Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 1 Feb 2023

Vol. 1032 No. 5

Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Bill 2022: Second Stage

Minister for Justice (Deputy Simon Harris)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am delighted to have an opportunity to introduce the Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Bill 2022 to the House. I look forward to hearing contributions from Deputies today and in the coming days. As Deputies will be aware, this Bill is aimed at providing a robust statutory basis for the operating of recording devices by An Garda Síochána.

An Garda Síochána plays a vitally important role in our society. Its members are on the front line every day keeping people safe and serving our communities. We know they do this at great personal risk to themselves. It is important that I take this opportunity, on the floor of Dáil Éireann, to condemn, in the strongest possible terms, all recent attacks on members of An Garda Síochána. I am sure I am joined by every Member of this House when I say that we must and will do everything in our power to prevent and discourage such attacks and call out and condemn them.

We have seen a number of incidents in recent weeks where gardaí have been seriously injured. I am sure we all absolutely condemn these incidents. We have also seen something else, however. We have seen threatening behaviour from people who are intent on sowing division in our society. These people have not only intimidated and threatened citizens and people who are seeking our help. They have, in some instances, also sought to intimidate and threaten members of An Garda Síochána, a force that is protecting our communities. This simply cannot and will not be tolerated. Our gardaí will always have our full support and the full rigours of the law will always apply to those who seek to intimidate or breach the law.

Today, we are taking another step forward with this legislation in supporting and protecting the men and women on the front line in An Garda Síochána through the introduction of body-worn cameras. Gardaí will now be able to gather evidence of thuggish behaviour and secure convictions.

In the modern, fully digitalised society, criminals, especially organised crime gangs, have access to increasingly sophisticated digital tools to carry out their objectives. It is of crucial importance that An Garda Síochána has access to the latest technology if it is to counter such challenges. A modern police service simply must have effective and up-to-date digital tools to keep our communities safe and protect themselves from those who would do them harm. The principal objective of the Bill is to provide An Garda Síochána with those important tools.

As Minister for Justice, I cannot and will not stand over a situation where we do not equip gardaí with what they need, not only to tackle criminals but also to keep pace with what are common policing practices worldwide. Policing services across the world have gained significant benefits from the introduction of these technologies. People will have seen their effective use in fighting and solving crime in other jurisdictions. One of the key features of this Bill is the introduction of body-worn cameras. The Garda Commissioner and Garda representative bodies have long called for the introduction of these cameras, and I have heard those calls clearly. This technology has the potential to deter attacks on Garda members and, where attacks do occur, it can provide strong evidence to bring perpetrators to justice.

I know from speaking to front-line gardaí that the first moments after they arrive at the scene of domestic abuse are key to gathering evidence, which can then be used to protect the victim and ensure the perpetrator is brought to justice.

As our road network improves, so too does the ability of criminal elements to move widely and swiftly and evade detection. The Bill enhances the circumstances in which automatic number plate recognition, ANPR, may be used by An Garda Síochána. By linking into a network of certain bodies such as the National Roads Authority, NRA, we will ensure that data are made available to Garda investigations in a timely manner. This could be of significant benefit to gardaí when, for example, they are trying to track down a vehicle they suspect may have been used in serious crime or may be carrying suspects or even a victim whose life might be in danger. ANPR allows An Garda Síochána to track the movement of vehicles, potentially preventing crime and saving people from serious harm.

ANPR allows An Garda Síochána to track the movement of vehicles, potentially preventing crime and saving people from serious harm. Everyone in our communities is entitled to go about their business in confidence and without any form of harassment. CCTV schemes can assist An Garda Síochána to ensure this entitlement is fully enjoyed. CCTV schemes have long played a key role in preventing crime and protecting communities and businesses.

I want to emphasise my respect for the right to privacy of all our citizens. However, no doubt I am joined by my colleagues across the House when I say that I firmly believe that criminals do not have a right to privacy such that it can aid them to evade investigation, arrest or prosecution. Members of An Garda Síochána should not have their hands tied behind their backs when it comes to fighting crime or detecting crime and putting criminals behind bars. It is important there are safeguards. It is important that people’s privacy and personal data are protected. At the same time, we need to and must make sure there is no ability for people, criminals in particular, to hide behind that.

This Bill will deliver on two important commitments in the programme for Government, namely, to implement the recommendations of the Report of the Commission of the Future of Policing which called for the use of body-worn cameras to enhance the front-line capability of An Garda Síochána, and to extend the powers governing Garda use of CCTV and automated number plate recognition to help to prevent crime and to prosecute those involved in criminal activity.

The Bill before us is divided into nine Parts and I will now outline briefly the key provisions.

Part 1 sets out the key definitions of the Bill including "recording device" which is necessarily broad in order to future-proof this legislation, and includes devices capable of recording or processing records. Transitional arrangements for existing Garda or community CCTV are set out in section 7. A period of up to four years to transition to the new arrangements is provided for. I believe this will give ample time for the new processes to become established and ensure CCTV schemes are GDPR-compliant going forward.

Part 2 of the Bill deals with the use of recording devices generally by An Garda Síochána in public places and in places where they are invited or permitted to be. This includes the use of recording devices on vehicles, aircraft and on Garda dogs. Since the definition of a recording device is broad, it would allow, among other devices, for recording from body-worn cameras, cameras, smartphones, tablets, dashcams and camcorders. Policing organisations around the world have found that body-worn cameras can help to improve front-line capability with the accurate recording of incidents. It can expedite analysis, bring about enhanced situational awareness and protect police from harm. Where body-worn cameras are in use there is a requirement that a visible indicator clearly displays that it has been switched on.

Part 3 will give An Garda Síochána the power to use ANPR for other policing and security functions. By designating certain bodies to transfer on an ongoing basis the ANPR records they create, it will provide An Garda Síochána with access to a range of ANPR cameras in strategic locations. The three bodies named are DAA plc, which is Dublin and Cork Airports, Dublin Port Company and the NRA, which has a network of ANPR cameras along the motorways in Ireland. Other bodies can be designated at a later date, if necessary.

Use of ANPR for "focused monitoring" of a vehicle is provided for and will allow An Garda Síochána to monitor a vehicle for up to three months where it is related to an arrestable offence or to a matter relating to national security. The use will have to be justified and approved by a superintendent or higher, and any continued "focused monitoring" beyond three months will have to be authorised by a judge of the District Court. Retrospective searches of ANPR data will also be permitted for specific purposes and can be approved by a Garda of the rank of sergeant or higher.

Part 4 addresses an outstanding recommendation from the Fennelly Commission of Investigation. This voiced concern over the legal basis for recording of both emergency and non-emergency lines by the Garda.

Part 5 provides for a new authorisation process for CCTV schemes. Authorisations may only be granted to Garda personnel or to local authorities and these authorisations will have expiry dates. That is not to say that community groups can no longer be involved in the process. It is a priority for me that they should continue to have a role. This will include an important role for community safety partnerships which will develop community safety plans with strong local input. Any future amendments or additions to a CCTV scheme would have to be notified to the Garda Commissioner who would determine whether a new authorisation is required. Deputies will be aware of the concerns raised by the Data Protection Commission about the current arrangements. This Bill will put more controlled arrangements on a firm statutory footing.

Part 6 will give a power to An Garda Síochána to process live feeds of third-party CCTV systems, such as those belonging to private shops, venues or stadiums, with judicial approval or where the access is required for less than 72 hours, with internal approval from a superintendent or higher. This Part, however, will not prevent An Garda Síochána from viewing third-party CCTV where the third party has freely allowed them to do so. The Data Protection Act allows a third party to share data with An Garda Síochána where it is for law enforcement purposes.

Part 7 provides for the Garda Commissioner to authorise the installation and operation of CCTV in Garda premises for the safeguarding of people or property, and for preventing, investigating, detecting, or prosecuting criminal offences. This includes private areas of Garda premises such as custody suites and temporary structures, and places the use of CCTV in Garda stations on a firm statutory basis.

Part 8 sets out the codes of practice which will need to be drafted by the Garda Commissioner for Parts 2 to 6 of the Bill. The codes of practice will be important in setting the standards and procedures under which Garda personnel will operate recording devices. These codes will outline requirements in relation to storage, access, retention, deletion and data subject rights. It is perhaps important to emphasise that in the interests of transparency, the draft codes will be made publicly available by the Garda Commissioner so that representations can be made, and there will be numerous bodies, including the Data Protection Commission, that the Commissioner will need to consult during drafting. The codes must be approved by ministerial order and the final text of the code will appear in the order declared. Deputies should note that retention periods for recordings and data captured under this Bill will also be set out in the codes. Retention periods will follow international best practice.

Part 9 relates to miscellaneous provisions. These include provisions relating to the admissibility of evidence, the review of Parts 3 and 6 by a designated judge of the High Court, and provide for an amendment to the Garda Síochána (Surveillance) Act 2009.

I will speak briefly about the amendments that I intend to bring on Committee Stage. As Members will be aware I intend to bring a report to the Government on the use of facial recognition technology, FRT, by An Garda Síochána. FRT has potentially transformational benefits in regard to certain specific areas of police work, in particular retrospectively examining CCTV which is already in the possession of An Garda Síochána. The accurate and efficient identification of suspects and equally, the elimination of individuals from inquiries, are key pillars to ensure that An Garda Síochána meets its statutory obligations. The ability to automate searches on legally held images and footage would allow the organisation to operate more efficiently and effectively. The current process of long manual searches which potentially involves a team of gardaí manually going through CCTV footage for months to find a short few clips which may be relevant to an investigation, is well outdated and extremely inefficient. This is particularly the case where time is of the essence. Members can imagine manually having to go through hours and hours, indeed hundreds of hours of CCTV footage where time is of the essence in a murder investigation, or where there is a missing person or child abuse, when we simply do not have the time to spare. It is in the interests of all parties, not least the victims of crime, to have criminal investigations pursued as effectively and rapidly as possible. The circumstances and environment in which FRT would be used are limited to specific-use cases which are, in my view, completely justifiable. The Garda Commissioner and staff have made a compelling case for the use of this technology in certain limited circumstances. When the Minister for Justice hears from the Garda Commissioner in regard to this, it is important to relay that to the House. It is important that a Minister for Justice would seek to act on that.

Retrospective facial recognition technology would aid the identification of suspects who are suspected of having carried out an arrestable offence. A striking example would be Garda work in combatting child sexual abuse online. As things stand, gardaí are forced to review what could be hundreds of thousands of the most harrowing images or footage of these crimes. Should FRT eventually be included in this Bill, gardaí will be able to utilise that tool in order to quickly identify both victims and perpetrators. I appreciate that there are different, genuinely and sincerely held views on this issue in the House, and indeed outside it. That is why, in the coming weeks, I will engage further with colleagues in the Government and others on FRT. The central theme of the Bill is that any proposed use of a particular technology must be necessary and proportionate.

That approach would continue with any amendments that I bring forward in regard to the inclusion of facial recognition in the Bill being subject to considerable safeguards and oversight. This would include judicial oversight over the operation of this technology, a strict prior approval mechanism for its use and Garda personnel remaining responsible as decision-makers, meaning that there would certainly not be any "machine” decision-making process. Data protection impact and human rights impact assessments will be required and, just like other crucial aspects of this Bill, any inclusion of facial recognition technology would be subject to a code of practice so as to ensure transparency as to the procedures involved in the use of such technology.

One final point that I feel is important to make is the place of victims in consideration of the inclusion of FRT. The Government has placed an emphasis on ensuring that the voices of victims are heard throughout the criminal justice system. I believe very strongly that any inclusion of such amendments would be an important aid to victims in furthering investigations as quickly as possible. I want to be very clear that, at the moment, the factual position of the Government is that FRT will receive consideration and there will be a report to Government before Committee Stage of this legislation. I am eager to engage with members of the Government and the Opposition to ensure we get it right and we arrive at the right point. I hope there will be an opportunity for Members of the Oireachtas in an appropriate way to perhaps hear the perspective and views of An Garda Síochána as to why they believe this can genuinely help them as they go about their jobs.

The Bill is about providing transparency to us all as to the standards and procedures that gardaí must follow when using recording devices under this Bill. The tenth principle of the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland report is that policing must be innovative, adaptive and cost effective. In the current environment, we need An Garda Síochána to have the tools and resources to combat crime and to fulfil its primary duty of protecting the public. There are compelling reasons gardaí should be allowed access to technology and to body cams, and there are strict requirements under law to introduce clear and sufficient safeguards around this.

Today is an important day. It is a day when the Dáil and the Oireachtas come together to begin the passage of a law that will allow front-line members of An Garda Síochána - the men and women who put on the uniform and go out and put themselves in harm's way to keep us safe - access to devices that will help to keep them safe and help them to bring perpetrators to justice. I want to end where I began, in condemning in the strongest possible terms recent attacks on members of An Garda Síochána, and in calling out the fact we are seeing people in certain circumstances, not just trying to intimidate members of communities, but also trying to intimidate the men and women of An Garda Síochána. We must never accept that and we will never accept it. We must ensure it is met with the full rigours of the law. We must ensure we legislate to provide that protection through body-worn cameras and further additional protection for gardaí. I commend the Bill.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Mattie McGrath)

Bogaimid ar aghaidh le Páirtí Shinn Féin. Glaoim ar an Teachta Kenny atá ag roinnt a chuid ama leis na Teachtaí Daly agus Ó Laoghaire.

Deputy Martin Kenny

We welcome much of what is in the Bill and the advance that it represents. I understand there is a necessity to use modern technology in every way possible to advance the work of An Garda Síochána and to keep communities and people safe across all aspects of our society, and that includes everyone who is involved in public service. I want to echo the Minister's comments in regard to the recent attacks against members of An Garda Síochána and, indeed, attacks against other people in the public service - I think of bus drivers, train drivers and people in our accident and emergency services - and people in all walks of life who have been the victims of vile abuse and, at times, attack. We have to build a society which does not tolerate that kind of behaviour under any circumstances.

I am aware that some groups are not supportive of some of the measures in the Bill and we have to give that due recognition as well. People's privacy and the need to ensure we have balance in all aspects is something we need to be conscious of and work towards. I am aware that organisations such as the Irish Council for Civil Liberties have voiced their strong opposition to many aspects of the Bill, and we have to take due consideration of that. In many countries around the world, there is the use of technology by police forces that are often not using the law appropriately, as we have seen recently in that great bastion of democracy, the United States, where we see people being attacked and all of that sort of thing.

One of the lessons that brings to us is that the very technology we are talking about has exposed some of those kinds of incidents. The protection of the public is one of the reasons I feel that, in particular, body cameras and other technology of that nature is appropriate. Of course, it is also about the protection of the police enforcement officer, so they will not be abused in the same manner that they would be if they did not have that technology.

We have the agreement of the Garda Representative Association, the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors and the Garda Commissioner, who have all said there is a need for body cameras to be part of the future of policing in this country. People have been talking about this for a long time and it has been going on at least since I came into the House in 2016. I remember it being talked of at that time and I remember representations from the Garda organisations seeking to have body cameras and other technology used. Indeed, every time there is an accident on the roads, we hear calls for dashcam footage from the general public to be made available to An Garda Síochána. My understanding is that the vast majority of Garda patrol cars do not have dashcams, which flies in the face of logic, given we are looking for the public to provide this yet the vehicles that gardaí use do not have that. This is one of the things that needs to be addressed as quickly as possible.

This raises a question. The Minister's party has been in the justice Ministry for 11 years and we are coming very late to the table in terms of providing this kind of technology. It does not reflect well on the attempt to ensure we protect people and provide the technology to An Garda Síochána to do its job properly. It is taking a very long time to do this. This equipment can deter individuals from attacking members of An Garda Síochána and from using the kind of abuse that they have used. The Minister referred in his opening comments to some of the things we have seen on our streets recently, with protests where protesters are usually holding up cameras themselves while they attack people and use all kinds of violent language against them. We need to ensure that the technology is there to protect members of An Garda Síochána who are interacting with the public. It is also to protect gardaí from complaints that can often be made through the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, and other organisations in that there is actual evidence that cannot be contradicted because it is on the camera.

We have seen more gardaí resigning from the force in recent times. I am also aware that having more technology does not provide us with more gardaí, and it is more gardaí that we need, more than anything else, not just in our cities but across all parts of the country. I am curious to know why there was a delay in upscaling Garda technology up to now, given gardaí themselves have identified the need for this technology for quite a long time. In the Dublin metropolitan region alone, we have lost 575 gardaí since 2009, so the actual number has reduced in that region, which is where there is most growth in population and the most growth in crime, antisocial behaviour and all of that. We need more gardaí on the beat, on the street, meeting people, involved in their communities and part of their communities.

Two Garda members were attacked in Dublin during a routine public order incident a number of weeks ago. These members were, in fact, brought in from another station to cover duties in that area because of the scarcity. All of this speaks to the problem that we have in terms of numbers. People are simply not joining An Garda Síochána and it is a question of what we need to do to address that. That is vital to any possibility of creating a force which is capable of dealing with the problems that we see across the length and breadth of the country.

I am aware the Minister intends to introduce legislation on facial recognition technology, as he mentioned in his comments. I am sceptical and I have concerns about it, although, at the same time, when the Minister mentions incidents of sexual crime online and the tracing of people who are being trafficked, I understand there is some logic to this. However, again, we need to bring balance to this. There is a great fear that it can be used wrongly. Certainly, in other jurisdictions, it was used in incidents of racial profiling and other types of situations that are simply not the direction we need to go in. We need to bear that in mind.

The overall direction of travel in bringing more technology to the table is vital to ensure that we have the technology to protect not just the community but also those who enforce the law, namely, the members of An Garda Síochána.

We must also know how the data are going to be stored. The Minister mentioned GDPR in his speech and the difficulties in regard to that. CCTV has been mired in controversy and difficulty for many years because of the role of local authorities in providing sites, monitoring and access. It has become a very difficult and fraught area. There is an opportunity in the legislation to streamline that and to get it right. We must ensure that we can do that.

We must also ensure that data are stored appropriately. We must be able to reassure people that anything that is recorded by members of An Garda Síochána will not appear on Facebook, TikTok or any other social media platform, as has happened in the past in some instances we have seen. That has caused great concern for people. We must be able to ensure that we have the proper technology in place so that cannot happen. I seek assurances from the Minister that the recordings will not be going online or be stored in the cloud, which might provide access, and that the storage is independent of the Internet. That is the only way we can ensure that it cannot end up on social media. It is very important that we ensure that could be put in place.

The Minister referred to automatic numberplate recognition technology. That is something that has been around for many years but it is not appropriately used at all. It is something that should have been put in place a long time ago.

I am also conscious that a large amount of the Department's budget goes every year to GoSafe vans that watch people speeding on the roads. I often wonder if the same amount of money was put into having gardaí doing the monitoring, that they would be monitoring more than just speeding. If an incident happens somewhere the Garda could observe who was moving on the road and other such matters. It does not make sense to have a private company being paid millions of euro just to watch one aspect of criminal behaviour when there is so much going on that requires the investment of State resources into the Garda.

We must be conscious of the possibility of this type of technology being abused. We must ensure that rigid and strong safeguards are put in place so that it cannot and must not be abused in the future. That said, we welcome the direction we are moving in and the way gardaí and citizens will be more protected, but as I said at the outset, none of that is enough if we do not enhance the strength of the Garda Síochána. We must ensure that happens as quickly as possible.

Deputy Pa Daly

I listened to what the Minister said about the Bill. It is understandable that there is some extra impetus behind it, given some of the recent assaults we have seen on rank and file gardaí. At the same time, doing so in a hurry creates a risk. The Minister's comments that everybody is entitled to go about their business without interference, and that everything should be proportionate, are interesting.

Whenever I think of new legislation, I think of two cases from my previous work history. The first is when I was called to Store Street Garda station in the aftermath of the introduction of the drug trafficking offences legislation, which was supposed to target the large-scale criminals, the drug lords. The first person I was called to see was a young woman who was living in the Regina Coeli hostel in Dublin 7. Somebody had told the Garda that she had a small amount of drugs in her locker in the hostel. She had a young child in the hostel with her. When I arrived, she asked if it was true that she could be held there for seven days. There was also an implication that her custody of her child would be in danger as a result. Clearly, that is not what the legislation was intended for, but it was what happened on the ground.

I also think of a second person, especially in light of the automatic numberplate recognition that is coming in. It is being introduced to tackle criminals, but as the Minister says himself, everyone is entitled to go about their business without interference. An 18-year old young man from north Kerry who was attending one of the colleges in Tralee came into my office. He was stopped on Racecourse Road coming away from the college. He was pulled over by the Garda. I would say this young fellow had not even had a parking fine in his life, but he was stopped and asked a number of questions about drugs, if he had access to drugs, who he knew and if he could give information. I knew that he had no truck with criminality and when we dug deep into it, it turned out that one of the previous owners of his car had a history of drugs and the numberplate technology that came up in the Garda car identified the car as having been at one stage involved in drugs. He came into my office rather shaken over the whole experience, but while this type of legislation is again targeted at the big criminals, there is a danger that the young 18-year old man or the single mother in the Regina Coeli hostel are the ones that, broadly, could be targeted and upset and who could have their daily business interfered with by overreaching legislation.

Notwithstanding the recent assaults - I understand the impetus - it is important to understand where and how these devices are used. We are somewhat hamstrung today, as the Minister in fairness mentioned, that some of the facial recognition technology has not been introduced and will be included on Committee Stage. It is difficult to have much of a debate about it because we do not know what is coming in. I note that the Garda Commissioner, as the Minister mentioned, recently gave an interview saying it was the intention to use facial recognition technology with the bodycams. One could ask if that is proportionate. We can tease that out later, on Committee Stage in particular. It would be important to put in place a pilot scheme in one or two areas before we rush into all of this to look at the effectiveness of this new technology before it is introduced.

On the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny, when we discussed the Bill last year, I raised concerns then about the wide discretion of the Bill for the use of such devices. The general scheme allowed for the use of the devices so long as it was "necessary and proportionate" for the securing of public safety and the carrying out of the Garda duties. The revised Bill improves on this somewhat, as it has more specific grounds for the use of the devices such as executing a court order or warrant, or recording damage to a property.

I also expressed concerns on the definition of an "arrestable offence". In all of the other legislation, where somebody is to be arrested under section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984, an arrestable offence is defined as something which can carry a prison sentence of up to five years, but that covers nearly everything. If a person steals a Mars bar from a shop and the person is prosecuted by his or her choice or by the judge, on indictment, that falls under the Act. Is that necessary or proportionate? There should be some safeguards in that regard. Recording devices should not be used unless it is for one of the specific purposes. Perhaps an even more detailed set of circumstances could be set out before the legislation is enacted.

Another concern expressed in the justice committee at the time was related to the code of practice. It was unclear at the time when it was to be available and if the Dáil would have any role in scrutinising it. The phrase "code of practice" appears no less than 35 times in the legislation, which has about the same number of pages, and there is a presumption of lawfulness where any conduct confirms with a code of practice. The rank of garda who can approve a search of automated numberplate recognition data is also to be set out in a code of practice rather than within primary legislation. I can understand the need for flexibility on issues such as the type of recording device used, which I see is subscribed and has to be justified under a code of practice, but in other matters there does need to be more certainty. An easy solution would be to strengthen section 43 and give the Policing Authority more than just a consultative role in drafting these codes of practice.

The provisions on data are fairly focused on removing legal obstacles for the smooth functioning of the system and address concerns about the storage of data and how these can be accessed by persons who encounter the Garda. Some independent and verifiable records of when devices are used and when a defendant can expect to access data, such as before trial or on foot of proceedings, are crucial. Footage can obviously be prejudicial to defendants, for good and ill. The equality of the legal arms of the State will be placed out of balance if the Garda has access to footage without any right for a defendant to view it. It is important to keep that in mind.

I am pleased the Bill addresses the use of CCTV by local authorities. That is a good thing. For a long time, particularly since local authorities abdicated their former responsibility to collect waste, there has been an explosion of illegal dumping, especially in rural areas. Many people either cannot or will not subscribe to a private operator that demands that €30 is kept in their accounts and where there is a monthly fee of €14 or €15, whether people access the service or not. In a cost-of-living crisis, when money is tight, people will choose not to subscribe. They either go to the effort of bringing their rubbish to private operators or engage in illegal dumping. The amount of dumping can be seen along the sides of roads now that, by and large, is composed of plastic bottles. Something has to be done about removing plastic bottles. Domestic rubbish is also thrown by the side of the road. For a long time, local authorities decided they could not use CCTV to deal with this issue because of data protection issues but it would not be hard to do if they appointed data protection officers to be responsible for data storage. However, there was significant reluctance to do that. That is one part of the Bill that I welcome. It is to be hoped that it will tackle the scourge of illegal dumping, which is a particular problem in rural areas.

I look forward to further debate on the Bill. I ask the Government, especially those members of it who sit on the Joint Committee on Justice, to be very wary of the new, over-reaching legislation, especially in respect of number plate technology and facial recognition. Such legislation should be proportionate. Before anything is put in place, pilot schemes should be rolled out to see whether the legislation is necessary and proportionate before there is an erosion of civil liberties relating to it.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

I thank the Minister for his presentation. The Labour Party is broadly supportive of the idea of body cams for gardaí. However, we want to make a few points on this Stage. I was not a member of the justice committee, although I am now, when this Bill underwent pre-legislative scrutiny. I understand there was no reference to facial recognition technology at that time. I will return to the issue of facial recognition technology shortly but, as a matter of process, it is less than desirable that on this Stage a new element of this Bill is being brought in for us to deliberate on Committee Stage, when it represents a major change in the operation and organisation of An Garda Síochána.

I will speak first to the positivity around the issue of body cams. It has been spoken about for a long time. The Government is moving on it and we are legislating for it, which is a positive. We have seen across the world, where body cams on police officers have been used, they have protected police officers, in addition to communities that previously were not believed regarding over-aggressive police forces and the interaction between police forces and their communities. The Black Lives Matter movement was emboldened because it had evidence from individual interactions between police officers and members of their communities and could prove the level of aggression that was there. Body cams will also protect members of An Garda Síochána. Even in recent days and weeks, we have seen the level of protests that are happening in some communities. Members of the public would not believe the type of vitriol and poison that is spouted and spat at members of An Garda Síochána until they see it, either live or recorded.

We rightly speak a lot about the abuse politicians and especially female politicians get. It is justifiable to speak out. Such abuse has to be rooted out and ended. There are so many public servants who get vile abuse. Female public service employees get disproportionately more vile abuse. That includes members of An Garda Síochána. We support body cams for two reasons: first, to protect the individual who comes into contact with An Garda Síochána to prove the nature of that interaction and whether the force used by a garda was appropriate and that interaction was respectful and, second, to protect the member of An Garda Síochána, again, by illustrating the type of interaction the civilian had with that officer.

However, there is a trust deficit. We all know of the case of a vulnerable woman who was recorded walking down O'Connell Street in a distressed state and that the recording was shared among members of An Garda Síochána. We know that some sensitive material that members of An Garda Síochána are privy to is not treated with the delicacy it should be. Let us put it that way. We have to be clear that whatever recorded material comes from body cams that the Garda has will be treated with a lot of regulation and safeguards and that there will be penalties involved for anybody who transgresses that. If it happened in the case of the woman I mentioned, I am quite sure it has happened previously in other cases. We cannot have a scenario where very sensitive material of interactions between gardaí and individuals in the street is shared inappropriately, goes into the public domain, ends up on a social media site, and we reap a whirlwind of regret because we did not put in the safeguards on this Stage.

This is a major change in the dynamic of the interaction between a garda and a member of the public. It is a major change. We have to now, unfortunately, think of the worst-case scenario that could possibly happen from this dynamic and interactional change, prevent that happening, and work back from that worst-case scenario to where we are now. What would we say if, in years to come, some interaction between a garda and somebody in a state of undress or intoxication, or somebody who is well known or whatever, ended up online inappropriately? Would we then say we should have thought differently about the Bill when it was brought before the Oireachtas and whether we should have trusted the Garda enough to ensure the situation I outlined would not happen? Unfortunately, we have to work in the space where in the context of the individual right of the person interacting with the Garda, and that interaction being recorded, we are dealing with citizens who have to be assumed to be innocent of any transgression. If this interaction is now to be recorded, all of us have to be assured that the recording will be treated sensitively, and that it will not be tampered with, released, or end up in the public domain.

Again, I support members of An Garda Síochána who are going about their daily work and are in confrontational situations every day. It is a difficult job. On that, it is fair to say we do not have enough gardaí. There are 650 fewer gardaí in the State now than there were three years ago. I am not suggesting this Bill is a distraction. This legislation is needed but within this conversation we have to also point to the fact that it is not a substitution for boots on the ground. The morale in An Garda Síochána has been spoken of, as have the reasons members are trying to get out, are seeking early retirement and are changing career because it is an unhappy place to work at present.

When we have 650 fewer gardaí than we had three years ago, that has to be addressed.

As for facial recognition technology, none of us want to oppose technology. It sounds great for a Minister to say, "Facial recognition technology is the way to go, the Garda Commissioner says the same thing, and who could be against that?" This is again a massive layer of change in the dynamic of how An Garda Síochána will interact with the public. Anywhere else it has been used it has proven to be problematic. There are districts in the UK where it has been shown that 80% of the cases that have used facial recognition technology have been defective. San Francisco has banned it. I understand EU legislation is being formulated to ban it in every European state. It does not make a heap of sense - this is my understanding of the EU position - for us to bring in legislation that enables An Garda Síochána to use facial recognition technology when it has proven so problematic in other jurisdictions. Meanwhile, the EU is formulating legislation to outlaw it and, therefore, we would be contradicting EU law before we start. That is notwithstanding the fact that the process in bringing it in is, we will all agree, less than perfect in that we are not having pre-legislative scrutiny, going by the Minister's contribution, and we are going to bring it into Committee Stage. Not only is facial recognition technology problematic, my colleagues in Sinn Féin have quite rightly said that it has been proven to be problematic in terms of the people it isolates and targets. There is a racial dimension to this as well, whereby it is disproportionately discriminatory against those of certain ethnic backgrounds. When the Garda Commissioner makes comments about every body cam having facial recognition technology, those are two major changes in one which we need to be careful about.

Let me put the position of the Labour Party clearly. We are in favour of body cams on gardaí. We feel they would protect the member of the public and the member of An Garda Síochána. There are major concerns as to how those data will be stored and not shared but protected and kept sacred, as it were, but we will work on that and we have to find regulations around that. On facial recognition technology, however, we are yet to be convinced that this is the right time to bring in this incredibly powerful tool on top of what the Minister is proposing when it has proven so problematic. The Minister will say that the technology can improve, that all these glitches can be overcome and that if we have the legislation, it can be amended in time. We feel that because the technology has proven to be so difficult to use effectively in other jurisdictions that have tried it, because police forces internationally are rowing back against it and because the EU, apparently, is bringing in legislation to ban it, we should not use this legislative process to bring it in. With the body cam there is enough of a change of dynamic between An Garda Síochána and the public for us to work on at this time. This seems to be a bridge too far at this point. We can toss it over and back on Committee Stage and we can bring in experts if the Chair of the committee is willing to do so to disabuse us of our difficulties with it, but there is a big difference between technology that can recognise somebody in a confrontational or criminal act and the recording of a public space where somebody is just innocently walking down the road. The usage of that technology to pursue that person is a different dynamic from the other of the two usages of facial recognition technology.

I will reiterate that we support An Garda Síochána. We believe that body cams will assist them in their work. We want to know that the material they would gather would be treated sensitively. We want to be sure that the person being recorded will know that that interaction will not end up on some website somewhere. We also want to be sure that if there is an interaction that may reflect negatively on An Garda Síochána, there will be consequences for the garda who says the body cam just was not working, he or she forgot to plug it in or it went on the blink. There will be massive trust issues in such scenarios. Will there be an expectation that gardaí do not go on the beat unless the camera is working and that they check it before they go out? I can just imagine all those scenarios. On facial recognition technology, will the Minister please investigate what is being done at EU level and what has happened in other jurisdictions before he shoehorns in a major change in the dynamic that has been proven internationally not to work? The evidence we have is that this does not work and that police forces are rowing back against it all across the world. We could bring in legislation that will be useless because it will contravene what is happening in respect of EU law.

Deputy Cathal Crowe

I welcome Councillor Shane Curley from Loughrea, a fine public representative from the west, who is in the Public Gallery.

This is positive legislation. It is something I spoke about 18 months ago in the House. Not a week goes by that we do not see on social media gardaí being harangued, pushed, jeered at and, in some instances, punched and cars being driven at them by absolute thugs, scum. It is right that gardaí should be given every personal defence possible when uniformed, on the beat or driving their cars. A body cam is certainly the way to go about starting that and empowering them once again. Morale is low in the force at this time. I have seen body cams. Before I spoke on this matter in the Dáil some months back, I acquainted myself with what they look like. There is a light and a recording button. The individual standing in front of the garda at the moment of the interaction is not recorded unless there is a very good need for it or unless a situation has escalated. A light comes on. The individual is very much aware that the incident is being recorded. It is a no-brainer. It is about empowering our gardaí to once again become strong enforcers of the laws of our land, not to be pushed about by thugs on our street. We have seen far too much of that. I hope that during the Minister's tenure in the Department of Justice, as the helmsman of the Department, he will be the strongest defender of our front-line gardaí.

As I said, morale in the Garda is low at this time. More than 100 gardaí are suspended. The Minister cannot interfere operationally in that. An investigation is under way with the Garda National Bureau of Criminal Investigation. Some of the gardaí are suspended because they squared road traffic fines and others for worse alleged offences. The Minister cannot interfere with that. Some of those suspensions are now 18 months on. These are really good, qualified gardaí who are at home and being fully paid. They would be far better off back on our streets and on the beat. The Minister has to have some oversight of this to speak with the Commissioner. He cannot be judge or jury and find them guilty or innocent - that is for somebody else entirely - but surely this needs to move on. The Garda National Bureau of Criminal Investigation needs to move this on. The gardaí are either guilty or they are not. If they are not guilty, let them get back to what they are good at doing.

Mobility in the force is quite limited as well. I have many friends in the Garda. When gardaí graduate from Templemore College, most of them inevitably end up in inner-city Dublin stations. There is a certain buzz about that because of the activity and the footfall on the streets of Dublin. As time moves on, however, gardaí get engaged, perhaps get married, start families and are drawn to come back to their home communities, but there is little mobility. There needs to be a perfect match. If a garda wants to come back to County Clare from Dublin, he or she needs somebody to go up to Dublin for him or her to come down to Clare. It does not always work perfectly. That in itself is a morale-draining issue of which the Minister should have some oversight.

I wish to speak in my last minute about databases. We have had a DNA database in Ireland since 2015. It is now nine years old. We have the Eurodac database for fingerprints across Europe. Those data, I fear, are not properly stored or held. Eurodac erases its data every two years. Some countries have tried this in the past. It would be wonderful in this day and age if Ireland were to move to mandatory fingerprinting for all people. The majority of people have nothing to fear, and we have biometric passports now in a lot of EU countries, but when a crime is committed, there could be a data set there readily available to one's local Garda station and at the scene of a crime. At the moment it is hit and miss. It is a matter of dusting down the fingerprints and trying to collate those data.

Surely using all the scientific advances there have been in the world in recent decades we should move to some form of fingerprint database for all citizens so that gardaí are not left spending months trying to investigate something that could probably be solved quite quickly.

Deputy Alan Farrell

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate, in what is another component of the programme for Government and the adoption of the report on the Commission on the Future of Policing In Ireland, which called for the deployment of body cameras for members of An Garda Síochána. As many speakers have said, this is not just for the purposes of rooting out criminality but it is also for the protection of the public and members of An Garda Síochána itself. Deputy Martin Kenny mentioned in the initial part of his contribution that nearly every day in other jurisdictions body cameras are used for the purposes of identifying criminals or recording their activity, particularly in the US because we see the other side of it as well. I am not suggesting that there is some sort of widespread problem but if there is a minor problem we will be able to identify it if the body camera is on. Whether that is a matter of discipline or otherwise, it would be a matter for the member's superiors in An Garda Síochána.

It is important that we have the opportunity, not just to explore the introduction of this legislation but that we explore other facets that the Minister has mentioned. The most important part of this Bill, outside of the body cameras or technology for An Garda Síochána, is the regularisation of CCTV, which every Member of this House and the Seanad, and every member of the local authorities up and down the country, will know is plagued with problems. I can give examples of this and I am sure the Minister has one or two examples in his constituency as well, as I have visited it during large-scale events like the Bray Air Display. For instance, when there was a concert in my hometown of Malahide, CCTV was to go in to ensure orderly conduct, among other things. Some money was expended and cameras were acquired but they were never installed, even though a commitment was given, because of the concern we all know about between the local authority and An Garda Síochána. This Bill regularises that matter.

Like Deputy Ó Ríordáin, I am a recent appointee to the Joint Committee on Justice. I was on it for seven years prior a number of years ago but I did not have the opportunity to look into this Bill when it came before us. I recognise its importance and the robustness of the terms of use are clearly important. I would go so far as to agree with Deputy Ó Ríordáin on his remark regarding facial recognition technology. If there is an opportunity for us to hear from outside bodies and officials within the Department, or both, in between Stages, then that could be facilitated by a Chair, on agreement with the committee membership. If there are genuine concerns, there will be an opportunity for that. I welcome the Bill, I thank the Minister for bringing it before the House and I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me a few extra seconds.

Deputy Patricia Ryan

This Bill provides a legal basis for the use of body-worn cameras by members of An Garda Síochána, and for the extension of the circumstances in which CCTV and automatic number plate recognition devices may be used by the Garda. These changes were suggested as part of the report by the Commission on the Future of Policing. We in Sinn Féin are in favour of the use of body camera technologies as long as there is sufficient training for gardaí and measures are put in place to ensure the protection of all data collected.

The majority of policing services in Europe have been using body and dashboard cameras for many years. We believe gardaí should have the use of this technology in an appropriate manner. Fine Gael has held the justice Ministry for over a decade and has dragged its feet with introducing this legislation. Body camera footage is believed to act as a deterrent for those wishing to assault or intimidate gardaí. It can also assist in gathering evidence. It is vital that we get this legislation right and strike the balance between privacy and protection. I understand that some people will have privacy concerns, and these must be allayed. The Garda Representative Association and the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors are in favour of using this technology. We must take on board any advice offered by the Data Protection Commissioner.

It would be remiss of me, as we are discussing the Garda, not to mention the elephant in the room and that is the issue of Garda resources. Yesterday afternoon around 4 p.m. there was an attempted abduction of a child outside a secondary school in Rathangan, County Kildare. The parents phoned the local Garda station and got no answer. They phoned Kildare town Garda station to be told that the garda was on her own in the station and she would arrange a car to call out to take a statement. Over four hours later, the gardaí arrived. This is not acceptable. I do not blame the individual gardaí, who handled the issue well; I blame successive Governments that have starved our Garda of resources.

The Minister should not take my word for it; he should come down to Kildare on Monday, March 6 at 3 p.m. to the meeting of the joint policing committee. Every answer to the issues I or other colleagues raise is that the Garda is doing its best but that the resources need to be provided. This Government's record is shameful; we have had enough of its hand-wringing and indifference. Our court system needs investment. Kildare has a population of 250,000 and we need a second District Court judge. We have the lowest garda numbers per capita in the State. We have had enough of excuses and we need something done.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

As a Kildare Deputy I too would say that the ratio of gardaí to population has to match up. I have been complaining about that for many years. A policing service cannot be run without gardaí and counties Kildare and Meath are complete outliers in the ratio of gardaí to population. It is not enough to tell us it is an operational issue; there has to be a fairness on this.

I am not alone in having concerns about parts of this Bill and how the Minister for Justice has chosen to progress the Bill through the House. We are being presented with an incomplete Bill and the items not included in the Bill are the most important ones, namely the details about how we use the powers included in the Bill, how they will operate, CCTV systems, body cameras and automatic number plate recognition. We have no detail about how, when and why they will be used. We also have no detail about the level of oversight or data protection there will be, and those matters are all critically important.

The Minister without Portfolio, Deputy McEntee, has given us warning since last June that she intended to bring forward an amendment on Committee Stage on facial recognition technology. Here we are eight months later and the plan is still to introduce a new and controversial power to the Garda on Committee Stage of the Bill. Does the Department not have the details of that ready yet? Eight months is quite a long time and here we are on Second Stage with critical information absent. As the Minister knows, Second Stage is the Stage when we talk about the principle of the legislation. It is difficult to talk about the principle of the legislation when there are big holes in it but that is what is happening. Facial recognition technology is not a tried and trusted method; it is highly disputed in its accuracy and in the ethics of its use. A significant bloc of the European Parliament, as has been said, wants to see it banned outright, and the European legislation governing its use will likely be finalised this year. From the latest reports I have read, Germany is looking to support an EU-wide ban on its use of real-time facial recognition, which is a measure the Department has indicated will be included in its amendments.

I do not know what will be in the amendments, I am not on the Joint Committee on Justice and the Social Democrats does not have anybody on the committee but I am concerned that we do not have that information at this stage. We have no idea when this technology is proposed to be used and what the safeguards around it are. We do not have any information on that so why are we here with this legislation? We are being asked to legislate for something we know we might have to overturn and amend in a matter of months. Why, given the debate going on in Europe on facial recognition, are we expected to rubber-stamp its use in Ireland without proper oversight and debate?

The Joint Committee on Justice, which obviously has a Government majority, has stated that facial recognition technology should not be legalised. The Data Protection Commission has major concerns and has not been formally consulted. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, Amnesty, the Immigrant Council, Pavee Point, Digital Rights Ireland and Irish Network Against Racism - I could go on - have all expressed significant concerns about and, in some cases, outright opposition to the introduction of facial recognition technology. It is unacceptable to railroad through a power on Committee Stage without the Bill going through pre-legislative scrutiny, a Second Stage debate or any kind of consultation with the bodies that oversee civil liberties and digital rights. It is an insult to the people of this country and Members of this House to give such little consideration to civil liberties.

I am all in favour of using technology if it is appropriate and proportionate and there are proper safeguards in place. We are dealing with legislation and we have to think not only about what can go right but also what can go wrong. People will come back to this is something goes wrong so it is essential we give this proposal the scrutiny it deserves.

The use of the kinds of technology proposed in this legislation, namely, facial recognition, CCTV, body cameras and automatic number plate recognition, all have the potential to infringe on individuals' rights to privacy and data protection. In the case of most of these technologies, it is essential that we understand the need for safeguards and proportionality. Both the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights allow for the encroachment on the right of privacy where it is necessary and proportionate to do so but there needs to be a test of proportionality. There are 14 references to tests of necessity and proportionality in this Bill and not once does it detail what criteria would need to be met for those tests. There needs to be an assessment of what safeguards should accompany a surveillance measure before, during and after its authorisation. We do not have that. Operational matters are largely under the control of the Garda Commissioner but those safeguards could be the difference between an infringement on people's privacy rights and a reasonable tool for gardaí to have for their own protection. It is a matter of getting the balance right and we do not have sufficient information to do so. I could not be more critical of that particular aspect of how we are progressing the legislation. If there are correct safeguards in place, we could end up with something very good. If those safeguards fall short or if they are only at operational level and have not been predefined, we could run into serious problems.

The protection of human rights and digital rights is not an operational matter for the Garda; it is a responsibility of the Oireachtas and the relevant watchdogs. These codes of practice must be given to the Joint Committee on Justice to oversee before they are adopted. One of the most obvious questions that would need to be answered in relation to body cameras is who will turn them on and off and what are the circumstances around that? These are fairly simply questions but we do not know the answers. There is experience of this elsewhere. I am not saying our police force is anything like the many police forces in the United States, and I do not want to draw many comparisons, but a key issue encountered was the ability of some police forces to simply turn off cameras when they wanted to. We cannot have that kind of scenario. We have to be specific about this.

While the intent behind the body cameras under this legislation is largely due to concerns about the safety of the police, it is a two-way system. If gardaí want civilians to be surveilled in their interactions with the Garda, gardaí have to be surveilled in their interactions with civilians too. It is a two-way issue.

Debate adjourned.