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

Jim O'Callaghan (FF), Dublin Bay South

I thank Deputy Carthy for tabling these three amendments. One of the things that is noticeable when looking at this type of legislation, which involves data, is that there is a huge amount of legislation in place at present outside of the recording devices Act of 2023. I am referring in particular to the Data Protection Acts. Those Acts contain prohibitions on mass surveillance, indiscriminate searches and utilising biometrics. I do not believe amendment No. 7 is necessary because a lot of what it deals with is already prohibited under the Data Protection Acts. It is not good legislative practice to duplicate existing statutory powers.
Section 4 of the principal Act notes that the provisions of the recording devices Act are without prejudice to the provisions of the Data Protection Acts 1988 to 2018. This will also apply to Part 6A, which is being inserted by section 10. There is an express provision that states that the recording devices Act is without prejudice to what is in the Data Protection Acts. There are also clear limitations on searching already set out in section 43C. That information must be in the context of, among other things, a specific investigation.
As stated, the code of practice provisions already set out what needs to be included in a code. These include provisions relating to procedures, confidentiality, security, storage, access, retention and parameters for use. The code can also set out different provisions in relation to types of biometric data or the circumstances in which biometric analysis can be carried out. As a result, I cannot accept amendment No. 7. Amendment No. 8 is also not considered necessary because section 47A sets out what is to be included in the code of practice. This includes the parameters for the carrying out of biometric analysis. The code of practice for the carrying out of such analysis will be laid before the Houses. This means that the Houses will have the opportunity to scrutinise the code alongside what is required under the provisions in section 47A.
In the context of amendment No. 9, Deputy Carthy is proposing to change the initial review period from five years to two years. As I said on Committee Stage, setting this at five years aligns with the principal Act. We can already see how involved the process of drafting a code of practice is. The requirements for assessments and consultation make it a lengthy and detailed process and would further delay the roll-out of what I believe is an essential, necessary digital tool for An Garda. A code may need to be reviewed earlier than the five years and there is nothing preventing this from happening in the Bill. For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment.

---

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