Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

These three amendments aim at the idea that the public areas of Garda stations should be subject to video surveillance. I have no difficulty with the principle of this proposal. If we require, as many District Judges do, licensees of licensed premises which open late to install CCTV, and have it on many buses and the Luas, which goes past my house and which I use, I have no major problem with the idea that there should be CCTV coverage of public areas of Garda stations.

There is a project under way in Pearse Street and Store Street Garda stations putting CCTVs in reception areas and the corridors leading to the cells. The results of that pilot will be carefully considered and inform the debate on the extension of CCTV to the cells. That is an issue on which there are two views, namely, whether every prisoner in a cell should be subject to constant camera surveillance or not. I agree with Deputy Ó Snodaigh that in principle there is no reason a visual record should not be kept of what goes on in the public areas of a Garda station, in the areas leading to the cells and perhaps in the cells, for the protection of everybody involved.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh says it might save the taxpayers some money in respect of claims made against members of the Garda Síochána, which might be so. It might also get to the truth of many of the false allegations against the Garda Síochána as to what did and did not happen, whether people were stone cold sober or falling around drunk when they were arrested, their demeanour and the like. These matters are in the area of "he did — he did not" conflicts of testimony which would be easily resolved by the extension of CCTV. I favour this proposal and it is my intention, unless there is some particular reason arising out of the pilot coverage, why it should not be extended in Garda stations.

I have a slight reservation as to whether it would be a good idea to extend it to every single Garda station in the country because some stations open for only a few hours a couple of days a week to deal with passport applications and driving licence particulars. Installing major CCTV apparatus in these small stations, which could almost be described as sub-stations, might not be an intelligent way to spend taxpayers' money. There is no reason it should not be done in places where people are likely to be frequently brought into custody. I favour it and look forward to the results of the two pilot schemes in Dublin and to a reasoned debate as to whether in-cell surveillance is a good or bad idea.

There are issues of privacy and confidentiality for people going to Garda stations as informants or to make complaints about others who may be worried about CCTV and their discovery through the legal process. We may have to look around a few corners in respect of many issues. It is easy for me to say it is a good idea in principle, but some issues of concern need to be examined as well. We need to consider who visits Garda stations and why they do so. We have to protect the confidentiality of any information that is captured on CCTV. Many people go to Garda stations in diverse circumstances. People who are having problems with their relatives who are psychiatrically ill, for example, or battered wives may require the assistance of the Garda. I do not want to do anything that would have a chilling effect on the relationship between the Garda and the public. I want to be conscious of all the implications of this proposal and to be fair to everybody involved. I have no difficulty, as a general rule, with the Deputy's argument that a video record should be kept of activities in the vicinity of places like banks, which I strongly support.

See this speech in context