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

Lynn Ruane (IND), University of Dublin

The new Part 6A inserted by this Bill outlines procedures around the use of biometric identification systems by gardaí. The Bill also provides in the newly inserted Part 8A for a code of practice to be established in relation to the application of Part 6A. Section 43C(1) states that, "A member of Garda personnel shall not carry out biometric analysis other than in accordance with this Part and any applicable code of practice." However, there is no consequence for the misuse of biometric technologies. As we have outlined, the safeguards in place for the application of biometric identification systems under the AI Act are not replicated here. We are not bound by those protections due to the carve-out in Recital 40 and in the absence of these safeguards, these systems are simply open to misuse. This amendment seeks to strengthen the protections against the abuse of making the use of these technologies in contravention of section 43C(1) an offence. Research from European Digital Rights in 2021 into the rise of biometric mass surveillance in the EU found examples of misuse that we should be aware of. In Germany, authorities deployed facial recognition systems outside of LGBTQ+ venues, religious venues, doctors' surgeries and lawyers' offices without any legitimate justification, with a disproportionate deployment of such technologies against marginalised groups. In Poland, the Government has been accused of using spyware with the capability to surveil people's biometric data. In the Netherlands, Dutch police have allegedly used financial incentives to encourage people to share private surveillance footage with police for biometric analysis as a way to evade national laws. The AI Act sought to address these abuses, for example by categorising biometric identification systems as high-risk technologies and recognising the potential impact of the Act by utilising a novel term in biometric analysis to describe instances of biometric identification, clearly not aligning with the safeguards in the Act. We introduce this amendment in that context by making the use of biometric systems in contravention of the provisions of this Bill and the code of practice an offence. We firmly recognise the seriousness of such misuse or abuse. Regardless of whether we call it biometric analysis or biometric identification, identification will happen and court cases will happen. Our point is that because of that, we still need to understand whether the principal use of the Bill is for criminal investigation. Moreover, due to the ability to misuse such technology in such harmful ways as we have seen in other jurisdictions around Europe, it would be wrong of us not to acknowledge the protection needed to ensure that if someone misuse or contravenes the section, he or she would be guilty of an offence. I am not one for creating offences for everything but because other safeguards do not exist in relation to the fact that this will be identification, ultimately, and that identification will be used by the courts, we should ensure there are deterrents in how people may use that analysis and that we also protect the integrity of An Garda Síochána by ensuring technologies are not misused. We see the use of these technologies being abused in all other countries and counterparts. To make the assumption that they are not open to abuse here would be wrong. This amendment simply strengthens the Bill in that regard.

---

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