Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) (Amendment) Bill 2025: Committee Stage
Seanad Éireann — 2026-06-10
============================================================

Jim O'Callaghan (FF), Dublin Bay South

I thank Senators Boyhan and Collins for their contributions. Before I respond to them, I want to advise the Seanad that it is my intention to bring forward a minor technical amendment to section 8 of the Bill on Report Stage. This is an amendment to section 43B as it relates to international co-operation, and I think I already advised this House on Second Stage of that intention. The amendment is still being considered but I am told that consultation with the Garda and the Office of the Attorney General is coming to a close, which will allow for its consideration on Report Stage.
First, I will deal with the issues raised by Senator Boyhan where he referred to codes of practice. He correctly identified that codes of practice are a very important part of the legislative framework, particularly in terms of how it operates for An Garda Síochána. The reason he mentioned it in the context of section 3 of the Bill which we are discussing at present is because that is where there is reference to the code of practice, which of course means a code of practice that is declared by me by order, under the existing section 47(4) of the recording devices Act, or indeed, if the Houses enact this legislation, in section 47A. If colleagues have an opportunity to look at section 10 of the Bill, they will see there is a whole new section that will go into the recording devices Act governing a code of practice for Part 6A. As we know, Part 6A is the part that deals with the carrying out of biometric analysis by members of Garda personnel, which is the issue we are looking at.
I agree with Senator Boyhan that it would not be appropriate for me to sit back and wait for the Garda to produce a code of practice. In fact, the legislation is done in such a way that the legislation has to be enacted, and then the code of practice comes after it. It is important that the new section 47A will set out thoroughly what is the procedure for the making and approval of a code of practice in respect of the area of the use of biometric analysis by An Garda Síochána. As colleagues and Senators will see from section 47A, which is at section 10 of this Bill, there is a requirement on the Commissioner to prepare one or more draft codes of practice to provide further detail on the operation of Part 6A, which is the use by the Garda of biometric analysis.
Obviously, once he produces a draft code of practice, it will have to set out the procedures to be followed by members of An Garda Síochána, the parameters for the use of biometric analysis and details about the confidentiality, retention and storage of this important information, and all of this must be done in a manner that ensures it is compliant with obligations under legislation but also under the Constitution and the convention. A draft code of practice may contain different provisions relating to different types of biometric data and analysis, different categories of persons or data, and the circumstances in which biometric data can be used.
Although the Garda Commissioner prepares the code of practice, I am the person who, to use the verb, promulgates it. Before the Commissioner sends it on to me, he is required to assess the impact of the proposed draft code on the human rights of individuals, which I know is of particular concern to Senator Boyhan. The Commissioner has to take into account how any draft code will impact on the human rights of individuals. In doing so, he cannot just discuss it in a room with himself and his senior officers. He has also to engage with me, the Policing Authority, the ombudsman, the Data Protection Commission and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, to which Senator Boyhan referred earlier.
There is a broad procedure put in place as to how the Garda Commissioner must compile the code of practice in respect of biometric analysis, and he has to engage thoroughly with other persons. That is a process that is going to take a bit of time. He then submits the code of practice to me in accordance with subsection (5) of that section and I can, by order, declare that it is a code of practice for the purpose of this Act. Ultimately, it is the elected official - the Minister - who is the person who determines whether it becomes a code of practice. Although I am a member of the Executive, the checks required by this House are also included within subsection (6). There is a requirement there for the draft code of practice to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas, and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving the draft has been passed by each House.
Again, the draft code is prepared by the Commissioner, it then comes to me after he has consulted many others, and I have to approve it. I then have to lay it before the Houses of the Oireachtas, and both the Seanad and the Dáil have ultimate control over whether it comes into effect or not. That is a satisfactory statutory procedure in place which will ensure that all the issues raised by Senator Boyhan will be taken into account.
I will now deal with the issues raised by Senator Collins, whose concern is in respect of issues to do with procurement and the type of products that will be purchased by An Garda Síochána for the purpose of carrying out the biometric analysis. Obviously, it is the case that this is high technology. The Garda will need to purchase the technology used in other jurisdictions, and that is a process it will have to engage in also.
My own view is that procurement is governed by EU rules and national regulations. We have very detailed rules in terms of how public procurement operates, particularly for a contract of this magnitude. We generally do not - and I think it would be inappropriate to do so - put into primary legislation rules that duplicate rules concerning public procurement. It would mean every time we have a piece of legislation - and I am back here later on this evening for the garda powers Bill - regarding any type of further technology or infrastructure availed by An Garda Síochána, that we would include a public procurement provision in respect of that. I do not think it is appropriate. There are mandatory exclusion grounds where a tenderer has been convicted of a series of offences.
That is set out in the public procurement rules. Those rules and regulations provide for a transparent and non-discriminatory process and there are sufficient rules and regulations in place in respect of existing guidelines. Procurement matters generally are not issues that are detailed in primary legislation and I do not think they should be included in the Bill. In the case of any procurement of biometric technologies there are requirements for providers and deployers of AI systems under the AI Act. The Garda Síochána will look to its European counterparts when engaging in the procurement process for best practice in the area.
That is what I wanted to say on section 3. I thank both Senators for their contributions.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-06-10/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:55:02+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-06-10