We will be supporting this amendment to the Seanad amendment. As I stated on earlier Stages, Sinn Féin supports the use of biometric recognition technology for serious crime investigations, national security purposes and missing persons cases. However, we have also made it clear at every stage that the use of biometric technology has to be accompanied by strong safeguards to prevent discrimination, excessive surveillance, the misuse of personal data and inadequate oversight. We brought forward amendments in that vein throughout the passage of this legislation. We made it clear, although I do not think that it has been received clearly, that lessons have to be learned from previous mistakes, in particular, the misuses of the PULSE system that we are aware of. Considering that the implications of biometric surveillance technologies could go much further in terms of scope, it is disappointing that the Minister did not accept amendments during the passage of this legislation. They would have put in place strong authorisation mechanisms, particularly the need for approval at chief superintendent level before the technology can be deployed. It is also unfortunate that the Minister did not accept amendments that propose prohibiting the use of surveillance technology supplied by states that could be engaged in war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity. The Minister of State will already be aware that concerns have already been raised regarding the use by An Garda Síochána of surveillance and cyber investigation technologies from Israeli companies. For example, some of these companies have direct links with the Israeli military and intelligence bodies that have been involved in war crimes and genocide. We wanted to include in the legislation a provision that would ensure alternative suppliers would be sought where equipment originates from states that are involved in war crimes or genocide. What is striking and surprising is that the Minister for justice did not accept a provision that is already in place in the Defence Forces. The Government has already prohibited future purchases of military equipment from states like Israel, so it is hard to understand why a similar approach would not apply to surveillance and investigative technologies used by An Garda Síochána, considering how sensitive this technology could be. It is also important to note in the context of this amendment that the Bill is being considered against the backdrop of serious recruitment and retention problems in An Garda Síochána. Insufficient action has been taken to increase Garda numbers to the level that we need. The Government has not taken the type of innovative recruitment measures that we have set out and which are desperately needed. We see at all levels of An Garda Síochána that there is a serious dearth of the numbers required. We see it in community policing and we will see it in cyber-policing, other specialist activities and in general. I got a response from the Minister last week in respect of the Garda National Immigration Bureau, which showed that the numbers within that section have dropped over the past couple of years. They are at the same levels as they were in 2016, despite much larger immigration numbers, a significant and substantial number of unenforced deportation orders and rhetoric from the Government that a new framework is in place which will ensure we have an adequately managed migration system. The Minister needs to give us clear updates. We are passing legislation in this House, but that is only first step. If we do not have gardaí across all the specialist areas, including within community policing and cybercrime, then the legislation counts for very little. We are also seeing the impact of the additional policing pressures as a result of Ireland's Presidency of the Council of the EU. As a number of colleagues in the House have said, gardaí have been moved from communities and local Garda stations to other locations. This is concerning for communities that often deal with crime and antisocial behaviour. The Minister of State, Deputy Ardagh, will be aware of communities that cannot afford to lose gardaí for any substantial period of time. I reiterate that we support the legislation in principle and we will support its passage. We will ensure that there is monitoring of its implementation, but the spirit the Minister of State has seen from the Opposition, in terms of facilitating the Government with this legislation, has not been matched by a real engagement in dealing with the amendments that we have put forward. As I said at every stage, we brought forward amendments that were about strengthening authorisation and monitoring, as well as ensuring that we are protected as a State. In all instances, I made it clear to the Minister that if there was an issue with wording, we would be satisfied if he wanted to bring forward amendments of his own. However, as has become the habit of this Minister in this Government, concerns have been dismissed. Unfortunately, I think we will reach a point in time, probably in the not-too-distant future, where either the current cohort of Ministers in the Department or a future cohort will be forced to bring forward amending legislation. That could have been avoided if the spirit and approach of partnership had been taken by the Minister and the Department.

Sentiment score: 0.11