The Law Reform Commission published its report on compensating victims of crime. Does the Minister intend to apply the recommendations in that report, particularly the one relating to establishing a new statutory victims compensation scheme?

I move amendment No. 1: In page 4, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following: “ ‘crime against humanity’ means any of the acts specified in Article 7 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court; ‘genocide’ means any of the acts specified in Article 6 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court; ‘war crime’ means any of the acts specified in Article 8.2 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court.”. Amendment No. 1 inserts these definitions. Amendment No. 4, which is a substantive amendment…

The difficulty is that we know An Garda Síochána has purchased this type of equipment from companies that have close relationships with the Israeli regime. The current legal position is that this can continue. The Minister mentioned that we did not need to put this in primary legislation, but since Committee Stage up to now, I do not understand why the Minister did not cut this off at the pass by introducing these types of provision by regulation, as has been the case in respect of the Defence Forces. The Minister …

We are dealing with a Bill that would, for the first time, allow what we all hope would be the appropriate use of biometric recognition technology in order to assist our police force in tackling serious crime, security matters and missing persons cases. Most people in the House recognise that, for those serious issues, there is a need for the use of that type of technology. However, there is also a consensus that we have to ensure appropriate safeguards because we have seen how this type of technology has been abus…

I move amendment No. 2: In page 6, after line 40, to insert the following: “(3A) A member of An Garda Síochána shall not deploy biometric analysis unless authorised in advance by a member of An Garda Síochána not below the rank of Chief Superintendent, who shall record in writing the grounds of necessity and proportionality for such deployment.”. This amendment was discussed on Committee Stage. It seeks to ensure that there are safeguards in terms of how this technology can be used and, crucially, to ensure that th…

I am not entirely reassured by the Minister's assurances. He talks about a code of practice which this House will have no hand, act or part in developing. His own Department and his office, in particular, since he has taken office have been incredibly reluctant to provide information to the Members of this House on how decisions are made or how matters relating to the outworkings of legislation actually work in practice. I would have thought this would be a fairly standard safeguard to ensure the public could be as…

I will make a couple of comments in conclusion. The Minister knows full well that nobody is suggesting that there would be individual authorisation for every single image, for every still and video. The amendment does not suggest that at all. It states that it would be authorised in advance by a chief superintendent or higher and that there would be a written record of the grounds for necessity and proportionality. That would negate the suggestion that this would become just a rubber-stamping exercise. The amendmen…

I move amendment No. 3: In page 8, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following: “Processing and storage of data 43DA. Biometric data processed under this Act shall— (a) be retained only for the minimum period strictly necessary, (b) be stored and processed exclusively on servers located within the European Union, (c) not be accessible to private contractors, and (d) be deleted immediately once no longer required for the purpose for which it was collected.”. This amendment is about ensuring that there can be fu…

I move amendment No. 4: In page 8, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following: "Prohibition on procurement or use of certain technologies 43DA. (1) An Garda Síochána, the Minister, or any public body acting on their behalf shall not procure, license, contract for, deploy, or otherwise make operational use of any biometric analysis technology, surveillance technology, software, hardware, dataset, or related service supplied by— (a) a company incorporated, headquartered, or substantially operating in a state en…

I move amendment No. 6: In page 9, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following: “10. The Minister shall ensure that no national deployment of biometric categorisation technologies shall occur until a pilot programme has been completed and independently evaluated, including assessments of— (a) accuracy and error rates, (b) discriminatory impacts, (c) compliance with data protection law, and (d) impacts on privacy and fundamental rights, and the evaluation shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.”. Th…

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 manda…

I will make a quick point in respect of amendment No. 9. The review will take place after the roll-out. Any delays in the initial roll-out will not affect the review - and that is not suggested or implied in any way - from the enactment of this legislation to the roll-out. The Bill currently states that following the initial roll-out, the review will take place after five years. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent a review taking place earlier. What is critically important for public confidence, however, is tha…

I move amendment No. 8: 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.”.

I move amendment No. 9: In page 11, line 31, to delete “5 years” and substitute “2 years”.

I am used to dealing with the Minister for justice and I am used to dealing with convoluted ways of dealing with matters. There is clearly a habit of limiting democratic oversight and scrutiny of this House in announcing and bringing forward proposals at short notice; minimising the period of time for debate; guillotining important legislation; and moving things from committees to this Chamber rather than allowing the detailed scrutiny of legislation. However, this is probably the most bizarre stroke pulled yet, wh…

When did the Minister bring that memo to the Cabinet?

Will we get our questions answered?

When was it brought to the Cabinet?

My question to the Minister is whether his Department has carried out an analysis of those university courses that have maximum or very high-level CAO points requirement for which some students who meet those points requirement are not successful because of random selection. Will he will list those courses that it will apply to, outline exactly how many places are on those courses and the number of places therein that are available for international students?

The Minister cannot finish an answer by claiming credit for providing extra places in courses when he started his reply by saying this has to be an autonomous-based system where there is no political interference because political decisions affect the number of places available on courses. I am sure the Minister will accept that. Last year, we are told that entry to 25 undergraduate courses with high level points were determined by random selection. That means people secured very high points in their leaving certif…