I move amendment No. 2: In page 9, to delete lines 23 to 27.

I move amendment No. 3: In page 10, to delete lines 34 to 41, and in page 11, to delete lines 1 to 4.

I wish to clarify that this is the section in which my amendment was ruled out of order. I just do not want to speak unnecessarily.

Amendment No. 3 is not in this grouping, is it?

I will wait until we are speaking on the section so.

I move amendment No. 3: In page 5, to delete line 33. As we know, this Bill will provide for the use of AI facial recognition systems by An Garda Síochána. I believe the Government has gone about this in a fairly interesting way, using a novel term of "biometric analysis" to define the systems gardaí will be using. However, even though the Government is using that term, the definition provided in the Bill is effectively the same as biometric identification, as described in the EU AI Act. Our amendment deletes line …

I thank the Minister. After all the time in pre-legislative scrutiny and on the AI committee spent exploring what is and is not identification, facial recognition and so on, it is really difficult to understand how this Bill is about analysis when it carves out that one sentence saying it is not identification. If two CCTV clips are being compared, where are those clips being stored? The analysis still results in identification. It is hard to see how analysis, which will exist in this legislation, will not ultimate…

We also seem to have some sort of different understanding of what identification is. Identification is identification. Whether you are comparing one video camera to another CCTV feed or picking out someone getting off a bus and going into a house, it is used for identification. Biometric identification is not understood to be that you just compare something with a name in a database. Identification also follows people around through facial recognition and that is a database, even if it is on a slightly behind clock…

Yes, but it is biometric identification. It is not biometric analysis. It is just biometric identification. What if you remove the identification piece, whether it is against a database or a live CCTV system where you are comparing one street with the next one to see where someone is moving and tracking that person to identify them? If you remove the end result of identification, then what is analysis and what is its purpose? It does not have any. It does not exist as its own thing. It only exists with the weight o…

It is important to say that when we talk about safety, serious crime or child sexual abuse, often it can be presented in this way that everybody does not care about that because you want to make sure that a piece of legislation is doing what it says it is doing. Everyone cares about the safety of people, about victims and about reducing victimisation. It is important to say that. When somebody analyses a piece of legislation to ensure it is good legislation, it is not to reduce that concern. We have to remember tha…

I will withdraw my amendment but reserve the right to resubmit on Report Stage.

I will speak briefly to section 8, particularly in relation to the crux of the topic in relation to our amendment that was ruled out of order. We will look to submit a similar amendment. It was deemed that our amendment was against the principle of the Bill. Our amendment provided that the output of biometric recognition systems would not be used as a principal purpose. The only logic that we can think of as to why our amendment was ruled out of order is that the Bill intends for the results of biometric analysis t…

The new Part 6A inserted by this Bill outlines procedures around the use of biometric identification systems by gardaí. The Bill also provides in the newly inserted Part 8A for a code of practice to be established in relation to the application of Part 6A. Section 43C(1) states that, "A member of Garda personnel shall not carry out biometric analysis other than in accordance with this Part and any applicable code of practice." However, there is no consequence for the misuse of biometric technologies. As we have out…

Briefly, I agree about creating offences for things that potentially could be human error but the problem is that the ones where it is not human error can have a very serious consequence on the lives of people considering where we see these types of technologies being used. Going as far as creating an offence here is because of the carve-outs that exist in other places. When we look in particular at the information in Article 26(10) about requiring judicial approval for the use of technology, that creates a safegua…

I was not here at the beginning of the conversation. I apologise for anything that is repeated. Whatever about the other removals, in relation to section 3, in terms of further cementing what is already a bad law in relation to section 3 stop and search powers, in Ireland, the section 3 stop and search power within the drugs Act is used and abused to profile, harass and have a very low bar for policing. It is not necessary to have any sort of suspicion or evidence that somebody is in possession of a substance. In f…

That is not true. The evidence does not support that. It is important that the record is set right.

I believe the UN global commission on drugs, not The New York -----

That has nothing to do with the policy.

I should have said at the outset that I miscommunicated with my office when submitting other amendments. I have no interest in moving those amendments when we get to them. On section 3, I understand and accept the way in which I am going about it, but it is so associated with Garda powers that it is hard to separate them sometimes. It is important that we say that decriminalisation around the world has not increased drug use, nor has it decreased it. That is not its intended purpose. We need to not confuse the diff…

I am withdrawing the amendment.