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 18 of 84.
“I thank the Deputies for their contributions. I will start with Deputy Ó Snodaigh. Like him and other Deputies, I should also commend people who are not Members of the Oireachtas but who really led the campaign to see this injustice righted, in particular, Karl Hayden and Kieran Rose. I commend them and acknowledge the excellent work they did. Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Kelly have both asked why the Bill does not apply to convictions prior to 1922. As I said to Deputy Ó Snodaigh earlier on, I have a very strong view that this State does not have responsibility for convictions that were imposed when Ireland was a colony of the United Kingdom. We were not autonomous in exercising and operating our own criminal justice system.”
“8, 12 and 46 each amend a number of definitions and references to enactments elsewhere in the Bill to take account of related references introduced by the new Part.”
“63 inserts a new section containing a number of provisions relating to the protection of personal data under the scheme. This includes provisions for the redaction of any non-relevant convictions held by a relevant person, if alive, or any information that could identify any other living person in connection with any offence. Amendment No. 64 inserts a new section to provide that nothing in this Part shall create any new rights or any cause of action, nor impose any liability on any person or on the State. This is provided for the avoidance of doubt. Finally, there are a number of technical, consequential amendments as follows. Amendment No. 3 amends the Long Title of the Bill to take account of this new Part, while amendments Nos.”
“The section provides that the Minister shall in any such case notify the applicant that the Minister intends to revoke the disregard and that the applicant may seek a review, which shall be carried out by a retired judge of the Circuit Court, High Court or Court of Appeal appointed by the Minister. Amendment No. 61 inserts a new section to provide that where the Minister proceeds to revoke a disregard, he or she shall notify the applicant and also the relevant public bodies which shall be required to re-annotate their records to reflect the revocation. Amendment No. 62 inserts a new section to provide that the Minister shall make appropriate efforts, including a public information campaign, to raise awareness, particularly among relevant persons in the State and beyond, of the disregard scheme and the effects of a disregard. Amendment No.”
“In either case, the application shall be examined afresh by an independent reviewer other than the person who originally considered the application and a recommendation submitted to the Minister as to whether or not to reaffirm the decision in either case. Amendment No. 60 inserts a new section to deal with a scenario where, subsequent to issuing a disregard, the Minister receives information giving rise to the reasonable belief that the application included or was supported by false or misleading information and the Minister is no longer satisfied that the conviction should be the subject of a certificate of disregard.”
“The section effectively provides that the relevant person shall, to all intents and purposes, henceforth be treated as if the conviction never occurred and that there are no circumstances in which the disregarded conviction shall be disclosable, other than where the relevant person chooses to disclose it. Amendment No. 59 inserts a new section to provide that an applicant may seek an independent review of the matter, either where the Minister has proposed to refuse a disregard or where the independent person is not satisfied that the applicant is a person eligible to make the application.”
“The section includes a provision that any public body which may hold records relevant to the application shall provide those records to the independent person on request. Amendment No. 57 inserts a new section providing that the Minister shall consider the independent person's recommendation and either issue a certificate of disregard or else notify the applicant that the Minister is not satisfied that the conviction should be disregarded. The section provides that where a disregard certificate is issued, the Minister shall notify all relevant public bodies and that they shall annotate any relevant records they may hold in order to clearly reflect the disregard. Amendment No. 58 inserts a new section setting out the general effect of a certificate of disregard.”
“55 inserts a new section providing for a preliminary assessment of an application by the independent person in order to satisfy himself or herself as to whether the applicant is the relevant person or is otherwise eligible to make an application on behalf of a deceased person. Where the independent person is not satisfied, the same provision is made that he or she shall not consider the application further and shall notify the applicant and the Minister accordingly. Amendment No. 56 inserts a new section providing for the substantive consideration of the application by the independent person and the subsequent making of a recommendation to the Minister as to whether the independent person is satisfied that the conviction should be disregarded.”
“It also provides that where the relevant person is deceased, a disregard application may be made by an immediate family member, or if no immediate family member can or wishes to make an application, by a relative, provided there is no objection from an immediate family member. Amendment No. 54 inserts a new section providing for the appointment of suitably qualified or experienced independent persons to consider applications and independent reviewers to carry out reviews in cases where the Minister proposes to refuse an application and the applicant seeks such a review. Amendment No.”
“52 inserts a new section which sets out the criteria that are to apply to the granting of a disregard application. Those criteria of course include that the relevant person did not cause any other person to participate in the sexual activity without their consent. Amendment No. 53 inserts a new section setting out certain key provisions in relation to the making of an application. This includes provision that a disregard application may be made by a relevant person, namely, the person who incurred the conviction or by someone nominated by the relevant person to make the application on his behalf.”
“The other determinations in question are formal Garda cautions given in lieu of prosecution and probation orders given in lieu of conviction. The substantive amendments providing for the scheme are amendments Nos. 51 to 64, inclusive, which collectively insert a new Part 14 into the Bill, comprising 14 sections. Amendment No. 51 inserts an interpretation section for the new Part 14. It includes the key definition of "relevant conviction or other determination", which includes convictions in a criminal or military court for the offences of buggery, attempted buggery, gross indecency and importuning. It also defines the categories of persons that come within the definition of an immediate family member and that of a relative. This is relevant for the purposes of applications that may be made on behalf of deceased people. Amendment No.”
“I move amendment No. 3: In page 8, line 6, after “2021;” to insert the following: “to provide that the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration may, in respect of applications made to the Minister, issue to certain persons certificates of disregard in respect of certain historical convictions and other determinations relating to consensual sexual activity;”. The amendments I am moving in this group are in respect of the disregard scheme. Amendment No. 3 is grouped with amendments Nos. 8, 12, 46 and 51 to 64, inclusive. These amendments collectively provide for an application-based scheme to enable the disregard of certain historical convictions and other determinations relating to consensual homosexual activity.”
“Part 1 of the Schedule will set out the three sets of amendments to Article 8.2.1.b and Article 8.2.1.e of the Rome Statute, concerning war crimes committed in international and non-international armed conflicts respectively, adopted in 2010, 2017 and 2019. Part 2 will set out the amendments to the Rome Statute providing for the exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression.”
“43 inserts a new section 64A into the 2006 Act in order to confer an order-making power whereby should future amendments be adopted by the state parties to the Rome Statute definition of genocide, war crime and crime against humanity or the crime of aggression, an act specified in that amendment may be prescribed by the Government on my request, having consulted with the Minister for foreign affairs. They are the amendments until we come to amendment No. 44, which makes a number of technical amendments to sections 4, 19, 22, 31, 37, 38, 50, 50A, 51, 52, 53, and 63 of the 2006 Act. Amendments Nos. 45 and 72 insert an additional Schedule 1A into the 2006 Act.”
“Amendment No. 41 clarifies that when the State exercises extraterritorial jurisdiction over war crimes, the referenced Article 8.2 of the Rome Statute shall not be construed as that Article, as amended by a relevant amendment. Amendment No. 42 clarifies that the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration shall be able to request the ICC to provide assistance with a domestic investigation or prosecution of an offence against administration of justice, in addition to ICC offences or serious offences. Amendment No.”
“Any reference to an article of the Rome Statute in section 6 should be construed without having regard to that relevant amendment. Amendment No. 39 replaces section 8(1) of the 2006 Act with a new subsection clarifying that, in addition to applying to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, ancillary offences under the 2006 Act shall apply with respect to offences against the administration of justice, but not with respect to the crime of aggression. A new subsection (1A) will also be inserted in section 8 to clarify that for the purposes of subsection 1 account shall not be taken of any future relevant amendments that may be adopted to articles of the Rome Statute. Amendment No. 40 ensures that no retroactive effect is given to the new domestic offences created by the amendments to the definition of the Rome Statute.”
“Third, it defines the term "crime within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court". Fourth, in order to future-proof the extent of Ireland's ability to co-operate with the ICC, a new order-making power is inserted as a new section 64A in the 2006 Act. Finally, it inserts a new subsection (1A) to clarify that the term "crime within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court" includes an act for which criminal responsibility is provided for by Articles 25 to 27, inclusive, of the Rome Statute. Amendment No. 38 inserts an additional subsection into section 6 of the 2006 Act to clarify that where following the commencement of the section, a relevant amendment has been adopted with respect to Articles 6 to 8, inclusive, of the Rome Statute.”
“Expanding the domestic definition of war crimes in this way will enable the State to give full effect to the principle of complementarity, which I spoke about earlier. These amendments will also provide a legislative basis to ensure that Ireland can fully co-operate with the International Criminal Court, ICC, in respect of all crimes. Amendment No. 2 inserts new text into the Long Title of the Bill. Amendment No. 36 is a standard definition that defines the International Criminal Court Act 2006 as the "Act of 2006". Amendments Nos. 33 and 35 are consequential on that. Amendment No. 37 inserts some new terms for definition in the interpretation provision in section 2 of the 2006 Act. First, the definition of the Rome Statute is updated. Second, it defines the term "crime of aggression".”
“I move amendment No. 2: In page 7, line 32, after “trial;” to insert the following: “to give effect to the ratification by the State of certain amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, to further enable authorities in the State to cooperate with the International Criminal Court, and for those and other related purposes to amend the International Criminal Court Act 2006;”. I am pleased to introduce these amendments, which propose a number of technical amendments to the International Criminal Court Act 2006 to give necessary effect to Ireland's intended ratification of the amendments to Article 8 of the Rome Statute. The main objective of these amendments is to amend the International Criminal Court Act 2006 to make clear that war crimes within the meaning of the Act include Article 8 of the Rome Statute.”
“I move amendment No. 1: In page 7, line 23, after “2004,” to insert “the Criminal Justice Act 2006,”. I will deal first with amendments Nos. 1, 21 and 32. Amendment No. 1 amends the Long Title to include a reference to the Criminal Justice Act 2006. Amendment No. 21 is a technical amendment to section 16(1)(b) to substitute a reference to the singular "subsection" with a reference to the plural "subsections". Amendment No. 32 is a technical amendment to section 18 to substitute a reference to “section 38(1) and section 45” with a reference to “sections 38(1) and 45”.”
“This Republic is not responsible for what happened prior to our Independence. I very much welcome the discussion on this. I know there is a lot in the Bill. Everyone in this House wants to get these provisions enacted, not for the benefit of Deputies or Ministers or anyone else but for the benefit of members of the public, who all need to see this legislation enacted.”
“For those reasons, I consider that the inclusion of these offences would not be legally or operationally viable. However, military convictions for the repealed offences of buggery, attempted buggery, gross indecency and importuning are within the scope of the scheme. The second point of principle, which was raised by Deputy Rice, was about including convictions prior to the establishment of the State. This country, this Government, has no responsibility for acts that were done prior to the declaration of the Irish Republic and our Independence. I cannot go back historically and start operating a disregard scheme because of the criminal justice system that operated in Ireland under the crown. I applied that in respect of the granting of pardons as well. It is a different country.”
“First, it would be legally questionable but also impracticable to attempt to determine whether a particular court martial was brought purely because of the homosexual nature of an act rather than because it involved a disciplinary infraction, such as abuse of rank, which would equally have been the case had the act been heterosexual in nature. Second, the relevant misconduct offences under the 1954 Act remain in force and, according to the Department of Defence, continue to be used today. Their inclusion will open the possibility of misconduct convictions right up to the present day and into the future being relitigated under a scheme intended to address an historical injustice. Equally, to impose a cut-off date, such as the 1993 decriminalisation, would almost certainly be challenged as arbitrary and unfair.”
“It is not the case that they have not scrutinised the matter or given me their views on these issues. In many respects, I have been listening to them for the length of time I have been Minister and I hear them all the time in terms of saying what they want to get done. I will deal with some of the other issues that were raised. The most important thing that was raised in respect of the disregard scheme was the issue about military law. Deputies Rice and Nash raised it. In the course of consultation on the drafting of this, there were significant legal concerns about including any case in which a person had been court-martialled for military misconduct. On careful consideration, I concluded that these offences could not appropriately be included. There were two principal difficulties.”
“One of the criticisms that is regularly made is that I am not getting things done and I am sitting on things, as the Deputies are all perfectly entitled and obliged to say to me if things are not being done. I know they are not asking me to, but I am not going to apologise for trying to get important measures that are of benefit to the public enacted as quickly as possible. I think we all agree that the disregard scheme, as everyone has said, is something that should have been done decades ago. I was not going to allow a situation to develop where I found myself, maybe in the third year of being Minister for justice, wondering whether I would get it over the line. I have driven it and I want to get it done. By the way, I appreciate all the contributions that Members in this House make.”
“-----you have to push it through. I know people are, at one level, criticising me because this Bill contains a whole variety of different issues. It does. I have tried to squash as many issues as possible into this Bill because I want to get these provisions enacted for the benefit of people, such as men in Ireland who were convicted of homosexual offences prior to decriminalisation. In fact, it was Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Nash who raised it with me in my earlier days as a Minister and said they wanted this done. I went back to the Department and I recognised that the quickest way to get it done was to put in into a miscellaneous provisions Bill. With the greatest of respect, had I not done that and had I not put it into the miscellaneous provisions Bill, we would not even be near pre-legislative scrutiny at this stage.”
“While the amendments to the International Criminal Court Act and to provide for a disregard scheme are obviously completely different from each other thematically, what they have in common is they have each been a long time coming and are time-sensitive in their own ways. Both are also appropriate for inclusion in a miscellaneous criminal law Bill currently before the House. I think this legal instrument offers the most expedient route to get them on the Statute Book and into force. This is why I commend the motion to the House.”
“I am confident that these proposals provide a workable, equitable and accessible means by which those who were unfairly criminalised can finally seek the removal of this unwarranted blemish on their good name. They and their loved ones have waited a long time for a disregard mechanism and we now have an opportunity to pass it into law in a matter of weeks. I hope I can count on the support of the House for achieving this objective. I recognise the very significant contributions made by Deputy Ó Snodaigh, Deputy Nash and other Deputies who put forward their own legislation previously. Certainly, their advocacy on this issue was a major catalyst and influence on me in trying to ensure we can get this law enacted promptly.”
“These proposals are being put forward as a new part of the Bill set out across 14 sections, which variously provide for: the offences within the scope; the criteria for a disregard and who may apply, including where the person who received the conviction is now dead; the appointment of an independent person to consider applications and make recommendations to the Minister; the main processes involved in considering and determining applications and issuing successful applicants with certificates of disregard; the legal effects of a disregard, which are comprehensive; the procedures by which a disregard can be refused or, where it is found to be necessary, revoked; and provisions for the independent review of a refusal or revocation where requested by the applicant.”
“Unfortunately, that cannot be achieved by the expedient of a blanket disregard. This is because the offences in question, and hence the recorded convictions, made no distinction between consensual and non-consensual acts, nor between adults and minors. Any given case must, therefore, be assessed on its merits by reference to information provided by the applicant and whatever records are available. In that context, a multi-stakeholder working group reported in 2023 with detailed recommendations on an application-based scheme for the disregard of such convictions. The proposals now before this House have been carefully crafted to align as far as practicable with those recommendations while ensuring the scheme is legally and procedurally robust and that it is efficient and accessible for those who wish to apply.”
“As I have previously stated, the Victorian era laws that criminalised consensual sexual activity between men are now widely recognised as a historical injustice driven by ignorance and prejudice. The offences in question were enacted under British rule but very regrettably continued in force for the first 70 years of the Irish State before finally being abolished in 1993. However, consenting adults who were convicted of such offences still carry the entirely undeserved stain of a criminal record. We cannot rewrite history but we can try to undo the pain and hardship those convictions inflicted upon so many men and their families. What our Legislature can do is create a basis by which such a conviction can effectively be nullified so that its recipient is treated in law as if it never happened.”
“Finally, it is also proposed to add into the Act an order-making power allowing the Government to designate any future amendments of the crimes contained in the Rome statute as crimes in respect of which Ireland can provide co-operation to the ICC. This would not criminalise the offences in Irish law but would ensure that in a scenario where Ireland may not yet have ratified such an amendment Ireland would still be able to fulfil its obligations to co-operate with the ICC. I will now turn to the proposed legislative scheme for the disregard of certain historical convictions and other determinations, those other determinations being formal Garda cautions and probation orders.”
“The third objective is to make it wholly clear and unambiguous that Ireland's co-operation with the ICC is not to be confined to those crimes that are domestic offences pursuant to section 9(1) of the 2006 Act, namely, genocide, a crime against humanity, a war crime or an ancillary offence, but that such co-operation also extends to other offences within the jurisdiction of the ICC, in particular the crime of aggression or offences against administration of justice by the court. Bringing this legislative clarity will ensure there is no impediment to Ireland fulfilling its obligations under the Rome statute to co-operate with the ICC.”
“Expanding the domestic definition of war crimes in this way will enable the State to give full effect to the principle of complementarity. This principle obliges State parties to exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed in their territory or by their nationals so that the ICC is used only as a court of last resort. The second objective of these amendments is to take account of the Kampala amendments on the crime of aggression.”
“This will have the effect that the offence in Irish law of committing a war crime is expanded to include the use of microbial or other biological agents or toxins, the use of weapons whose primary effect is to injure by fragments, which in the human body escape detection by X-ray, and the use of laser weapons. Additionally, the offence in Irish law of committing a war crime in a non-international armed conflict will be expanded to include the following acts that already come within the definition of a war crime when committed in an international armed conflict: the use of poison and poisoned weapons; the use of asphyxiating poisonous gas; the use of bullets which expand; and intentionally using starvation on civilians as a method of warfare.”
“In my opening remarks on Committee Stage of this Bill I indicated my intention bring these amendments on Report Stage. I will first speak on the proposed amendments to the International Criminal Court Act. These amendments give effect to Ireland's intended ratification of the amendments to Article 8 of the Rome statute, and also ensure that there is an unambiguous basis for Ireland's full co-operation with the ICC in respect of all crimes within the court's jurisdiction, including those that are not offences in Irish law. The amendments have three objectives to ensure that the definition of war crime in the 2006 Act is aligned with Ireland's proposed ratification of the amendments to Article 8.”
“I move: That Standing Order 194 is modified in accordance with Standing Order 241(2) to provide that it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Criminal Law, Civil Law and Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026 may be recommitted in respect of certain amendments that it has the power to make amendments to the Bill which are outside the scope of the existing subject matter of the Bill in order to: (a) make amendments to the International Criminal Court Act 2006 to: (i) give effect to the ratification by the State of the 2010, 2017 and 2019 amendments to Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court which extend the specified acts that may constitute war crimes to include intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare in a non-international armed conflict and the use of certain weapons, (ii) clarify the legal obligations of Ireland to co-operate with the International Criminal Court with respect to requests concerning all offences under the Court’s jurisdiction, and (iii) enable the Government by order to designate any future amendments or additions to the crimes contained in the Rome Statute as crimes in respect of which Ireland can provide co-operation to the Court, and (b) provide for an application-based scheme to enable the disregard of certain historical convictions and other determinations relating to consensual homosexual activity, and to change the title of the Bill and make other consequential amendments required to take account of the changes above.”
“Across the range in government, we will just have to adapt to AI so that we can avail of its benefits while ensuring the threats are not too accentuated. I hear what the Senator said in respect of Clare. I had a pleasant and enjoyable visit there. One thing that was consistently said to me there was that more gardaí are needed there. As the Senator knows, I do not go around directing the Commissioner, but I have certainly passed on the concerns of the elected representatives in Clare. Aside from that, it was an hospitable visit. I thank the Senator and my colleagues for the invitation.”
“The number of resignations from An Garda Síochána is less than 1%, which is bizarre and highly unusual by comparison with the numbers for the PSNI and all the other constabularies in the UK. Fewer than 140 resigned from An Garda Síochána in 2024, so the retention rate is really high. In respect of recruitment, later this year we will have the highest number of sworn members of An Garda Síochána in the history of the force. I believe that, by the end of the year, we will be at or very close to 15,000 sworn members. Of course, that does not take into account the 3,500 staff who do really important work as well and free up gardaí to do their front-line work. I thank Senator Conway for his contribution in respect of the programme for Government and AI.”
“When we discuss it – it is not in this Bill today – we might ask whether telling a garda to stand at the top of Grafton Street to keep an eye out for a well-known criminal in order to apprehend him is all that different from there being a camera at the top of Grafton Street with information about the criminal that can identify him if he walks by and then alert the Garda. I realise it is a contentious issue but it is something we cannot ignore. Again, it can create efficiencies in the work of An Garda Síochána. The Senator also referred to a recruitment and retention crisis. Even the Garda Representative Association is not referring to it as a crisis now because there is no retention crisis.”
“It is a huge assistance to An Garda Síochána when it comes to investigating criminal acts or locating missing persons. I am conscious that there is a balance to be struck but shops and cars have these cameras. We know ourselves that if something happens out on the streets, people on those streets also use cameras. I am aware that it causes some offence if people video things in public, particularly if they share the footage, but their footage can be of use to an investigation. Senator Collins expressed concern that the information or technology should not be misused. She expressed some concern about its use in a live scenario. I intend to introduce legislation to provide for live biometric analysis and identification.”
“We have now gone through many years of expertise with DNA technology and science, and the evidence has proven to be very reliable. It has resulted in many cases being solved. We have to move with the times in using technology. I thank Senator Collins for her contribution and recognition that the camera technology can play a positive role. She said that she, like many, I am sure, fears living in a surveillance society. In many respects, however, and not just through the State, there are cameras everywhere. When a crime has been committed, one of the first things that An Garda will do is seek to get camera footage, whether from cars passing by or shops in the vicinity. There is a huge amount of coverage of what is happening on the streets, particularly in cities.”
“The system compares the photograph of the person in the airport with the face on the passport being analysed. This technology is getting better all the time and we should not be fearful of it. Particularly because criminals are now using technology to advance their criminality, we should be using it to stand up to them. I very much welcome the support from Senator Kelleher. He correctly spoke about AI and the fact that modern challenges require modern methods of investigation. That reiterates the point I just mentioned. We need modern methods of investigation and we should not stay away from them because they are new or modern. Years ago, maybe when Senator McDowell was Minister for Justice, there was concern as to whether DNA evidence would be reliable.”
“As has been indicated, some of the recommendations have been included. I will examine further the library document to which the Senator referred. We need to use modern technology. Sometimes people are fearful of it. In the Lower House, there were references to reports that show this type of technology can be inaccurate but many of those reports are from many years ago. The technology has advanced considerably. I am sure most of us here use it for the purpose of unlocking our phones or accessing banking information. It is technology that is advancing every day. Two days ago, the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and I were in Dublin Airport to launch the new eGates. That is a real example of biometric facial analysis. A person puts their passport in and a photograph is then taken of his or her face.”
“I noted what the Senator said about the data retention rules and the rulings of the CJEU. As a result of the decision of the CJEU, we do not have a modern legislative instrument from Europe that deals with data retention. It really is important for the purpose of police investigations, not just in Ireland but also throughout the rest of Europe, that there be a live and effective directive or regulation in place for the purpose of data retention for law enforcement. When serious crimes are committed, the public expect that all available information that can be investigated for the purpose of resolving the crime will be used. Senator Boyhan spoke about the Oireachtas Library and Research Service team. Its work is excellent. I am aware of the recommendations of the Oireachtas joint committee on justice.”
“When gardaí are looking at video footage in, say, Store Street, the technology will be able to assist them because they will be able to find out rapidly whether the person they saw robbing a shop during the riot in November 2023 is the same as the person getting off a bus in Rathmines, where there will be other video footage available. That will clarify matters. That is why it is called retrospective biometric analysis. It is not measuring against a database of identifiable people. Instead, someone is looking to see whether the face or image in one piece of video footage is the same as that in another. It is so important in missing persons inquiries because he or she will have the image of the person and be able to check to see whether it is the same as in another piece of footage.”
“The Bill will have a real benefit in terms of An Garda Síochána freeing up Garda time so that we can use technology and, rather than gardaí having to sit in front of video screens for long periods of time, technology can be used and gardaí can be freed to do other more important and productive work. Senator Gallagher is correct in that what we are talking about here is balancing the rights of privacy with the right of the public to be protected and giving more powers to gardaí. I thank Senator McDowell for his full support. He said that the Bill may be too restrictive. As I mentioned earlier, more legislation will be coming forward.”
“I thank all Senators for their contributions. I will try to deal with the issues they have raised. I agree with Senator Gallagher that one of the benefits of the Bill is that it will prevent gardaí having to spend hours ploughing through vast amounts of data or video footage. I saw that myself this time last year when I was in Store Street Garda station. At the time, a number of gardaí were spending hours going through video footage from the Dublin riots which had taken place in November 2023. There were trying to identify individuals in the video footage to see whether they were the same as the people they had other video footage of going to a different location.”
“Together, these will provide a firm legislative basis for the Garda to utilise biometric systems in the course of their work, while respecting privacy rights and working within the well-established principles of data protection. It is important that the Garda has access to the most up-to-date tools necessary to combat serious crime. I look forward to hearing Senators' contributions in respect of this Bill.”
“The EU Al Act has direct effect, and where gardaí deploy high-risk Al systems in this context, there are obligations for the providers and deployers of such systems under that Act. Members will be well aware of that. The programme for Government includes two commitments in respect of Garda use of this type of technology; namely, to support the Garda to use AI; and to deploy facial recognition technology for serious crime. This Bill will be a step towards fulfilling these commitments. It is also my intention to publish a general scheme of a second amending Bill which will provide for retrospective identification, and for live use of biometrics.”