Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It would also be very useful to clarify why, if section 10 is adequate, it has not been used for the past years because it has not been used in that context. I do not agree that section 23 in the new legislation will address that.

My other issue relates to the concern by An Garda Síochána, which I think was valid, around the lack of clarity in the confiscation of phones or recording equipment. There needs to be clarity around why they are being confiscated and what the restrictions are because the summary conviction does not give as much investigative power in the confiscation of the phone. I note that the proposed prohibited conduct in subsections (l) to (m), inclusive, of head 4(3) directly relate to things that might involve a phone such as photographing or recording healthcare providers or persons who are accessing or providing services. Is consideration being given to providing clarity on whether, if a phone is confiscated in such circumstances, it is being confiscated in order to prevent it being used for further harmful conduct or in relation to investigation? If there is a requirement, then it should be ensured that there is an investigative power. Maybe it needs to be tied to particular specific prohibited conduct under head 4(3). What approach is the Department looking at in relation to the concerns raised by the Gardaí on that? I do see circumstances where it might be necessary to confiscate the phone but it is really important that there is clarity on the basis for that.