I will respond to all of them. I will take them in order. Senator Keogan spoke about amendment No. 7. I know she was not available at that time but on Committee Stage I said clearly that this is an operational matter for the Garda Commissioner. Again, a lot of what we are discussing in these groupings are matters that will be set out in the codes of practice rather than in the Bill. As part of the drafting of a code of practice, there will be a consultation with stakeholders, as outlined by Senator Ward. There will also be input from the general public so Members of this House and others will have an opportunity to input into the development of these codes of practice. Gardaí must be allowed to decide what the level of threat is. We should not include in legislation how we would evaluate a threat level, without knowing the scenario, the evidence or the situation on the ground. It is up to the gardaí themselves to evaluate the threat level posed to public security and safety, which may evolve over a shorter or longer timeframe. The Garda decision-making model is deployed by gardaí to ensure there is consistency in decision-making, even in the most dynamic situations in which they have to apply it immediately. We saw that with recent protests when gardaí had to respond immediately but they also take that graduated response. I stress it cannot and should not be the case that a Garda member is the only person who does not have the ability to record an incident. At the moment, it is very one-sided. Gardaí are the only individuals, for the most part, on the ground who do not record incidents. We know it can be amended, changed and perceived in certain ways when others record them. It is important that gardaí have the tools and ability to record incidents as they happen.
On the deletion of both the execution of criminal penalties and the protection of the security of the State, it is proposed in respect of the former that there is a clear and transparent use case in section 9(3), which would fall under this purpose. That is when they are executing a court order or a warrant. In respect of the latter, it is not clear as to why the Senator is proposing to delete the protection of the security of the State as a purpose. That is on line 17 on page 10 of the Bill.
The purpose currently outlined in section 9(2), as the Bill stands, is consistent with the grounds on which restrictions on privacy rights may be allowed under Article 8 of the ECHR. That is the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. On those grounds, I cannot accept this amendment.
Regarding amendment No. 8 in the name of Senator Ruane, I stress that this is really for the codes of conduct. It is appropriate that it would be in the codes of conduct. While I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, there are circumstances where a member might not turn on their camera - it might be that they have suddenly been attacked and do not have the time. As we saw only yesterday, reports of attacks on members of An Garda Síochána have increased. It is very possible that a member may not have the time. It will need to be set out very clearly in the codes of conduct that where members do not turn on their cameras or where they turn them off for any reason, they will have to explain why. They will have to go through a particular process. If they have done so incorrectly - if they have not turned it on or turned it off as they should have - then there can be disciplinary proceedings within An Garda Síochána.
Separate from that, members may go to GSOC to make complaints. The separate legislation we are bringing through the House at the moment will empower GSOC further to be able to respond to these types of complaints in a quicker, more efficient and more effective way. A number of different changes are taking place.
The code governing this part will contain further details of the operation of it. As I said, this is subject to consultation with various bodies, including the ECHR and others which will have a say to ensure there is fairness and balance in how these cameras are being used.
Amendment No. 9 is in the name of Senator Keogan. Training of Garda personnel is very much an operational matter for the Commissioner, irrespective of whether it is on this, on hate crime or relating to domestic and sexual violence. However, section 47(8) of this Bill provides that the Garda Commissioner should take all reasonable steps to ensure that any codes of practice are brought to the attention of personnel. That would be in the form of training.
A pilot scheme in respect of body-worn cameras will be carried out. I expect that will take place in the middle of next year. Already the Garda is looking at the various different types of cameras used in different jurisdictions, the different types of technologies, how they are used and where they are used on the person. While at the National Ploughing Championships recently, I got a demonstration on these. Work is already under way. They will be officially piloted once this legislation is enacted and once they are procured. For that reason, I cannot support the amendment. I reassure the Senator that training is part of this. There will be pilots to ensure that whatever we procure is the best. We have one benefit in that we are late to the party here. We can learn from the challenges and difficulties in the past in other jurisdictions.
Regarding amendment No. 11, as I said on Committee Stage, the location and manner in which it is worn will be informed by international best practice. This is being looked at, as I mentioned already. The type of camera to be used is yet to be decided. As the Senator will be aware, a request for information was released by the Garda on 12 September, so that process is under way. It will ultimately depend on the type of camera available. Technology is improving all the time and it is important that we have the best technology available to us.
Amendment No. 12 would not be a practical solution to what the Senator is trying to achieve. Aerial vehicles might be up too high to put something on them for people to be able to see that there is a camera attached regardless of the nature or type of the identifier placed on the camera. Whether it is this or the body-worn cameras, the Bill already clearly states at section 9(5)(a) that recording devices insofar as practicable must be overt. That obviously applies to where drones are being used. The process of drafting a code, includes this particular piece, involves consultation with the Data Protection Commission. When using a device of this kind, our obligations relating to data protection and people's privacy rights must be taken into account. The fact that the code of conduct can be agreed only with the engagement and agreement of the Data Protection Commission indicates very clearly that the Garda must respect people's privacy rights, whether it is a body-worn camera, a drone or a camera on a canine unit. Irrespective of type of equipment, it must be in line with the data protection legislation. As we have seen with other legislation, where it is not, it must be changed.
As the Senator will know, parts of this Bill amend issues that arose relating to CCTV directly because the Data Protection Commission raised concerns about how it was being used and people's privacy rights. That is a very clear example of where the Data Protection Commission has highlighted concerns and we have responded and made changes. It is very welcome that they will be included at the very outset in setting out these codes of conduct.
