Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

This is indeed an important issue. It is presented as a technical one but one that has significant implications for law enforcement, the ongoing battle against crime, particularly serious crime and terrorism, and international criminal cartels. We have to give our State the capacity to co-operate with other member states and jurisdictions across the globe to ensure the law enforcement side of the battle is as capable of using technology as the criminals.

This is my first opportunity to pay tribute to An Garda Síochána for the spectacular success of last week. The efforts made by the Garda in persuading international law enforcement agencies, especially the United States Department of Justice and the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, to take decisive cross-national action against the Kinahan criminal organisation. This is an extremely important success that underscores the Garda's persistence and dedication to the task.

Before us for approval is a new regulation for updating the existing code of practice, adding to DNA, fingerprint, palm print and vehicle registration data capacity facial recognition and police record data. Only facial images of suspected or convicted criminals could be exchanged. The Minister of State has underscored that today. It is really important. In jurisdictions such as China, there is mass surveillance of populations with artificial intelligence. People can be identified in crowds. People who say discordant things from the administration's perspective can have their movement curtailed. Therefore, the sorts of issues we are dealing with have to have a clear, spelled-out legal underpinning that safeguards the rights and privacy of individual citizens. It must be enforceable.

We need to have independent oversight of all this. I am not sure where the independent oversight is dealt with. The Minister of State might indicate that to us in his reply. With regard to old-fashioned technology for what used to be called phone tapping, there is legally required judicial oversight. That sort of oversight should be available regarding data exchange in the way envisaged in this case. Clearly, there is a need to provide the technology in question to our law enforcers. The battle against crime knows no boundaries and we need to approach it on that basis. We also need to ensure we know to whom we are giving data and with whom we are exchanging it. Some of the issues arising regarding the rule of law, even in some EU member states, cause us concern. We need to ensure what we do is always overseen independently and protected. The hallmark of a democratic and free society must be the protection of individual citizens' privacy. Law enforcement should be clear and open and subject to independent review and oversight.

I note in the opening sentence of the contribution of the Minister of State he cited Protocol No. 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland. At the time of that protocol, the United Kingdom was part of the European Union. I presume it is still necessary to cite that because it is the existing protocol. He might indicate the situation now regarding the new updated Prüm II regulation and the position in regard to the United Kingdom in terms of whether it is fully embracing this and will continue to share the new data on facial imaging and criminal records or is not participating in the ongoing development of co-operation on law enforcement these regulations underpin.

See this speech in context