Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Bill 2026: Committee Stage
Seanad Éireann — 2026-07-09
============================================================

Alice-Mary Higgins (IND), National University of Ireland

I move amendment No. 1:
In page 10, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
“ “biometric identification” means the automated recognition of physical, physiological, behavioural, or psychological human features for the purpose of establishing the identity of a natural person by comparing biometric data of that individual to biometric data of individuals stored in a database;”.
This amendment seeks to insert a definition of biometric identification in the Bill, using the same language that is used in the AI Act. The use and deployment of biometric identification is very relevant to this legislation. Again, it is a high-risk activity and identified as such within the AI Act. The Minister has stated that the purpose of the Bill was to establish the national supervisory and enforcement framework through which compliance with obligations contained in the AI Act can be monitored and enforced. Our intention is to ensure that this is done effectively. We also need effective harmonisation between the AI Act and our national legislation. That means we need to be working off the same definitions. However, this has been utterly and unnecessarily complicated by the recent legislation introduced by the Minister for justice, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, who introduced legislation outlining the practice of "biometric analysis", which is a novel term not reflected in the AI Act. Despite labelling it by using a different term, it is clear that the processes which are described in biometric analysis do in fact involve biometric identification and they match the description of biometric identification in the AI Act. In the definition of biometric analysis, they include the line "this is not biometric identification", which by the way is not a way to clarify something – it is to simply say it is not that thing that it obviously looks like it is. The Minister for justice introduced his own definition of "biometric identification". As well as the novel, newly made up concept of biometric analysis, he has also introduced his own definition of biometric identification, which does not match the definition of biometric identification in the AI Act.
The Minister of State has outlined that the purpose of this Bill is to ensure that we have the supervisory and enforcement framework to ensure compliance with the obligations that already exist under the AI Act, but we have a definition of biometric identification going into a separate item of Government legislation which does not match the AI Act. We are concerned that the use of the novel terms like biometric analysis and a direct difference in definitions could allow concerned technologies to escape proper enforcement mechanisms that are in this Bill, and the safeguards that are provided for under the AI Act.
During the Committee Stage debate of the Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) (Amendment) Bill 2025, where the novel term of biometric analysis was introduced, the Minister for justice stated, "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." We clearly have concerns as to how that legislation is going to interact with the enforcement provisions that are in the AI Act. We have one Minister saying we can do as we wish with our concept of it and then another Minister of State who has acknowledged our points in her engagement on Second Stage. We pointed to many of the safeguards we would like to see in national legislation. We were consistently told not to worry because they are there in the AI Act, and this Bill is simply a mechanism for enforcing and applying the AI Act. However, that does not deal with the fact that there are different interpretations that directly conflict.
I should clarify what the clash is in that regard as well. In the case of the Minister for justice, his new definition of biometric identification completely changes what it means. The AI Act is what we have here, which is why at a minimum we should ensure that this legislation has the correct definition of biometric identification so that we can point to that and that at least it is clearly identified here. Biometric identification under the AI Act just means the automated recognition of physical, physiological, behavioural, psychological, human features for the purposes of establishing the identity of a natural person by comparing biometric data of that individual with biometric of individuals stored in a database. What the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, has proposed to do in his definition is to take that obligation under the AI Act, where the definition would seem to make sense, and refer to comparing biometric data of an individual to biometric data of named individuals in a database. Names are not biometric. That is not an appropriate filter and by putting in the requirement that it can only be biometric identification when it is being compared with a database of named individuals, many of the clearly planned for, anticipated and proper applications and understandings of biometric identification under the AI Act, along with the safeguards that are attached to that issue in the Act, do not come into effect.
There is a bit of a crisis in terms of this issue.
The Minister of State has stated very clearly her intentions. I hope that we can move towards there being a correct definition and operation of biometric identification so that we can ensure that Ireland delivers on what she has said is her goal, which is a Bill, mechanism, and natural supervisory and enforcement framework that monitors and enforces compliance with the obligations of the AI Act. This is in the Minister of State's correspondence engaging with us. I thank her for her engagement with Second Stage concerns. She noted that the Act imposed extensive obligations on defined high-risk AI systems, including law enforcement and the administration of justice, and that these systems were considered high risk precisely because of their potential impact on people's rights, opportunities and life chances. She notes that providers must meet stringent requirements related to risk management, data quality, transparency, human oversight, accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity. These are the Minister of State's words. I take her bona fides in relation to this intent. She was correctly naming and identifying law enforcement and the administration of justice as high-risk AI systems that were clearly defined as creating obligations for very good reasons due to how impactful they could be. Alongside that, we have a Minister saying on the same issue that we are perfectly entitled to use our own definitions and interpretation and that is what we are doing. It does not align.
Biometric identification and biometric categorisation are described as high-risk AI systems in the AI Act. Biometric analysis does not feature in that Act. This Bill contains some provisions to enforce obligations that are outlined in the AI Act regarding high-risk AI systems. I wish to ask the Minister of State two things. The first is on the question of getting a correct definition of biometric identification, but the second is on biometric analysis. Biometric analysis is clearly a high-risk system. The description of it matches what is defined as high-risk systems in law enforcement where the Minister of State has stated the importance of having proper safeguards and obligations, given the impact on people's rights, opportunities and life chances. The Minister of State talked about the importance of those stringent requirements. Will biometric analysis be captured under those stringent conditions and proper scrutiny and enforcement? This is the novel concept introduced by the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, but its description and the actions within it include recognition of physical, physiological and behavioural features matching those with data from other sources. They match the same activities. They are clearly high risk for the same reasons, and they also fall into that area of law enforcement. My two questions to the Minister of State are on the definition and on how biometric analysis is going to be properly captured and administered.
I can come back on some additional points. I can go into further detail, but perhaps it is not useful. The safeguards contained in the Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) (Amendment) Bill are significantly less secure than those contained in the AI Act. There is a difference. For example, Article 26.10 states:
... in the framework of an investigation for the targeted search of a person suspected or convicted of having committed a criminal offence, the deployer of a high-risk AI system for post-remote biometric identification shall request an authorisation ... without undue delay and no later than 48 hours, by a judicial authority or an administrative authority ...
In the AI Act, we are doing these exact same kinds of thing. It recognises the need of urgency. It can say within 48 hours. It gives that 48-hour window that one can act in and ensure that one has the proper paperwork to authorise that. In the Minister for justice's Bill, the use of biometric analysis simply requires the approval of any two gardaí, not two qualified gardaí or not a senior garda. Any two gardaí can use biometric analysis. A garda can ask any other garda and then it is ready to go. There is such a wild disparity between that and the language on safeguarding, obligations and recognition of high risk, yet the same actions are being described. I ask the Minister of State to address both of those issues.

---

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/2026-07-09/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:55:11+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-07-09