Mr. Bob Collins:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to be present and to contribute at this session. This is a welcome and necessary Bill. The facility of recording has benefits for both gardaí and the public alike and is in part a reflection of our times and must be regulated. The authority also welcomes the changes that have been made to the initial draft heads and is pleased that some of the measures which it proposed and which others, no doubt, have proposed have been incorporated in whole or in part. These measures that have been accepted can be of benefit to public safety, to the prevention of crime and to the promotion of effective policing.

As with most things in life, however, there are conditions attached to that welcome and that approval. The experience of facing the task of policing during the health emergency has highlighted the importance and the real value of public confidence in the Garda Síochána, especially in terms of protecting its legitimacy when exercising extra powers while at the same time vindicating our human rights. It is a crucial contributor to this sense of legitimacy that the right balance be achieved between powers and rights. These new technologies - body-worn cameras and closed circuit television - if not used with caution and with external, transparent and independent scrutiny, can be a barrier to the trust the public has in the Garda Síochána, can hinder the perception of its legitimacy and can infringe basic human rights. In previous submissions the authority identified a number of principles it believes must be underpinned in the legislation, and there is value in noting them very briefly.

Regarding device neutrality and a clear framework, technology constantly changes, sometimes with dazzling speed, and it is important this Bill is device-neutral. That has two dimensions. It is vital the principles that underpin this Bill are not confined to the technologies we know and that those principles can be applicable to any devices that may emerge in future. Related to that is the fact such new devices may have potential and consequences currently unknown or unimagined. It is reasonable to say that if this Bill were being drafted and discussed five years ago, nobody would have foreseen the possible uses to which drones can be put now and the nature and scale and miniature nature of that particular technology. That principle requires that the framework of the measure is adaptable to future circumstances and that the code of practice be sufficiently strong and sufficiently flexible to reflect and govern what new technologies may emerge. This will help in avoiding new technologies being evaluated on an ad hocbasis and avoid the use of devices not contemplated in this measure or their use in policing contexts not currently envisaged.

Ethics and proportionate use is the second principle. We welcome the fact the Bill provides for the development of codes of practice for recording devices and CCTV. This provides the opportunity to reflect the tests of fairness, ethical behaviour and proportionality of use that are of central importance.

The use of these technologies in some respects can see both the infringement and the vindication of human rights, at times simultaneously. Even if properly applied, their use will infringe on rights such as the individual's Article 8 right to privacy for both members of the public and Garda members, and the public's rights to free expression, free assembly and free association. To ensure the intention implicit in the decision to require a human rights impact assessment is made real, the authority would wish to see a requirement rather than an enablement to consult the public in the preparation of the codes of practice. This should also be required in respect of any amendment to any one or other of the two codes. The authority would also like to see an external dimension beyond the consultative process in the undertaking and in the analysis of any such human rights impact assessment.

In welcoming the identification and inclusion of a number of statutory consultees, the authority would also wish to see the requirement that any review of the codes or of the statute taking account of the extent of their use, that is, the use of these technologies, any evaluation of their impact and any trends in respect of complaints concerning any aspect of their use. The authority would also reiterate its previously expressed concern about the process by which requests from lawyers to access footage in which clients are captured will be handled and at what point they will be given access. This is at the very least, we believe, something that should be provided for in the statute and specifically included in the codes of practice.

There are principles of transparent oversight and accountability which require that the powers given and their exercise are transparent to the public, are subject to independent oversight by an external body and are clear as to where accountability lies. We identify at least six elements, which I will note very briefly, to achieve this.

The Bill should require that the Garda Síochána employ a comprehensive process of reliable and published recordings of the incidence of the use of these technologies. The Bill should include reference to the development of a robust mechanism to review, appeal and oversee decisions to use the technologies under discussion. It should make appropriate provision for the making available of relevant recordings to GSOC and the Garda Inspectorate, or their successor bodies, to inform their investigations and inspections. It should ensure visibility. We believe that unless the circumstances require a covert installation, it should be made explicit in the legislation that the public be informed about the existence and operation of a CCTV system, whether fixed or mobile.

An overly centralist approach should be avoided in authorising the installation and operation of CCTV. We acknowledge clearly the advantage of having a single point of decision-making, in the person of the Commissioner, because that provides consistency of application and avoids unnecessary and sometimes unwarranted CCTV installations. However, we wish to emphasise the importance of some measure of local engagement, especially in circumstances in which a refusal is contemplated. This would allow meaningful community input while not diminishing the decision-making capacity of the Commissioner. We would also suggest that the decision-making should not be capable of being delegated beyond a deputy or assistant commissioner so as to retain that clarity of consistency throughout the State.

Finally, we think the measure or the code should require that the Garda Síochána publish, annually at least and perhaps more frequently, the number of authorisations sought, granted or refused in respect of access to a third party CCTV on a live feed basis. This would give a sense as to whether the use of this power was confined to genuinely acceptable circumstances.