Brendan Ryan (Labour)

I am rendered speechless by Senator Walsh. We do not need them as Montenotte is very pleasant and quiet. I sound like I am trying to sell my house. I am not but it is a pleasant and quiet area. We have no problems to shout about.

I do not know whether permission is still needed from the Garda Commissioner to put double yellow lines on a street. We got away from that and let local authorities make these decisions. The first proposal to pedestrianise a street in Cork was approved by the city council and disapproved by the Garda Commissioner. It would not have transpired but for the discovery by the ingenious city manager that he possessed the unqualified power to close the street for repairs. He therefore closed it permanently for repair, repaired it and left it in that state until sense prevailed. I wonder about the Garda Commissioner deciding on that level of detail. I do so in a constructive manner. I am not trying to be awkward or to delay the Minister on the matter. I am concerned over that type of centralisation.

I am also concerned over the wording of subsection (1), which refers to the operation of CCTV for the "sole or primary purpose". I have no problems with the sole purpose but if it is accepted that the primary purpose is the commendable one, what are the secondary purposes? Otherwise, why is "primary" needed? The implication is that the primary purpose is to perform the tasks we all desire. The secondary may be established by the local community. What need exists for the term "primary purpose"? CCTV, as established under this section, should be about the sole purpose. I do not understand the ambiguity in terms of primary purpose and would be interested in an explanation on that.

Some other matters crossed my mind. A clause must exist somewhere in the Bill which states that, if the Minister issues guidelines, the Garda Commissioner must implement them rather than receive them as guidelines. Guidelines exist for An Bord Pleanála under which, we are told, they are not obliged to operate. They must have regard to the guidelines. I assume that the Garda Commissioner must act if he receives guidelines, in which case we might as well call them instructions and be done with it. I am interested in this.

I would like to ask the Minister questions on a number of other issues. Is the destruction of these records covered in this section? I may have missed it as it is a long section. I read it two or three times. The capacity to store audio-visual data is constantly improving. The amount of space required to store thousands of gigabytes of data in any medium is probably 1% of what it was. We should not allow this type of material to be stored indefinitely by default because not only is it inherently bad, but the Internet is awash with vast quantities of material described as recorded by various forms of closed circuit television. If we keep this information indefinitely it could turn up for sale in California. It may be of a voyeuristic nature, as people do strange things in public places, not all of which are illegal but they might well be embarrassing. An issue surrounds the retention of this material and a good case can be made for provision, at least in the guidelines for the Garda Commissioner, for securing and destroying this material as it ceases to be relevant.

I would like reassurance from the Minister on a point raised by Senator Jim Walsh. I assumed if CCTV was used in private firms it would automatically be available as evidence. Is it explicit in law that it must be available? If fraud is suspected in a bank and the bank has a CCTV system is the Garda investigation into a crime in that bank entitled as a matter of course to have access to that CCTV system? One would be entitled to have access to paper records to investigate a fraud. It seems extraordinary if we have not clarified that matter at this stage.

I am sceptical about the definition of CCTV. The legislation refers to a fixed and permanent system. A certain mobile phone operator has had great fun with the planning laws by putting up what it always describes as temporary structures, which therefore were not covered by legislation. I do not know why it is necessary to put reference to a fixed and permanent system in the legislation. It leaves room for people to play with the issue.

In general I am never reluctant to argue with this Minister but I am often reluctant to argue with him on matters exclusively to do with law. The definition of a public place includes areas where the public have or are permitted access whether as of right or by express or implied permission. I know it is meant to include sporting events but it seems more broad than is necessary.