I take this opportunity to wish the Ceann Comhairle and all of the staff in the Houses of the Oireachtas, and even the Minister and his staff, a very happy Christmas and all the best for the new year. Cuirim fáilte roimh an deis labhairt faoin Bhille. Tá buntáistí agus rioscaí ag baint leis an méid atá fógartha. Ní mór dúinn an Bille seo a scrúdú go cúramach. An Garda Síochána has a challenging job to do. That job has been made much more difficult in recent years by the failure to tackle the recruitment and retention crisis. There are simply not enough community gardaí. There are not enough roads policing gardaí. There has been a growing reliance on overtime for the carrying out of routine police work. This crisis has to be tackled and, as the Minister knows, Sinn Féin has set out proposals on what we believe needs to be done. The Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) (Amendment) Bill, which we are dealing with today, seeks to allow for the use of biometric recognition technologies as a tool to process evidence in serious criminal investigations, matters relating to State security, and for missing persons cases. It differs in a number of aspects from the general scheme, or heads of Bill, which were previously subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. I note that many of the concerns raised during pre-legislative scrutiny do not appear to have been addressed in this Bill. The short timeframe between publication and the Second Stage debate is not ideal, nor is it ideal to be discussing a Bill with potentially far-reaching repercussions on the last day of the Dáil. It feels like this Bill has been rushed in order to get it to the Dáil before the end of the year. Already, questions have been raised. One of those is why the Bill refers to "biometric analysis" when what is referred to is essentially what is termed "biometric categorisation" in the AI Act. The lack of any reference to the AI Act also raises concerns. The Bill is seeking to give gardaí powers to apply an algorithm to any imagery or video footage obtained during investigations in order to find people and categorise them by their biometric data. It will allow gardaí to recognise and categorise the general public based on their biometric data; locate and track unidentified individuals across images or pieces of footage, based again on their biometric data in order to reconstruct their movements; and search for and locate a known person, across multiple images or pieces of footage, based on their biometric data, to determine their whereabouts. I want to be clear. Sinn Féin believes that biometric recognition technologies have a place in enabling the gardaí to do their jobs, particularly in the investigation of serious crimes but we also believe its introduction has to be approached with real caution. We recognise the potential role that it can play in terms of the increased amount of evidence, including CCTV, which gardaí must go through in the investigation of crimes and the fact that some of this is physically not possible to do manually in the way in which it can be done through this technology. However, the use of this technology in no way replaces the need to tackle issues with garda numbers I have mentioned and to ensure we have enough gardaí in our communities to keep them safe, build relationships with communities, police our roads and prevent and investigate crime. There needs to be a recognition of the benefits and the risks of enabling the Garda to use biometric recognition technologies. The Dáil must be satisfied in terms of the limitations and safeguards that are put in place regarding how this technology is used. It is right that it is only used where it is necessary and proportionate. It is important that this is done in a manner that does not lead to excessive surveillance and undermining the right to privacy. We just do not want to drift into a surveillance society. Reviews have to examine the deployment and the accuracy of the technology. Roll out across the State should only follow a pilot phase that examines issues in relation to accuracy, which is very important, but also the impact on the right to privacy. There are risks inherent in giving gardaí additional powers in relation to these kinds of technologies. In June 2024, as the Minister will know, a subgroup of the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council, AIAC, on biometrics in the public service in Ireland issued an advice paper to Government on FRT use by An Garda Síochána. The AIAC noted that when used in a law enforcement context, facial recognition technology is a high-risk technology given the potential consequences of its use for individuals. It recommended that “given the limitations of current evaluations, the AIAC advises against procuring or deploying FRT until satisfactory independent evaluations are conducted under real-world conditions relevant to Irish law enforcement." It is not clear to me reading this Bill that the Minister has taken on board those important points made the by AI Advisory Council in relation to the use of these technologies by the gardaí, particularly in cases where it is to be used and the safeguards around approval for deployment. While the Bill sets out the broad parameters for the introduction of a code of practice, it would be much more preferable if the specifics parameters, in terms of the use of the technology, were contained within the Bill. That would allow us the opportunity to scrutinise them to ensure they are sufficiently robust to protect the rights to privacy and to protect against misuse. I do not know if the Minister will have an opportunity to answer at the end but I will put a number of questions to him. What is the reason for referring to this process as “biometric analysis” instead of what is called “biometric categorisation” in the AI Act? Why is there no reference to the AI Act? What are the specific circumstances when this categorisation will take place and when the individual will be tracked? How will An Garda Síochána mitigate the risks of discrimination, profiling or rights violations that has been shown to arise in other states from the use of these technologies? Of course, the public will also need assurances around any companies providing services in respect of these technologies and the protection of data when using private companies. There needs to be an absolute guarantee that the State will not be using the services of Israeli-based companies for the provision of these services. I would go as far as to say any existing contracts that An Garda Síochána has with Israeli companies providing surveillance technology should be terminated. We also know that a significant number - albeit a minority - of gardaí faced disciplinary procedures for the misuse of the PULSE system in the past, including the horrendous case in which a former garda was jailed in July for inciting strangers to rape a colleague. That individual pleaded guilty to the unauthorised disclosure of Garda PULSE personal data on 14 individuals. While it is important to say that these misuses related to a very small minority within An Garda Síochána, the experience of that misuse of PULSE reinforces the need to ensure proper protections are in place to ensure these technologies are only used where appropriate, properly authorised and necessary for the investigation of serious crimes. With regard to the provisions in the Bill on the carrying out of biometric analysis by Garda personnel, there needs to be a strengthening of the provisions that authorise the use of the result of biometric analysis. Section 6 of Part 2 currently states that: "The results of biometric analysis shall not be used by An Garda Síochána for a principal purpose unless...results have been reviewed by a member of Garda personnel and have been ascertained by him or her to be of sufficient reliability to be so used." I argue that provisions as to who authorises the use of the technology should be strengthened to reflect the reality of its use. We will be engaging with this process through further Stages of its passage. We look forward to its passage, if its passage comes anytime in the short term. While this Bill was published by the Minister just a week ago, it is the fourth Bill he has published since he has taken office. A lot of people would be surprised by that because virtually every time the Minister gets out of bed it seems he is announcing new legislation. Quite a number of people would be surprised to learn that, in the course of 2025, not a single piece of justice legislation has passed through the Houses.

Sentiment score: 0.08

Which legislation is the Minister referring to?

Sentiment score: 0.00

Okay. The one that is closest to passage at the moment is the Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024, which the Minister does not agree with. There are over 30 justice and migration Bills on the legislative schedule. Announcements of Bills, as I said, are being made every other week but we have not got beyond the announcements, soundbites and press conferences to see real action in terms of legislative changes. In this final day before we break for the Christmas recess, I wish to say to the Minister that we are up for working with him to bring forward the type of changes that are required to ensure we have a policing system that works and serves our communities and a migration system that works and serves our society. We need to stop the play-acting and press conferences and move towards real action.

Sentiment score: 0.14

He is apologising in advance for next year as well.

Sentiment score: 0.32