2026-07-08

This is a minor technical amendment to change paragraph (c) of the definition of the "biometric analysis" in section 43A to add the word "including". The definition of biometric analysis is intended to afford An Garda Síochána the ability to utilise automated recognition and categorisation of physical, physiological or behavioural human features of known and unknown persons for the purposes listed in the Bill. An added functionality of paragraph (c) is its use in locating a missing person. The addition of the word "including" is intended to make it clear that this is an additional purpose rather than the sole purpose of paragraph (c).

Seanad amendments Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together. Deputy Sheehan will move an amendment to Seanad amendment No. 2 on behalf of Deputy Alan Kelly.

I move amendment No. 1 to Seanad amendment No. 2: To delete paragraph (d), and substitute the following: "(d) without prejudice to section 43B(b), cooperation with one or more other law enforcement agencies in relation to the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences, being cooperation that is carried out— (i) pursuant to the Europol Act 2012, or (ii) pursuant to an international agreement or arrangement designated by the Minister by order for the purposes of this paragraph.". This Bill allows gardaí to use AI technology to compare biometric data, that is, facial images, across pieces of evidence they have already gathered in the course of an investigation. It does not allow for the use of live facial recognition technology or the scanning of data against a database. We are not opposed to the Bill on the basis of this limited scope but we are opposed to further expansion of biometric data usage beyond this identity governance, IG, such as a national database or live facial recognition, which the Minister has previously said will be introduced via further legislation. The Government introduced amendment No. 2 on Report Stage in the Seanad, which allows gardaí to carry out biometric analysis for the purposes of co-operation with law enforcement agencies abroad in relation to criminal offences. We believe this to be a significant broadening of the original scope of the Bill, introduced at the last minute in the legislative process. It is very broadly drafted, with seemingly no guard-rails on how this will work. Our amendment simply seeks to put some legislative guard-rails on a provision that was introduced at the last possible minute. While we in the Labour Party have been clear that we are not opposed to the Bill, which is to give An Garda Síochána the ability to use emerging technologies to do its job of investigating crime, we have also seen that the use of biometric technology carries real risk and we must guard against scope creep. We have been clear, for example, in opposing any further moves to legislate for the use of live facial recognition technology or the development of a national facial or biometric database. The Government's amendment No. 2 is an example of that scope creep. The amendment is to address this significant expansion that was never debated in this House. It was introduced at the last minute on Report Stage in the Seanad. When the Bill passed in the Dáil it confined the permitted purposes of biometric analysis to three, namely, the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of arrestable offences; the protection of the security of the State; and the search for missing persons. All three are tightly defined. The use cases in section 43C(6) are keyed to them but the Government's amendment No. 2 adds a fourth principal purpose of "cooperation with one or more other law enforcement agencies in relation to the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences." This is materially broader in an important respect because it allows for biometric data to be used for the purpose of co-operation with external agencies rather than by reference to any domestic investigative process, which means the trigger for use of the technology is partly outside the control of the Irish law. The scope is broad, extending to any police force or authority anywhere outside the State responsible for prevention or prosecution of criminal offences. There seem to be no legislative guardrails on who can make such a request, how it will be assessed and decided on, and for what purpose. That poses obvious risks. Will circumstances arise in which gardaí are expected to perform biometric analysis on behalf of a foreign police force investigating a crime in its country that would not be subject to criminal investigation in Ireland? Will gardaí be expected to handle biometric evidence that has been gathered by live facial recognition abroad? I will elaborate further when the Minister of State responds.

We will be supporting this amendment to the Seanad amendment. As I stated on earlier Stages, Sinn Féin supports the use of biometric recognition technology for serious crime investigations, national security purposes and missing persons cases. However, we have also made it clear at every stage that the use of biometric technology has to be accompanied by strong safeguards to prevent discrimination, excessive surveillance, the misuse of personal data and inadequate oversight. We brought forward amendments in that vein throughout the passage of this legislation. We made it clear, although I do not think that it has been received clearly, that lessons have to be learned from previous mistakes, in particular, the misuses of the PULSE system that we are aware of. Considering that the implications of biometric surveillance technologies could go much further in terms of scope, it is disappointing that the Minister did not accept amendments during the passage of this legislation. They would have put in place strong authorisation mechanisms, particularly the need for approval at chief superintendent level before the technology can be deployed. It is also unfortunate that the Minister did not accept amendments that propose prohibiting the use of surveillance technology supplied by states that could be engaged in war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity. The Minister of State will already be aware that concerns have already been raised regarding the use by An Garda Síochána of surveillance and cyber investigation technologies from Israeli companies. For example, some of these companies have direct links with the Israeli military and intelligence bodies that have been involved in war crimes and genocide. We wanted to include in the legislation a provision that would ensure alternative suppliers would be sought where equipment originates from states that are involved in war crimes or genocide. What is striking and surprising is that the Minister for justice did not accept a provision that is already in place in the Defence Forces. The Government has already prohibited future purchases of military equipment from states like Israel, so it is hard to understand why a similar approach would not apply to surveillance and investigative technologies used by An Garda Síochána, considering how sensitive this technology could be. It is also important to note in the context of this amendment that the Bill is being considered against the backdrop of serious recruitment and retention problems in An Garda Síochána. Insufficient action has been taken to increase Garda numbers to the level that we need. The Government has not taken the type of innovative recruitment measures that we have set out and which are desperately needed. We see at all levels of An Garda Síochána that there is a serious dearth of the numbers required. We see it in community policing and we will see it in cyber-policing, other specialist activities and in general. I got a response from the Minister last week in respect of the Garda National Immigration Bureau, which showed that the numbers within that section have dropped over the past couple of years. They are at the same levels as they were in 2016, despite much larger immigration numbers, a significant and substantial number of unenforced deportation orders and rhetoric from the Government that a new framework is in place which will ensure we have an adequately managed migration system. The Minister needs to give us clear updates. We are passing legislation in this House, but that is only first step. If we do not have gardaí across all the specialist areas, including within community policing and cybercrime, then the legislation counts for very little. We are also seeing the impact of the additional policing pressures as a result of Ireland's Presidency of the Council of the EU. As a number of colleagues in the House have said, gardaí have been moved from communities and local Garda stations to other locations. This is concerning for communities that often deal with crime and antisocial behaviour. The Minister of State, Deputy Ardagh, will be aware of communities that cannot afford to lose gardaí for any substantial period of time. I reiterate that we support the legislation in principle and we will support its passage. We will ensure that there is monitoring of its implementation, but the spirit the Minister of State has seen from the Opposition, in terms of facilitating the Government with this legislation, has not been matched by a real engagement in dealing with the amendments that we have put forward. As I said at every stage, we brought forward amendments that were about strengthening authorisation and monitoring, as well as ensuring that we are protected as a State. In all instances, I made it clear to the Minister that if there was an issue with wording, we would be satisfied if he wanted to bring forward amendments of his own. However, as has become the habit of this Minister in this Government, concerns have been dismissed. Unfortunately, I think we will reach a point in time, probably in the not-too-distant future, where either the current cohort of Ministers in the Department or a future cohort will be forced to bring forward amending legislation. That could have been avoided if the spirit and approach of partnership had been taken by the Minister and the Department.

I thank Deputy Carthy for his support for this legislation. I also note the other issues he raised in relation to wider criminal justice and Garda issues. However, I will go back to discussing Deputy Kelly's amendment, tabled by Deputy Sheehan. The amendment made in the Seanad to section 43C(2) is to allow, where necessary and appropriate, An Garda Síochána, in the context of international co-operation, to utilise biometric analysis, subject to a code of practice. The code of practice must be laid before both Houses for positive resolutions to be passed. The relevant EU or domestic measure, international agreement or circumstances for use of biometric analysis will aid gardaí in determining whether its use is necessary and proportionate to the criminal offence for which it is proposed to be carried out. It will not be utilised for every criminal offence, and An Garda Síochána will be best placed to determine whether it is proportionate to utilise in the context of the specific offence they have been asked for assistance with. The use of biometric analysis will be subject to a code of practice, which is required to be laid before both Houses for positive resolutions to be passed. There will also be annual oversight by an independent member of the Judiciary, who will report to the Taoiseach annually on its operation. That report will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The key point is that it may be used, not that it will be used for all international co-operation that An Garda Síochána engage in. A lot of investigations into child sexual abuse material may be referred from international partners, and it is imperative that gardaí have all the tools they require at their disposal to co-operate internationally in this field. Missing persons investigations may not always be confined to one state and the same applies to victims of crimes such as trafficking. Cross-border co-operation is imperative in these types of investigations as well. All requests from Europol and Interpol are channelled through the respective units within An Garda Síochána. There must be a clear justification for any requests from Europol or Interpol, and it must fall within the mandate of those organisations. International partners, such as other member states' police forces, operate within their own national laws and EU laws when sharing information. I, therefore, cannot accept the proposed amendment.

I thank the Minister of State for her response and welcome her to her new job. This is our first exchange on these issues. We are not instinctively opposed in totality to what the Government is trying to do here. We support the spirit of what it is trying to do. The issue that we have is as follows. The Seanad wording refers to criminal offences generally but it does not refer in a defined and narrower way to "arrestable offences", which is the term used elsewhere in the Bill. When the Minister of State referred in her reply to, for example, child sex offences, I understand the rationale for that and I understand where the Minister of State is coming from. However, we want to make sure there are sufficient guardrails in this legislation to ensure it applies to arrestable serious offences. As drafted, it could permit a Garda biometric analysis to be carried out in aid of co-operation with any domestic or foreign law enforcement body for any criminal offence without that co-operation being tied to a specific or defined treaty, agreement or statutory framework. What concerns me is the lack of definition in what the Government is proposing. Our amendment would limit the use of this provision to co-operation through Europol, or at least through an international agreement designated by the Minister. We believe these are common-sense guardrails to protect the independence of our policing. It is disappointing that, as Deputy Carthy noted, we have not had the chance to properly scrutinise this measure in the Oireachtas, because it is a significant expansion of the Bill's original drafting. I had hoped the Minister of State would accept the amendment. We brought it forward in good faith to make sure the legislation is not left too open to function properly. I am concerned that we have a scenario where a police force, maybe in Europe or further afield, could potentially use live FRT at a protest or civil disturbance, and would then request that gardaí scan those images against their own files. The Minister of State said that a code of practice has to be laid before and agreed by both Houses. I would welcome it if she would clarify whether, under the legislation, as amended, it is possible for a police force to use live FRT at a protest and then request that gardaí scan those images against their files.

Live FRT will be dealt with in separate legislation. I believe we have sufficient guardrails in place in this legislation. The amendments from the Seanad pull international co-operation into the purposes for which biometric analysis may be utilised. This means that where gardaí wish to utilise biometric analysis in the context of international co-operation, the safeguards in the Bill will apply, including the use of tests that are necessary and proportionate, and that there must be human oversight. A written list of use must be kept, and there is also oversight by a High Court judge, among others. It has been stressed repeatedly throughout the passage of this Bill that it is of the utmost importance that there can be effective international co-operation, and the Bill does not impede such co-operation. This is particularly in the case of child sexual abuse material investigations. An Garda Síochána regularly engages with its counterparts in other EU states and with international organisations, such as Interpol and Europol, in the fight against what are absolutely heinous crimes, as I think we can all agree. We can also see how important co-operation among law enforcement agencies is when we look at the recent arrest of a man, who is wanted in Germany for child kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage taking, as part of an international operation targeting human trafficking. As I said, there must be a clear justification for any requests coming to An Garda Síochána. Equally, as with the use of biometric analysis, there must be a clear justification for its use in any investigation for any of the purposes listed in section 43C. I do not have anything further to add at this stage.

The agreement to the Seanad amendments is reported to the House and a message will be sent to Seanad Éireann acquainting it accordingly.