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

Matt Carthy (SF), Cavan-Monaghan

I move amendment No. 7:
In page 10, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
“(ba) clear and specific limits on the circumstances in which biometric analysis or biometric categorisation may be used, including prohibitions on use for general surveillance, population level monitoring, or speculative searches,
(bb) objective thresholds and evidential standards that must be met before any biometric analysis may be initiated,
(bc) safeguards to prevent disproportionate or discriminatory impacts, including mandatory risk assessment procedures,
(bd) technical and operational parameters governing accuracy, reliability, and error rate thresholds, and
(be) mandatory documentation, authorisation procedures and audit trails to ensure accountability and prevent misuse,”.
Amendment No. 8 proposes to insert the following into the Bill:
In page 11, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
“(5A) When making an order under subsection (5), the Minister shall lay the code of practice, together with an explanatory memorandum outlining the safeguards, limitations and parameters governing the use of biometric analysis and biometric categorisation, before each House of the Oireachtas.”.
With respect to amendment No. 7, in response to a previous amendment, we heard the Minister cite the code of practice. Much is left to the code of practice regarding the potential concerns that people have, but there is no real clarification as to what the parameters of the code of practice will be. Therefore, it is important that we have some detail on the safeguards, data limits, oversight and practical uses within the overarching legislation. The section on the code of practice gives far too much discretion to the Garda Commissioner, who drafts, amends and controls the consultation process relating to the codes that regulate Garda powers. Safeguards are not fixed in the legislation, which leaves crucial questions unanswered. The additions in amendment No. 7 would strengthen the requirements in relation to the code of practice by requiring strict limits, objective evidential thresholds, anti-discrimination safeguards, technical accuracy safeguards and full authorisation, thereby ensuring that biometric powers would remain properly controlled and that there would be transparency and accountability.
Amendment No. 8 is complementary to Committee Stage amendment No. 16. It proposes a requirement that the code of practice be laid before the Dáil and deals with the safeguards to which I referred earlier.
With regard to the first review of the code of practice, amendment No. 9 suggests a change from five years to two. After the initial review, five years is fine. However, five years is too long to wait for the first review of the code of practice. The amendment is clear and sensible. It does not upset the apple cart. There will be five-year reviews, but the first review should take place after two years. When talking about a new technology, there are, as already discussed, many potential issues that may arise. Unless amendment No. 7 is adopted, the answer to the question as to where the code will end up is very cloudy. It is critical that this House stipulates in legislation that after the first two years, there will be a comprehensive review. The reviews will take place on a five-year basis thereafter, as the legislation currently stipulates.

---

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