Jim O'Callaghan
Dublin Bay South · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“This relates to section 69 of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann, which amends Schedule 5 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to add the Courts Service to the Schedule.”
“The first four amendments in this group are minor drafting corrections. They corrected the wording in four places so that the Bill reads consistently. It is changing the word "references" to "a reference". They make no change to the substance or effect of the Bill.”
“The ARP scheme was introduced in July 2022 to recognise the generosity of members of the public who opened their houses, whether in their entirety or through the provision of a room, at their own expense to provide shelter to people displaced by the Ukraine war. The Department of Social Protection administers the scheme on my behalf.”
“I have no doubt it will be challenged, and I have to be able to convince a court, if it is being challenged, that this legislation weighs up conflicting interests and recognises there is a mechanism for somebody who has reformed himself to get off the register.”
“The scheme has been a lifeline for people from Ukraine displaced by the conflict, given high rental market rates and scarcity of rental accommodation.”
“I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in the first instance for presiding over these Stages of the legislation. I am very pleased that this legislation has been enacted. I want to thank a few people very briefly. I thank Deputy McAuliffe for introducing me to Jason Poole. I thank Senator O'Loughlin for her work on this issue in the Seanad.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,181 lines we hold for Jim O'Callaghan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 16 of 84.
“Section 9 provides for the appointment of the director, while section 10 sets out the circumstances in which a person is not eligible for, or is disqualified from, the office of director. Section 11 is a standard provision, providing that a person cannot simultaneously hold office as both director and as a Member of the Oireachtas or a member of the European Parliament or a local authority. Section 12 provides for the resignation and removal of the director. The appointment of members of staff of the director is provided for in section 13 of the Bill, while section 14 provides for the appointment by the director of a deputy director from a member of staff of the office. Section 15 provides that the director may engage consultants and advisers.”
“However, provision is made in section 9D(1) for the departure from this in future enactments. Naming and establishing this body solely in Irish would adversely affect its messaging and visibility to both competent and central authorities in other EU member states that would not be familiar with the Irish language or the requirements of the 2003 Act. Section 8 also provides that the Schedule to the Bill shall have effect in relation to the director. The Schedule details the provisions applicable to the director, providing that the director will be a corporation sole with perpetual succession and official seal and power to sue and be sued and to acquire, hold and dispose of land, etc.”
“Part 2 of the Bill, comprising sections 8 to 22, inclusive, provides for the establishment of the office of director of criminal justice international co-operation, the appointment of the director and staff, the functions of the director and other related matters. Section 8 provides for the establishment of oifig an stiúrthóra um chomhar idirnáisiúnta ceartais choiriúil or, in the English language, the office of director of criminal justice international co-operation. The holder of this office shall be known as the director of criminal justice international co-operation and is referred to in the Bill as "the Director". As Deputies will be aware, section 9D(1) of the Official Languages Act 2003 provides that the default and mandatory position is that newly established statutory bodies should be named in Irish only.”
“Section 5 is a necessary companion provision to section 4, providing for the revocation of the European Union (Online Dissemination of Terrorist Content) (Designation of the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána as a Competent Authority) Regulations 2025, SI 375/2025. These regulations provide for the designation of the Garda Commissioner as competent authority, which was done on a temporary basis pending the enactment of this Bill. Section 6 provides for the service of notices or other documents under this Bill, including by electronic means. Section 7 is a standard provision relating to regulations and orders to be made under this Bill.”
“Part 1 is comprised of standard provisions concerning the Short Title, commencement and expenses, and the definition of key words and terms used in the Bill. It also addresses matters relating to the designation of the director as the competent authority under Article 12(1)(b) of the terrorist content online regulation. Section 1 of the Bill provides for the Short Title and commencement of the Bill. Section 2 provides for the definition of terms used in the Bill. Section 3 is a standard provision regarding expenses incurred in the administration of the Bill. Section 4 provides for the designation of the director of criminal justice international co-operation as the competent authority for the purposes of Article 12(1)(b) of the terrorist content online regulation.”
“Unfortunately, and notwithstanding the significant efforts made by my officials and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, the transposition deadline for the e-evidence directive of 18 February 2026 could not be met. Transposition of the directive via this Bill is, therefore, imperative for Ireland to achieve. The e-evidence regulation applies from 18 August 2026. The Government intends that this target will be met. The director will also be assigned the role of competent authority for the scrutinising of incoming removal orders under the EU terrorist content online regulation, addressing a separate outstanding legal obligation. I will turn now to providing an outline of the various provisions of the Bill. The Bill is composed of five Parts and a Schedule.”
“The Bill provides that the director will be designated as the central authority under both the e-evidence regulation and directive, and as the enforcement authority under the e-evidence regulation. The director will be responsible for the monitoring and enforcement of compliance by service providers with the e-evidence regulation, as well as their obligations under the e-evidence directive. The director will have the power to impose financial penalties on service providers that are in contravention of their obligations under the e-evidence regulation or directive. The director may also refuse certain production orders on various grounds, including that the execution of the order might violate fundamental rights or where the conduct for which the order has been issued is not an offence in this jurisdiction.”
“The directive requires that member states ensure service providers offering services in the EU designate an addressee to process incoming orders. It also obliges member states to check that service providers adequately resource and empower addressees to respond to production orders. Both the regulation and the directive require that penalty provisions be put in place to address issues of non-compliance as and when they arise. The Bill provides for the establishment of the office of director of criminal justice international co-operation. This office, headed by a director with statutory powers, will serve as the regulatory body for implementation of the EU e-evidence package in Ireland.”
“Implementation will enhance Ireland's reputation as a hub for digital regulation and ensure effective and timely access to digital evidence in tackling serious crime to the benefit of all EU citizens. The EU e-evidence package, which this Bill seeks to implement, is composed of two separate but interdependent legislative instruments: the e-evidence regulation and the e-evidence directive. The regulation, which the Oireachtas agreed to opt in to in 2018, has direct effect, while the directive is an internal market instrument which is binding on Ireland. The regulation imposes an obligation upon service providers to preserve or produce electronic evidence at the request of a judicial authority of another member state, imposing a legal obligation upon them to do so.”
“That package provides a clear, legally certain and efficient process for law enforcement in one member state to directly request electronic evidence from service providers established in another member state, while protecting fundamental rights. Ireland's role is central to implementation of the e-evidence package. It is expected that up to 600 service providers could designate their addressee in the State, and it is estimated that the number of production orders issued to those service providers will be in the hundreds of thousands annually. This has significant implications for Ireland's tech sector and criminal justice system. How we implement this framework matters well beyond our borders.”
“As a result, law enforcement and judicial authorities often experience difficulties in accessing electronic evidence relevant to an investigation, rendering prosecutions ineffective. Increasingly, law enforcement has become reliant on voluntary co-operation with service providers but this method lacks enforcement power, fails to protect fundamental rights and leaves it up to service providers to determine the legitimacy of requests. It is to address these deficiencies that I am introducing the Criminal Justice (International Cooperation on Electronic Evidence and Other Matters) Bill. The Bill delivers on the programme for Government commitment to implement the EU e-evidence package.”
“I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this important Bill before the House. Electronic evidence is now central to almost every criminal investigation. While data flows globally, law enforcement authorities across Europe are often in need of foreign-held evidence for domestic cases, including data held by service providers in this jurisdiction. Electronic data is volatile and can be easily deleted, altered or moved. The emergence of cloud computing, where the exact physical location of data is often dynamic, has brought another set of jurisdictional difficulties for criminal investigations. Existing means of legal co-operation between countries, namely mutual legal assistance, are slow and complex.”
“I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach and the other Senators tor facilitating the conclusion of Committee Stage of the recording devices Bill. It is important legislation. It is about introducing biometric analysis on a retrospective basis in Irish law so that An Garda can have that necessary tool available to ensure it can investigate serious crimes. It is a useful tool for the purpose of investigating serious crimes. I also welcome the distinguished Members of the European Parliament this afternoon.”
“We can already see how involved the process of drafting code of practice is. The requirements for assessments and consultation make it a lengthy and detailed process and would further delay the roll-out of what I believe are the necessary digital tools for An Garda Síochána. I accept that a code may need to be reviewed earlier than five years but there is nothing preventing this from happening in the Bill so for that reason, I cannot accept the proposed amendment.”
“As the code can also set out different provisions in relation to the types of biometric data or circumstances in which it can be carried out, for that reason I cannot accept amendment No. 11. Amendment No. 12 is not necessary. Section 47A sets out what is to be included in the code of practice. This includes the parameters for which it can be carried out. The code of practice for the carrying out of biometric analysis will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas for private and positive resolutions. This means the Houses will have the opportunity to scrutinise the code alongside the provisions required by section 47A so, again, I cannot accept amendment No. 12. Amendment No. 13 proposes to change the initial review period from five years to two years. As I stated previously, setting this at five years aligns with the principal Act.”
“It is important to note that section 89(3) of the Data Protection Act provides that profiling that results in discrimination against an individual on the basis of a special category of personal data shall be prohibited. My response to amendment No. 11 is that there are very many significant prohibitions contained within the Data Protection Acts and it would be unnecessary to replicate them in this legislation. There are also clear limitations on searching already set out in section 43C. That information must be in the context of a specific investigation among other things. As I said, the code of practice provisions already set out what needs to be included in the code and these include provisions related to procedures, confidentiality, security, storage, access, retention and parameters for use.”
“Amendment No. 11 seeks to include prohibitions on mass surveillance and indiscriminate searching utilising biometrics within the Data Protection Acts. As there exists at present a prohibition on mass surveillance and indiscriminate searching under the Data Protection Acts, I do not believe the proposed amendment is necessary. I also think it is probably not good legislative practice to duplicate what is already there in the Data Protection Acts. Section 4 of the principal Act - the recording devices Act - notes that the provisions of the recording devices Act are without prejudice to the provisions of the Data Protection Acts. This will also apply to Part 6A, which has been inserted by section 8 of the Bill.”
“I am not saying that there might not necessarily be a pilot programme but that is a matter for the Garda Commissioner as it is an operational matter and it would be inappropriate to have such a provision in statute.”
“The reason it did not happen is because these are operational matters and it is really a matter for the Garda Commissioner to determine whether a pilot project is appropriate. In many instances, An Garda Síochána will look to its European counterparts during the procurement process as these types of tools are in use in other EU states. There is an awareness of this technology in terms of its use by other police forces, however, it is not being used directly in on-street policing of the public. As I spoke yesterday about biometric analysis, it is an investigative tool that can be used by An Garda Síochána. I cannot accept the amendment.”
“Senator Tully is correct in identifying that when it comes to the roll-out of new technology, sometimes pilot programmes are used. For example, a pilot programme on the use of tasers is ongoing at present in certain sections of An Garda Síochána. Similarly, body cameras are being used on a pilot project basis in Waterford, Limerick and Dublin. The benefit of pilot projects is that they show the efficacy and usefulness of a new type of technology. I am pleased to say that in terms of the impact of the body cameras and indeed use of tasers, the pilot programme confirms the need for and the importance of having them. I would be concerned, however, about including within legislation a specific statutory requirement that the pilot project take place. That did not happen in respect of body cameras or tasers.”
“If it is a particularly egregious and deliberate breach, there is the capacity to refer that to Fiosrú to investigate misconduct by a member of An Garda Síochána, if it is considered serious misconduct. It is not just exclusively an independent, internal process. There is the capacity to be investigated by Fiosrú.”
“If it is an inadvertent breach or if somebody fails to comply with the code to a minor extent, it will be a matter for the superiors of that garda to determine how that should be dealt with. We need to recognise that in all walks of life, politics included, people can make mistakes. There can be inadvertent errors made, and I have done many of them in my life. We have to ensure that the response to that is proportionate to the consequence of the mistake and, indeed, the level of intention behind it. To answer the Senator's question directly, the response to any breach of the code or failure to comply with Part 6A will be in the realm of performance and disciplinary matters or conduct matters, to be given effect by the Commissioner.”
“As I said yesterday, I think it would have been inappropriate to have made it a criminal offence for someone to inadvertently and unintentionally breach the code of practice or the basis, in Part 6A, upon which on the use of recording devices is set out. Notwithstanding that, there will be a code of practice issued. When An Garda Síochána is complying with and performing something in accordance with the code of practice, there will be disciplinary and performance consequences in respect of any failure to do so. The Senator will know that I introduced and signed disciplinary regulations, conduct regulations as they are called, and performance regulations.”
“The Bill is deliberated drafted in broad terms to ensure the search power is technology-neutral and adaptable to a wide range of real-world scenarios. While section 9 governs the powers required to stop and search a person and items in their immediate possession or control, unattended property, luggage or containers found in a public place fall under a separate legal framework regarding the examination of property found in public places. Because of that I cannot accept this amendment. Amendment No. 15 is a result of an amendment not being accepted. The existing wording already allows the exercise of one or both search powers and provides sufficient operational flexibility. As the proposed expansion of search powers is not necessary no change to the language is required so I cannot and will not accept amendments Nos. 14 and 15.”
“We are dealing here with amendment No. 14. It is an amendment that is unnecessary because the power in section 9 already operates in a comprehensive manner across both persons and vehicles and necessarily extends to items in a person's possession or control at the time of a lawful stop and search. Luggage and similar containers encountered in that context are already capable of being searched under the existing stop and search framework depending on whether they are on the person on in a vehicle being searched. The insertion proposed by Senator McDowell risks introducing unnecessary specificity into the provision by enumerating particular items such as luggage and wheeled carriers. There is a risk of equivalent items that are not listed being interpreted as falling outside the scope of the power.”
“I will give it consideration, but my reading of it is that it applies to a public place or any place where a garda is lawfully present.”
“I thank Senator McDowell for raising the issue. My reading of section 8 is that it applies to, obviously, any place where a garda is in a public place or a place where a member of the force is lawfully present. Nonetheless, I will give consideration to what he said and see whether or not it needs to be tightened up. At present, it states; A member who has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person— (a) has committed, or is committing, an offence, or (b) is in possession of a relevant article, may require the person to provide his or her name, address and date of birth ... My reading of that is that it is in a public place or, alternatively, in a place where a garda is lawfully present. The point that Senator McDowell raises is why the alternative locations identified in section 9 and, indeed, section 10 are not included in section 8.”
“These provisions are intended to provide gardaí with clear, modern and operationally effective powers to remove dangerous weapons from public spaces and support the investigation and prevention of serious offences.”
“By requiring that the item is intended for use in committing an offence, the Bill allows gardaí to intervene when cybercrime is suspected to occur, while ensuring that stop-and-search powers are targeted at actual or imminent criminal activity. This approach recognises the realities of modern crime and I cannot support this amendment. Amendment No. 13 deletes section 7(h), which applies to any article, focusing on intent in this context. Some items are legal in general but become criminal only when used in a certain way. For instance, a hammer is legal to own but if someone carries one to assault someone, it obviously becomes a criminal act.”
“This is the same wording utilised in section 7 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act. It is important to note that in the context of the Bill, a syringe is lawful unless it is linked to an unlawful purpose, such as an intent to commit an offence. Its unlawfulness arises from the intention of the person in possession of it, not merely by the item itself, and on this basis, I cannot support this amendment. Amendment No. 12 to section 7 proposes to delete the line "or intended by the person for use". "Intended for use" allows gardaí to act based on reasonable suspicion of future criminal use, not just illegal possession. Some tools are neutral in themselves, such as a computer programme, password list, or encryption key, but can be used for crime.”
“That is what The New York Times stated and I thought it was quite significant when I read that. It is worth people considering that. It is the case, if you look to see what has happened in the United States, that cannabis has a significant impact. It can generate psychosis in young people. I am not prepared to ignore that. Leaving aside that, and I appreciate and acknowledge the consistency of Senator Ruane on this issue, if we are going to have a debate on decriminalisation or legalisation, let us do that in an open way. I do not think a Garda powers Bill is the correct way to do it. Amendment No. 9 proposes the deletion of the reference to "a syringe, or any blood in a container intended by the person concerned unlawfully to cause or to threaten to cause injury to or to intimidate another".”
“If the Senator does not believe me, it is interesting to look at what happened in The New York Times recently. It had an editorial, about six weeks ago, where it stated it was reviewing the policy it had in respect of the legalisation of marijuana. The Senator can look at The New York Times .”
“We only need to look at what has happened in the United States. In the past decade, 20 states in the United States have made the decision to legalise cannabis for recreational use, not for medicinal use, for people over 21. What we have seen is the incidence of adverse health consequences for users skyrocket-----”
“The purpose is to try to protect people from the devastation that is caused to lives through drugs. I was interested to hear what Senator McDowell had to say in respect of the 16-year-old and the 19-year-old, and how it would be impossible to keep the drug away from the 16-year-old if it was decriminalised for anyone over 18 years of age. It is also important to recognise the extent to which, since Senator McDowell was in college, the strength of cannabis has grown. This is of significance, particularly with regard to young men, since what we are talking about with respect to decriminalisation is, to a large extent, cannabis. I cannot ignore the fact that the scientific evidence available states that cannabis use has a very significant detrimental impact on the development of young people and their brains. It is damaging to them.”
“That is an argument that may be had. I do not agree with it but it is an argument that can be considered and discussed. I do not think a decision of that magnitude should be made by the back door by trying to remove a power that the gardaí have at present, which I believe they should continue to have. If we want to discuss decriminalisation of certain drugs, that can be discussed and debated, and legislation can be brought forward, but if we are bringing forward legislation, let us do something that is intended for the purpose of the legislation. This is about Garda powers. I want to give the gardaí statutory powers to stop and search somebody if the garda has a reasonable suspicion that the person is in possession of a controlled drug. The reason I do it is not in any way to try to target certain communities or anything suggested.”
“This enables a member of the Garda to search any person whom he has reasonable cause to suspect is in possession of a controlled drug in breach of the 1977 Act. Controlled drugs remain a central focus of criminal enforcement due to the social health and safety implications. Retaining this subsection allows gardaí to address illegal drug possession, efficiently disrupt distribution networks, and prevent harm to communities. If Senator Ruane's amendment was passed, it would, in effect, mean that there were very limited powers available to An Garda Síochána for the purpose of stopping and searching individuals in order to check if they are in possession of a controlled drug. I heard the arguments that were made. In effect, Senator Ruane is trying to do something she has consistently advocated, which is the decriminalisation of drugs.”
“Items that are stolen or obtained unlawfully are inherently associated with criminal activity and therefore it is appropriate that if gardaí reasonably believe that somebody is in possession of something that was stolen or obtained unlawfully, they should be entitled to stop and search a person in respect of that. For this reason I am opposing amendment No. 6. Similarly, amendment No. 7 proposes to delete the reference to controlled drugs in section 7. Senator Ruane is proposing that we remove paragraph (c) in its entirety. I cannot accept this amendment as this is a restating and reclarification of a power that is already provided for in section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977.”
“Perhaps I will deal with my own ministerial amendments first, which are very brief and they are amendments Nos. 8, 10 and 11. Amendments Nos 8 and 10 are technical drafting amendments to remove the reference to "in a public place" in section 7(e) and 7(f). This is to remove the location requirement as this is already contained in the underlying offence. Amendment No. 11 is a minor drafting amendment to section 7(f) to address a grammatical issue after "container". I will move on to deal with the amendments from Senators Ruane and Black. They are suggesting deletions on amendments to the definition of "relevant article". Amendment No. 6 proposes to delete in section 7(a) "anything stolen or obtained unlawfully".”
“7 seeks to remove paragraph (c), which is the "controlled drug" reference the Senator just spoke about. Amendment No. 9 proposes the removal of all of paragraph (f). Amendment No. 13 is a proposal to remove all of paragraph (h). If all of these amendments were given effect, the definition of "relevant article" that we would probably be left with would be explosive material, firearms and, under paragraph (g), a computer programme. We need to recognise that the power of stop and search that gardaí have arises in respect of much broader alleged offences than those covered by explosives and firearms. I will deal with the amendments individually and, if I can, I will then deal with them in the order in which they have been identified.”
“What the statutory provision allows for is that a member of An Garda Síochána who is in a public place or in another place authorised by law and has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is in possession of a relevant article may, without a warrant, stop and search the person, and it goes into the details of that in paragraphs (i) and (ii). The definition of "relevant article" obviously is central to the functioning of section 9 and the power that is purported to be given to An Garda Síochána. If we look at all of the definitions contained within "relevant article" in section 7 at present we can see it contains eight different definitions of what is included within the term "relevant article". Amendment No. 6 seeks to remove the first definition in section 7, "(a) anything stolen or obtained unlawfully". Amendment No.”
“I thank all Senators for their contributions. At the outset I wish to clarify that what we are talking about here is grouping C of amendments that are on the list in front of us. That is a group of eight amendments comprising Nos. 6 to 13, inclusive. My amendments are Nos. 8, 10 and 11. The other amendments have been tabled by Senators Ruane and Black. At the outset I will indicate what all of these amendments relate to. They all concern section 7, as Senator Ruane has indicated. More specifically, however, they all relate to the definitions contained within it of the term "relevant article". As we are aware, section 9 sets out the power to stop and search for possession of a relevant article.”
“There will be a code of practice that will set out disciplinary codes for the Garda Síochána. If a garda misuses this, there will be consequences for the garda but it does not mean there has to be criminal prosecution always.”
“There is a range of other offences as well that will apply in terms of somebody misusing or deliberately using for other purposes information that was procured from it. That proposal that any breach of the code of practice or if you simply did not follow all the rules in respect of what is set out in Part 6A, that can happen inadvertently. People make mistakes. When people make mistakes, it should not necessarily be the case that they be prosecuted.”
“I thank both Senators for their amendments and contributions. Both in effect wish to make it a criminal offence if a member of An Garda Síochána or Garda personnel does not carry out biometric analysis in accordance with Part 6A or with the code of practice. That would be draconian. There could be many examples where a garda inadvertently fails to follow the code of practice or makes a mistake, as we all do in our professional lives, when it comes to the code of practice. If that happened under the amendments put in here, there would be a prosecution of the garda for the commission of a criminal offence. That is excessive. Section 43E at present provides sufficiently for where prosecutions should take place. In the case of falsification, concealment or destruction of information or permitting the falsification, that should be an offence.”
“This House obviously will have a say in respect of the code of practice as it only comes into effect if this House approves it. The provisions of the recording devices Act are without prejudice to the requirements of the Data Protection Acts. The principles of data protection are set out in those Acts and the processing of data, including access, retention, storage, deletion or destruction, will be supplemented by the codes of practice. It is not just the code of practice; it is the data protection legislation as well. I have referred the Senator already to section 47A. I also emphasise that the power provided for in this Bill is for An Garda Síochána only. Consequently, I do not think the amendment is necessary because of what is within the Data Protection Act and what is required to be in the code of practice.”
“I understand the purpose and objective of the amendment because it is important that rules are in place governing the retention of data, how long it can be retained for and its use. The way we are proposing to deal with that is in the code of practice, which is set out in section 10 of the Bill. The Senator will see that section 10 of the Bill refers to a new section 47A, which refers to codes of practice for Part 6A, which is the biometric analysis. The proposed section 47A(2) states that "a draft code of practice shall include provisions relating to [...] the confidentiality, security, storage, access, retention, erasure and destruction of data obtained as a result of the operation of" biometric analysis. It is an important issue but it will be dealt with. The most appropriate place to deal with it is within the code of practice.”
“I will sign it and make it a code of practice, but it only becomes effective if this House and the Dáil approve it. That is where the protections should be in place. If this amendment was put in, it would inordinately delay the effectiveness and the operation of the tool.”
“It would be untenable for the gardaí, in terms of the work they are doing and the tools they are availing of, to get the permission of a superintendent for each image. They would lose valuable time seeking authorisations. They would lose time identifying vulnerable victims and waste valuable Garda time. It makes no operational sense to proceed in this manner proposed by the amendment. Identifiable persons will be responsible not only for reviewing the footage or images, but also for any decisions made in the course of an investigation. As I stated earlier, a code of practice will be set out by the Garda Commissioner after consultation with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and the Data Protection Commission. It will then come to me.”
“I thank the Senator for her amendment and her contribution. I discussed this in the Dáil with Deputy Carthy. I cannot accept it. When you look at what biometric analysis will be doing, it is a tool that will assist the Garda in sorting and filtering data so that a human reviewer can narrow down avenues of investigation. That is the purpose of it - to speed up the process in order to protect victims who could be in immediate danger. If we take an example of a child sexual abuse investigation where there would be thousands of images over which biometric analysis could be performed, if the approach in the Senator's amendment were to be adopted it would require biometric analysis of each image to be approved by a chief superintendent.”
“Sometimes the criticism is that we just adopt everything that is happening in Europe. When it comes to domestic Irish legislation we are perfectly entitled to use our own definitions and our own interpretations or interpretation and that is what has been done in this legislation. A clear definition of biometric analysis is being set out. There is also a definition, separately, of biometric identification, saying it will not apply here. That is the one with the database. However, if we go for this amendment we will simply have a definition, as Senator Kelleher said, of biometric analysis and biometric identification, with no reference to the latter in the legislation.”