Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

First, I very much welcome that throughout this Second Stage debate, we have had Members from all sides of this House condemn the recent spate of attacks, assaults, or attempts to intimidate members of An Garda Síochána. It is very important this House sends out that message.

The second point I wish to make while introducing this legislation is that it is important, as Minister for Justice, that one listens to everybody. I try to listen to everyone and to different views but it is particularly important that the Minister for Justice listens to and acts upon the feedback of the men and women of An Garda Síochána on the front line. They have asked us to pass this legislation and to provide them with body cameras. I find it extraordinarily ironic that Garda members are often called - we cannot imagine this because we only debate these things in these Chambers - at all sorts of hours in the day and night to a whole variety of events, be they protests or other things, where the only person not with the camera in his or her hand is the garda. That is ironic, inappropriate, outdated and neither I nor this Government nor, I hope, these Houses of the Oireachtas, will stand over a scenario where we do not provide Garda members with basic modern technology to do their jobs and to keep themselves safe so that when they go out the door in the morning, whosoever they leave behind in the house knows that the Government and the Garda have provided them with the tools to keep them safe and to keep people safe. That is fundamentally what we are trying to do here.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan put it very well - I wrote it down - when he said that we cannot ignore the consequences of technology and it is better to keep up with it. That is entirely right. The idea that we would continue to ask An Garda Síochána to police in the 21st century but fail to provide them with access to the resources, tools and technology of the 21st century seems to me to be inefficient, ineffective and somewhat foolhardy.

There have been changes and there are many legitimate questions which have been raised by people and some of these questions are ones which perhaps may been raised when the likes of DNA was introduced. These are big changes, they raise questions, but they are not changes that An Garda Síochána cannot respond to and that we cannot legislate for with appropriate oversight structures to be put in place.

It is of vital importance that members of the Garda have the tools they need to combat crime and to protect the public and it is equally important that there are tools and sufficient safeguards around the use of such devices.

I would like to address a number of the points raised by Deputies in the course of this Second Stage debate.

First, turning to an issue that a number of Deputies touched upon quite rightly, namely, the issue of security in data storage and access. I wholeheartedly agree with Deputies who alluded to the utmost importance that all data gathered be stored securely and that access to it be carefully regulated. Any improper access or dissemination would be subject to existing offences which, of course, also means that it is subject to the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, in deciding to prosecute.

Garda members and members of the civilian staff will be subject to serious disciplinary repercussions should it be found that they have improperly accessed or disseminated any data gathered.

A number of Deputies also pointed out the importance of safeguards and oversight. Garda use of either automatic number plate recognition, ANPR, or of CCTV is subject to a robust internal approval procedure that ensures any casual or inappropriate use of these tools will not be possible. More than this, if their use is beyond a defined time period, judicial authorisation will be required. This approval procedure is a key safeguard in this legislation.

Another key point is that there is independent oversight, through section 45, which provides for judicial overview and regular reporting to the Taoiseach on ANPR and the processing of third-party CCTV.

Perhaps the most important agent for safeguarding oversight in this legislation is the codes of practice, which will outline requirements on storage, access, retention, deletion, and data subject rights. As Deputies will appreciate, detailed procedures for the day-to-day operation of recording devices simply cannot be included in primary legislation. These codes represent an important counterbalance to An Garda Síochána's use of these tools.

In drafting these codes the Garda Commissioner will be required by section 43(3) to consult crucially important bodies but the consultation will not stop there. Any interested organisations, NGOs, or private individuals can make representations for consideration by the Commissioner. I have heard call in respect of the role of public consultation, the role of the Oireachtas, and I believe that we can, will and should tease that through on Committee Stage.

The Garda Commissioner will be further required to carry out impact assessments, on human rights and on data protection as part of the process.

Turning to a number of issues raised in the context of body-worn cameras, Deputy Catherine Murphy asked about the ability of individual gardaí to turn on and off their body-worn cameras. Gardaí will have this ability as it is appropriate that Garda members should only turn on a body-worn camera where they are dealing with a specific incident, and in accordance with any provisions as will be set out in the relevant code of practice. If a member of Garda personnel turns off their body-worn camera in an instance where they should not, then they will have to justify their decision to turn that camera off.

There is a danger that if a camera is always turned on, that there would be serious privacy implications for people who happen to be near a member of Garda personnel with a camera. The code of practice will set out when it would be inappropriate to record in line with international best practice.

Deputy Daly raised a point on the need for a pilot scheme to trial body-worn cameras. I take the Deputy's point on this issue and I understand that it is the intention of An Garda Síochána to do such a pilot. We need to legislate for it but the Commissioners has made it very clear that once we legislate for the use, it is his intention to put a pilot in place before the broader roll-out.

On a final point on body-worn cameras and to address an issue raised by Deputy Connolly, who stated that she was cynical as to the potential assistance that body-worn cameras could provide when a garda attends a domestic incident, I would point the Deputy to the submission by Women's Aid to the Commission of the Future of Policing in Ireland. I would also say that in my experience in speaking to front-line gardaí, this is a tool that is seen as a huge addition in the very particular circumstances surrounding domestic violence, where the moments in which one first arrives at the scene can be crucial in gathering evidence that can be very important later on.

Moving to address issues raised with regard to facial recognition technology, as I said in my opening speech, I believe very strongly that any inclusion of such amendments would be an important aid to victims in furthering investigations as quickly as possible. However, I should reiterate that this is a matter on which the Government has not yet finalised its position. As I said in my opening speech, there are many legitimate concerns as to the use of this technology and these concerns require careful consideration. I am continuing to engage with colleagues and I hope to be in a position to provide an update to Government, and subsequently to this House, once this work has been completed. It is important that in finalising our approach, we listen to the views of the Garda Commissioner as well on this important matter.

I will to deal with a number of specific issues which were raised, including the effectiveness of this technology and the manner in which it has been omitted from the Bill here on Second Stage. Some Deputies expressed concern in regard to effectiveness. The National Institute of Standards and Technology in the United States is seen as the gold standard in testing the accuracy of facial recognition algorithms. In a recent report, which included a study of 127 different algorithms, the most accurate ones were found to fail only in about one quarter of 1% of searches. Bearing in mind that the same study utilised 26 million images of 12 million individuals; it must be recognised that the accuracy of the most advanced technology is impressive.

The results point towards the best machine performing in the same range as the very best professional facial examiners. This is the calibre of algorithm that An Garda Síochána would utilise. Notwithstanding the accuracy of this algorithm, there is the added safeguard that this technology would only be used in conjunction with the oversight of at least two highly trained individuals who would be identifiable throughout the process and would remain accountable for any decisions taken. This combination of FRT allied with all decisions being made by people, not machines, who will be held to account for these decisions represents international best practice and the way in which I intend to proceed.

I will point to the retrospective use of FRT as a particularly strong example of where this technology can make a crucial contribution. Such retrospective use has led to many success stories in respect of child sex abuse and human trafficking. By reason of the sheer volume of the images in such an investigation, FRT can be essential when trying to examine what can be upwards of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of records. This can speed up an investigation and save Garda time in having to manually trawl through databases of the most harrowing images.

With regard to FRT's omission from the Bill, which is an issue that came up on many occasions, and its earlier omission from the general scheme, the answer is quite simple. The Bill was initially designed to focus on recording and accessing images. A much clearer provision was needed on processing and facial recognition was thus explored, including the extent to which it could be used. Extensive legal advice was received from the Attorney General's office and was carefully considered. It was concluded that further research would be required to understand the precise-use cases where there could be a need for this and to examine best international practice. I am sure the Ceann Comhairle will agree that it is entirely within my right, or that of the Minister, Deputy McEntee, or any Member of this House, to bring forward an amendment to legislation on Committee Stage. It is far from some charged language about an abuse of the legislative process. Last time I checked, that is the legislative process. It is open to any Member of this House to seek to amend legislation on any Stage. Just because somebody becomes a Minister, he or she does not forgo that right.

On EU legislation and the likes, any inclusion of FRT as an addition to this Bill on Committee Stage would not represent this State becoming an outlier to the direction of travel on this issue in Europe. In fact, the current position is one in which we are an outlier.

There are, however, serious and deeply held views regarding this legislation, which should be carefully considered. The Government will engage and reach a position on this. I will then update the House and share such information with the House in advance of Committee Stage. The Bill is an important step forward in providing gardaí with basic, modern equipment to keep them and the public safe. I commend Second Stage of this Bill to the House.

See this speech in context