I was looking for that, because it did not include language on the public, so it was not clear to me exactly which component this was around in terms of public systems. I would always reiterate that if we are very serious in terms of digital interference in our democracy, we would be more robust in our regulation of major social media platforms which have played quite an active role in anti-democratic activity, but that is by the by. That is fine.

Will we be going straight to the Bill subsequent to this?

To clarify, these are additional Committee Stage amendments that are being added after the piece. We have not had sight of them before now. Can I confirm that we will have Report Stage of this legislation at a later date and that there will be no guillotine applied in respect of the Report Stage debate? Of course, we have not had the opportunity to look at and respond to these amendments, which we are only hearing about now.

When there is a large volume of legislation coming from the same Department and when changes are coming at such short notice, it is more difficult to have the proper engagement.

We are proposing amendment No. 12 in relation to this but I also want to indicate that amendments Nos. 11 and 13 have merit also. This is particularly the case as they would be added as a very serious component of the legislation before us, which was not subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and did not have the same examination. It is a very significant proposal that would allow for the armed forces - not just the armed force because, when you look to the Bill, it is clear that it refers to the armed forces with eve…

I will be brief. In the examples the former Minister described, the Army was deployed. This Bill did not exist, and the Army was deployed. We have had discussions about missing persons and other incidents. Let us have legislation on a statutory basis to address such incidents, including kidnapping and so forth. However, the Bill a very wide rather than a nuanced instrument in the context of such incidents. All of the examples mentioned were instances where the Army had already been deployed. There are circumstances…

I accept that the Minister is making the case, and he makes it strongly in terms of the resolution in relation to all of the instances. The problem is that all of the instances are all bundled in together. We have heard the examples that the Minister has given us and the examples that Senator McDowell has given us. The point is that within the scope of what is in front of us as legislation, there is no differentiation or clarity regarding those instances that we have talked about, which have happened and occurred i…

I move amendment No. 12: In page 15, line 2, after “subsection (2)” to insert “and a resolution passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas”.

All of the amendments to this section are trying to come at something we all know to be true, which is that the signal being sent on the use of counselling records in sexual offences trials will have a devastating effect, not only in terms of the retraumatisation of victims or the chilling effect, as was outlined in terms of counselling and people accessing support, but it will also have a very serious chilling effect on the law. The interests of justice get talked about at one point in this Bill, but if we apply a…

The backward step I am seeing is in terms of the signal it sends to those who have campaigned and pressed so strongly for the prohibition and greater protection. They do not find the solutions that have been put forward to be adequate. They do not find them to have moved the dial sufficiently and in the same way that is needed. There are two very specific matters that the Minister has not addressed as regards our amendments Nos.18 and 19. If he could come back in on those, it would be useful. I understand that the …

I, too, want to signal a number of concerns in respect of this legislation. I believe, especially now on Second Stage, that the burden or obligation of proof is on the State. It must show us how these are not going to happen. It is not just for us to say that there may be inadvertent consequences because if they are warned about and action is not taken, then they are not inadvertent. What measures will the State take to ensure that instances, such as those we have seen with regard to Palestine Action and other abus…

I move amendment No. 1: In page 5, line 14, after “means” to insert “using biometric identification systems to do”.

In regard to amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, we are attempting to bring this Bill back in line with the protections and the safeguards outlined in the EU AI Act. As we described on Committee Stage, the Government is using a novel term it has made up, namely, the term "biometric analysis". It is preparing codes of practice and regulations around the use of this brand new term and category of thing. However, when we look at it, the activities being planned for require biometric identification systems which are cat…

I hate to say that the Minister and I are not in agreement. I do not believe there is a difference, or any substantial difference, between biometric analysis, as the Minister defines it in this Bill, and biometric identification, as it is defined in the EU law. They are actually almost exactly the same. What the Minister describes under biometric analysis and what is described under biometric identification in the EU law are the same. Where there is a difference is between the Minister's definition of biometric ide…

I move amendment No. 2: In page 5, to delete line 33.

I move amendment No. 3: In page 6, to delete lines 1 to 5 and substitute 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;”.

The Minister might clarify. While I am of course in favour of international co-operation on these important issues, I am concerned because the Minister did not answer my question. Other countries may use different definitions of biometric identification. For example, other countries could use the definition that is in the EU AI Act, and other countries do not have a bespoke biometric analysis definition. This is what I mean by being quite serious. We talked about a thing that is of high risk in terms of how it is d…

Even for prosecution, I should say.

That is why I wish to give the Minister the opportunity.

I move amendment No. 7: In page 7, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: “(7A) Where biometric analysis is carried out in accordance with section 43C(2), such use shall be subject to a data protection impact assessment.”.