Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. General data protection regulation, GDPR, often gets a bad rep but Europe should be rightly proud of the fact that we place a great emphasis on data protection and data privacy. I do not think anybody intended when GDPR was being designed that we would have seen a case like the Dwyer case where, essentially, the data privacy protection regimes would be used in the circumstances that happened. I have no doubt we will face many debates around the issues of data, data retention and how we use our data over the years ahead.

What we certainly do not want to see is a move towards a Chinese-type society which is, effectively, a surveillance society or, indeed, a US-type arrangement where the Government can access all of our data for particular reasons. Questions have to be asked, however. I would agree with what Senator Mullen said earlier around whether this was the intention of GDPR at a European level. Questions need to be asked about whether the various EU data privacy regulations need to be reviewed so that in circumstances like this concerning serious crime, national agencies are not inhibited in any way from investigating what happens.

I am conscious that this is a temporary piece of emergency legislation. I have some sympathy with Senator Ruane's view about a sunset clause on this. I agree with Senator Ward that it is important we have a comprehensive piece of legislation to address these questions to ensure we get the necessary limitations and proportionality in which everyone can have confidence. As Senator Ward said, it will require an ongoing monitoring of the retention and use of data that is gathered. There must be some concerns around getting that balance right, however. I would certainly have concerns around, for instance, the Department of Justice's approach to facial recognition technology and the recent public call that went out. It does not seem to be in line with the Government's artificial intelligence, AI, strategy, which very much puts human rights and an ethical framework at the basis of AI. I would, therefore, have certain concerns.

We also need to review the office of the Data Protection Commissioner, which the commissioner herself said is necessary. It is certainly my strong view that we should have three commissioners making some of the key decisions. I appreciate that these points are not perhaps directly related to the legislation but it speaks to the data protection and data privacy regime in which we need to operate.

What citizens need is an assurance that they will not be constantly monitored or subject to surveillance while at the same time have confidence that there will be the necessary investigation where a serious crime is committed. It is best to say that I am reluctantly supporting this legislation on the basis that emergency legislation is required, but a more comprehensive debate around data protection and data privacy is necessary.