Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I listened to what the Minister said about the Bill. It is understandable that there is some extra impetus behind it, given some of the recent assaults we have seen on rank and file gardaí. At the same time, doing so in a hurry creates a risk. The Minister's comments that everybody is entitled to go about their business without interference, and that everything should be proportionate, are interesting.

Whenever I think of new legislation, I think of two cases from my previous work history. The first is when I was called to Store Street Garda station in the aftermath of the introduction of the drug trafficking offences legislation, which was supposed to target the large-scale criminals, the drug lords. The first person I was called to see was a young woman who was living in the Regina Coeli hostel in Dublin 7. Somebody had told the Garda that she had a small amount of drugs in her locker in the hostel. She had a young child in the hostel with her. When I arrived, she asked if it was true that she could be held there for seven days. There was also an implication that her custody of her child would be in danger as a result. Clearly, that is not what the legislation was intended for, but it was what happened on the ground.

I also think of a second person, especially in light of the automatic numberplate recognition that is coming in. It is being introduced to tackle criminals, but as the Minister says himself, everyone is entitled to go about their business without interference. An 18-year old young man from north Kerry came into my office who was attending one of the colleges in Tralee. He was stopped on Racecourse Road coming away from the college. He was pulled over by the Garda. I would say this young fellow had not even had a parking fine in his life, but he was stopped and asked a number of questions about drugs, if he had access to drugs, who he knew and if he could give information. I knew that he had no truck with criminality and when we dug deep into it, it turned out that one of the previous owners of his car had a history of drugs and the numberplate technology that came up in the Garda car identified the car as having been at one stage involved in drugs. He came into my office rather shaken over the whole experience, but while this type of legislation is again targeted at the big criminals, there is a danger that the young 18-year old man or the single mother in the Regina Coeli hostel are the ones that, broadly, could be targeted and upset and who could have their daily business interfered with by overreaching legislation.

Notwithstanding the recent assaults - I understand the impetus - it is important to understand where and how these devices are used. We are somewhat hamstrung today, as the Minister in fairness mentioned, that some of the facial recognition technology has not been introduced and will be included on Committee Stage. It is difficult to have much of a debate about it because we do not know what is coming in. I note that the Garda Commissioner, as the Minister mentioned, recently gave an interview saying it was the intention to use facial recognition technology with the bodycams. One could ask if that is proportionate. We can tease that out later, on Committee Stage in particular. It would be important to put in place a pilot scheme in one or two areas before we rush into all of this to look at the effectiveness of this new technology before it is introduced.

On the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny, when we discussed the Bill last year, I raised concerns then about the wide discretion of the Bill for the use of such devices. The general scheme allowed for the use of the devices so long as it was "necessary and proportionate" for the securing of public safety and the carrying out of the Garda duties. The revised Bill improves on this somewhat, as it has more specific grounds for the use of the devices such as executing a court order or warrant, or recording damage to a property.

I also expressed concerns on the definition of an "arrestable offence". In all of the other legislation, where somebody is to be arrested under section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984, an arrestable offence is defined as something which can carry a prison sentence of up to five years, but that covers nearly everything. If a person steals a Mars bar from a shop and the person is prosecuted by his or her choice or by the judge, on indictment, that falls under the Act. Is that necessary or proportionate? There should be some safeguards in that regard. Recording devices should not be used unless it is for one of the specific purposes. Perhaps an even more detailed set of circumstances could be set out before the legislation is enacted.

Another concern expressed in the justice committee at the time was related to the code of practice. It was unclear at the time when it was to be available and if the Dáil would have any role in scrutinising it. The phrase "code of practice" appears no less than 35 times in the legislation, which has about the same number of pages, and there is a presumption of lawfulness where any conduct confirms with a code of practice. The rank of garda who can approve a search of automated numberplate recognition data is also to be set out in a code of practice rather than within primary legislation. I can understand the need for flexibility on issues such as the type of recording device used, which I see is subscribed and has to be justified under a code of practice, but in other matters there does need to be more certainty. An easy solution would be to strengthen section 43 and give the Policing Authority more than just a consultative role in drafting these codes of practice.

The provisions on data are fairly focused on removing legal obstacles for the smooth functioning of the system and address concerns about the storage of data and how these can be accessed by persons who encounter the Garda. Some independent and verifiable records of when devices are used and when a defendant can expect to access data, such as before trial or on foot of proceedings, are crucial. Footage can obviously be prejudicial to defendants, for good and ill. The equality of the legal arms of the State will be placed out of balance if the Garda has access to footage without any right for a defendant to view it. It is important to keep that in mind.

I am pleased the Bill addresses the use of CCTV by local authorities. That is a good thing. For a long time, particularly since local authorities abdicated their former responsibility to collect waste, there has been an explosion of illegal dumping, especially in rural areas. Many people either cannot or will not subscribe to a private operator that demands that €30 is kept in their accounts and where there is a monthly fee of €14 or €15, whether people access the service or not. In a cost-of-living crisis, when money is tight, people will choose not to subscribe. They either go to the effort of bringing their rubbish to private operators or engage in illegal dumping. The amount of dumping can be seen along the sides of roads now that, by and large, is composed of plastic bottles. Something has to be done about removing plastic bottles. Domestic rubbish is also thrown by the side of the road. For a long time, local authorities decided they could not use CCTV to deal with this issue because of data protection issues but it would not be hard to do if they appointed data protection officers to be responsible for data storage. However, there was significant reluctance to do that. That is one part of the Bill that I welcome. It is to be hoped that it will tackle the scourge of illegal dumping, which is a particular problem in rural areas.

I look forward to further debate on the Bill. I ask the Government, especially those members of it who sit on the Joint Committee on Justice, to be very wary of the new, over-reaching legislation, especially in respect of number plate technology and facial recognition. Such legislation should be proportionate. Before anything is put in place, pilot schemes should be rolled out to see whether the legislation is necessary and proportionate before there is an erosion of civil liberties relating to it.

See this speech in context