Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 9 Feb 2023

Vol. 1033 No. 2

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

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

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

I am sharing time with Deputy Costello.

I welcome the introduction of this legislation. The Bill is the latest type of legislation that seeks to prescribe and specify powers to be exercised by members of An Garda Síochána. It is important that before we give significant powers to members of An Garda Síochána, those powers be debated by this House and specified in legislation. In the earlier parts of the 20th century, many of the significant powers members of An Garda Síochána had were ones that derived from the common law, that is, judge-made laws, but it is preferable in a modern society that members of the public are able to look at the legislation and identify where the powers An Garda Síochána is exercising come from. It is of benefit to An Garda Síochána that that is the case and, more important, it is of benefit to the public.

In 2009, the Houses of the Oireachtas enacted the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill, which did something similar to what the legislation before us seeks to do, although it is different in many important respects. That legislation authorised and gave power to An Garda Síochána to conduct surveillance by means of covert operations. Obviously, that is an important part of any Garda function. If we want to investigate crime seriously, we need to ensure the Garda can engage in surveillance, and since 2009, there has been a specific statutory code under which An Garda Síochána can conduct surveillance.

The Bill before us is, in part, different. The significant part of the legislation relates to its proposal to give powers to An Garda Síochána to use recording devices. We have discussed it in the House as being the so-called bodycam legislation but, in fact, it goes much further than body cameras that are applied to the uniforms of members of An Garda Síochána. In fact, it will authorise and permit the use of recording devices by members of An Garda Síochána that go beyond the likes of body cameras. The legislation indicates this type of recording device should, insofar as practicable, be used overtly, meaning the individuals being recorded should be aware they are being recorded. I think this will be of benefit to the detection, investigation and prosecution of crime. What is proposed under the first part of the legislation is that the Garda will be permitted to use recording devices when it believes doing so is necessary to investigate crime or to prevent crimes from occurring, and that is why I think we will see a change in the way Garda operations and investigations are conducted. We all know from our own experience that video evidence can be the best evidence available, and it will be beneficial in the investigation of criminal activity if the Garda knows confidently it can record by video either an ongoing criminal event or the scene of the crime when its members arrive on it, to be used subsequently.

One issue that has arisen relates to the use of recording devices in public and private domains. We have discussed people's right to privacy but we all need to be aware and cautious that when we are in a public domain, such as a public street, we do not really enjoy the same type of privacy we have in places such as our private home or elsewhere. Sometimes we can get confused as to the extent of the right to privacy that individuals enjoy. If I am walking down a public street, people can and do video-record me. I cannot allege that my right to privacy has been breached because, as I walk down the street, a CCTV camera is interfering with my privacy. It does not interfere with my privacy given it is a public place, and I suspect that also applies to other circumstances in places that are also regarded as public.

Moreover, under the legislation, the recording can take place in a private place, and it is clear from the legislation that the purpose is to ensure the occupant will be informed about this and, insofar as practicable, has provided his or her consent for that recording in a private place. Notwithstanding that, the Garda will be entitled to use these recording devices in a private place for the purposes of detecting and investigating crime, which I think will transform policing for the better.

The predominant name that has been applied to this legislation is the bodycam legislation, and one of the recording devices that can be used by An Garda Síochána, and which it intends to roll out throughout the force, is a body camera. That means that when members of An Garda Síochána are carrying out their public work, everything they do in the public domain will be recorded. I think that will be of benefit to policing in this country. It is of benefit to the public that they know and can see how members of An Garda Síochána are interacting with the public and how they are dealing with members of the public who may subsequently make allegations against them.

It will also benefit An Garda Síochána that it will have the opportunity and the responsibility to ensure that whatever it does in the public domain is something it would not be embarrassed to see when the body camera is inspected subsequently.

We have seen how body cameras are used quite effectively around the world. Most recently, there was the tragic case in the USA of Tyre Nichols. Were it not for the body camera material available, we would not be aware of the full detail of that tragic killing. The benefits are considerable. It is important we provide the legislative basis for the use of body cameras by members of An Garda Síochána. It will then pass over to the Commissioner to try to introduce guidelines for their use. It will not be rolled out immediately overnight but I am pleased to hear there is a proposal to roll it out on a pilot basis. We should try to use it and get it up and running as quickly as possible.

However there will be a consequence of which the Minister is aware and he has specified it in the legislation, namely, that the images recorded by the body cameras can subsequently be used and are admissible in court cases. That is expressly provided for in section 44. I would think this will transform civil and criminal litigation. In many situations, particularly when it comes to criminal prosecutions, the person accused of an offence will want to gain access to and have disclosure of the body camera material, and there is no basis on which they could be refused it. Similarly important, I expect that in civil litigation, a lot of additional burden will be put on An Garda Síochána to make data and body camera images available for the purpose of litigation that may involve An Garda Síochána or may, indeed, involve third parties but where the information from the Garda will be relevant.

It will put significant work on An Garda Síochána to try to decipher and set out a plan for how it will make sure that information can be accessed. It is obviously data but I do not know the extent to which it is regarded as personal data. I suspect, like CCTV footage, one cannot just apply for it because one claims it is personal data. However, it will be important information that can be availed of by litigants in either civil or criminal litigation. I believe it will be beneficial to the investigation of crime, to policing in the country and that it will serve the public and the Garda as well.

Another part of the legislation that has not received a lot of scrutiny in the House is the automatic numberplate recognition. That enables gardaí to monitor the use of a particular vehicle. There is a basis for it through authorisation which is provided. It is beneficial that we see these considerable powers the Garda has are grounded in legislation we have been able to debate in the House and vote upon.

Section 21 provides for the power of An Garda Síochána to record certain phone calls. The statutory prohibition is a prohibition on the Garda recording phone calls except in certain circumstances where it relates to designated lines or is authorised by law. The presumption is that your phone call to the Garda will not be recorded, but I suspect in the majority of cases they will be because they will be designated lines. Obviously, emergency calls should be recorded. It is important for the purpose of reviewing An Garda Síochána and protecting important information that they are recorded, but it is important we provide a statutory basis for it.

The next part of the Bill deals with CCTV. It is of great benefit. Communities feel very comfortable when they have CCTV in their communities. There is a mechanism under the Bill for the Garda Commissioner to permit it. There is also a mechanism for local authorities to contact the Garda Commissioner to get permission.

There has been a lot of talk about facial recognition technology. It is not in the Bill at present. I will not comment on it because I have not yet had opportunity to look at it but I hope to have an opportunity to read it in due course and to comment on it then.

We cannot avoid the consequences of technology, which keeps advancing in the world. We are better off trying to stay up with it rather than pretending it does not exist.

Deputy Patrick Costello

There are many positive things in the Bill. The use of body cameras will be a very important improvement for An Garda Síochána in terms of its members' safety and the safety of the community. These represent a technological advance that we should welcome.

I spend a lot of time talking about parking in bus lanes. Automatic number plate recognition is essential to combating that. This is an issue I have brought to the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications and the Minister always tells me it is an issue for the Minister for Justice. Therefore I am delighted to see some use of automatic number plate recognition.

Any time we give new powers to the Garda, we must be sensitive, have a debate and ensure there are checks and balances so that the powers we give strike the right balance between the right of the community at large to be safe and the rights of the individual citizen. In that regard, I will raise some things in the Bill but I will start by raising something that is not in the Bill. I will start where Deputy O’Callaghan ended, namely, with facial recognition technology aspects which were spoken about. I am gravely concerned because facial recognition technology does not work. It is filled with race, age and gender biases. If we are introducing facial recognition technology with the hope of streamlining Garda work and making it easier for gardaí to catch and prosecute criminals, then swamping them with a load of false negatives of innocent people who have been caught up in the dragnet of facial recognition technology or mass surveillance will just overwhelm our already overburdened courts and our already overburdened gardaí. Facial recognition technology does not work and in its current form is likely to make things worse. Even if it does work, and it does not, there are challenges because it opens a door to mass surveillance. The question must be asked whether the introduction of facial recognition technology would be in line with the fundamental freedoms of the EU citizen that the European Union promises.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is it not the case that this facial recognition business is not in the Bill?

Deputy Patrick Costello

It is not in the Bill, but the Minister has-----

An Ceann Comhairle

Why are we talking about it?

Deputy Simon Harris

Not to interrupt, but I did reference my intention to perhaps put it-----

An Ceann Comhairle

Well done. You are ahead of me, Deputy Costello.

Deputy Simon Harris

My apologies.

An Ceann Comhairle

Go on. I will have to give the Deputy some extra time now after that interruption.

Deputy Patrick Costello

The flow of my nice video for social media has been broken, but that is all right. Where was I? Even if facial recognition technology does work, and it does not, it opens the door to mass surveillance and threatens the rights of citizens in the EU. That brings me back to the point about balance. Facial recognition technology is something that needs full pre-legislative scrutiny. It is not something that can be added as an amendment on Committee Stage. The pre-legislative report of the Joint Committee on Justice said that body-worn cameras and recording devices should not have facial recognition technology. Given that the committee has already looked at this and said it does not think facial recognition technology is appropriate, to try to introduce it in a Committee Stage amendment would sidestep the debate that is much needed whenever we give the Garda more powers.

I also question why the rush. The EU is working on an artificial intelligence, AI, act which would regulate things such as facial recognition technology, AI and algorithmic software. Quite often, Deputies raise issues in the House around regulation we desire or that we feel is needed and we are told the EU is working on it and asked why we would pre-empt the EU. Therefore, when the EU is so often given as a reason not to rush, if the EU is working on this, why then are we pre-empting the EU in this case? It strikes me that rushing on facial recognition technology is premature given the state of the technology, the lack of consideration given to it in the House and the developments that are taking place at EU level.

I will now turn to what is in the Bill.

Section 9(1)(a) provides for the use of recording devices in public or in a place where a garda is entitled to be by law or in the operation of their duty. It is described quite clearly. Section 9(1)(b) provides for the use of recording devices on animals in a public place or a place where a garda is entitled to be. Section 9(1)(c) provides for the use of drones but does not include those qualifiers concerning a public place or a place where a guard is entitled to be.

I raised this point during pre-legislative scrutiny. A drone for crowd control at a public demonstration on O’Connell State is one thing, but a drone operating above a suburban estate is a very different thing and will record things that are not in a public place or a place where a garda is entitled to be. That raises questions about search without warrant and these kind of things. For section 9(1)(c) to not have those qualifiers is a problem. Obviously, this will end up in the courts and jurisprudence will come out of that but we should put those things in the legislation.

Section 43 refers to the codes of practice. Section 43(3)(b) lists those bodies that should be consulted on the development of the codes of practice. There is no public consultation in that and I fully believe public consultation should be part of the development of a code of practice and should be baked into the legislation. That is for a variety of reasons. First, it will provide a chance for citizens to comment on the rules by which they are policed, which is inherent in the policing by consent that An Garda Síochána undertakes. Second, it is a way of educating the public about their rights and the powers of the Garda so that an informed citizenry knows what is happening. The committee said in its pre-legislative scrutiny report that the justice committee should be included and that the draft code of practices should be put before the committee for debate or consideration, or the option of consideration at least.

Another angle I ask the Minister to look at before Committee Stage is the frequency, every five years, with which these are to be reviewed. The pre-legislative report of the committee said it should be every two years. Five years is too long for review, given the intrusive nature of cameras and recording devices. There are times when we need members of the Garda to be intrusive in the interests of public safety but it is important that we consider those guidelines and codes of practice more frequently than every five years.

Section 39 concerns the approval of processing of live feed of third-party CCTV without a judicial warrant. This would allow for an officer of sufficient rank who is independent of the investigation to provide approval for this. Again, the committee's pre-legislative report raised concern over this. I would raise concern in general in relation to members of the Garda approving their own warrants. The logic of the court case this came from, Damache v. Minister for Justice, was that to provide checks, balances and oversight, a warrant should be considered by someone entirely independent. Given the PwC culture audit, in which people are still talking about the importance of silence in An Garda Síochána or members' fear of speaking out, how independent can such a warrant truly be? We are better off having it fully independent in the hands of the Judiciary. That may beg questions as to whether the District Court has capacity, but the issue there is of judicial capacity, which I have spoken about many times on my hind legs in here, and with the Minister. The fix is judicial capacity and the capacity of the District Court, instead of a shortcut through the rights of the citizen.

An Ceann Comhairle

I thank Deputy Costello. We go to Deputy Ó Murchú, sharing with Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Andrews.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

There will probably be a fair amount of agreement on the fact that there is general support for-----

Deputy Simon Harris

Do not be too disappointed.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

I am not in any way. I would say the Minister is just glad I did not ask him the question I always ask him at this point. That is for another day.

We all accept the necessity of the likes of this bodycam technology. I think there is general agreement on the necessity of ensuring, as with any solution, that resourcing is available. Part of that is training. Training will need to be updated. We will need to involve the Garda Representative Association, GRA, the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors, AGSI, the Garda Commissioner, the Data Protection Commissioner and all other stakeholders. It would be the first time ever if we were to put a training regime in place that did not need to be put on a feedback loop, checked and fixed. Protection of data is a vital part of this but I agree with what Deputy Jim O’Callaghan said on there being no absolutes or absolute freedoms. This resource needs to be provided to members of the Garda for their protection and it will be useful for witnesses and many others.

We have seen many examples in countries across the European Union, as well as Britain and the US. Mention was made of the brutal beating of Tyre Nichols. A significant amount of what will end up as evidence in court will be from dashcam and bodycam technology. That provides an argument for what we are discussing. We could easily make the argument that we should have been in here earlier dealing with this. Deputy Costello is correct that we need to make sure due diligence is done, particularly when we get into ancillary issues relating to this.

A fair argument has been put out there about this being a deterrent in relation to assault and intimidation of members of the Garda. Many of us are aware of examples of this and have seen many cases of gardaí being attacked in the last while. Even anybody who switched on a TV screen recently will be aware. If people saw the pieces I did on "The Guards: Inside the K", they will remember gardaí being intimidated and threatened with sexual assault as they did their work and dealt with issues. Sometimes we need to provide evidence that can be used straight away in court because not everyone will have a film crew chasing them. It shows the madness of the world we are in that the threats were made while this was being filmed.

Any protection that can be given to members of the Garda is a necessity. I said it earlier but in the early stages of witness outcry, such as a garda coming upon a witness to a sexual assault or a serious physical assault, that garda is dealing with evidence that could be provided in court. A witness may have to go through some traumatisation but we may be able to save him or her from part of it. That is vital.

We all know the wider issue in relation to CCTV. We need to facilitate it. We know the issues there have been for councils, members of the Garda and everybody else in relation to the general data protection regulation, GDPR. It can be a deterrent against crime but anyone with a mask and hood can generally get around it. Where these deterrents are usable and make sense, we should use them.

We know the wider issues we have had with resourcing. Everybody has had stories in the recent past about ringing Garda stations and being told there are not sufficient cars available. The issues relating to Garda numbers need to be addressed.

Then, there is that protection for members of the Garda if people make complaints. We all accept the absolute need for the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC. We need to see accountability in the Garda. Like many others, however, gardaí have had to deal with spurious GSOC complaints. This can provide some level of protection in that regard.

I recall dealing with the former chief superintendent for County Louth, Mr. Christy Mangan. He spoke about two young female gardaí basically being wigged, for want of a better term, when dealing with somebody with huge mental health issues who was going through some form of breakdown. They contained and controlled the scenario but the only thing they were dealing with was people putting phones in the air and all the rest of it. As we are already in a surveillance society, we have to ensure that we can give that bit of added protection to Garda members. We would like to see better manners and less of the madness with regard to people taking photographs and videos and putting content online that it is absolutely sickening. We have all seen that, particularly in the last while.

Deputy Costello spoke about judicial capacity and that is something at which we need to look. I spoke to a garda recently about the recent attacks that have happened to gardaí and their property. It was from a point of view of not being particularly happy with the outcome. We know there is separation with regard to the actions of the Judiciary. However, it fed into that idea that sometimes, Garda members feel like we do not necessarily have their backs at this point. That needs to be dealt with. That is with regard to resourcing but also the wider issue that cases take far too long to get through the courts. In certain specific instances, what we need and want to see are obviously those early interventions.

Initiatives such as the Greentown project and anything else that can be done from a diversionary point of view, and even earlier interventions at a community and family level, can help those people who maybe have a greater likelihood of falling into criminality, which, unfortunately for them, is sometimes a bit more pervasive than we would like within the wider community. There are definite pieces of work we must do in that regard.

We have to deal with very dangerous criminals at this point in time. We probably are all sick of talking about organised crime and drug criminality over the years and dealing with drug debt intimidation at a significant level. We hope the citizens' assembly can look at something that is far more progressive. We will look at best practice across the world. However, we will still need to resource the Garda from a point of view of dealing with dangerous criminals who are impacting severely on our communities.

As regards looking at facial recognition and all the rest, we have to do a specific piece of work regarding due diligence. There have been issues around artificial intelligence, AI, in that not enough work has been done on particular data sets for which the algorithms have been lacking. Technology always improves but there is a wider issue. We need to ensure that we have all the necessary protections put in place.

This is a decent first step. We need to make sure we are covering all our bases and that if we are providing this sort of technology for the Garda, we provide the training and resourcing. However, we will have a wider issue regarding giving the support to the Garda it requires. We have wider issues in respect of dealing with the huge issues around crime. I am talking specifically about organised crime and drug-related crime, which are having such an impact. It is all-pervasive throughout every community across the board. We know that people in working-class areas are at times dealing with these gangs on a day-to-day basis, however, and we really have not given them the support and protections that are required.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

This Bill is long overdue. For far too long, An Garda Síochána has been hampered in its ability to tackle crime. Obviously, and I will come back to this, there is a need for every additional power the Minister gives to An Garda Síochána to be linked to oversight and an understanding of why it is being done and whether it is justifiable.

If the Minister reads the submission by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, it quite rightly states that in other jurisdictions, some of what is being proposed here has not worked and that some what has been proposed, in fact, ends up doing the exact opposite and drives some of those who are involved in crime to be more secretive and not be in public. This means An Garda Síochána would then have to become more skilled in covert actions and longer-term surveillance. There are, therefore, concerns. There is a concern, obviously, about mass surveillance, which other Deputies have talked about.

One issue that struck me is something I have raised with different people and which I thought might filter into this legislation but does not, is that Garda cars have no dashcams. It struck home for me when two female gardaí in Cherry Orchard were rammed. The only reason we all knew what happened is that the idiots who did it were filming themselves or their friends were filming. That is a situation where, rightly, a Garda car should have a camera front and back. The Luas has a camera front and back, which the Garda can access if there is a crime in the vicinity. Buses have it, as does virtually every single new car a person buys. We hear an appeal every single day asking whether anybody has dashcam footage. There is no point in appealing to An Garda Síochána; it does not have it because the cars are not fitted with it. That is illogical. If it is not already allowed, then it should be. It should be included in this legislation in order that we can discuss it at the same time. Perhaps it was that the cars were parked in that bundle of cars that came in during Covid-19 that did not have that technology. As far as I know, however, it is not routinely installed.

That brings me to the second point. I spoke to a local superintendent the other day and his concern was not about the recordings. He said it was about the volume of material that will be recorded. Where will it be stored? Who can access it? For how long will it be recorded? Then, there is that extra duty it places on top of existing members of the Garda who are trying to carry out their jobs. Obviously, this means there may be a bigger civilian cohort attached to An Garda Síochána. It needs to be addressed, however. That means an extra cost in terms of the Garda Vote.

With regard to CCTV footage, people in my constituency have for years called out for more Garda cameras. There are local authority cameras in virtually every single Dublin City Council housing complex. There are cameras in certain areas of Cherry Orchard. Ballyfermot and Cherry Orchard have 12 or maybe 13 very high tower cameras, some of which were purposely knocked down by trucks. They were obviously having an effect, or were likely to have an effect, if the criminal gangs went after them.

I do not have a concern about CCTV footage per se. It is a mass surveillance device but we might consider that nearly every single household that buys a doorbell now buys a Wi-Fi bell that records footage. We do not know who controls those images. It is right that An Garda Síochána and local authorities work better together, which they have done quite well in my area. It is about the storage of this data, however. For how long will this be stored so that it is not never-ending? Who will oversee it and ensure there are no data breaches? It is a huge outlay. I am totally opposed to facial recognition technology because it has not been discussed by Members. Amending legislation would probably be better in this regard than would a committee amendment. The balance obviously has to be correct.

One other piece within this briefing we received from the Oireachtas Library and Research Service mentioned that there should be CCTV footage within Garda stations. That is logical. At the end of the day, it is not just to protect members of An Garda Síochána; it is also meant to protect the public in this day and age.

Again, this is to do with people knowing there is a camera, whether it is a big sign or in blue lights or whatever. This applies also to the body cameras. It is a different regime when one starts talking about covert and overt. That needs to be teased out in a lot more detail on Committee Stage.

Deputy Chris Andrews

I welcome the Bill. We have seen wide levels of engagement on this matter from stakeholders on the front line from rank and file gardaí, right up to the Garda Commissioner. I understand that all of them have welcomed the support for the use of body cameras.

Deputy Costello referred to public consultation. Perhaps the Minister, Deputy Harris, will clarify whether that will be an integral part of this legislation. It is very important that people are aware of what the legislation is, how it will work, and have an understanding of it. It is important to bring people along with us and not just announce the legislation. I certainly will be interested to hear about that. It is really important that there is a public consultation element to it.

For years the modernising of An Garda Síochána has moved at far too slow a pace. Ireland has lagged behind other EU member states for many years on this front. Those who stand on the front line serving the public in times of need must be given the tools and resources to ensure a high standard of public safety. It is important that these are provided in order that both members of the Garda and the public are protected, so it is a win-win.

I will take this chance to acknowledge the really good work that members of the Garda do in Pearse Street and Kevin Street Garda stations. Gardaí working on the front line do a really good and professional job. The job they do is very important. The violent running battles in the City Quay area are well documented. The gardaí from Pearse Street Garda station have done a fantastic job in working with City Quay residents and Creighton Street residents. Their work is far from easy but they do it so professionally and their commitment is second to none. Superintendent Dermot McKenna of Pearse Street Garda station has been involved from the start in ensuring resources are in place to protect residents. I believe the Garda needs more resources in the inner city. I have said it before and I will continue to say it. This is essential. The Government needs to respond. The Cabbage Patch in Kevin Street is a small park in Dublin 8 that has been neglected for years. It would not be safe unless members of the Garda were involved in saving this park. A lot more work needs to be done but it is heading in the right direction.

I welcome this legislation. The body camera is key. As mentioned previously, we are in a surveillance society. It appears to be in everything, from doorbells, to the Luas, to people using phones. I saw an incident recently where someone was being assaulted. Rather than call the Garda, people filmed it. It seems that this is the type of society we have gone to. The use of body cameras is not a groundbreaking or radical idea. It has been on the go for many years across the US, England, Scotland and Wales, along with many EU member states. The benefits are well documented. Body cameras have been shown to work in a twofold manner: footage can provide for protection for members of An Garda Síochána from bogus complaints, and they can also provide the public with a safeguard against Garda wrongdoing.

We are witnessing record numbers of members of An Garda Síochána leaving the job in the past few years. From what I can ascertain from meeting gardaí on the front line, morale appears low and people are very downbeat about working in An Garda Síochána in the future. On many occasions they are despondent and this is reflected in the numbers of people leaving. It is vital that we provide new and existing members of An Garda Síochána with the best tools and resources to go about their duties. I suppose, however, it is wider than just that, as the Minister will be aware. We need to ensure the protection of people and provide the technology to Garda members to do their job properly. While body cameras are a step in the right direction, they must go hand in hand with increasing the resources across the board and by increasing the numbers of gardaí available to communities right across the State.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak to this very important, although apparently only half-written, legislation. I will get to that later.

As I understand it, this is the first of three Bills due to be introduced this year that will address reform in An Garda Síochána. There are many issues within An Garda Síochána and there is no doubt that reform is badly needed in the organisation. I find it amazing, however, that instead of addressing the many areas of Garda reform required, the first thing this Government has decided to prioritise is the introduction of new equipment, such as body-worn cameras - for which we are not absolutely 100% sure of the need - at a financial cost to the State and with a cost to our citizens’ rights to privacy and data protection.

I will start by referencing the Data Protection Commission, which has outlined that An Garda Síochána has an extremely poor record of how it uses its own technology, particularly the use of CCTV. A report by the commission published in 2019 regarding CCTV schemes authorised under An Garda Síochána states:

The members of AGS 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. In one instance, ... the Garda members operating the scheme were unaware of the full range of technical features of their own CCTV system.

The commission report recommended that "The lack of overall training in relation to the operation of the CCTV systems and the correct handling and protection of the personal data involved must be addressed by means of a comprehensive training programme with significant data protection elements." This was further backed up by a Garda internal audit issued last year, which stated that a lack of knowledge by An Garda Síochána staff of their data protection responsibilities due to inadequate training by the Garda national data protection unit leads to breaches and non-adherence to the statutory obligations within An Garda Síochána. Sadly, we all know examples of this, and I am thinking particularly of the garda who recorded video footage of a Dublin woman being detained under the Mental Health Act while she was walking naked on a Dublin street. I am extremely concerned then of the idea of massively increasing the amount of filming by members of the Garda of the public on a daily basis. This is particularly concerning due to the fact that there is absolutely no evidence as to why these powers are necessary. There is a complete lack of evidence from other jurisdictions to show that body cameras contribute positively to policing. In fact, we have seen multiple examples in other jurisdictions where such cameras have actually been used inappropriately. The reality is that An Garda Síochána has not shown any ability to deal appropriately with the information it already has.

Research results on the effectiveness of increased surveillance are mixed and inconclusive. One Irish study showed that the installation of CCTV led to a decrease in crime in one area and an increase in another. Many surveillance technologies are relatively new and under-researched. This is why the assessment of any future devices on a case-by-case basis should be included in this legislation. This is particularly important due to the fact that the definition of a recording device is so broad. It includes camcorders, mobile phones, drones, and possible emerging technologies in the future.

The Bill is missing many important provisions, including the provision to ensure that a garda operating a recording device is identifiable as a garda, and the provision to ensure that all members of the Garda using the device have sufficient data protection training or are suitably qualified. These are very important provisions that should be included in legislation such as this, which provides for the greater and more invasive monitoring of citizens.

One aspect of the Bill that I welcome is the introduction of an assessment, carried out by the Garda Commissioner, of the impact of the proposed code on the human rights of individuals who would be affected by it. I wonder whether the Garda Commissioner is the right person to actually carry out that assessment. Perhaps the Policing Authority or some other entity would be in a better position to do that.

My biggest concern, however, is the fact that the then Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, had indicated her intention to bring forward a Committee Stage amendment to the Bill to provide for facial recognition technology. It is completely unacceptable to bring forward this legislation today, half written by the Government, with the intention of throwing in such important amendments on Committee Stage. There is absolutely no excuse for this complete disregard for the legislative process. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, clearly stated on 25 May 2022 that it was her intention to provide for the use of facial recognition technology. The Bill was published three months later, on 4 August. The Minister had three months to write facial recognition technology into this legislation but she did not. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, decided instead to publish the Bill without it and then add this extremely important and controversial provision on Committee Stage. Why is this? I can think of no other excuse for this other than the fact that the Government does not want this raised during Second Stage debates in the Chamber. If this is the case, then this is an incredibly sinister and disturbing move. This needs to be addressed urgently because it is starting to become a trend. The Minister clearly identified in May last year that she wanted to include that provision. The legislation was published in August 2022 but here we are now in February of the following year, and yet the Minister could not actually put this forward at any stage before this point. I do not think this is believable at all.

We are seeing a trend of the Government undermining the legislative process. I have been raising this continuously over the past couple of years and it seems that this is yet another tactic it is using.

I know the Government is dead set on introducing this legislation, no matter what the Opposition says, but I urge the Minister to commit to a pilot project and see how things play out in the field before rolling this out nationally. Such a pilot should include robust mechanisms of operational and scientific review, with clear criteria set out that must be met before wider roll-out of this technology is initiated. This is the very least that can be done when introducing invasive and unnecessary cameras nationally.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh was talking earlier about the Garda, the complexity and the availability of technology, and such matters. I was just reminded, when he was saying that, of when I was stopped by the members of the PSNI in the North one night on my way home and they were able to pull up on their car device straight away all of the data on my car which is from the South. They said that I had not got a valid tax disc on the computer system which they had. I showed them the valid tax disc on the windscreen and they said that this anomaly was probably because An Garda Síochána does not update the database it has.

Funnily enough, I happened to continue on home and I was stopped by the Garda outside of my own town of Killybegs. I asked if could they look up the same system in respect of my car in that way. They said that they could but said that the car that could do this was only around one day a week, and that they could request to have the car there that had that data and system which could have provide the information required. There were two squad cars at the roadblock I was stopped at. The gardaí could not access their own information which the PSNI can access from the Garda, even though the Garda does not update the information that the PSNI can access. Members of the Garda themselves, however, cannot access this information. This is a crazy system. We are talking about this and then we talk about introducing more legislation.

Even if the body cameras come in, will it be one garda out of every 1,000 who will have one? If he or she is lucky enough to be at the incident at which it is required, will he or she will actually get a film of it? That is the way it is shaping up. If a Garda car involved in traffic control duties in the South cannot have the same computerised system on board that identifies the car, and any problems with it, and if the PSNI can have that in the North, then there is something badly wrong.

Minister for Justice (Deputy Simon Harris)

First, I very much welcome that throughout this Second Stage debate, we have had Members from all sides of this House condemn the recent spate of attacks, assaults, or attempts to intimidate members of An Garda Síochána. It is very important this House sends out that message.

The second point I wish to make while introducing this legislation is that it is important, as Minister for Justice, that one listens to everybody. I try to listen to everyone and to different views but it is particularly important that the Minister for Justice listens to and acts upon the feedback of the men and women of An Garda Síochána on the front line. They have asked us to pass this legislation and to provide them with body cameras. I find it extraordinarily ironic that Garda members are often called - we cannot imagine this because we only debate these things in these Chambers - at all sorts of hours in the day and night to a whole variety of events, be they protests or other things, where the only person not with the camera in his or her hand is the garda. That is ironic, inappropriate, outdated and neither I nor this Government nor, I hope, these Houses of the Oireachtas, will stand over a scenario where we do not provide Garda members with basic modern technology to do their jobs and to keep themselves safe so that when they go out the door in the morning, whosoever they leave behind in the house knows that the Government and the Garda have provided them with the tools to keep them safe and to keep people safe. That is fundamentally what we are trying to do here.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan put it very well - I wrote it down - when he said that we cannot ignore the consequences of technology and it is better to keep up with it. That is entirely right. The idea that we would continue to ask An Garda Síochána to police in the 21st century but fail to provide them with access to the resources, tools and technology of the 21st century seems to me to be inefficient, ineffective and somewhat foolhardy.

There have been changes and there are many legitimate questions which have been raised by people and some of these questions are ones which perhaps may have been raised when the likes of DNA was introduced. These are big changes, they raise questions, but they are not changes that An Garda Síochána cannot respond to and that we cannot legislate for with appropriate oversight structures to be put in place.

It is of vital importance that members of the Garda have the tools they need to combat crime and to protect the public and it is equally important that there are tools and sufficient safeguards around the use of such devices.

I would like to address a number of the points raised by Deputies in the course of this Second Stage debate.

First, turning to an issue that a number of Deputies touched upon quite rightly, namely, the issue of security in data storage and access. I wholeheartedly agree with Deputies who alluded to the utmost importance that all data gathered be stored securely and that access to it be carefully regulated. Any improper access or dissemination would be subject to existing offences which, of course, also means that it is subject to the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, in deciding to prosecute.

Garda members and members of the civilian staff will be subject to serious disciplinary repercussions should it be found that they have improperly accessed or disseminated any data gathered.

A number of Deputies also pointed out the importance of safeguards and oversight. Garda use of either automatic number plate recognition, ANPR, or of CCTV is subject to a robust internal approval procedure that ensures any casual or inappropriate use of these tools will not be possible. More than this, if their use is beyond a defined time period, judicial authorisation will be required. This approval procedure is a key safeguard in this legislation.

Another key point is that there is independent oversight, through section 45, which provides for judicial overview and regular reporting to the Taoiseach on ANPR and the processing of third-party CCTV.

Perhaps the most important agent for safeguarding oversight in this legislation is the codes of practice, which will outline requirements on storage, access, retention, deletion, and data subject rights. As Deputies will appreciate, detailed procedures for the day-to-day operation of recording devices simply cannot be included in primary legislation. These codes represent an important counterbalance to An Garda Síochána's use of these tools.

In drafting these codes the Garda Commissioner will be required by section 43(3) to consult crucially important bodies but the consultation will not stop there. Any interested organisations, NGOs, or private individuals can make representations for consideration by the Commissioner. I have heard calls in respect of the role of public consultation, the role of the Oireachtas, and I believe that we can, will and should tease that through on Committee Stage.

The Garda Commissioner will be further required to carry out impact assessments, on human rights and on data protection as part of the process.

Turning to a number of issues raised in the context of body-worn cameras, Deputy Catherine Murphy asked about the ability of individual gardaí to turn on and off their body-worn cameras. Gardaí will have this ability as it is appropriate that Garda members should only turn on a body-worn camera where they are dealing with a specific incident, and in accordance with any provisions as will be set out in the relevant code of practice. If a member of Garda personnel turns off their body-worn camera in an instance where they should not, then they will have to justify their decision to turn that camera off.

There is a danger that if a camera is always turned on, that there would be serious privacy implications for people who happen to be near a member of Garda personnel with a camera. The code of practice will set out when it would be inappropriate to record in line with international best practice.

Deputy Daly raised a point on the need for a pilot scheme to trial body-worn cameras. I take the Deputy's point on this issue and I understand that it is the intention of An Garda Síochána to do such a pilot. We need to legislate for it but the Commissioner has made it very clear that once we legislate for the use, it is his intention to put a pilot in place before the broader roll-out.

On a final point on body-worn cameras and to address an issue raised by Deputy Connolly, who stated that she was cynical as to the potential assistance that body-worn cameras could provide when a garda attends a domestic incident, I would point the Deputy to the submission by Women's Aid to the Commission of the Future of Policing in Ireland. I would also say that in my experience in speaking to front-line gardaí, this is a tool that is seen as a huge addition in the very particular circumstances surrounding domestic violence, where the moments in which one first arrives at the scene can be crucial in gathering evidence that can be very important later on.

Moving to address issues raised with regard to facial recognition technology, as I said in my opening speech, I believe very strongly that any inclusion of such amendments would be an important aid to victims in furthering investigations as quickly as possible. However, I should reiterate that this is a matter on which the Government has not yet finalised its position. As I said in my opening speech, there are many legitimate concerns as to the use of this technology and these concerns require careful consideration. I am continuing to engage with colleagues and I hope to be in a position to provide an update to Government, and subsequently to this House, once this work has been completed. It is important that in finalising our approach, we listen to the views of the Garda Commissioner as well on this important matter.

I will to deal with a number of specific issues which were raised, including the effectiveness of this technology and the manner in which it has been omitted from the Bill here on Second Stage. Some Deputies expressed concern in regard to effectiveness. The National Institute of Standards and Technology in the United States is seen as the gold standard in testing the accuracy of facial recognition algorithms. In a recent report, which included a study of 127 different algorithms, the most accurate ones were found to fail only in about one quarter of 1% of searches. Bearing in mind that the same study utilised 26 million images of 12 million individuals, it must be recognised that the accuracy of the most advanced technology is impressive.

The results point towards the best machine performing in the same range as the very best professional facial examiners. This is the calibre of algorithm that An Garda Síochána would utilise. Notwithstanding the accuracy of this algorithm, there is the added safeguard that this technology would only be used in conjunction with the oversight of at least two highly trained individuals who would be identifiable throughout the process and would remain accountable for any decisions taken. This combination of FRT allied with all decisions being made by people, not machines, who will be held to account for these decisions represents international best practice and the way in which I intend to proceed.

I will point to the retrospective use of FRT as a particularly strong example of where this technology can make a crucial contribution. Such retrospective use has led to many success stories in respect of child sex abuse and human trafficking. By reason of the sheer volume of the images in such an investigation, FRT can be essential when trying to examine what can be upwards of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of records. This can speed up an investigation and save Garda time in having to manually trawl through databases of the most harrowing images.

With regard to FRT's omission from the Bill, which is an issue that came up on many occasions, and its earlier omission from the general scheme, the answer is quite simple. The Bill was initially designed to focus on recording and accessing images. A much clearer provision was needed on processing and facial recognition was thus explored, including the extent to which it could be used. Extensive legal advice was received from the Attorney General's office and was carefully considered. It was concluded that further research would be required to understand the precise-use cases where there could be a need for this and to examine best international practice. I am sure the Ceann Comhairle will agree that it is entirely within my right, or that of the Minister, Deputy McEntee, or any Member of this House, to bring forward an amendment to legislation on Committee Stage. It is far from some charged language about an abuse of the legislative process. Last time I checked, that is the legislative process. It is open to any Member of this House to seek to amend legislation on any Stage. Just because somebody becomes a Minister, he or she does not forgo that right.

On EU legislation and the likes, any inclusion of FRT as an addition to this Bill on Committee Stage would not represent this State becoming an outlier to the direction of travel on this issue in Europe. In fact, the current position is one in which we are an outlier.

There are, however, serious and deeply held views regarding this legislation, which should be carefully considered. The Government will engage and reach a position on this. I will then update the House and share such information with the House in advance of Committee Stage. The Bill is an important step forward in providing gardaí with basic, modern equipment to keep them and the public safe. I commend Second Stage of this Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.