Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

We might come to them later. They relate the same issue and, therefore, that is why I have commented on them. They relate to the question of what the regulations might be. With respect to the Minister, I am also conscious that there will be different Ministers in the future who will produce regulations. There is always a pressure towards greater and greater surveillance within our public spaces. We have seen the consequences of that, as I said, in many parts of the world. We do not actually have to look to China, which used to be our example of the policing of all kinds of behaviour in public and the tracking of persons in public.We need to just look to the UK and some of the repressive laws applied there in recent times in respect of the right to protest. It is a deeply concerning application of laws.

I have concerns around how data gathering devices in their broadest sense may still be applied in respect of the public in our country. The provisions are still too wide and unclear. If we look to GDPR and that idea of “necessary and proportionate”, I am not confident that the necessity and proportionality test, which will need to be applied to the data, is being applied in the decisions to activate these broad-sweep data gathering devices in the public realm. It is not just around each individual use of it but rather if we are looking at wholesale gathering over long periods, I am not confident the right balance has been struck. I recognise the regulations may go some way but if I am looking to the primary legislation and its potential abuse, I still see huge scope for that as well as potential inadvertent risk that is not being avoided. I do want to be a situation where we are talking about how data gathered relating to the Irish public has been used and we are investigating the inappropriate use of inappropriate devices in the future. It does not serve anybody.

I note a related argument that we have encountered around a push for surveillance technologies in the past regarding illegal dumping – something we all want stopped. It is interesting that the push has often been on the use of surveillance technologies in a broad sense to prevent illegal dumping but, as we heard recently in a briefing on public waste disposal, countries that have public as opposed to private waste disposal and there is 100% access to waste disposal and services, for example, versus the partial access that Ireland has, do not have the same problems with illegal dumping. Often the solution of full surveillance that is pushed is not actually the relevant solution. The solution that other countries have found to prevent illegal dumping is the provision of public waste services to everyone at no cost. That may well prove to be a most cost-effective solution rather than blanket surveillance. I worry that we move to a heavily surveillance- and policing-based response rather than examining more effective solutions we might have.

In respect of amendments Nos. 30 and 36, I acknowledge that at least there is a guarantee that there will be regulations of some kind. However, the language in this, as primary legislation, is still too broad, which is why I have to press amendment No. 11.