Ms Doireann Ansbro:

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, thanks the committee for this opportunity to participate here today. I am joined by our executive director, Mr. Liam Herrick, and we are both happy to answer questions. In this statement I will summarise our key concerns with the Bill, as outlined in more detail in our written submission.

The ICCL welcomes the inclusion of requirements to carry out data protection and human rights impact assessments as well as the requirements to consult the Data Protection Commission and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission ahead of the creation of codes of practice. We note the inclusion of some requirements for consideration of necessity and proportionality for authorising surveillance, which we also welcome.

The ICCL recognises that digital technology may offer a valuable tool in the detection of crime. However, it considers this Bill will vastly expand the surveillance powers of An Garda Síochána without sufficient evidence these developments are necessary in the Irish context, proportionate to the risk they pose to a range of rights, or that there are sufficient data protection safeguards. The ICCL also questions the proposed expansion of surveillance powers while, as we understand it, there are ongoing inquiries by the Data Protection Commission into the compliance of An Garda Síochána with data protection law. We note the deeply concerning findings last June while recognising what the representative from the Data Protection Commission has just said in terms of welcoming aspects of the Bill. We note the deeply concerning findings last year that indicated a generalised failure by An Garda Síochána to comply with data protection law. It is in that context the ICCL would call on the Government to pause any proposal to expand Garda surveillance powers until such time as there are satisfactory, proper and sufficient policies and practices to ensure data protection law is being complied with.

We have previously expressed our opposition to the introduction of body-worn cameras for gardaí given the risks to privacy and data protection and, in our view, the glaring absence of conclusive evidence from other jurisdictions that they contribute positively to policing or justice outcomes. We call on the Government to abandon plans to introduce body-worn cameras or, alternatively, we call for more research to demonstrate they are necessary in Ireland, including through the introduction of a pilot programme before a general roll-out of them.

The Bill proposes a significant expansion in the use of CCTV by An Garda Síochána, including by providing access to real-time live feed from non-Garda or third party CCTV cameras. We have identified some serious and ongoing risks with the use of CCTV and we call for more research into the effectiveness of CCTV in both preventing and detecting crime before Garda access is expanded.

We also call for greater safeguards around the use of drones given their increased risk to privacy and transparency. We question whether sufficient safeguards are in place for the proposed expanded use of automatic number plate recognition technology.

In our written submission we have made 22 specific recommendations on how we believe the Bill can be strengthened. Those include the following five key issues. The lawful purpose assigned to the use of recording devices is too broad and may lend itself to an overuse of such devices. The definition of what constitutes a recording device is vague and may pave the way for the introduction of new technologies such as facial recognition technology without sufficient debate, research or a demonstration of their necessity in the Irish context. We note that facial recognition technology has renowned ethnic, racial and gender biases and has enabled mass surveillance and discriminatory targeted surveillance elsewhere. We also consider there are important distinctions in law between the thresholds and safeguards which must apply to both covert and overt surveillance. We consider the requirement of visibility of recording devices for overt surveillance is not sufficiently addressed in the Bill and provisions on covert surveillance would appear not to be accompanied by sufficient safeguards.

The Bill is also not clear regarding who has the authorisation to install, use and access recording devices. We note the DPC's concerns, outlined in its report last year, that there has been excessive access to monitoring stations within Garda stations. We call for greater transparency on this issue and accountability where policies and protocols are not followed. While recognising the provision that a recording device itself does not have to be produced in court is practical and therefore welcome, we call for the provision at head 20(A)(3) on the admissibility of evidence to be removed. In our view such decisions should remain strictly with the courts. The apparent proposal to exclude gardaí from criminal liability under the legislation should be removed or it should be made clearer that gardaí can be held criminally liable if they commit any of the offences that are created by this Bill, including the offence of tampering with recording devices.

Digital surveillance presents a direct interference with the right to privacy and impacts a range of other rights. We urge the Government to pause any expansion of Garda surveillance powers at a time when there are clear findings that existing powers have been misused. We call for any revision of surveillance powers to be accompanied by robust safeguards, including adequate oversight, to ensure our rights are always protected.