I thank Deputy Carthy for these two amendments. We had an opportunity on Committee Stage to have a discussion on these amendments as well, but the Deputy is perfectly entitled to submit them again. As the Leas-Ceann Comhairle will be aware, the purpose of this legislation is to provide a facility for An Garda Síochána to engage in retrospective biometric analysis in terms of the work that it does and in terms of trying to speed up investigations for the purpose of identifying missing persons or locating individuals in a crowd when there is a large amount of CCTV footage. That is the primary purpose of this legislation. What the Deputy is seeking to do is to put into primary legislation rules on procurement. In particular, he wants to rule out An Garda Síochána entering into contracts with certain companies that are based in countries that have been adjudicated to have been involved in crimes against humanity or genocide. As I have said previously, however, procurement is governed by EU rules and national regulations and my view today is the same as it was when this matter came before us on Committee Stage, in that it would be inappropriate to duplicate these restrictions in primary legislation. There are mandatory exclusion grounds where a tenderer has been convicted of one or more of the following offences: participation in a criminal organisation; corruption; fraud; terrorist offences or offences linked to terrorist activities; money laundering or terrorist financing; child labour; human trafficking-related offences; and the breach of tax or social security obligations. Public procurement rules and regulations provide for a transparent, non-discriminatory process and there are sufficient rules and regulations in place in respect of existing guidelines. Procurement matters generally would not be a matter to be addressed in this Bill. In the case of any procurement of biometric technologies, there are requirements for providers and deployers of AI systems under the AI Act and An Garda Síochána will look to its European counterparts when engaging in the procurement process for best practice in the area. I am satisfied that the Garda will seek to advance ethical considerations when it comes to procurement processes as well. Deputy Carthy is seeking to target Israel because of the war crimes committed by it in Gaza and elsewhere. I agree with him when he says that this State, through its Government, has stood up to the criminal genocide in Gaza. That is correct. Obviously, it has resulted in Israel having a negative view of Ireland on the basis that we are standing up for what we believe is a rules-based international system and ensuring we have an orderly resolution of disputes. Nonetheless, having said that, it would be inappropriate to include rules in respect of procurement in primary legislation. For that reason, I am adopting the same position as I did on Committee Stage, which is that I cannot accept these amendments.

Sentiment score: 0.09

As Deputy Carthy will be aware, under section 3 of the 2023 Act, there is a provision that enables me to make regulations in respect of provisions contained within the legislation. Obviously, I cannot make regulations now in respect of an amendment that is not yet part of the legislation. Nonetheless, I am aware of the powers that I have under section 3. It is a matter that I will give consideration to, but we need to recognise that there are rules in place to deal with procurement. It is not appropriate to put this into primary legislation, such as the legislation we are dealing with here about the ability of An Garda Síochána to use biometric retrospective analysis. It would be inappropriate in that legislation to put in a provision that talks about with whom An Garda Síochána may enter into contracts. I am aware of the point being made by Deputy Carthy and I am aware of the powers I have under section 3.

Sentiment score: 0.18

I thank Deputy Carthy for his amendment and Deputy Gannon for his contribution. As I said at the outset, the purpose of this legislation is to provide an additional tool to An Garda Síochána in order to expedite its investigations. This is not a tool that will be used for the purpose of putting evidence before a court to convict a person of a criminal offence. It is an instrument that will be of benefit to gardaí when they are going through very significant amounts of CCTV footage. As I said previously on Committee Stage, this amendment would, in my opinion, make the system incapable of effective operation. As I said, the gardaí will be assisted by this provision in sorting and filtering data in order that a human reviewer can narrow down avenues of investigation. Let us take an example of where biometric analysis will be of considerable assistance to An Garda Síochána. This is in investigations of child sexual abuse material. As an aside, I should say that earlier today I was at the launch of the annual report of the Irish Internet Hotline. It is an excellent report, but it does reveal the extent to which child sexual abuse material is being derived, accessed and used by people in Ireland. It is something we need to be constantly vigilant about and ensure that we have a very strong ability within An Garda Síochána to investigate it and prosecute it. If we take the example of a child sexual abuse material investigation, there could be thousands of images over which biometric analysis could be performed. If the approach in the amendment were to be adopted, it would require the biometric analysis of each image to be approved by a chief superintendent. We would clearly lose valuable time seeking authorisations. We would lose time identifying vulnerable victims and waste valuable Garda time. I regret to say it would make no operational sense to proceed in the manner proposed by the amendment. Identifiable persons will be responsible for not only reviewing the footage or images, but responsible for any decisions made in the course of an investigation. Biometric analysis could aid investigators by finding all instances of a distinctive facial feature or scar in what can be hundreds of thousands of images or videos on a single seized device. All searching proposed in this Bill is for investigative leads only. It has the potential to group relevant images together, so a person can either review the footage or have a starting point for that review. Inserting an authorisation process for the carrying out of biometric analysis, as is suggested by this amendment, would, in my opinion, be unnecessary. This, as I said, is a decision-support tool with clear safeguards set out in the Bill, including approval by both Houses for a code of practice. Biometric analysis could be used to search for general biometric characteristics for an unidentified victim, a suspect, a person who is a threat to the security of the State or indeed a missing person. However, there are also conditions that must be met in order for those searches to be permitted and these include that it has to be necessary and proportionate in the context of a specific criminal investigation into serious offences, offences which have penalties of five years or more, a matter relating to national security, or in a missing person investigation. It can also only be used on documents gathered in the context of that investigation. An authorisation does need to be reserved for the most intrusive use in cases. The Bill is about using technology to aid investigative work, not to replace it. For those reasons, I cannot accept Deputy Carthy's amendment. I note what Deputy Gannon said in respect of the EU AI Act. I want to emphasise again that the Bill will be in line with EU law. The Commission guidelines for high-risk AI systems are still in drafting and have been reviewed by member states with feedback provided. These will include a list of practical examples of use cases of AI systems that are high risk or not high risk. While the guidelines will act as an interpretive tool in understanding how to implement the AI Act, the European Court of Justice will be the ultimate arbiter of the AI Act and its provisions.

Sentiment score: -0.03

I just want to clarify. I am certainly not suggesting that any of the Deputies here are highlighting issues for the purpose of obstructing the legislation or, indeed, trying to obstruct the work of An Garda Síochána. Deputies are highlighting issues that are of concern to them. Similarly, however, in responding to them I have to be able to say be able to say how I think in practice the amendment, if enacted, would impact An Garda Síochána. My view is that if this amendment was enacted, it would have a very negative operational impact on the force because of the fact that we are dealing with images that can come in bundles of hundreds or thousands. If we are going to have a chief superintendent who has to authorise each one of them before biometric analysis can take place, that is going to have a very limiting impact on the work of the Garda. In fact, the likelihood is that it will just become a paper-signing exercise or a box-ticking exercise and it would undermine the whole purpose of the real measures that are going to be put in place to ensure there is proper oversight. Deputy Carthy said he did not gain much confidence from the code of practice. He should reserve his comments in respect of that because a code of practice setting out procedures surrounding the use of retrospective biometric analysis will be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. It will be subject to debate and resolutions being passed. It will be published as a statutory instrument, making it a publicly available document. Human rights and data protection impact assessments will be required as part of the procedure for drafting a code of practice. In respect of the code, the Garda Commissioner, as is the case with the current codes of practice under the principal Act, will have to consult with several bodies listed in section 47A, which is to be inserted by section 10 in this Bill, and publish the code for views prior to adoption. There is, therefore, a whole statutory mechanism to ensure there is oversight and engagement in respect of the finalisation of those codes of practice. Where gardaí are deploying a high-risk AI system, there will be criteria to be fulfilled more generally under the AI Act for deployers, as I mentioned earlier, and the providers of systems will also have to fulfil certain criteria. Notwithstanding this, the Data Protection Acts will continue to apply, as set out in section 4 of the principal Act. There is also oversight whereby a High Court judge will be required to report to the Taoiseach annually on the code. There is a huge amount of oversight there. I believe it is sufficient to ensure there is public confidence in the work that is being done by An Garda Síochána should this provision be enacted. I have to say, however, that I remain opposed to the amendment we are discussing now because I think it would have a very negative impact operationally on the work of An Garda Síochána.

Sentiment score: 0.10

I thank Deputy Carthy for this amendment. As the subheading to it indicates, it is a processing amendment. I want to point out, however, that a processing provision is already provided for and the wording proposed for this section will be governed by the code of practice. The provisions of the recording devices Act are without prejudice to the requirements of the Data Protection Acts. The general principles of data protection are set out in those Acts and the processing of data, including access, retention, storage, deletion or destruction of data, will be supplemented by the code of practice. I ask Deputy Carthy to look at section 47A, which is on page ten of the Bill and, in particular, subsections (2) and (3) of that section. Subsection (2) states: [the] draft code of practice shall include provisions relating to- [...] (b) parameters for use of biometric analysis, including geographical and, subject to section 43C(7), temporal limits of such use, (c) the confidentiality, security, storage, access, retention, erasure and destruction of data obtained as a result of the operation of Part 6A, It specifically includes, in subsection (2), reference to data, and also subsection (3)(b) refers to "different types of biometric data and biometric analysis", and "different categories of persons or data (including biometric data)". The issue is referred to and covered already in the Bill. There is, as I say, a provision there regarding the destruction or deletion of data where it does not result in the recognition or categorisation of a person. I also emphasise that the power provided for in this Bill is for An Garda Síochána only.

Sentiment score: -0.06

I did look at it and I am opposed to the amendment for the following reason. I am conscious that the Deputy wants to make it a criminal offence if a garda should access or use biometric analysis other than in accordance with the legislation. That would mean that a garda could be prosecuted in circumstances where the mistake was inadvertent or where something was done which did not reach the culpable level that would merit a criminal prosecution. Like the Deputy, I do not want to see gardaí unnecessarily or unfairly prosecuted. If this provision was included in the Act, there would be a requirement on the DPP or whoever is investigating it to say there is a breach of the Act because even if it was an inadvertent breach of the rules in respect of biometric analysis, there was nonetheless a breach of the rules. The offence provision follows on from what is set out in principal Act and focuses on the falsification, concealment, destruction or unauthorised disposal of information. These are offences that could have significant consequences for people if information were destroyed or concealed. That is what is criminalised in the proposed legislation at present. The Deputy's amendment would ensure that any inadvertent use would be subject to criminal penalties when it would be far more appropriate that such activity be considered in a disciplinary context and by the various authorities that oversee An Garda Síochána. I understand the intention of the amendment, but I do not see that making Garda personnel subject to an offence for inadvertent use is good policy here. As a result, I cannot accept the amendment.

Sentiment score: -0.24

I thank Deputy Carthy for his amendment. As he indicated, he wants to put into legislation that a pilot programme should be carried out before biometric analysis is commenced by An Garda Síochána. As I mentioned on Committee Stage, the putting in place of a pilot scheme for the roll-out of any new technology is an operational matter for the Garda Commissioner and is not appropriate to this Bill. For instance, regarding the use of body cameras, which Deputy Carthy mentioned, or the use of Tasers, the Commissioner has introduced them through the use of a pilot project. That type of technology is used operationally on the ground by An Garda Síochána in communities. Gardaí have not yet procured this type of technology. Accuracy will be a decisive factor in any decision made. As I mentioned previously, gardaí will look to their European counterparts during the procurement process because these types of tools are in use in other EU states. The code of practice procedure already requires the Commissioner to conduct data protection and human rights impact assessments before the deployment of any technology. Therefore, I do not think a pilot programme, whether it is necessary or not, should be put into primary legislation. For that reason, I cannot support the amendment.

Sentiment score: 0.03

I thank Deputy Carthy for tabling these three amendments. One of the things that is noticeable when looking at this type of legislation, which involves data, is that there is a huge amount of legislation in place at present outside of the recording devices Act of 2023. I am referring in particular to the Data Protection Acts. Those Acts contain prohibitions on mass surveillance, indiscriminate searches and utilising biometrics. I do not believe amendment No. 7 is necessary because a lot of what it deals with is already prohibited under the Data Protection Acts. It is not good legislative practice to duplicate existing statutory powers. Section 4 of the principal Act notes that the provisions of the recording devices Act are without prejudice to the provisions of the Data Protection Acts 1988 to 2018. This will also apply to Part 6A, which is being inserted by section 10. There is an express provision that states that the recording devices Act is without prejudice to what is in the Data Protection Acts. There are also clear limitations on searching already set out in section 43C. That information must be in the context of, among other things, a specific investigation. As stated, the code of practice provisions already set out what needs to be included in a code. These include provisions relating to procedures, confidentiality, security, storage, access, retention and parameters for use. The code can also set out different provisions in relation to types of biometric data or the circumstances in which biometric analysis can be carried out. As a result, I cannot accept amendment No. 7. Amendment No. 8 is also not considered necessary because section 47A sets out what is to be included in the code of practice. This includes the parameters for the carrying out of biometric analysis. The code of practice for the carrying out of such analysis will be laid before the Houses. This means that the Houses will have the opportunity to scrutinise the code alongside what is required under the provisions in section 47A. In the context of amendment No. 9, Deputy Carthy is proposing to change the initial review period from five years to two years. As I said on Committee Stage, setting this at five years aligns with the principal Act. We can already see how involved the process of drafting a code of practice is. The requirements for assessments and consultation make it a lengthy and detailed process and would further delay the roll-out of what I believe is an essential, necessary digital tool for An Garda. A code may need to be reviewed earlier than the five years and there is nothing preventing this from happening in the Bill. For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment.

Sentiment score: 0.04

I move amendment No. 10: “11. Section 49 of the Principal Act is amended— (a) by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (3): “(3) The functions of the designated judge are to— (a) keep under review the operation of Parts 3, 6 and 6A in so far as each of them has come into operation, and (b) report to the Taoiseach from time to time and at least once every 12 months concerning any matters relating to that operation, including the impact of such operation on human rights, that the designated judge considers should be reported.”, and (b) in subsection (6), by the insertion of “or disclose the personal data relating to an individual” after “security of the State”.”. This amendment arises on foot of an amendment tabled by Deputy Kelly on Committee Stage, which, in effect, I am accepting. However, I have rejigged the wording in order to give what the Deputy proposed what we would regard as a more effective meaning in terms of its presentation. I tabled amendment No. 10 having considered the amendment put forward by Deputy Kelly on Committee Stage and again now. His amendment asks that the designated judge consider whether Part 3, which deals with ANPR, or Part 6, which deals with third-party CCTV, or Part 6A, which deals with biometric analysis, operate in a manner calculated to secure "confidence in the impartial performance of policing functions, without disproportionate impact on persons of particular national or ethnic origins". Using the words "national or ethnic origins" would have left it unclear as to how this could be measure for those Parts. That is why the proposal I have come with involves a slight change to Deputy Kelly's wording. We should assess the impact on the human rights of the person. That will allow judges to focus on the operational effect of the Parts relating to human rights, something that will also be assessed by An Garda through the human rights impact assessment during the development of codes of practice for those Parts. I thank Deputy Kelly for bringing forward his amendment. His intention in amendment No. 11 is that the human rights of individuals should be assessed by judges. That is being done, although the only real change is that I have not limited it to the national or ethnic origins. I have adopted a broader approach, but human rights will contemplate someone's national or ethnic origins.

Sentiment score: 0.07