged with. However, the term "persons" relates to anybody who wants to apply.

Deputy Mark Ward

I raise the same point again. I was looking at the list of six bodies. The draft code of ethics does not state that is to be a public consultation. I will speak in layman's terms, but the general public may not know that this is a public consultation and they may have an input into how the code of ethics is designed and rolled out. That is my concern. While it states "persons", it does not state "the general public", how the general public feeds into this and how they would be made aware of this. It states that a person may contact the Minister, the policing authority, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman, the Garda Síochána Inspectorate, the Data Protection Commission, and IHREC, but how will the general public be involved in this consultation?

Deputy Helen McEntee

Once this legislation is passed, the code of conduct will have to be drawn up at that stage before anything can be used, and Deputies will appreciate many people would not have any interest in taking part. Therefore, it would be more likely that a person who is interested in taking part will be keeping an eye on when this will be published and when it is put on the website. It will then be available for people to respond. It could be the case that, as Minister, when this happens, I will alert people to the fact the code of conduct is now being put online and that people can have their say. That is something that could happen. Yet, again, people who are interested in this and who want to contribute will be able to see when it is published on the site. They will then have the opportunity to make written representations.

An Cathaoirleach

Before I go back to members, we have been talking a lot about the public consultation piece, but the amendment also discusses a public information campaign. I do not see that in the legislation, as it is drafted. Does the Minister have any views on that?

Deputy Helen McEntee

It is not in the legislation. What we have done more recently is that when legislation has been passed, we have engaged in various different campaigns, for example, the intimate images. The Coco's law campaign was hugely successful. It was after the passing of the Bill that we engaged to find out the best way for us to communicate with people. That has been hugely successful to date.

Of course, in making people aware that gardaí would be wearing body-worn cameras and there would be different technology, there is perhaps an opportunity to engage with the public once we know exactly what the Bill looks like and how it-----

An Cathaoirleach

There was a finding in a report on this Bill at the time that there would be a greater awareness generated of it. That goes into issues such as the light that will come on and off, which I know is in the Bill, when people are using the cameras, etc.

We will have one more contribution from each member and the Minister and then we will move on. I call Deputy Pringle.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I take on board what the Minister is saying. If, for example, this Bill passes and then in a year's time the public consultation has not happened and we ask the Minister about it, she may say that there is no requirement in law for that to happen. That is the problem. I am not saying that would happen or anything like that, but that is the problem with it. If it will happen, why not have that in the legislation? I am worried about that. It should be there and it should be par for the course. It should not be taken as read.

An Cathaoirleach

I will allow each member back in and then I will go back to the Minister for an overall response. Does Deputy Ward want to come in?

Deputy Mark Ward

Yes, briefly. There was ambiguity in the Minister's response to me. She said that the Minister "could" notify the public, but it should state in the legislation that the Minister "shall" notify the public. It is not in it. It is not specific. It does not say anything about what the Minister "shall" do. I am not saying the Minister will not notify the public if this Bill becomes an Act after the recess, but it is still open to interpretation as to whether she has to do that. I would prefer that provision was in there that somebody would notify the public when this legislation is in place and when this draft code of ethics is in place, so that the public has a chance to influence it, change it or give their thoughts about it.

An Cathaoirleach

As the mover of the amendment, does Deputy Costello want to speak?

Deputy Patrick Costello

I accept the Bill states that there "shall" be a consultation and then it lists a whole bunch of people. On my initial reading of the Bill, it did not seem like the general public were included to be consulted. There might be a reading of the Bill that states that, but certainly, it is not a guarantee. It is not obvious in the first instance. In terms of policing by consent, we should be seeking to list the general public in these consultations as much as we do any other body. I will leave it there.

An Cathaoirleach

Does the Minister want to make a final point?

Deputy Helen McEntee

I want to reassure Deputies that there will be absolutely no situation where the Garda Commissioner can introduce body-worn cameras or use any of the technology listed here without the codes of conduct. As the word "shall" is expressly stated in all of these, it means that there is no question that he or she must do all of this. The term "persons" was used to make sure nobody was left out. The term "persons" leaves it as broad and as open as possible to include the general public. While we are prescriptive with the different groups to make sure that every aspect is covered, from human rights, to data protection, to security in policing, to the oversight bodies, the term "persons" is as open as it can be to make sure that applies to the general public.

In terms of my statement to Deputy Ward, I was simply saying that I could do this, but it does not state the Minister must tell people when it is happening. I am saying that when this happens, I certainly could make people aware that the code of practice is being outlined and that people can have their say on that.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the Minister. How stands the amendment?

Deputy Patrick Costello

I will withdraw it.

An Cathaoirleach

That is okay. The Deputy can bring it back on Report Stage if he so wishes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 43 agreed to.

Sections 44 to 46, inclusive, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.