I move amendment No. 1 to Seanad amendment No. 2: To delete paragraph (d), and substitute the following: "(d) without prejudice to section 43B(b), cooperation with one or more other law enforcement agencies in relation to the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences, being cooperation that is carried out— (i) pursuant to the Europol Act 2012, or (ii) pursuant to an international agreement or arrangement designated by the Minister by order for the purposes of this paragraph.". This Bill allows gardaí to use AI technology to compare biometric data, that is, facial images, across pieces of evidence they have already gathered in the course of an investigation. It does not allow for the use of live facial recognition technology or the scanning of data against a database. We are not opposed to the Bill on the basis of this limited scope but we are opposed to further expansion of biometric data usage beyond this identity governance, IG, such as a national database or live facial recognition, which the Minister has previously said will be introduced via further legislation. The Government introduced amendment No. 2 on Report Stage in the Seanad, which allows gardaí to carry out biometric analysis for the purposes of co-operation with law enforcement agencies abroad in relation to criminal offences. We believe this to be a significant broadening of the original scope of the Bill, introduced at the last minute in the legislative process. It is very broadly drafted, with seemingly no guard-rails on how this will work. Our amendment simply seeks to put some legislative guard-rails on a provision that was introduced at the last possible minute. While we in the Labour Party have been clear that we are not opposed to the Bill, which is to give An Garda Síochána the ability to use emerging technologies to do its job of investigating crime, we have also seen that the use of biometric technology carries real risk and we must guard against scope creep. We have been clear, for example, in opposing any further moves to legislate for the use of live facial recognition technology or the development of a national facial or biometric database. The Government's amendment No. 2 is an example of that scope creep. The amendment is to address this significant expansion that was never debated in this House. It was introduced at the last minute on Report Stage in the Seanad. When the Bill passed in the Dáil it confined the permitted purposes of biometric analysis to three, namely, the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of arrestable offences; the protection of the security of the State; and the search for missing persons. All three are tightly defined. The use cases in section 43C(6) are keyed to them but the Government's amendment No. 2 adds a fourth principal purpose of "cooperation with one or more other law enforcement agencies in relation to the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences." This is materially broader in an important respect because it allows for biometric data to be used for the purpose of co-operation with external agencies rather than by reference to any domestic investigative process, which means the trigger for use of the technology is partly outside the control of the Irish law. The scope is broad, extending to any police force or authority anywhere outside the State responsible for prevention or prosecution of criminal offences. There seem to be no legislative guardrails on who can make such a request, how it will be assessed and decided on, and for what purpose. That poses obvious risks. Will circumstances arise in which gardaí are expected to perform biometric analysis on behalf of a foreign police force investigating a crime in its country that would not be subject to criminal investigation in Ireland? Will gardaí be expected to handle biometric evidence that has been gathered by live facial recognition abroad? I will elaborate further when the Minister of State responds.

Sentiment score: -0.18

I thank the Minister of State for her response and welcome her to her new job. This is our first exchange on these issues. We are not instinctively opposed in totality to what the Government is trying to do here. We support the spirit of what it is trying to do. The issue that we have is as follows. The Seanad wording refers to criminal offences generally but it does not refer in a defined and narrower way to "arrestable offences", which is the term used elsewhere in the Bill. When the Minister of State referred in her reply to, for example, child sex offences, I understand the rationale for that and I understand where the Minister of State is coming from. However, we want to make sure there are sufficient guardrails in this legislation to ensure it applies to arrestable serious offences. As drafted, it could permit a Garda biometric analysis to be carried out in aid of co-operation with any domestic or foreign law enforcement body for any criminal offence without that co-operation being tied to a specific or defined treaty, agreement or statutory framework. What concerns me is the lack of definition in what the Government is proposing. Our amendment would limit the use of this provision to co-operation through Europol, or at least through an international agreement designated by the Minister. We believe these are common-sense guardrails to protect the independence of our policing. It is disappointing that, as Deputy Carthy noted, we have not had the chance to properly scrutinise this measure in the Oireachtas, because it is a significant expansion of the Bill's original drafting. I had hoped the Minister of State would accept the amendment. We brought it forward in good faith to make sure the legislation is not left too open to function properly. I am concerned that we have a scenario where a police force, maybe in Europe or further afield, could potentially use live FRT at a protest or civil disturbance, and would then request that gardaí scan those images against their own files. The Minister of State said that a code of practice has to be laid before and agreed by both Houses. I would welcome it if she would clarify whether, under the legislation, as amended, it is possible for a police force to use live FRT at a protest and then request that gardaí scan those images against their files.

Sentiment score: 0.12