Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 14, line 24, to delete “or”.

Part 3 makes provisions for An Garda to covertly track certain vehicles using automatic number plate recognition, ANPR. This is an intrusive surveillance measure, although I understand it is justified in certain circumstances. The Bill, as drafted, would allow gardaí of the rank of superintendent or higher to approve ANPR surveillance. The amendment proposes that superintendents or their superiors and a District Court judge would have to approve an application for this type of surveillance to be applied. The Court of Justice of the European Union, ECJ, has warned many times that accessing targeted data out of large pools of data, as is proposed in ANPR, must only happen subject to judicial approval. I stress the point that this provision was not included in the general scheme of the Bill and was not subject, therefore, to pre-legislative scrutiny.

Amendments tabled on Committee Stage sought to leave decisions in respect of this type of surveillance entirely to the discretion of the Judiciary but were deemed to make further provisions in this Part unworkable. In response to this, we have reframed the amendment in order that both Garda and District Court approval would be necessary before ANPR surveillance could be undertaken. The Minister advised on Committee Stage that having to go to a District Court judge for every possible arrest offence can be prohibitive and delay gathering evidence but that is not what the amendment aims to achieve.

All we are asking with amendment No. 19 is that the safeguards proposed by the Minister in respect of focused monitoring of an individual using ANPR for a period of greater than three months would also be applied to monitoring of up to three months. This is a necessary safeguard in the context of the use of this invasive practice. I understand and agree with the Minister that we need to be proportionate and not prevent the Garda from being able to take swift action in response to an issue or incident but it is my assertion that the monitoring using ANPR of an individual for a period of two months and 27 days, for example, is not the Garda taking swift action. This is a significantly invasive practice that I hope will only be used in specific situations where the necessity and proportionality of such a step are explicit. The safest way to ensure people's privacy and fundamental rights are honoured within this would be for the District Court to have oversight of the decision to monitor, whether that be for two months and 27 days or three months. Amendment No. 19 was submitted as a consequential amendment to the acceptance of amendment No. 18. They should be considered together for the purposes of this debate.

Like amendments Nos. 18 and 19, amendment No. 21 seeks to ensure the area District Court would have oversight of ANPR surveillance, irrespective of the length of time for which the monitoring is proposed to take place. This amendment would make it the case that ANPR monitoring could not be acted on until authorised by a judge of the District Court. I have already spoken to the need for this safeguard and I will not repeat myself. These amendments ought to be considered together in terms of their shared intent.