Patrick Costello (Dublin South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the issue of data retention, the Court of Justice of the European Union is dealing with a case at present that may influence all of that. I am conscious of the various codes of practice that are required under different parts of the legislation. The Bill states: "In addition to the consultations undertaken [with certain named persons] the Commissioner may consult with any other person or body appearing to the Garda Commissioner to have an interest in the matter." I would argue that we should be looking at full public consultation on these codes of practice in regard to their initial creation and renewal. I believe the general public has an interest in this matter. Will there be any scope during drafting to include a requirement for public consultation? I have another question which may be that of a new Deputy. Head 7(5) states: "Where the Minister receives a draft code of practice ... he or she may by order declare that the code, scheduled to the order, shall be a code of practice." I ask that clarity be provided on how much scope the Minister will have to vary or change what he or she receives at that point in time. I have a couple of other questions for the Department around drafting issues. I will run through some points and then come back in.

Head 15 deals with temporary approval for access to third-party CCTV. Several of the heads before head 15 deal with the issue of an application by An Garda Síochána to adjudge for authorisation, in the same manner that is done for a search warrant. However, there is no urgency test in the temporary approval as is required under Criminal Justice (Search Warrants) Act 2012. If there are circumstances where judicial approval is not practical, we need to state that there is an urgency in those situations. The lack of an urgency test is concerning, and I ask that it is addressed in drafting. The period allowed under the Bill is 72 hours which, again, speaks to a lack of urgency. If 72 hours of recording is allowed, that strikes me as something that should - as contained in the previous heads - go before a judge for independent judicial assessment and authorisation.

Head 9 states how CCTV will be operated on behalf of An Garda Síochána. Will witnesses provide clarity on who they envisage will operate that? I am conscious that the definition of a member of An Garda Síochána, under head 2, includes civilian Garda staff. If we outsource the monitoring of CCTV to persons outside An Garda Síochána, we will lose some of the transparency and oversight of protocols, rules and training that currently exist in An Garda Síochána and which give security to those activities.

Under head 8, no difference is made between overt surveillance and covert surveillance. Will that be addressed? There is a lot of talk about the need for recording equipment to be identified. Obviously, there are cases where a crime is being investigated and the last thing one wants is a giant sign that reads "there is a recording device here". From my perspective, we are getting into an area - covert surveillance - in which we need to balance rights. Should we be seeking warrants for covert surveillance? Is there an intention to address the difference between overt and covert surveillance? I will leave my questions at that for now. I may ask one more question afterwards, if I have time.