Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) (Amendment) Bill 2025: Report and Final Stages
Dail Éireann — 2026-05-13
============================================================

Gary Gannon (SD), Dublin Central

I will be supporting this amendment and a similar one tabled by Deputy Kelly. We all appreciate that An Garda needs tools to investigate serious crime, find missing people of people and protect the public. Nobody on this side of the House will ever dispute that. However, our job is to make sure that when we hand these tools over we do so in a way that is legally sound. The Bill introduces a new concept of biometric analysis which is defined across three limbs in section 43A. The first allows gardaí to automatically recognise and categorise physical features of individuals generally from footage gathered in an investigation. The second allows them to track particular unidentified persons across that footage. The third allows them to locate particular identified persons using the same process.
The Bill carefully avoids using the language of the EU AI Act, but the EU AI Act does not care what we call things; it cares what we do. What these powers do - in particular the first limb - is categorise people on the basis of their biometric data, namely, skin colour, hair colour, eye colour and body shape. By any plain reading, that is a biometric categorisation within the meaning of the AI Act. The AI Act is not aspirational. Rather, it is binding and it is explicit that biometric categorisation systems used by law enforcement are classified as high-risk AI systems. This classification carries with it a suite of mandatory obligations under Articles 26 and 27. These are obligations on the deployer, which in this case is An Garda Síochána. Those obligations include: ensuring human oversight by personnel with the necessary skills, training and authority; monitoring the system for risks to fundamental rights; suspending use of the system if such a risk arises; maintaining logs for a minimum of six months and carrying out a data protection impact assessment and, under Article 27, conducting a detailed fundamental rights impact assessment before deploying the system and sharing results with the market surveillance authority.
I did raise this on Committee Stage and I was told that the code of practice would deal with it. I want to gently but firmly push back on that. A code of practice prepared by the Garda Commissioner and reviewed every five years is not an adequate substitute for statutory obligations enshrined in primary legislation.

---

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/dail/2026-05-13/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-09-14T01:01:03+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-05-13