Garda Síochána (Powers) Bill 2026 [Seanad]: Second Stage

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time". I am very pleased to introduce this Bill to the House, following its passage through Seanad Éireann. In fact, we had five days of debate in the Upper House during which the Bill was very carefully considered and debated. As a result of the debate, a number of amendments were agreed. I too agreed to them and I will bring them forward on Committee Stage. I will discuss those amendments presently. I look forward to hearing the contributions of colleagues as we continue our consideration of the Bill. This is important and necessary legislation. It responds directly to developments in constitutional, European and human rights law, and reflects the Government's commitment to ensuring that Garda powers are exercised within a clear, modern and legally robust statutory framework. Much of the commentary surrounding this Bill has focused on journalistic privilege, which it addresses carefully. However, the Bill serves a much broader purpose. Electronic devices now feature in almost every serious criminal investigation and the number seized by An Garda Síochána reflects their growing importance. These devices can contain vital evidence and that evidence must not be placed beyond reach because of uncertainty over lawful access for gardaí under judicially approved search warrants. In organised crime investigations, gardaí increasingly encounter sophisticated technology. Recent cases have involved satellite phones, GPS devices, radios and other digital equipment, all of which can be central to co-ordinating criminal enterprises. Criminals use such technology to conceal and facilitate serious offences and gardaí must be able to seize and access the information it contains lawfully, subject, of course, to appropriate safeguards. Technology is also becoming an increasingly important tool for gardaí. Body-worn cameras, drones, biometric analysis and other digital technologies can support gardaí in preventing and investigating crime. This Bill strengthens the statutory framework governing the digital powers of gardaí, providing greater clarity around how information and evidence encountered in the course of investigations can be accessed and used. The Bill is not simply about phone messages. It also covers laptops and other digital storage devices that may contain evidence critical to prosecutions, including in cases involving child sexual abuse material. Ensuring lawful and timely access to such evidence is essential to effective criminal investigations. Ultimately, this Bill promotes clarity, fairness and the proper administration of justice. It provides a modern statutory framework for Garda powers and helps ensure that evidence obtained lawfully, under appropriate judicial oversight, can be relied on in court. It reflects this Government’s commitment, including mine, to equipping An Garda Síochána to protect the public, while fully respecting fundamental rights. The general scheme of the Bill was published in June 2021, with the aim of codifying Garda powers, including powers of arrest and detention. Since then, a number of significant Supreme Court decisions, most notably in the cases of Corcoran and Quirke, have identified deficiencies in the existing law governing search warrants, particularly in relation to electronic devices and privileged material. These judgments highlighted gaps in statutory safeguards and judicial oversight, as well as legal uncertainty for gardaí and individuals whose rights may be affected by the exercise of these powers. On the advice of the Attorney General, the Government decided to expedite those elements of the wider codification project where there was an urgent need for greater legal certainty. This Bill, therefore, focuses in particular on search, stop and search, access to electronic devices, and custody safeguards. At its core, this Bill places Garda powers on a clear statutory footing, with appropriate judicial oversight and safeguards, reflecting the modern reality that evidence is increasingly digital. It does not expand powers without appropriate limits. Instead, it places existing powers on a more constitutionally secure basis and introduces safeguards where none previously existed. This balance is particularly important for digital evidence. Much of the existing law was developed when evidence was physical and relatively easy to identify and separate. Today, a single device may contain vast quantities of highly sensitive information. The Bill recognises this reality by distinguishing between the seizure of a device, the preservation or capture of data, the screening of material for privilege and the forensic examination of digital content. By ensuring that each of these steps is subject to appropriate authorisation and judicial oversight, the Bill introduces clarity where the law was previously uncertain, while maintaining the necessary balance between criminal investigations and the protection of fundamental rights. The Bill must also be understood in the context of wider legal developments. The Supreme Court decisions in Corcoran and Quirke, together with judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union, including in Landeck, underscore the need for a transparent, rights-compliant regime for access to digital data, information systems and access codes. It is precisely at the intersection of digital evidence and privileged material that urgent legislative reform was required. The Bill has been drafted with these judgments to the fore, ensuring compliance with both constitutional and EU law while safeguarding fundamental rights. In that regard, it is instructive to note that in the Supreme Court decision in the Corcoran case, the court stated the deficiencies in section 10 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997 required urgent legislative intervention. I want to briefly address concerns raised by journalists and representative bodies regarding Part 3, which implements the Supreme Court’s findings in Corcoran. A free press and the protection of journalistic sources are fundamental pillars of our democracy, and these protections have been carefully considered in the drafting of the Bill. Part 3 responds directly to the Supreme Court's finding that the existing framework was deficient and to its call for urgent legislative action. It replaces that framework with a clear, structured process centred on independent judicial oversight. Where material may be subject to privilege, the court must be made aware of this, and any determination as to the examination of privileged material is subject to judicial approval. The Bill, therefore, strengthens the protection of journalistic privilege while ensuring that any interference with that privilege is necessary, proportionate and subject to appropriate safeguards. Protections for journalists sit within a broader framework of safeguards that apply to all search and seizure powers under the Bill. Garda actions are subject to judicial oversight, ensuring that searches, including those involving electronic devices, are lawful, proportionate and consistent with fundamental rights. Search warrant applications must be grounded in information presented to a District Court judge, and the seizure or examination of electronic devices requires appropriate court authorisation. For the first time, the Bill also provides a comprehensive statutory framework for the treatment of privileged material. Legal professional privilege is absolute. Other forms of privilege, including journalistic, public interest and sacerdotal privilege, are subject to clear procedures for identification and resolution, either by agreement or judicial determination. The Bill recognises the importance of privacy, due process and data protection in a democratic society. At the same time, these rights must be balanced with the public interest in the effective investigation and prosecution of serious crime. This Bill strikes that balance by ensuring that gardaí can investigate serious offences effectively, while intrusive powers are exercised only where necessary and proportionate, and subject to independent oversight. I will now turn to the structure of the Bill, which comprises six Parts and 41 sections. I will highlight its principal provisions, focusing on Parts introducing new or significantly reformed statutory frameworks. Part 1 contains standard preliminary and general provisions, including the Short Title, commencement and interpretation. It introduces definitions of "electronic device" and "information system" to ensure the legislation remains adaptable to technological developments. It also defines terms such as "seize", "capture" and "digital forensic examination", covering processes for examining seized digital data. It also provides for the repeal of existing search warrant powers, replaced by the new standardised framework set out in the Bill. Part 2 provides a consolidated statutory basis for Garda stop and search powers. Section 9 allows a member to stop and search a person or vehicle where there are reasonable grounds to suspect possession of a "relevant article", a term defined in section 7 to cover unlawfully obtained items, prohibited substances, weapons and other restricted articles. Section 10 allows vehicle searches where serious offences, including specified terrorist offences, are suspected, and for gathering evidence of those offences. The Part sets out clear procedural safeguards. Section 12 requires that persons be informed, in accessible language, of the reason for the search and its statutory basis, while section 13 requires a written record of searches and provides a right to a copy of that record. Section 14 confines the use of force to what is reasonably necessary, in line with established legal standards, and section 15 creates offences relating to obstruction, failure to comply with lawful requirements, or providing false identifying details. Part 3 is a central element of the Bill and establishes a comprehensive and consolidated framework for the application for, and execution of, search warrants by gardaí. While other statutory bodies will amend their powers separately, this Part provides the core template for modern search warrant law. Section 17 provides for applications to a District Court judge where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that evidence of an indictable offence, or a specified summary offence, as listed in Schedule 2, may be found at a place. Where privileged material is suspected, all known information concerning its nature and relevance must be disclosed to the court. Section 18 sets out the powers under a search warrant, including entry, search, seizure and the use of reasonable force. Section 19 regulates the search and examination of electronic devices and information systems. It allows the court to determine the scope of authorisation granted for a device. This may include capturing data for preservation, screening where privileged material is suspected or a digital forensic examination for investigative purposes. Section 20 provides for the limited and exceptional circumstances in which the court may authorise the forensic examination of material subject to privilege other than legal professional privilege, where this is strictly necessary and proportionate in critical cases. Section 21 strengthens the rights of occupiers of searched premises by requiring that they be informed of the search, shown a copy of the warrant and provided with a written notice in accessible language. It also establishes a mechanism to ensure this information is provided where the occupier is not present during the search. Sections 22 and 23 allow gardaí to seize material containing both items they may lawfully take and items they may not if on-site separation is impractical, and establish procedures for its handling, storage, recording and return. Sections 24 and 25 establish a clear process for the determination of privileged material by the High Court, requiring parties to apply within a defined 14-day timeframe, while also encouraging consultation and agreement between the parties where possible. Section 26 allows for applications to extend the validity of a warrant where necessary, while section 27 provides for tightly circumscribed powers to conduct a search without prior judicial authorisation in urgent circumstances. Section 28 creates offences for providing false information, obstruction, or non-compliance with lawful requirements. Part 4 provides a statutory framework for accessing electronic devices and information systems lawfully seized under Parts 2 or 3. It ensures that any examination of digital data is subject to judicial authorisation and confined to what is necessary and proportionate, whether following a stop and search or a search warrant. This Part enables a member of An Garda Síochána to apply to a District Court judge where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that evidence of an indictable or specified summary offence may be on a device or system. Court authorisations may specify the form of access, including privilege screening or digital forensic examination. The Part also contains provisions governing the scope, operation and legal effect of such authorisations, together with related offences. Part 5 introduces a modernised and strengthened framework governing the treatment of persons in Garda custody. It gives effect to Directive 2013/48/EU and addresses key recommendations of the Advisory Committee on the Interviewing of Suspects in Garda Custody. Sections 30 to 33 clarify and consolidate the rights of persons in custody to consult a solicitor and to have a solicitor present during interview. They provide clear statutory definitions, establish the requirement for private consultation, whether in person or by telephone, and place duties on custody officers to explain these rights and the implications of waiver. Section 34 sets out the limited and exceptional circumstances in which a Garda inspector may authorise an interview to proceed before a detained person has exercised their right to consult a solicitor or have one present, for example to prevent harm or the destruction of evidence. Any such authorisation must be documented and formally notified to the person concerned. Section 35 sets out how a person in custody, other than a child, may waive entitlements or consent to interview without a legal representative, and how such decisions are recorded. Solicitors play a vital role in making these rights meaningful in practice and I want to see solicitors available to provide timely and independent advice and representation to their clients, both in Garda stations and in our courts. Sections 36 and 37 extend these protections, with appropriate modifications, to all persons in custody and provide for custody records to be maintained electronically. Section 38 introduces mandatory electronic recording of interviews for serious offences listed in Schedule 3, with optional recording for other interviews. This represents a significant modernisation, reducing reliance on handwritten notes and enhancing transparency, accuracy and efficiency. Part 6 contains miscellaneous but important provisions. Section 39 places the obligation to administer a caution on a clear statutory footing, setting out when a caution must be given, including on arrest, prior to interview, or on charging a person. It requires that the caution be administered strictly in its prescribed form while clarifying that statements made before a caution can be given remain admissible, provided the caution is administered as soon as possible thereafter. Section 40 amends section 9 of the Criminal Law Act 1976 to apply explicitly that provision to misconduct by members of An Garda Síochána, thereby supporting accountability and ensuring legislative clarity. Section 41 amends section 50 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007 by revising its wording and expanding the list of offences to which it applies. I want to briefly flag matters I intend to bring forward on Committee Stage. To ensure coherence and avoid duplication, amendments will be required to repeal existing search warrant provisions across various enactments, fully aligning them with the new framework of this Bill. Arising from the debate in the Seanad and the contributions from Senators, I am proposing an amendment to section 8, to ensure that the power to require provision of information can only be exercised in a public place or where a member is lawfully present. Two further technical amendments are proposed to section 11(4) to remove possible duplication with section 15 covering offences and the addition of "place" to the details to be recorded in a record of a search, under section 13. Additional amendments may be required to the custody provisions in Part 5, including but not limited to notification to consular authorities; and depending on the outcome of the pending Davis appeal, on the statutory interpretation of the term "accompanied by", when executing a search warrant. Additional technical amendments may follow, including finalising the Schedules of offences, and clarifying the recording and management of material seized under search warrants. These measures will ensure the legislation operates effectively in practice. All amendments are subject to further drafting consideration. This Bill represents a targeted and expedited phase of the broader Garda powers reform project, focusing on areas where urgent constitutional and legal clarity is required, particularly search, stop and search, access to electronic devices and custody safeguards. Other elements of the project, including reforms relating to arrest and detention, will be progressed separately in due course. I also want to emphasise the practical importance of this legislation. Gardaí now routinely handle investigations involving multiple electronic devices, vast quantities of digital data, and complex issues of privilege and access. Without a clear statutory framework this creates uncertainty for gardaí, for the courts, and for individuals whose rights are engaged. This Bill provides clarity, certainty and safeguards and it ensures that evidence gathered in good faith, under judicial supervision, can withstand constitutional scrutiny. I am firmly of the view that the powers provided for in this Bill are proportionate to the challenges faced by An Garda Síochána, and that the safeguards contained within it reflect the values of our constitutional order. I commend the Bill to the House and I look forward to hearing what colleagues have to say in respect of the proposed legislation.

Sinn Féin welcomes the fact the Garda Síochána (Powers) Bill 2026 codifies Garda use of powers of stop and search, arrest, searches, seizures and detention. This was proposed by the Commission on the Future of Policing in 2018 and should not have taken this long to be implemented. The debate on this Bill is taking place at a time of new revelations in relation to the treatment of whistleblowers in An Garda Síochána due to be aired on "Prime Time" tonight. The Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland, which recommended the codification of stop and search powers being implemented in this Bill, was established in the aftermath of the controversies and crisis that emerged within An Garda Síochána, including the handling of whistleblower allegations made by Maurice McCabe. It is deeply disappointing that here we are now, so many years later, and we still have some serious questions to answer about whistleblowing, potential wrongdoing and accountability within the Garda. We need clear answers from the Minister for justice regarding how protected disclosures are being managed within An Garda Síochána. I have no doubt that after tonight's programme, the Minister will be under more pressure to answer these questions because public confidence depends on robust safeguards, transparency and accountability and it is essential that any shortcomings are identified and rectified without delay. These current revelations relating to the handling of whistleblowing again highlight the need to ensure there are proper oversight and accountability of An Garda Síochána. The new oversight structures that resulted from the Commission on the Future of Policing became operational in 2025, including the Policing and Community Safety Authority Ireland and Fiosrú. It is important these oversight bodies focus on strengthening Garda accountability, improving transparency in misconduct investigations and ensuring robust protections and competence for whistleblowers making protected disclosures. On the issue of stop and searches, I would like to know what the Minister will do to make sure some demographics, some people in our communities, are not targeted more than others. I bring this point up from personal experience. I grew up in north Clondalkin on the Neilstown Road and over the years, even as a child and as a young adult, I was stopped. It was commonplace for my peers and me to be stopped and searched by gardaí when just going about our business walking down the road and going to the shops for our parents. I put it to the Minister that I would more likely be stopped on the Neilstown Road even today than I would be in the leafy suburbs of Dublin 4. I know what this is like. It erodes communities' trust in An Garda Síochána and it did erode my trust in gardaí over the years but my work in the community since then and as a Teachta Dála has allowed for that trust to be built back up. We have some really good community gardaí in my area of Clondalkin but we need to have more to keep our communities safe. The Policing and Community Safety Authority of Ireland has already raised significant concerns about Garda staff levels. It raised concerns about the lack of effective performance management systems for gardaí and Garda staff. It had concerns about inconsistencies across divisions in regard to the handling of reports of domestic violence. It will be important that the Policing and Community Safety Authority of Ireland monitors the use of stop and search powers as well as the expansion of powers of arrest as provided for in this Bill. Sinn Féin has significant issues with the failures of this Bill to explicitly recognise the rights of journalists to protect sources. During its passage through the Seanad, I do not believe the Minister adequately addressed the extensive concerns about the implications of this Bill for the ability of journalists to do their job, including holding those in power to account. We submitted amendments in the Seanad to ensure there is a court hearing to determine whether a journalist's privilege applies before a search for can be granted. This is the case in many other jurisdictions, including in the North, but the Government voted against these amendments. The District Court should be empowered to take journalistic privilege into account when considering a Garda application for a search warrant rather than after the application has been granted. The Bill needs to explicitly recognise the rights of journalists to protect sources. This is arguably required to bring the law into line with the 2023 decision in Emmett Corcoran v. the Attorney General where the Supreme Court judge, Mr. Justice Gerard Hogan, stated that the general "protection of sources is integral to free press". The fact that this is not explicitly included in this legislation could be described as chilling and I am sure there are journalists who are watching today who would agree with this. The Minister needs to address the extensive concerns about the implications of this Bill for the ability of journalists to do their jobs, including holding those in power to account. The principle matters more than ever. Many of the significant revelations in public life emerge because individuals are willing to provide information to a journalist in the public interest. Arguably, tonight's "RTÉ Investigates" is testimony to that. If those sources believe their identity can be uncovered through search warrants or the seizure of devices without sufficient safeguards, they may remain silent. The result will be fewer disclosures, less accountability and weaker democratic scrutiny. I want to speak on the issue of high-visibility policing and in particular in the area of Saggart. As the Minister is aware, the community of Saggart has seen a huge population increase over the past number of years. Any areas that have seen an increase in population like Saggart has will see pressure on existing facilities, including on gardaí. People have a right to feel safe in their community and an increased Garda presence makes a community feel safe. Residents of Saggart were extremely disappointed that they were not included in the recent roll-out of high-visibility policing. I raised this with the Minister previously. Not having this rolled out in Saggart was really a lost opportunity on behalf of the Government and the Garda. What the residents of Saggart are looking for is a safe, well-managed environment for everybody to enjoy and they are calling for high-visibility policing for Saggart and surrounding areas. I ask that consideration be given to this in order to finally deliver for a community who feel their pleas have been largely ignored. While we welcome the codification and clarification of Garda powers contained in this Bill, the issues raised in relation to protection of journalistic sources need to be addressed. I hope the Minister will accept amendments in this regard when the Bill is on Committee Stage.

This is an important area in terms of ensuring the legislation is properly weighted because, clearly, the power to stop and search is an important one. It is important gardaí have that capacity but it is also important the context of it and the manner in which it is used are clearly codified. This was one of the issues that arose out of the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland. It was recommended in 2018. I was part of drafting our submissions to that particular process, the outcome of which being that some things we agreed with and some we did not. While there were certainly a lot of positive things recommended in it, not all of them have been acted on. On the legislation previously, there were provisions in over a dozen pieces of legislation. This clarifies two clear powers to stop and search, which is important. It is important the proper balance is applied here. I will briefly make reference to the programme that will be broadcast on RTÉ tonight. I think we will all be watching carefully to see the details of that. What has emerged so far is very worrying. These are people who were acting in public interest and who were marginalised. That is a huge concern. I hope it is a huge concern for the Minister. The reality is that the vast majority of gardaí are working night and day to do the best they can both for An Garda Síochána and, more importantly, the public as a whole. Unfortunately, in instances such as this, there are concerns in relation to cultural issues as to whether dissent is properly encouraged and people raising concerns are properly encouraged. I hope the Minister will respond appropriately to that and that the Táoiseach will do so as well. There is bit to go on the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland. The joint policing committees were replaced by the community safety partnerships. They have a bit to go. The model that exists in the North is more robust. There is more of a dynamic of communities ensuring accountability from police. Obviously, the context is different but there is still that dynamic. My experience of the community safety partnerships so far is that they are a positive forum but it is more of an information sharing. That information is coming from the Garda to the public and to the media. All that is helpful but I am not sure there is that same level of holding to account and that can be built on. I do not think there is any constraint to that in the legislation and more can be done. There is this issue that motions can come into it and they can be dispersed to a local area. While that is appropriate in some instances, it can mean that the meeting itself does not end up discussing the actual day-to-day operational stuff that could perhaps be beneficial. That brings me to the issue of local policing. I appreciate the Minister is, I am sure, going to say these are operational manners and it will be for the Garda Commissioner to decide. Hopefully, with legislation such as this, these debates are listened to in Phoenix Park as well. Before Christmas I welcomed the large allocation of gardaí that came to Cork. It was a break from a long trend of very small cohorts coming from Templemore. One, two or three gardaí were coming to the Cork city division. In reality, between Cork city and county - we are talking about 10% of the State's population - very often we were only getting two, five or six gardaí across the county as a whole. It was totally inadequate. In the Mahon-Blackrock Garda station, there are 17 gardaí. In 2012, there were 22 while in 2009, there were 31. There has not been any big increase in the neighbouring stations in Anglesea Street or Douglas but we have seen a reduction from 31 gardaí to 17 in that area. That is completely unacceptable. I would also like to highlight that the large cohort coming out of Templemore since has not been very significant in terms of gardaí allocation to Cork. That was part of the high-visibility policing operation. That has had a bit of success in the city centre but it needs to be expanded in the area just beyond the city centre, in the north inner city and south inner city. We are experiencing issues that need to be addressed in places like the South Parish, Greenmount, Douglas Street and Turners Cross. I know the local Garda management is very conscious of that. In any debate on these issues, I always take the opportunity to emphasise the value of local community policing. In fairness to the Cork city division, successive chief superintendents there have valued it very strongly and even in times of recession have tried to protect the community policing element. It is crucially important and that needs to be the approach right across the State. Building trust and a relationship, particularly between young people and gardaí, is crucial. It is crucial to preventing crime as well as tackling it and that is why it is important that we continue to invest in community policing.

I welcome the fact this Bill codifies Garda use of powers to stop and search, arrests, searches and seizures and detention. The point was made that it should not have taken eight years to get here but we are here and I want to welcome those elements of the Bill. Accountability in An Garda Síochána is really important so when we discuss Garda powers, it is also really important that we discuss oversight and accountability of An Garda Síochána. Some of those points have been raised already by my colleague but those points are really important. It was also the case that the Policing and Community Safety Authority, PCSA, assessment of An Garda Síochána's performance published in December highlighted what it called "significant concerns" about the recruitment and retention of gardaí and Garda staff. Those concerns are well-founded and have been rehearsed and debated in this Chamber many times. The issue of the protection of journalistic privilege has also been raised and I echo that. This Bill fails to explicitly recognise the right of journalists to refuse to reveal confidential sources. We believe the Bill needs to explicitly recognise the right of journalists to protect sources, which is arguably required to bring the law into line with the Supreme Court judgment mentioned earlier. I raise a number of local policing issues because obviously Garda resources are really important. We talk a lot in this Chamber about the changing nature of politics, sometimes what is happening in the streets, and the impact that can have on politicians. However, we have also seen the impact it can have on An Garda Síochána. For example, we saw riots in Dublin and we have seen examples elsewhere of very difficult situations for members of An Garda Síochána and we have to make sure they are properly supported. Visibility and numbers are very important. My colleague talked about additional Garda numbers for County Cork. There were five additional gardaí for Waterford city and county. Bear in mind there was a demand for additional resources in places like Dungarvan, Lismore and Cappoquin but also in Waterford city. At the most recent meeting of the joint policing committee, the chief superintendent said that not one of those five additional posts will translate into community gardaí or gardaí on the beat. That is a concern. Visibility in areas is really important which I am sure the Minister accepts. At all times we have to make sure we are equipping the gardaí to do their job. Many issues have arisen over the past couple of months. Some of them have already been raised and I am not going to go over them again. I am conscious of making sure we protect members of An Garda Síochána but I am also conscious that we have to protect the public. The public deserve to feel safe in their communities and they want Garda visibility. Sometimes they do not see it or sometimes it is not what it should be. That is not the fault of individual gardaí but it is a product of the legacy issues of recruitment and retention which have not been dealt with in my view. We still need to deal with those issues. I will finish by raising the local issue in Waterford where, unfortunately, of the five additional gardaí we got, it was confirmed that not one will be a community garda working on the beat. I do not think that is acceptable.

I am very happy to speak on this Bill as it has been a long time coming. I have no doubt about the need to consolidate Garda powers, which are scattered across different pieces of legislation, and to put clear rules around the exercise of those powers. There are positive provisions here. The statutory right to know why one is being stopped and searched is, of course, important, as is entitlement to have a solicitor present during an interview. However, this legislation also deals with some of the most intrusive powers we have given to the State. It is about stopping, searching and detaining people and accessing their phones and computers. It is potentially about accessing extremely sensitive and privileged information. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable that we spend time getting the safeguards right. This Bill has a very long history. The general scheme was published 2021 and it went to pre-legislative scrutiny in 2022. However, it is also important to acknowledge that what is before us is not simply that general scheme finally arriving in the Dáil five years later. The original theme was much broader. It contained 68 heads across seven parts and dealt with wider codification of search, arrest and detention. It also contained a dedicated part on the protection of fundamental rights. That makes proper parliamentary scrutiny all the more important. Some of the concerns we are discussing today are not new at all. One of the recommendations to come directly from pre-legislative scrutiny was that ethnicity should be recorded during "stop and search" so we can build a proper data set on who is being subjected to these powers and how appropriate they are. That recommendation is not in the Bill before us. If amendments are brought forward on Committee Stage, I hope we do not get the usual response from the Minister that Opposition Members are trying to hold up legislation that has already taken too long. Some of these questions have been sitting there for years. I followed Seanad debates on the Bill closely and there was very important scrutiny there. Senators were not trying to prevent gardaí from having the powers they need but they were trying to make the legislation better. I intend to bring amendments forward on Committee Stage on a number of the issues I am raising and I hope the Minister will engage with them in the spirit intended. One issue I am particularly concerned with is the protection of journalists and their sources. I have read some excellent briefings as a result of thorough research by civil liberties groups and they have identified a fundamental problem with how this Bill is structured. Under section 29, a garda can go to the District Court and seek an authorisation in relation to a device that has already been lawfully seized. That authorisation can allow gardaí to capture data and carry out privileged screening or a digital forensic examination. The journalist is not there nor is the solicitor. Nobody is there to argue the other side of this. Section 24 allows the High Court to determine whether material is actually privileged. That sounds like a safeguard but the problem is when it happens. By the time they get to the High Court, the material may already have been screened or examined by a garda. How does one protect the identity of a source after information identifying that source has already been seen? If a journalist is speaking to a whistleblower - a topic I imagine we will all be thinking about later today and tomorrow - the person’s name is in his or her phone and there are messages between them and there are emails. There may be documents stored on the device which are accessible through it. That material is assessed and subsequently goes before the High Court. The High Court might ultimately decide it is privileged and the material might have to be deleted but the information has already been seen. One cannot unsee it at that point. That matters far beyond the individual journalist involved. People come forward to journalists because they believe their identity can be protected. Sometimes they are exposing wrongdoing in powerful organisations or institutions and sometimes they are taking a considerable personal or professional risk in doing so. We began to write this speech yesterday when scrutinising the Bill but those last sentences are far more important today given what we are about to hear on "RTÉ Investigates" this evening. If those people cannot have confidence in source protection some simply will not come forward. There is another way of doing this and we only have to look north of the Border to see that. The procedure in Northern Ireland is such that where potentially privileged journalistic material can be dealt with through an all-parties process before police are permitted to access it, the journalist and his or her legal representatives can be heard by the court, which considers the seriousness of the offence, the evidential importance of the material, whether other ways of obtaining the evidence have been exhausted and whether granting access is in the public interest. It seems to be a much more sensible sequence to decide whether the material can be accessed and then allow access rather than allowing it and then subsequently deciding whether it should have been protected after the fact. There were amendments in the Seanad that attempted to address this but they were not accepted. I intend to return to this on Committee Stage because the answer could simply be that there is a High Court safeguard somewhere further down the process. The question is whether that safeguard comes early enough to mean anything at all. To turn to stop and search, if we are putting these powers on a consolidated statutory footing, we should also put in place the means to know how they are actually being used. This is where the failure to implement the recommendations from pre-legislative scrutiny becomes particularly difficult to understand. Stop and search records should include relevant demographic information, subject to appropriate data protection safeguards, and it should be published. Why are we still having to argue for this a full five years later? Without that information, we simply do not know who is being stopped, whether particular ethnic groups are being stopped disproportionately, whether Travellers are being particularly affected or whether young people in particular working-class communities encounter these powers considerably more often than other young people in more affluent areas. I am not saying we should simply assume that is happening. That is my entire point; we need the data. However, testimony we get from young people in particular in communities I represent says that they are already faced with these sequences. If somebody believes there is widespread racial profiling, we should be able to have the evidence. If An Garda Síochána says these powers are being exercised fairly and proportionately across different communities, the data should be capable of demonstrating that fact. I was particularly struck by what happened when this issue came up on Committee Stage in the Seanad. An amendment was brought forward dealing with recording information, including race, ethnicity and nationality, in respect of stop and search. It was initially ruled out of order on the basis that it could impose a charge on the Exchequer with potential charges to police using leading systems effectively, PULSE, forming part of the issue. That is absolutely outrageous. We are recording stop and search anyway. All we are talking about is what information goes into that record. Recording ethnicity has already been recommended through the pre-legislative scrutiny process and that is exactly why I have difficulty when legitimate amendments are portrayed as attempts to delay legislation rather than simply improve it. Of course legislation has to move but the purpose of our Parliament is not to see how quickly we can get a Bill from one end to the other. The final and perhaps most important area I want to address is that of drugs use. I chaired the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Drugs Use this year and spent a considerable amount of time engaging with people who use drugs for a variety of reasons as well as people working in addiction services, academics, gardaí and communities which have lived through the consequences of drug policy for decades. While personal possession is already criminalised under section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, we cannot pretend for a second that provisions of this Bill have nothing to do with the criminalisation of people for drug use - they absolutely do. Controlled drugs are brought within the definition of a "relevant article" for the purpose of the stop-and-search framework. We are consolidating within this new Garda powers framework the policing mechanisms dealing with enforcement of that existing criminal offence. That distinction matters but so does the reality. The work we have been doing on drugs policy has been moving in a very different direction. We have spent years talking about moving towards a health-led response. Our committee recommended the repeal of section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Minister's policy talks of a health-led approach. This Bill does not criminalise possession but does consolidate the architecture through which that criminalisation operates. That makes the absence of proper demographic information even more concerning. Drug use does not belong to one social class or postcode. People use drugs in affluent communities and in disadvantaged communities alike, but that does not mean everybody has the same experience of being policed for it. If a young person in one part of Dublin is repeatedly stopped and searched for suspected possession while somebody doing exactly the same thing elsewhere almost never encounters a Garda stop and search, that obviously matters. We need to know whether that is happening; if it is not, we should have the information to demonstrate that too. If the State retains the criminal offence of personal possession and gives gardaí powers to stop and search people in connection with it, we should at minimum be capable of examining which communities are experiencing those powers. Otherwise, we will know even less about who is carrying the burden of our continued policy of criminalisation. There are many other issues in the Bill that will need detailed consideration on Committee Stage. It is striking that the 2021 general scheme was presented by the Government as having a strong focus on human rights and contained a dedicated part on fundamental rights, while those express human rights provisions are absent from the Bill before us. That deserves an explanation and I hope the Minister gives one in his response. There are three things I particularly ask the Minister to consider: look again at journalistic privilege and the model operating in Northern Ireland; accept the principle that if the State is to be given stop-and-search powers, we should collect enough demographic information to know how those powers are being used; and look at the provisions concerning controlled drugs in the context of the direction we claim to be taking on national drugs policy - that is the Minister's direction, not mine. Gardaí need clear powers and the public needs effective policing, but neither of those things is undermined by safeguards or appropriate access to facts; they are strengthened by them. We will table amendments on Committee Stage on these issues. Some will deal with concerns raised since the Bill was substantially reshaped. Others will deal with recommendations that have effectively been sitting on the table since pre-legislative scrutiny. Either way, I hope the response from Government will not simply be that the Bill has taken long enough and needs to pass. It has clearly been altered substantially since being introduced. I will touch on some aspects of the Minister's contribution. There is one I was not going to bring up but the Minister played the music - the issue of solicitors. The Minister said he hoped to have enough solicitors in our District Court. I would argue strongly that that is on him. The Minister and I differ completely when it comes to the reform needed. I disagree with the measures he has taken and I find the narrative that has been building really challenging. The absence of evidence supporting the measures he has taken is quite striking, but we are where we are. The Law Society has written to the Minister asking him to engage with a mediator. No harm can come from talking. I hope the Minister revisits that and that we find a solution to this. The impacts in the courts are clear for everybody to see. By no measure is our Courts Service working effectively. The Minister said something in the summer that is also relevant to this Bill and to stop-and-search powers. After the tragedy on the M9, he gave an interview to thejournal.ie and spoke about 1,000 young people in the State being outside the recourse of the Garda youth diversion programme. I agree with him to a point but he lost me when he did not say what we would do about that. The 2018 Greentown report also talked about 1,000 young people in the State who were being groomed into criminality. I would say there is significant overlap between those two cohorts. We have also had considerable debate on parental responsibility and whether parents should be punished for the crimes of their children. Whatever the Minister's view on that, we have to accept there are in this State complex issues related to generational poverty and trauma which have been well discussed. There are also children being groomed into criminality. The effects are seen on our streets in the unsightly elements of young people selling drugs on scooters. We will not be able to slowly police our way out of that. I would love to be part of the conversation with the Minister on the new youth justice strategy. There are good examples in the Belvedere Youth Club in town of working with children between the ages of seven and nine. I would love to talk to the Minister further about that. This is something I would like us to work together on.

Like my colleague, Deputy Gannon, I welcome aspects of this Bill. It is important that gardaí are able to police our communities in the most effective way possible and that things are clear as to how communities will be policed and how their safety will be affected. To that end, I was at a safety forum meeting in my constituency on Monday and tonight I will be at another one. For years, the conversation has been that communities like mine in Dublin South-Central want more gardaí, particularly gardaí with powers to do what they need to do to ensure the laws are being upheld. E-scooters were mentioned on Monday and will be mentioned tonight as well. Gardaí need to be able to pursue people on e-scooters who are speeding and doing all those things. People in my constituency want more community guards and juvenile liaison officers. Those gardaí are fundamentally important to ensuring we live in a safe community. It is important there be a human rights element to anything that is happening with regard to policing and it is important when the laws this Bill proposes come into place that the person being stopped and searched understands exactly what that means, and not only at the time it happens. I have not been arrested but if I were, I am sure my senses would be heightened and I probably would not hear what the garda says to me. We need public engagement on what it means. If you are being stopped and searched, you need to know what your rights are, what the gardaí can do and how your human rights are protected. For years I was a youth worker. We had things we were able to explain to young people: "If you are stopped, these are your rights." It is important that be protected for young people and adults; I am talking about young people because I have a background of working with them, particularly young people at risk. In addition to what is being proposed, I ask that an information campaign be undertaken to ensure people know their rights. It has already been covered but journalists' sources are really important. Most people in the House will be watching "RTÉ Investigates" tonight with Rita O'Reilly's report. It is important journalists' sources continue to be protected and that journalists remain independent and allowed do the things they are supposed to be able to do. There is over-policing in certain areas. I would love to see appropriate policing in working-class areas. On one hand, there are not enough guards; on the other, there is stop and search. As other Deputies have said, people have been stopped and searched because of where they live, how they look, etc. The profiling of people being stopped and searched is important. We need to listen to groups and ethnic minorities who have raised this concern. When collecting data about people - whether that is where they live, how they look or where they come from - the data should be collected for a specific reason and it should be outlined clearly why it is being collected and what is being done with it. We will be able to use the data, if that is the way we collect it, to make sure there is not racial profiling going on, but it needs to be made explicit why it is being collected and for what. With regard to the community that I live in, I was on the radio recently discussing the provision in relation to parental responsibility that is being considered under the juvenile justice system. That already exists under the Child Care Act. Parents are already obliged to do that, but it is not necessarily enforced. It is not necessarily the first thing that happens. I am also very concerned about the young people who are involved in the criminal justice system. As I have said before in this House, I worked in the school completion programme for almost two decades. Over that period, we lost children from education because they were groomed into criminal behaviour by adults. I recall, while working in that area, that Fagin's law was introduced. I thought it would be fantastic. There have only been a handful of convictions. A handful of convictions or charges is not good enough because the problem is so widespread. I worked with thousands of children and we lost hundreds of children in the communities I worked in because they were groomed into criminal behaviour. We need to use the laws in place to stop that sort of thing going on. The Minister mentioned the special care places for children in the summer. Thousands of young people are not being supported. There are 26 special care places and only 15 of those beds are available in the springtime. We know what the problems are. We need to ramp up the support that is in place because for young people, it can be somewhere where they can find solace from the chaos going on in their lives, which leads to further chaos. However, if they are not being supported, they will continue in that. As has been said lately, their parents are not able to support them, so we need to ramp up supports. The rights of the child are important in this, as are the rights of all people of all ages with regard to policing.

As the House will know, the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland recommended the consolidation and modernisation of Garda powers to search, arrest and detain persons. Underpinning those recommendations was the need to ensure public confidence in our policing system, which is fundamental to a healthy and functioning democratic society. The measures contained in this Bill are, therefore, most welcome as they help to ensure that policing powers are exercised clearly, legally and in relation to fundamental rights. Importantly, the Bill also provides greater legal certainty to members of An Garda Síochána in carrying out their duties. Gardaí need to know clearly what powers are available to them and when and how those powers can be exercised. The Bill provides a much clearer statutory framework in that regard. The use of electronic devices in serious crime has increased significantly over recent years. We see this in the number of devices that gardaí are seizing. Criminals are using these devices to conceal their activities and to communicate instantly with other criminals. We have to make sure that gardaí have the power to access this information in a clear and lawful way. The Bill brings important clarity in that regard by distinguishing between the seizure of a device, the capture of data, the screening of material for privilege and a full digital forensic examination. This will give gardaí much greater clarity as to what they are legally entitled to do at each stage of an investigation, all the while ensuring that the appropriate judicial safeguards remain in place. The Bill also brings forward measures to ensure that Garda powers to stop and search are applied consistently and are clearly understood by members of the public. It provides a clear statutory basis for the exercise of those powers where reasonable grounds exist, while also requiring that individuals are informed of the basis for the search and that a formal record is maintained. Clear rules are of benefit to everybody, and they make sure that gardaí can do their jobs effectively. Most importantly, they protect the rights of the individual and they provide greater certainty as to how policing powers should be exercised. I commend the Minister and his Department on this legislation. I look forward to further scrutiny on Committee Stage.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I commend the Minister and his officials on bringing forward this Bill. I believe it is his 24th Bill so far this year, which is quite remarkable. This legislation updates and modernises Garda powers around stop and search, entry and search, and the treatment of people in custody, bringing it all together under one single Act. It follows on from the 2018 recommendations of the Commission on the Future of Policing and is another programme for Government commitment being delivered by the Minister. The Bill is also a response to recent legal judgments. In Corcoran v. the Commissioner 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the protection of journalistic sources as a cornerstone of a free press and called for urgent legislative action. In Quirke, the court recognised that a phone or a computer is a separate digital space, and in Landeck, the Court of Justice of the European Union set out what is required before a device is examined. This Bill answers all three of those. The Bill also introduces important safeguards. No device may be examined without judicial authorisation. A judge must be satisfied that access is necessary and proportionate and may refuse. Where privileged material arises, it is the High Court that decides and legal professional privilege remains absolute. The safeguards elsewhere in the Bill are new and worth noting. For the first time, for instance, a person who is stopped and searched must be told in plain language why they are being searched and under what provision. A record must be made of every search and the person can obtain such a copy. The right to a solicitor before and during interviews will be placed on a statutory footing and a child cannot waive it. These are real protections that do not exist in statute today. The Bill is part of a wider body of work. I welcome the Minister's focus on the issue that my constituents raise most with me, namely, the number of gardaí on the ground in our community. A record budget of €2.74 billion was allocated this year to support policing. The target of 5,000 additional gardaí is being pursued through continuous recruitment, with 206 gardaí attesting in July alone, the highest level since 2019. The high-visibility policing plan has been extended to DMR East - my own area - which is welcome. Forty-five new gardaí have been assigned to the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown area. On the ground, people have noticed an increased Garda presence in our towns and villages, and indeed in our community. They also noticed last month that gardaí in DMR East seized over €100,000 worth of drugs, along with cash and scrambler bikes in an intelligence-led operation. That is precisely the power this Bill is putting on a more secure footing. I commend our local Garda team, led by Chief Superintendent David Kennedy, Superintendents Brian Halligan, Gordon Woulfe and Denis Whelan, as well as Detective Superintendent Brian O'Keeffe, all the inspectors, sergeants and specialist units and, of course, the gardaí working in our community on their efforts to keep people safe. The Minister will be aware the population of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown has increased significantly since 2020, with new housing in Cherrywood, Carrickmines and Woodbrook. While the recent allocation is very welcome, more gardaí will be required. The Minister will also be aware of my ongoing raising of the issue of a new Garda station required in the new town of Cherrywood, one of the fastest growing communities in the State, which is located along the M50 and provides excellent access to operate specialist units from. I look forward to continuing to work with the Minister as he makes further progress on policing and tackling antisocial and criminal behaviour in our communities.

I raise an issue related to journalism, in particular local journalists in my area, in The Echo and Cork Independent, who I have worked with over the years. They deliver local, relevant and topical issues and news in Cork city. I have worked with them on confidential sources and people who come forward at the risk of their livelihoods because they believe the public has a right to know. I hope this Bill will not damage the relationship journalists have confidential sources. We have to be able to protect journalists and their right to be able to hold people in power to account. That is important. I will raise a number of serious issues that arose in Cork over the summer. We had homes petrol bombed, we had shootings and we had vicious attacks using knives and other deadly equipment. We had a case where the house of a woman and her two young children was petrol bombed for no reason because criminals - and that is too good of a word for them - petrol bombed the wrong house. This woman was distraught. Her two young children were in bed when the petrol bomb was hopped off the house. Gardaí and forensic officers were there. The gardaí in Cork are doing their best but the problem is the allocation of gardaí and resources. This woman now lives in fear that her house and her children will be under attack again. I have said at meetings in Cork with the Garda Síochána that petrol bombing should be a crime of its own. It should not be included with arson. If you petrol bomb a person's house, that is attempted murder. There is no other way out of it. We have seen families and people die because of people petrol bombing homes. Why is it not a separate offence and why does it not carry a much heavier sentence? These drug gangs are getting away scot-free. We know these drug gangs are in Dublin and Limerick. We have the same vicious gangs in Cork and we have communities right across Cork who are living in fear. I am asking the Minister for help for those communities. Tragically, a number of young people have died by suicide over the summer - over a half of dozen in the past couple of years - because of drug intimidation, drug debt and the fear that these vicious drug dealers are bringing to communities. What is being done about it? To me, it is attempted murder that these young people took their lives because of the intimidation. How are these dealers being tackled? I want to send a clear message to the gardaí. We know they are doing their best but the Minister is not doing his best. This Government is not doing its best because it is failing the Garda and failing communities who are living in fear while these criminals are attacking people in broad daylight in Cork city. They think they can get away with it. I will give a couple of figures before I finish up. Only six gardaí were trained in pursuit this year. It should not take people to die for the Government to act. For eight years, there has been a report there. For eight years, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have refused to act or have delayed acting. Cork has lost six Garda staff this year. We only got five probationary staff, one for the north side that I represent. From June to July, Cork saw a reduction of one Garda on roads policing and one community Garda. To give the Minister other figures, in 11 years Ballincollig has only got one probationary garda, Blarney has got only one, and Watercourse Road has got only one. There are 701 gardaí in Cork city at the moment. That is fewer than in 2020 and 19 fewer than at the end of 2025. We need more gardaí on the street. We need communities to feel safe. I have listened to the Minister's party colleagues saying how great it is for them. It might be great for them but it is not great in Cork because we need more gardaí.

Before we get into the Bill, and trust me I am not going to go on about this for long, obviously, we all know about the programme tonight. It is absolutely impossible for the Minister not to come in here next week to answer questions on this on behalf of the Government, the previous Minister for justice, the Department of justice and An Garda Síochána. I am glad he is nodding. That request will be going in and I ask the Minister to do that because it will be necessary. I am glad to see the Minister seems to be agreeing. I encourage him to sit down with his Department and to go through absolutely everything. I hope he has heard what I said. He should go through everything. I have had enough experience of answers coming from his Department that have been incorrect. He has apologised to me here twice on some very sensitive information. He cannot say he has not been told because I have raised many of the issues, although not all because not all will be covered by this programme, directly with the Minister, separate from anything to do with protective disclosures, and I have tabled hundreds of parliamentary questions. Finally on this issue, I believe there was an absolute lack of knowledge in this Chamber today on the part of the Government in relation to aspects of protected disclosures legislation and it was cringeworthy. This Bill is a very important one and it is long in the making. As the Minister will be aware, it was published in 2021 and it went through pre-legislative scrutiny in the justice committee in the same year and a report was published in 2022. I support a lot of what is in this Bill but I also have a lot of concerns which I will go into in a while. The concerns are well-meaning and they run on from some of the issues raised by other Deputies but not only those. The Bill has changed considerably since the general scheme. Some of the changes relate to the narrowing of the scope that has taken place, with the Bill now focusing more squarely on powers of search with provisions relating to arrest largely absent. Some changes, as the Minister made clear, are responding to some Supreme Court decisions in the Quirke and Corcoran cases and EU obligations arising from the Landeck judgment. Those precedents have arisen in the years since 2021 and it is right that the Government addressed the legislative issues they highlighted. Other changes and omissions are concerning, however. The statutory codes of practice which were at the heart of the general scheme are nowhere to be found. The same is true for Part 2 of the general scheme on the protection of fundamental rights. We are talking about very serious questions here where the State may infringe on the rights of privacy and of data protection. What happens when the imperative of public safety and the investigation of crimes come up against the individual and constitutional freedoms that underpin our whole democracy? That is why the Government's approach here is concerning in some aspects. Notwithstanding the merits or otherwise of the Bill's provisions, by disregarding the protections of those fundamental rights that prefaced the general scheme, it risks giving the impression that those rights have been deprioritised or discarded in the drafting of this legislation, and that is concerning. It is giving the wrong impression. The ten recommendations made by the justice committee in the report on pre-legislative scrutiny have largely not been implemented. Will the Minister go through the recommendations one by one as to why not? The committee recommended that the provisions be amended to provide more limited circumstances in which gardaí can compel individuals to provide their phones and personal data to gardaí as part of a search warrant. This has not happened. In fact, the opposite is the case. It raised serious concerns of the provisions around senior gardaí, rather than District Court judges, to issue search warrants in urgent circumstances and recommended the provisions be removed. Again, this has not happened and this is concerning. Not being able to get hold of a District Court judge in a timely manner does not seem to merit giving the powers we are giving and allowing here. The actual issue is not necessarily with the gardaí at that rank having to say they believed search warrants are needed but it puts other gardaí at longer ranks in difficult circumstances from time to time, as the Minister will appreciate. That is what the real concern is here. It is about the gardaí at lower ranks who have to deal with these issues. The committee also recommended that consideration be given to the possibility of introducing sanctions for illegal searches to ensure gardaí are aware of and compliant with their obligations, and to safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens. Not only has this not happened but the entire part dealing with fundamental rights has been removed. We have long moved on but I have raised the issue "bikegate". That farmer's buildings were searched without a warrant. What has happened since? Has that ever been looked into? The famous "bikegate" caused all the controversy and cost the Exchequer a lot of money. There was no warrant. Has there been any consequence? We all know the answer to that. That farmer never had the chance to look for compensation or recompense. Not that he actually wanted any financial compensation but he never had the chance because it was outside statute. It was outside statute because he did not know about the fact that there was no warrant in the first place. That is a complete anomaly which the Minister might address at some stage. How can statute run out for somebody whose premises were illegally searched because they did not know about it? The legislation needs to be looked at because the timeframe is from the time of the search, not from the time when the individual found out that there was no warrant. I ask the Minister to look at that. It is an anomaly that affected this gentleman whom I met. He is a very decent man. The committee looked closely at the codes of practice to be provided for and recommended that they be transparent, publicly available, drafted with public consultation and accompanied by a data protection impact assessment. The decision not to include statutory codes of practice in the Bill is simply baffling. The Minister's press release announcing the publication of this Bill last Christmas noted that "the Commission on the Future of Policing recommended that police powers of search, arrest and detention should be codified and supported by statutory codes of practice". Where are those statutory codes of practice? They are nowhere to be seen. Why? I do not know. It is worth reflecting on the words in the report from the Commission on the Future of Policing, which was published in 2018. It stated: The purpose of policing is to protect the human rights of all members of society to live free from violence, abuse, crime and fear. The justification for police powers to arrest, search or detain, and thereby to curtail the rights of some individuals in certain circumstances, is rooted in the duty of the police to serve and protect society as a whole. Police have to exercise these powers appropriately, effectively and with fairness to everyone. This is precisely why clear and effective codes of practice, placed on a statutory footing, are so important. It is why the report went on to recommend that legislation defining police powers of arrest, search and detention be codified with statutory codes of practice. While the Minister may tell us that codes of practice will come down the line later, why has the opportunity to put them on a firm statutory footing not been taken in this Bill? Passing this legislation without that provision risks putting the cart before the horse. I watched, and was also very taken by, Senator McDowell's contribution in the Seanad in relation to this legislation. I note the Minister is now bringing forward some amendments based on some of the comments made there. The Minister is open to changes. I acknowledge that. It is not the first time I have said that. He has done so in the past too, so I want him to think about these matters. I also note that while the stated aim of the legislation, as expressed in the Minister's press release, is to consolidate the existing Garda search powers, that is not exactly what the Bill technically does. As section 4 makes clear, the powers in the Bill are additional to whatever statutory powers the gardaí might already have. That is not consolidation; it is extra. This is an important distinction as it seems to show that the Government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. The lack of clarity raises real risks, and I am going to get into those. The Bill also clarifies the powers available to gardaí to stop and search members of the public, including requiring that a written record be made of such a search. I welcome that. The issues with stop and search as a police policy are well documented. Research by our near neighbours has consistently found that ethnic minorities are disproportionately targeted and the tactic widens the gap between the police and the diverse communities they serve. One study in 2014 found that people of colour were four times more likely to be the subject of stop and search than white people. It also found that the practice was one of the least effective ways of tackling knife crime compared to other methods of monitoring diversion and community-led deterrents, such as having more police on the streets. Those concerns were why the justice committee recommended in 2022 that under this Bill, ethnicity be recorded during stop and search in order to build a comprehensive data set of the ethnicity of people searched by An Garda Síochána. The Bill before us does not do that either. Why? I am now getting in to a deeply concerning area in relation to journalistic privilege and privilege in general. Following the Corcoran judgment, the Government is now requiring that An Garda Síochána must make clear to a judge when it anticipates that privileged material will be found in the course of a search. However, the determination of whether privilege applies will only be made by the High Court after - that is a critical word - a device has been seized. What happens in the silo between the device being seized and the determination being made? Does An Garda Síochána just look at it, as in literally just look at it, without going into it? How will the Minister guarantee that is what will happen? You cannot unsee something you have seen. If officers see privileged information, which they are not entitled to see, post a determination by a High Court judge, what happens? If there is to be a criminal case, will that not be jeopardised? How will the Minister deal with this? Why are we dealing with these issues ex parte and not inter partes, where both sides can go before the judge as they do in Northern Ireland? It seems wrong that this is the case. Inter partes hearings will at least allow the journalist involved, or the person with the privilege involved, to make their case. Again, I fail to see in this legislation how devices that are taken are not going to be looked at by An Garda Síochána prior to a determination by a High Court judge. I do not believe that is realistic or even practical. We then have the issue of whistleblowers. I will walk out of this House and meet a number of the whistleblowers who are on the television programme tonight. I will walk straight out of here and meet them again, having met them many times. Just say they talk to or meet a journalist or they give something to a journalist out of public concern. What is the difference between members of An Garda Síochána - I am not saying this will happen but it could, potentially - going and searching for that documentation because they know the journalist has it and then, in the vacuum before it goes before a High Court judge for an ex parte hearing, looking at that? What is the difference between intelligence gathering for other reasons as opposed to doing it for the right reasons? What happens to that privilege? What happens to the privilege the journalist has? How can we guarantee that the actions will be done for the right reasons? Legislation has to reflect and protect privilege and it has to protect in the circumstances I have just outlined. This legislation, as drafted, has holes in it which mean it will not do that, and I have just outlined an example. Where are we on the whole issue of data searching regarding the use of other forms of searching for phones, electronic devices, etc., which have not or will not go before a judge? We all know that we now live in a world where the Border does not exist, electronically speaking. There are now technologies out there that will intercept communications going to electronic devices without ever appearing on this island. In fact, the Minister acknowledged in the past that we have a weakness in this area. He said it and I acknowledged that publicly because I agree with him. We were very lucky that it did not fall down in relation to a high-profile case in this country a few years back. It was a criminal case, and the Minister is aware of what I am talking about. On the searching of all electronic devices, which I obviously believe in under the right circumstances, in the last number of years, given what we now know happened in Northern Ireland in relation to journalists, has there ever been a case of intelligence gathering or other methods whereby organisations from outside the State were used to source information on electronic devices in this State? Will the Minister ask that? Somebody needs to ask it, given the way the world is now. Obviously, it would not be legal, because we have a process here for how such searches take place. I want the Minister to ask this question of An Garda Síochána and I will come back to him on it. Has there ever been a scenario where any outside organisations, intelligence agencies or countries have, in any way, to the knowledge of anyone in the Department of justice or An Garda Síochána, garnered or intercepted - use whatever word you like - any electronic information belonging to anyone in this country with the knowledge of any apparatus of this State? It is a very interesting question. Privilege is not defined here. I am taking it from the Minister that, given the legislation brought into this House previously by Brendan Howlin and enhanced by others, while we are talking about journalistic privilege and the concerns I have expressed, I presume Oireachtas privilege is protected. I presume Oireachtas papers, while people are Members of the Oireachtas, are protected. Will the Minister guarantee that in his reply? We are talking about journalistic privilege, but I note Oireachtas privilege is not covered in this. I went through it. There are actually very few definitions. Will the Minister give us a guarantee that is covered? That is a layer above again. The people here are the elected people. Together with these new powers in the Bill to compel individuals to handover PIN codes and passwords for devices, it is understandable that groups like the National Union of Journalists have had concerns. We need a lot of clarity on the issues I have raised, particularly towards the end. It is worth remembering the words of Mr. Justice Gerald Hogan in his judgment in relation to privilege and journalistic privilege. This long-awaited Bill is a mixed bag of welcome measures but also issues I have deep concerns about. I expect the Minister will have to make amendments to this legislation throughout this process. I also do not expect it to be a quick process because there are very technical and legalistic issues that we will have to discuss in detail at committee level and throughout this process.

Is mór agam é labhairt ar an mBille seo, Bille a cuirfidh le nua-aoisiú An Gharda Síochána agus a chinnteoidh go bhfuil na cumhachtaí atá aige oiriúnach don lá atá inniu ann. I welcome this Bill as a programme for Government commitment and as a very important step for An Garda Síochana and the way in which its members do their work, the context surrounding the way they do their work and the legislative framework underpinning it, in terms of modernising them and keeping pace with working practices and procedures in other spheres. The first thing I want to address relates to Part 5 of the Bill, which is about the electronic recording of interviews. This is something I have been speaking about for a while during my time in this House. There are cumbersome procedures with regard to the taking of witness statements and the interviewing of suspects that require members of An Garda Síochána to write down by hand that which is uttered in an interview and then to recount that back to the individual who is being interviewed and to check that the transcription by hand has been done. We do not train gardaí to be transcribers or stenographers, so I would like clarification on whether this Bill will allow provision for the use of AI transcription services, for example, to transcribe the notes of what is said to minimise that writing time and, more importantly, to maximise the amount of time gardaí spend on front-line policing as opposed to a task that could be performed by a machine. My next point relates to Part 2 of the Bill and the requirement to record searches. Again, like all the things we ask members of An Garda Síochána to do, if this requirement is introduced, I would urge that a technological solution be found to make it easy on an app, mobile device or computer to record the detail of that search very quickly as opposed to having to do it on a paper-based file, and to allow immediate connectivity with the PULSE electronic system. I also urge that the requirements and powers being given to An Garda Síochána under Part 2 of the Bill be used to deal with illegally held vehicles, such as e-scooters and e-bikes. Pending the registration requirements that I hope the Minister for Transport will introduce, that will be another tool in the toolbox of An Garda Síochána to take illegally held e-scooters and e-bikes off our streets. Turning to Part 3 of the Bill, one thing we have heard and which the Minister will have heard of in his constituency as well is the prevalence of vape shops and the public's suspicion that in many cases some of these shops could be used for laundering money, as a front for organised crime or, more heinously, providing illegal narcotic substances in a different form to younger persons and minors in particular. The context within which vape shops are operating in our streets, towns and villages in our country is one where many people do have this suspicion around them. We must make sure that gardaí will have the power under this Bill to undertake a search of such a premises where they have anecdotal suspicion that drugs or money laundering is happening as a front for a particular premises. Finally, on Part 5 of the Bill, I welcome the updating of the custody arrangements for people who are taken into Garda custody. I think this also presents us with an opportunity to look at how we manage custody more generally. Models they apply in the PSNI and in England and Wales allow for the introduction of custody suites, where officers on the beat in a patrol area can leave the suspects who have been arrested in a large centre that does not require multiple Garda officers to be there. It requires a custody sergeant to take custody of all those people but would minimise the need to scatter to different Garda stations around the area. I am thinking about locations like Ronanstown Garda station in my area, which would be a perfect location for such a custody suite, to make sure we are providing custody at scale. Again, this is all about freeing up garda time. If a garda is doing a task not necessarily linked to front-line policing, how do we minimise the administrative nature of that task and replace it with something else? I hope the Minister takes those considerations on board.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Garda Síochána Bill, which represents an important step in ensuring that our policing laws are fit for purpose in a modern Ireland. The Bill seeks to provide a clear framework for Garda stop-and-search powers, the execution of search warrants, the handling of electronic evidence and the rights of persons in custody. As a TD for County Louth, I hear every day from constituents who want to feel safe in their homes and in their communities. They want to know that An Garda Síochána has the tools necessary to tackle organised crime, drug dealing, online exploitation, antisocial behaviour and the many challenges that have evolved in recent years. At the same time, however, they expect those powers to be exercised fairly, proportionately and with respect for individual rights. That balance is actually here in the heart of this legislation. One of the significant aspects of the Bill is that it brings together powers that have developed over many decades and places them within a more coherent statutory framework. That is good for the Garda, for the courts and for the public. Clear laws lead to greater transparency, greater accountability and greater public confidence. The Minister and I know well that criminality has changed dramatically in the last few years. In truth, I admire the Garda's ability to react to such a variety of situations and challenges daily. Much of the evidence required in investigations is now stored on phones, laptops and online systems. Criminal gangs are increasingly sophisticated and often operate across multiple jurisdictions. It is therefore essential that An Garda Síochána has modern powers to gather evidence and investigate serious offences effectively. The provisions dealing with electronic devices and digital evidence recognise that reality. However, effective policing and civil liberties are not competing objectives. In fact, they depend on one another. Public trust in An Garda Síochána is one of the great strengths of our policing model. It is therefore welcome that this Bill includes safeguards relating to access to legal representation, the recording of procedures, judicial oversight and protections surrounding legally privileged material. These measures help to ensure that individuals' rights are protected while also supporting robust criminal investigation. As someone who engages regularly with community groups, victims of crime and local residents across County Louth, I know that people want strong action against those who make life a pure misery for others. They want gardaí to be visible, supported and empowered to intervene where criminal activity is taking place, but they also want those reassurances that decisions are being made fairly and consistently. Legislation such as this will help to provide those reassurances by setting out clear rules and procedures. It is important to recognise the professionalism of An Garda Síochána. Every day, its members make difficult decision in challenging circumstances. They deserve legislation that is clear, modern and practical. Equally, communities deserve confidence that these powers are accompanied by appropriate safeguards. While careful scrutiny of any expansion or clarification of Garda powers is entirely appropriate, and while aspects of the Bill may be refined through the legislative process, the overall objective is one that I support. This legislation reflects recommendations aimed at modernising policing powers and creating a more accessible legal framework for both gardaí and the public. I share the concerns of my colleagues about vape shops. There is a proliferation of them across County Louth. We see young people queuing outside at lunchtime during their school break. We do not know what they are buying or what those shops are selling. We need to ensure that the Garda has the power to search these premises. Ultimately, this Bill is about protecting communities, supporting effective policing and safeguarding people's rights. Those are objectives that should unite all of us in this House. For those reasons, I welcome the Bill.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. It has been long in the making, going back to recommendations originally made as far back as 2018. Of course, the implementation of Garda powers requires a modern, properly staffed, properly resourced and properly funded Garda organisation with a fit-for-purpose structure. Unfortunately, that is not the situation in Clonmel and south Tipperary. Clonmel is entitled to, and demands, its fair share of gardaí. The Government has reduced Garda numbers in Clonmel by 11. Today, Clonmel has 11 fewer gardaí than it had in 2024. It is a town of 20,000 people. It is a small city, with a hinterland of another up to 20,000 people, including in Kilsheelan, Lisronagh, Kilcash, Ballypatrick, Fethard, Clerihan, Marlfield and, indeed, parts of County Waterford. The acceptable and reasonable standard unit size for operations in such an area is ten. I understand that Clonmel Garda station is operating units of four. As a result, Garda high-visibility policing, foot patrols and gardaí on the beat are non-existent. Gardaí are being sent to respond to incidents on their own, placing them in dangerous and serious situations. Such incidents have been reported to me. There are unacceptable levels of understaffing in Clonmel and in the Clonmel district. Eleven Garda stations in Tipperary have no dedicated garda. One of those is Kilsheelan Garda station, which is covered by Clonmel. Part-time Garda stations are also on the increase. Carrick-on-Suir is an example. It is also under the Clonmel district. The Government has been prioritising Dublin and Cork at the expense of towns such as Clonmel and Carrick-on-Suir. That has to stop. The new Garda districts, introduced a number of years ago by the former Garda Commissioner, have been an unmitigated disaster. That initiative has presided over a reduction in front-line Garda numbers. It has devastated the community Garda operation. The numbers do not lie. In 2010, there were 1,082 community gardaí. In July 2026, there were 591. I have been involved in community organisations almost all my life and certainly for the past nearly 50 years. In every area of Clonmel, there were community gardaí with responsibility for particular districts. It was the same throughout the country. We knew who those gardaí were and met them regularly. We met them at our community association meetings. We had their telephone numbers. They had their fingers on the button in all areas. They worked with young people and the various community and sporting organisations in the area. They were an absolute godsend to communities. The few community gardaí who are available now are overworked and stressed out. It is time that we get back to community policing and replace the 591 community gardaí we have lost over recent years. Roads policing is another area that has been completely undermined. The figures are ominous. In 2009, we had 1,046 road policing gardaí. In July 2026, there were 638, which is 400 fewer. The national ratio of gardaí to road kilometres is 1:150 km. In south Tipperary, and Tipperary generally, it is 1:250 km. Garda numbers in Clonmel and the Clonmel district are unacceptably low. I ask the Minister to immediately reappoint the 11 gardaí we have lost over the past two years and following that to increase the numbers exponentially so that the Garda presence in the town and district can be increased to a proper level to support the gardaí themselves and the community generally.

I welcome the opportunity to speak today in favour of this Bill. At the heart of the Bill are the people we represent. The public expects to be safe in their communities. They expect the Garda to have the powers necessary to tackle crime and expect those powers to be exercised fairly, transparently and with proper safeguards. This Bill helps to achieve that balance. For too long, Garda powers have been spread across a range of laws developed over many decades. That has created unnecessary complexity for gardaí, legal practitioners and the public alike. This Bill brings those powers together into one modern and coherent framework, making the law clearer and more accessible for everyone. The public have a right to feel safe in their homes, towns and villages, and in their daily lives. They also have a right to know that when they come into contact with the criminal justice system, their rights will be protected. That is why the safeguards contained in this legislation are so important. While the Bill gives the Garda clearer powers to tackle crime, it also strengthens protections for ordinary citizens. Anyone who finds themselves in Garda custody will now have a clear, statutory right to have a solicitor present during questioning. The Bill also requires interviews to be electronically recorded and provides enhanced protections for children and vulnerable persons. These measures strengthen public confidence in the justice system and help ensure fair treatment for all. The legislation also improves accountability. For the first time, gardaí will be required to keep a formal record of stop-and-search actions. While we all acknowledge that the vast majority of gardaí carry out their duties professionally every day, these measures provide reassurance both to the public and to Garda members themselves. The Bill also reflects the reality of modern crime. Criminals increasingly use digital technology, encrypted communications and electronic devices. The law must keep pace if gardaí are to effectively investigate serious crime and protect the public from those who seek to exploit new technologies for criminal purposes. We know that gardaí are increasingly faced with dangerous situations on our roads, including incidents involving organised crime and reckless driving. While legislation provides the legal framework, it is equally important that Garda members receive the specialist training required to respond safely and effectively in these circumstances. Just as the public have a right to feel safe in their communities, gardaí have a right to feel protected and supported as they carry out their duties on our behalf. Those who put themselves in harm's way to protect others deserve the training, resources and legal protections necessary to do their jobs safely and effectively. Of course, there are aspects of the Bill that have generated debate, including issues around journalistic privilege, privacy and the stop-and-search procedures. Those are important discussions and they should continue as the legislation progresses. However, the central objective of this Bill is clear. It is about creating a policing framework that works for the public. It is about supporting gardaí in keeping our communities safe. It is about protecting individual rights while ensuring those who engage in criminal activity can be effectively investigated and brought before the courts. As legislators, our responsibility is to ensure that the law keeps pace with a changing society. I believe this Bill does that. It modernises Garda powers, strengthens safeguards and ultimately serves the interests of the law-abiding public. For those reasons, I am happy to support the Garda Síochána (Powers) Bill 2026.

Broadly speaking, I welcome the Bill. I have heard what other Members have said about it, and I have some sympathy with the idea that it is a modernisation of Garda powers. It is necessary for us in the context of how technology and possession change to have regard to what powers gardaí need to do the job they need to do. For example, in the case of legislation that had previously been introduced to empower gardaí to demand passwords and access to those phones and things like that, I have misgivings about them but I also recognise the need for them. The reality at the moment is that gardaí have a very difficult job to do. However, I also think that the power to stop somebody and search them on the street is a hugely significant one. Obviously, people are protected constitutionally from the abuse of that power. That is also a protection they enjoy. My concern is that there are definitely times when gardaí exercise this power capriciously. There are definitely times that in my own experience in the criminal courts, particularly on the defence side, I have seen situations where I was pretty sure that gardaí had exercised those powers inappropriately. You will often see people being searched around the city or elsewhere. It does not require a great deal, for example, for a garda to conduct a search under section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. The reasonable suspicion point is very easily overcome by a garda who wants to do so. What is proposed in this Bill is problematic from the point of view that it empowers the gardaí to conduct a search of an individual if they have the relevant article that is described in the Act. The relevant article is really anything nefarious, something that is suspected to have been stolen or something more serious, such as a weapon or something else. That is a significant power, and it is not clear to me that the Bill defines with clarity what the basis of that reasonable suspicion is. There is a great deal of case law on this, and this is a matter that has been tested by the courts time and again as to what constitutes reasonable suspicion. When I was in the District Court doing drink-driving cases, we had what we used to call the Templemore Four, namely, unsteady on their feet, smell of alcohol on the breath, slurred speech and not fully focused sight. I felt, rightly or wrongly, when I was defending drink-driving cases that one or all of these would be trotted out as a basis on which the garda had decided to administer a roadside breath test because he or she needed to have a reasonable suspicion to administer that test. Similarly, in relation to people who are stopped on the street and suspected of being in possession of drugs contrary to the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act, the garda needs only to have a reasonable suspicion before conducting a search under section 23. It is a significant power that is not tempered by what is provided for in this Bill. Again, that reasonable suspicion has been corralled a little bit by the courts. I do not really think the extent to which a garda being able to say, "Well, I believed he had the stolen item in his pocket and, therefore, I conducted a search", impinges on a person's individual liberty is a sufficient basis for a garda to conduct a search, so I have misgivings about this. Having said that, I recognise that there are provisions in the Bill that go quite a long way towards requiring gardaí to essentially back up their suspicion. The recording, for example, of the circumstances around the offence is really important. I note the ICCL has said it does not think that the details the Bill suggests would be recorded are sufficient. Again, I do not necessarily agree with that criticism. What I do have a concern about is if, for example, I am a garda on patrol and I stop somebody, conduct a search and put into my notebook all the details that I am supposed to under the Act, well and good, but what happens if I do it at the end of the shift? What happens if I do it two days later? What happens if I do it two days before the court case? There is no way for anybody to control when that is done or how it is done. For example, in this modern day of technology, when gardaí have more technology at their disposal, is there not a way in which we could timestamp that entry so that we could prove it is contemporaneous with the search, and therefore could be a more reliable evidentiary source if that search were ever challenged? There is the notion that a garda could do it retrospectively. There is nothing in the Act that says it must be made in the official Garda notebook, for example. It would be helpful if you could go through the book and see if the entries on either side of it were chronological with it, which would indicate that it had been made at the time. In the absence of that, I wonder whether there are sufficient controls in relation to that search. I say this conscious of the fact that, broadly speaking, it is important to have this legislation. The search-and-seizure powers do need to be updated. I do not think they take cognisance of modern technology in terms of some of the things that people involved in criminal activity can hide and the ways in which they can hide them. We have to be very careful and I know that is not a very politically savvy thing to say, because at the end of the day most people think of an accused person and really the gardaí should get what they need to get to ensure that they catch the people who are doing the thing that is wrong. I have sympathy with that view but we have to think of this as what if it is me or a person who is wrongly accused. What if that person has their rights infringed? That can be quite pervasive in the impact it has on society, people's relationship with the Garda, the faith in the system and the individual liberties of people, which are so important within our system. Gardaí enjoy a position where they are trusted by communities. They have good relationships with the people they police and that is a really important thing to preserve. If we push this too far, then the danger is that we will have a situation where gardaí start to trample on that relationship, start to lose the confidence of the people they are policing, and cause people to lose faith that they are exercising their powers in the way that they should and that they are doing it according to the law. In short, I am saying there is a little bit of one and a little bit of the other. I am wondering if on Committee Stage we could consider some kind of an amendment, particularly in relation to the recording of the details of the search, that might breed greater confidence in the evidence that would ultimately be given by a garda in the event that a search is challenged. That might say to the ordinary person on the street who might be the subject of one of these searches, "Here's your safeguard. Here's something you can rely on to ensure that the garda is doing his or her job in the way that he or she should." I will happily work with the Minister on whatever amendment he thinks might do that, if there is some way in which we can just strengthen that power. I recognise the job gardaí have to do is extraordinarily difficult. The gathering of evidence is no mean feat, yet they are expected time and time again to come to court with the requisite amount of evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody has committed an offence. It might be plain as the nose on their face because they were there but they have to find an evidential way by which to demonstrate it in court. I fully recognise the difficulties they face in that regard. I want us in this House to help them and to give them the tools and the equipment they need but I also want to safeguard the confidence the public has in our criminal justice system.

I had the privilege of being in Dundalk District Court this morning to hear incredibly warm and deserved tributes to the late solicitor and senior counsel, James MacGuill, who died unexpectedly on 6 September. James, as many will know, was a titan of the legal profession, not just in Louth or the State but across Europe. In many ways, he was passionate about the rule of law but he also rewrote the rules himself at times with cases he brought to the highest courts in the State and Europe, which meant that legislation had to be changed. He is a terrible loss first and foremost to his family but also to his many friends in the legal profession and further afield. I extend my deepest sympathies to them on this terrible loss. While I was at the District Court today, I saw the impact of the current row between solicitors and the Minister for justice over the changes to criminal legal aid. I saw that the many talented solicitors who grace the District Court in Dundalk were only dealing with custody cases, all the other cases being adjourned to 18 November or even January. Yet, the Minister for justice is telling the public that the criminal courts are functioning effectively. It was clear to see they are not. Behind each of these numbers is a defendant without representation, a victim whose wait for justice keeps getting put back, gardaí wanting to bring a case to a conclusion and many others who are directly impacted. The figures that show the collapse of the criminal legal aid certs issued from July 2025 to July 2026 are stark. In Dundalk, in July 2025 there were 329 certificates issued and this July, just 19 were issued, representing a 94.2% drop, which is huge. These figures are replicated at district courts around the State. What is needed is proper engagement and for solicitors and the Minister for justice to get around a table and sort this out.

The irony is not lost on solicitors and the public that this was the first piece of legislation to come before the Dáil in the new term. This Bill places on statutory footing the existing right of people in custody to consult a solicitor before and during interview and provides for electronic recording of interviews by gardaí where, previously, everything that was said in a Garda interview had to be handwritten. The Minister now faces, because of this strike, solicitors not attending at Garda stations any more. There needs to be urgent engagement with solicitors' representatives. I have seen for myself how the system is not working at the moment. We all agree there was a necessity to codify for stop-and-search, arrests, searches, seizures and detention. We know there were these 12 pieces of legislation, and from time to time we could probably make arguments in regard to how they were used. Should providing gardaí with the powers they need have happened in a shorter time? Yes. Do we also need to make sure we have enough powers in regard to oversight and accountability? We will all see with "RTÉ Investigates" later whether there are major failings in relation to whistleblowers and I call on the Minister to deal with this issue. We would be very worried in relation to any loss of journalistic privilege and the protection of sources. It goes without saying that the Garda needs the powers to be able to operate, with the vast amounts of criminality we have talked about, whether that is organised crime, disorganised crime or the grooming of children. We know that we need a huge amount of work to be done in relation to youth diversion alongside community policing. The other thing I will bring up - it is not the first time I have brought it up - is that the Garda sometimes becomes the body that has to deal with mental health issues, particularly outside of office hours. There is a need for guidelines and protocols, and to look properly at the Mental Health Act. At times, gardaí are arresting people to protect these people from themselves and in many cases, GPs, as they read the Mental Health Act, do not believe these people need taking in. I have dealt with multiple issues in the past while, some of which took weeks to deal with, and I think there is an anomaly that should be dealt with by the Minister, and a number of other Ministers, particularly the Minister with powers in relation to mental health, around correcting this.

Independent Ireland knows full well that crime has changed. Criminals are using mobile phones, computers and new technology, and the law has to keep up. I said many times in this House that giving gardaí powers is only part of the answer. We need gardaí on the ground as well. In rural Ireland, particularly in west Cork, people have seen Garda stations close and Garda resources stretched. I raised the fear that rural crime causes, particularly for elderly people and those living alone, and I have called for greater support for community alerts and other measures to protect them. I have also repeatedly raised the tragic case of Sophie Toscan du Plantier, who was murdered near Schull in 1996. In 2023, I asked that every necessary resource be given to the Garda serious crime review team and to the local Garda investigation unit based in Bantry. That case alone shows why gardaí need the proper powers, technology and resources to investigate serious crime but there must be safeguards as well. A person's mobile phone can contain their whole private life. If gardaí can require passwords, personal identification numbers, PINs, or biometric access there must be clear rules and proper oversight. I am also concerned about somebody being deemed to have given up their rights to a solicitor. If a person has given up such an important right it should be clear that they understand what they are doing. While I am talking about solicitors, the previous speaker has similarly spoken about the free legal aid situation that is out there at the present time. It is an issue that cannot continue the way it is. It causes serious concern to quite a lot of people, including my constituents and constituents throughout the country. I plead with the Minister. Sometimes if we all stand off, nothing really happens until we sit around the table and try to get to the bottom of the problem. It cannot continue the way it is. We can pass all the laws we like but without enough gardaí, vehicles or resources, those laws cannot protect our communities. Independent Ireland's position is simple: back our gardaí and give them the tools to tackle criminals, but protect the rights of ordinary, law-abiding people at the same time. People are worried and upset. They are worried about their safety and well-being out there. I visited a county in the past few days and I met with different families. I asked where their kids were going to schools. They said, "Up the road there", and they pointed out where it was. I said that it was brilliant they could walk to and from school but they said, "No way. There is no way we would allow our children walk to and from school because of the dangers that are there". People are concerned and that is very basic. Maybe I still had the mindset that kids walk to school. In this situation - I am not going to name the county because it does not reflect the general well-being of the people there - they were genuine parents telling me they were concerned about their children. I did not ask from who or what but it is a situation that is a worrying factor out there for quite a lot of people. We in Independent Ireland have been very strong on our policies with regard to getting tough on crime. We are talking about people who are seriously assaulting people out there; people who are hardened criminals and thieves. There needs to be a stronger law to make sure those who are attacking people, taking their personal property or even hurting them, face the ultimate powers of the Garda and the law. That is not happening in the courts at the moment with the free legal aid crisis that is going on. We need to make sure it does. We need to make sure people out there are protected and that they know that the criminal who comes into their house, steals their property or hurts somebody will serve a serious sentence and not be back out there on the streets within weeks of a crime. It is not good enough and it is a worrying factor in this country.

While modernising police legislation sounds reasonable on paper, this Bill fails to strike the essential balance between public safety and fundamental human rights. It dramatically expands invasive powers such as stop-and-search and seizure of electronic devices without introducing necessary binding legislation with safeguards. Crucially, it lacks mandatory requirements to record ethnic or demographic data during those stops. Without this data we cannot properly monitor or prevent the biometric profiling or disproportionate targeting of an ethnic minority or minority communities. Let us look beyond the text of the Bill. We in this House cannot ignore internal Garda culture, a culture that has deeply tested the public trust over the last number of years, and the question of the very integrity of the Garda institution itself. Following Rita O’Reilly’s “Morning Ireland” interview I am obliged as a Member of this House to ask the critical questions before I can support the expanding of any policing powers. When GSOC was informed on 9 September 2019 that Garda leather holsters made by Declan Clancy Saddlery were not fit for purpose, what action did it take and what action did the Minister’s Department take? In November 2022, when the then Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and the Comptroller and Auditor General were sent detailed protected disclosures concerning the holsters from the saddlery, the Garda armoury and the tragic murder of Detective Garda Colm Horkan, what steps were taken concerning the grave wrongdoings in those disclosures? Those documents, which were in the possession of the Minister, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, show there were cover-ups and orchestrated delays that were outlined specifically in those documents. Furthermore, since 5 March 2026 I have asked both oral and written parliamentary questions seeking for details of the date on which the Government agreed to exercise its collective will on the dismissal of Mr. John Barrett, executive director of human resources and people development in An Garda Síochána. I have received no answer to date, despite the commitment of the Tánaiste to come back to me within a week to reply. I have since written to the Tánaiste, and to members of this Cabinet and the previous Cabinet to inform me about this. One member of the previous Cabinet wrote back and everyone else has ignored those letters, but I tell the Minister those letters are not going away and they are a matter of public record. I am sending these letters because this is not a trivial administration matter. I remind this House the dismissal of a senior civil servant is governed by the statutory framework established under section 5 of the Civil Service Regulation Act 1956, as amended. The failure to provide transparency and accountability on when and how the Government exercised its collective authority in relation to this dismissal raises serious questions and concerns due process, constitutional rights and the protection of the public and senior civil servants. In my view and that of many practising law, this amounts to a breach of human rights and must be properly examined in the context of constitutionality, statutory regulations and government dismissals. This is a growing list of internal disclosures and unanswered parliamentary questions and shows a lack of transparent processes within the Garda and the Department of justice. It makes it impossible to ignore that there is a systemic flaw in the culture of An Garda Síochána. We cannot blindly grant sweeping new powers under this Bill while the existing framework for accountability, human rights, data collection and the basic institutional integrity is consistently failing this House and this State and falling short. Before we grant An Garda Síochána greater powers, this Government must first demonstrate those powers are exercised within a framework of transparency and accountability and in a way that has respect for fundamental human rights. I urge Members to vote against the Bill. Others have mentioned this but while the Minister is here, I implore him to interact with the Law Society. Nobody likes to lose face and nobody likes to lose a battle, but we have people being released from courts having been told “Off you go” as they have no solicitor. We have people turning up to courts and waiting for appointments. They have taken time off work and whatever else. They have no free legal aid available to them. This cannot go on. The Minister has had months of ignoring the Law Society and ignoring solicitors across the country. I would have thought somebody like him, with an understanding of the law, would have engaged. I accept he has written back, a month or two later, to the Law Society, but the Minister has to engage. Only by shaking hands and only by sitting at a table and negotiating will he achieve anything. As a new Member of this House I do not need to teach him how to suck eggs. He is very capable and is one of the more capable Ministers on the Front Bench, but by not entering negotiations, talking to people, shaking the hand of the enemy and sitting down he will not achieve anything. I think the Minister knows that deep down so I appeal to him to get around the negotiating table and talk to the Law Society and to solicitors. Let us build a bridge and get over it.

Some of us have just received messages that Deputy Michael Healy-Rae is in hospital following an alleged assault. I put on record my best wishes for him in his recovery and my absolute condemnation - no matter what viewpoint people have - of attacks on politicians male or female. I condemn it wholeheartedly and wish him a speedy recovery. I broadly welcome the passage of the Bill through the Seanad. It takes the long-overdue step of streamlining stop-and-search procedures, digital device warrants and integrating the European Union's human rights directives into our domestic laws. However, during the Seanad debates Senator McDowell warned, for example, that we cannot compromise the basic human rights of people in terms of shielding journalistic privilege from digital searches. We have to look after people’s basic human rights. Civil liberties watchdogs like the Irish Council for Civil Liberties demanded accountability through the mandatory recording requirements during police stops of people’s background and ethnicity to ensure people were not being targeted. There is sometimes a fair accusation that police forces throughout the world can and do engage in profiling and targeting, whether of people in disadvantaged areas or those from particular ethnic backgrounds or nationalities. By the same token – this is another reason I regret it is not being covered here and I hope it will be by other means – sometimes it is also useful to be able to determine the nationality of people arrested for offences. We had some, to an extent discredited, reportage in England, for example, suggesting one or two nationalities were up to 22 times more likely to be arrested for sexual offences. When that was brought down it ended up being 3.5 to 14 times more likely than the English average, so even allowing for racial profiling and targeting of particular nationalities, there are questions raised in terms of cultural norms in certain backgrounds that are applicable when people have concerns about large concentrations of people from those backgrounds in particular areas. This raises the issue of education, training and monitoring. There is a win-win situation there for those who think the immigrant population is more likely to assault people, which it is not, and for those who want to ensure gardaí do not go around targeting people willy-nilly, which in general they do not. However, you have to have scrutiny and monitoring to look at these issues and ensure everything has been covered. That is one angle. Another angle to the passing of the Bill is the resourcing of measures in a situation where gardaí are already under-resourced. When it comes to logging and entering information, through what system is it logged? I said 20 years ago and on previous occasions in the Chamber that the PULSE system was outdated before it even came into operation. What is the post-PULSE plan for the new data input we will need? Will any kind of new system be rolled out? Ultimately, it boils down to the actual numbers on the ground. As I said a while back - there have been a few new recruits since - we do not have any more gardaí on the ground per head of population than 2008 because of retirements. In my community recently a boy was beaten up and his bike robbed, and gardaí had still not come to take a statement two days later. People were told there was only one car between two Garda stations and, unfortunately, gardaí could not come to them. The Minister gave some positive information some time back regarding some of the backlogs that impact Garda time. For example, in respect of an antisocial behaviour order a Garda of the rank of sergeant or above has to go to court. Gardaí have to be witnesses in the court system. I would like some confirmation on whether video statements can be used more frequently and how that is progressing. As well as trying to increase Garda numbers, we need to make more efficient usage of Garda time. A bunch of kids under 12 were trying to rob bikes in a local school, which I mentioned in the Chamber some time ago, but when gardaí were called their response was that they were sorry but the car was at the courts at that moment. That is not an acceptable type of response. We cannot blame gardaí for it because they do not have the resources, vehicles or staffing. Equally, public faith in the service has gone. I will come back to this, as I have in regard to consequences for antisocial behaviour among those aged under 18 as well as those aged over 18 down the line. People are getting away with stuff day in and day out. It takes many incidents, perhaps 13 or 14, before people are brought into the system. We need resourcing for juvenile liaison services and additional gardaí. I am digressing from the specific wording in the Bill for the simple reason that I find myself with a few minutes of extra time. I wanted to elaborate on this as this is the first opportunity after the recess to point out that the attacks have begun again. People are still two abreast on scooters and are robbing bikes with masks on. They are attacking people and getting away with it, or at least they are being seen to be getting away with it because it is six or eight months before they come into the system. We need a faster response. I look forward to the additional legislation on e-scooters. If we do not have the resources to employ more gardaí or the system cannot catch up fast enough in terms of recruitment numbers, we have to free up Garda time. The use of smarter technology and AI in a safe context and the ability to work remotely in a better way could be integrated into the courts system. That is a discussion the Minister will have to have and I acknowledge the liberty the courts have. We need to free up time for gardaí on the ground to respond to crises. We need more community gardaí to try to anticipate things that happen. Generally, I broadly welcome the Bill. I would have liked to have seen some more civil liberties protection and information on where people can get rid of misinformation. I also would have liked the Bill to put in place checks and balances to deal with situations where certain nationalities do not respect women in the same way as most people would like.

I want to begin by wishing my colleague Deputy Michael Healy-Rae well. I understand he was subjected to an unprovoked assault earlier today. I wish to condemn that in the strongest possible terms. As I said, I wish him well. Tá áthas orm labhairt ar an mBille cumhachta a bhaineann leis An Garda Síochána. I begin by acknowledging the extraordinary work carried out every day by front-line members of An Garda Síochána. They are the men and women who respond to domestic violence calls at 3 a.m., deal with antisocial behaviour in our towns, deal with very dangerous situations every day of the week, see dangerous e-scooters and scramblers on footpaths and forest trails, and stand between communities and real harm. I have met many gardaí and sat with them in my constituency offices in Tullamore and Birr. I listened to their concerns. Recently, I met Chief Superintendent Lonergan and Inspector Collins following the horrific tragedy in Edenderry when Tadhg Farrell and Mary Holt lost their lives. Their lives were taken from them in what could be called murder. Their commitment and the commitment of An Garda Síochána to Offaly is unquestionable. What is questionable, however, is whether senior management and the Government are giving them the resources, support and leadership they badly need. That is the context in which we debate the Garda Síochána (Powers) Bill 2026. The Bill deals with high level reforms, digital evidence, search warrants, stop-and-search powers and custody rights, all of which are, of course, important and matter. However, concerns have been raised by the ICCL around definitions, safeguards and the sequencing of judicial oversight. These concerns are worth paying attention to. We should also ensure that the powers are clear, proportionate and workable. Let me be blunt. Communities across Offaly are not talking to me about sections 7 or 29. Rather, they speak to me every day about visibility, response times and whether An Garda Síochána will answer the phone when they ring about domestic violence, farm trespassing, which is becoming a massive issue in many rural communities - Offaly is no different- or antisocial behaviour in their estates. As I said, the Garda do tremendous work, and I commend it on its work in Offaly, but gardaí are stretched because they are trying to cover many rural areas. It is high time that we got proper resources. I acknowledge that Garda numbers have slightly increased in Offaly, by about 2%, but that is since 2021, which is unacceptable especially with an increase in population. We are still dealing with stations which need guaranteed opening hours, rural areas that need patrols and towns that need boots on the ground. The Government can talk about €2.48 billion in Garda funding, but if communities do not see it and do not see gardaí on their streets, that funding is not delivering what people need. I ask the Minister to prioritise County Offaly in terms of additional gardaí and resources, to work with the Commissioner and ensure that we have proper resources in budget 2027. We cannot ignore the wider issues in senior management. Almost 100 gardaí have been suspended with no timely resolution. Whistleblowers have raised concerns about internal units. Rank-and-file members have expressed deep alarm. Those issues, as well as resources, have to be worked on and resolved as soon as possible. While I welcome aspects of the Bill, I will continue to insist that the legislation alone will not restore public confidence. What will restore public confidence is gardaí being present, supported and properly led. We need the policing model of gardaí on the ground. There have to be community gardaí; they are too few and far between. As I said, they are doing their best, but they are stretched in County Offaly. I hope budget 2027 will prioritise the need for gardaí in Offaly to be resourced and additional numbers.

I would also like to send good wishes to our esteemed colleague and hard-working Deputy Michael Healy-Rae. I wish him well in St. Vincent's this evening after an episode that should not happen to any politician, male or female. It is a timely reminder to all of us. We wish him a speedy recovery and wish his wife and family well. I am delighted to be able to speak on the Bill. This legislation is badly needed, but we need to have balance between what the public needs and requires. No police force in the world can support, manage and survive without the support of the public. That has been the case since the inception of the State and the setting up of the Garda Síochána. However, there are many issues related to the Bill that we are not happy with. I recently met Superintendent Hallahan in Clonmel with my daughter, Councillor Máirín McGrath, and Councillor Niall Dennehy, and also met Superintendent Eddie Golden in the other part of south Tipperary. My point relates to Clonmel, Carrick-on-Suir, Cahir, Cashel, Rosegreen, Fethard and all such areas. I wish well Garda Phillip Ryan, who has retired after a long career of dedicated professional service in Clogheen Garda station. Clogheen is another area left without a garda. I also wish well and offer my ongoing support to Garda John Walsh and the other man beaten and attacked while out on his own dealing with dangerous criminals. Gardaí face that every day of the week. I support and salute the front-line gardaí who have to deal with all kinds of issues and measures. However, I have become critical of the management of the Garda, because I believe they are not bringing the message back to the Commissioner and the assistant commissioners up the line. The amalgamation of the Tipperary and Clare divisions was a disaster. I said that at the time. I opposed it and I continue to oppose it. We got a sop of a chief superintendent appointed. Yes, we did. The chief superintendent is not based in Tipperary. He might be based there in name but he is covering the whole region. That policy is a disaster. All the policies are. Now we are told increasingly that you cannot ring your local Garda station and that you have to ring 999, which service dispatches the local car. It could be 100 miles away. It is the same as what we have with the HSE and the ambulance service. All is not well in the Garda and we need many more reforms. We need more men on the ground, more resources and proper accountability. We then had the litany of disasters over the decades. Long before the Minister was even born, I would say, a man was murdered at a wedding in Offaly, Fr. Molloy. We have had many such cases. There is the woman from Carrickmacross, County Monaghan, whose son was killed on the road by a criminal who should not have been at large. She fought a gallant case and I understand it cost her nearly €200,000 to fight it. She is such a brave woman. There are many other cases across the country of people who cannot get justice. I was a victim of it myself in Dungarvan Garda station many years ago. That kind of rot must be rooted out and there must be fairness and respect for people. A businessman in Cork was physically abused by gardaí when he was on his combine harvester. They came to arrest him with a team of men you would not have going into a riot situation. There were 11, I believe. They tore him off his combine. Surely to God, a man who was never in trouble with the law could be dealt with better than that. It is before the courts, so I cannot say any more than that. There are incidents of bullying and intimidation. A young man, a Rossiter chap, was killed in the Garda station in Clonmel many years ago. We have had huge brutality issues in Dungarvan Garda station over the years, so all is not well in the system. I have supported the gardaí all my life and we depend on them, and I still support them, but the rot must be addressed. I met an inspector who recently retired from a different division altogether. He concurred with what I thought. There are cliques and things that go up along the line, with orders to behave or do whatever. That is not healthy. All is not well in the Garda Síochána. I want to turn to the situation with solicitors at the moment. I know the situation with legal aid has been totally abused. The principle of three strikes and you are out should be applied here. The situation whereby people cannot get solicitors now is not acceptable. Regarding the strike, I support the Minister in trying to have-----

Sorry, it is all relevant to this Bill, very much relevant. I thought the Ceann Comhairle was calling me on time. My remarks are very relevant because it is all in the one category. I know the Minister is doing his best. I thank him for coming to Clonmel to turn the sod and progress our new Garda station there. It is now about having people to fill it who will be able to respond to calls. Gardaí go on duty and may have 12, 15 or 20 calls to reply to. It is just so frustrating for them. It is hard on them. We have some great gardaí in Clonmel and Cahir, my area, and the vast majority of them do tremendous work. On their own, it is not safe any more, unfortunately, especially for female gardaí. I wish Garda Fiona well. She is out sick at the moment. She is a community garda in Clonmel who does tremendous work there with a small team and a small amount of resources.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle. I, too, am very disappointed with the news that my brother was assaulted going out the road in the car. It is not on. He was just doing his work, or going wherever he was going. He was stopped on the road and someone hit him through the window. It is not good enough. I hope he will be all right. I hope his family will be all right. It is something that is hurting me as much as anyone else. These things should not happen to public representatives. We get elected to help the people and not to hurt them. If we cannot do right by everyone, it is tough. We cannot please everyone. We are doing our best, and it is unfair to hit a fellow through the window without him being able to defend himself. I hope he will be all right before morning and that he will be out again tomorrow. I appreciate this Bill but I have a few concerns. The Minister mentioned electronic devices that are being used to store information. The Garda needs to get at them. It must be allowed to get that information. The scourge of drugs is driving people mad. It has families finished when one person gets hooked on these drugs. Sisters, brothers, fathers and mothers are driven around the bend when something happens to their son or daughter. This is happening. The work the gardaí are doing and the amount of drugs they are seizing are amazing. There is certainly a lot. We appreciate every day that we hear of drugs worth millions being seized, but there are more coming in. They are coming in along our coast. The Government took down our Garda stations. I am not saying the current Minister did so, but previous Governments dismantled the Garda service we had. There are people coming into communities now and nobody knows who they are. They have that advantage over the system. Before, a local garda knew who everyone was in every part of the parish. We are missing that now. It needs to be rectified because the information local gardaí got on the ground was never wrong. They had knowledge of all the people. We have lost that. The Minister mentioned drones for searching places. I hope a search warrant will still have to be initiated to allow a drone to search, in the same way that the superintendent had to request a search warrant in the District Court. That used to be the way before. We cannot have people saying people's rights were intruded upon. The recognised way was always to have the superintendent look for a search warrant for his team. That will be maintained. Will it be the same for drones? I am worried about drones going over people's private property. We have to move with the times and the gardaí have to be allowed to do their job. They have to get all the modern technology to deal with the advances criminals are making with their technology and devices. I appreciate the Minister's work on this. We have to apprehend the criminals, who are doing massive damage to young people and families right around Ireland, including rural towns and villages. The problem is rife everywhere and we must all work together to ensure these fellows are rooted out and their activity is minimised to the maximum extent.

Ba mhaith liom chomh maith a thabhairt don Teachta Michael Healy-Rae agus a deartháir, atá anseo anois, my support. I wish Michael a speedy recovery. The Healy-Rae brothers have been nothing but welcoming to me since I was elected to this House and I see how hard they work. It is not fair that any public representative, male or female, should face violence, and my thoughts are with Michael's family. I welcome the Bill. I never stop telling the Minister that my dad was a garda, my grandfather was a garda and my great grandfather was garda. I thank the Minister and the Department staff involved in preparing this legislation and bringing it before this House. For me, this debate is about giving gardaí the tools they need to protect people. I have spoken in-depth about how I believe CCTV footage could be used more intelligently, like in other countries, in conjunction with the councils to protect people and to protect high-risk areas, particularly playgrounds, playing pitches and community facilities, and that we should give gardaí those powers. I am happy this Bill gives gardaí other powers. I welcome the practical purpose of the Bill. I understand that other aspect is something that will be looked at in a future Bill. Gardaí need clear, modern legislation that allows them to investigate crime effectively. I welcome the in-depth work that has been done to secure evidence properly. I welcome the framework for stop and search warrants and the handling of evidence. This is particularly evident and needed in my constituency. As the Minister will know, evidence is increasingly held on phones, computers and other electronic devices. Having these rules is proactive and I believe we are finally addressing a problem rather than being reactive and it helps gardaí to conduct effective investigations. I welcome protections around legal privileged material. I listened to one of the Deputies speak about parliamentary privilege and I would like to know if that will be addressed in the Minister's closing speech. I mention the clear powers and proper safeguards around accountability. Alongside these reforms, can we enable gardaí and local authorities, as I mentioned, to respond quickly through a targeted CCTV programme in areas? It is not acceptable for my constituents to be told that the gardaí and the council cannot use CCTV due to GDPR. However, when I have emailed both Garda officials and council officials regarding the use of CCTV, they both told me it is enabled. This has been mentioned in the recording devices Act 2023. Nevertheless, it is relevant to the wider question of equipping gardaí to protect our communities across our country. I would like to see a streamlined process with the Garda. It would also help with the proper installation and maintenance of community facilities. We, as public representatives, fight very hard. We work with council staff and to see community facilities destroyed is not acceptable. I would like to see better recruitment. If gardaí, nurses and teachers, who are critical workers, were given incentives to address the high rents in Dublin, it would really incentivise people into the roles. I am the youngest of my dad's five kids and I do not think someone entering the Garda could do that economically now. Given the wages, it is not viable and if we are to encourage people to join An Garda Síochána, we need to encourage them by financial means. This is something that should be addressed. Visible community policing has definitely stepped up since the Minister took up this role and I commend him on that. I have continuously said that I would like to see more in north Dublin. This on the beat garda presence is one of the biggest impacts this Government has had and it is something I hear repeatedly on the doorsteps. However, I still see antisocial behaviour across my constituency and I still hear people say the recent garda dispatch numbers were not proportionate in terms of the northside and southside. I am not having a jab at the Minister. I would like for that to be increased in the next roll-out. I welcome the Bill and the work behind it but I ask that we give gardaí better supports when they join An Garda Síochána, better supports when they in An Garda Síochána and better supports when they leave An Garda Síochána. Our community deserves better and our gardaí deserve better.

I welcome the legislation and assure the Minister that anything that strengthens the hand of the Garda force should be supported by this House and will be supported by me. As we pass this new legislation, or bring it through the House, we have to look at the impact of it on the day to day workings of an individual Garda member. We can identify the crimes and we can identify where we want to see improvements in the force but we have to continually remind ourselves that every time we ask a garda or gardaí to do something that will require resources, support, training and ongoing care in terms of their employment. My own opinion is that we are not giving enough resources to the gardai. We are not empowering them to implement every piece of legislation we pass here to the extent they should and could. We are leaving members of the force in a very vulnerable position when they are asked to do something, by way of legislation we in this House have passed, without the consideration of how they implement the piece of justice or the action that is required. That is where the problem in this legislation will commence. Maybe it is time we looked at reforming the structure of An Garda Síochána and at the processes within that structure. We need a modern force with all of the technology that is demanded of that force and with all of the protection necessary for each individual garda to carry out his or her duties in line with the legislation. Earlier, comments were made about community gardaí and we need more of those gardaí, certainly in Kilkenny. They were a great asset to building up trust and a relationship with local communities. A lot of those community gardaí have now been given other duties. That is causing a lot of difficulty in terms of the direct contact communities have with the local Garda force. Reference was made to drugs and to a detective or a garda on the beat tracking down those who are selling drugs within our communities and causing havoc right across the country. In Kilkenny and Carlow, it is no different. They are plagued by drugs on every street corner. Every young person has direct access to any amount of drugs. While the Garda shuts down one element of that transaction, another one opens. I know that in Kilkenny city, for example, drugs are freely traded in our local graveyard because it is close to the source. The public demands and deserves much better than to see this type of transaction going on, generally in a local community. It certainly should not be taking place in a graveyard, and it is common knowledge. The divisional areas, with respect to the drugs squad, the number of gardaí, how superintendents are appointed and so on, need to be reviewed. The basic employment of gardaí in terms of their pay structures and possibility for promotion within the force needs to be examined. An officer class within the Garda may be necessary in that type of structure. I do not know whether the number of volunteers within the Garda is going up or down. I am not sure but I see fewer of them involved in the force itself. I thought they were a good development. All of this is linked to the courts too. We can have all of the devices, intelligence and technology we need but if we do not have the courts supporting the Garda in sending criminals to prison for the full period of time, then we will have criminals coming back onto our streets far earlier than they should for a crime that has caused huge concern in the community in the first place. A lot of the trust in the Garda has been lost because of what happened in the past and because issues from the past were not dealt with appropriately. I think of Sergeant Maurice McCabe, who went through a process that took a huge time to get to the point of it being proven that he was right in the first place. Earlier in this debate, we heard mention of John Barrett who was dismissed from the force. I do not know the date that was put before Cabinet. I do not know what the process was thereafter, but it is interesting that none of us can find that information. Meanwhile, a man for whom I have great respect, who appeared before the Committee of Public Accounts, is trying to clear his name and to ensure the wrongs that were done to him while he was a member of the force, and a very good one, are dealt with. We have other whistleblowers who submitted protected disclosures that have not been dealt with. When members of the public see the television programme tonight or read interviews in the newspaper or when various other incidents are covered in the media generally, it does not help that they are not dealt with openly and in a transparent fashion in an effort to continue to build trust. If one goes back to the case of Martin Kenirons and that whole investigation, one wonders why a member of the force who could have substantiated everything that detective said was not interviewed. It is the job of this House to point out when something goes wrong and point out what members of the public are saying and what worries them. Policing worries them and the laws of the State, including the Bill we are passing, trouble them. They will support the force, but they are not prepared to let the likes of the cases of Martin Kenirons and John Barrett slip any more. I ask the Minister, as a step to build trust and show that we mean business through the gardaí, in terms of our support for them, to ensure the outstanding issues and protected disclosures are brought to the fore and dealt with in a very public fashion. That is the least that can be expected in terms of the people I have just mentioned. I would love to hear the Minister indicate what his intentions are in relation to all of this in his closing remarks and, likewise, in relation to local authorities and the complaints they receive when gardaí are called to disputes between tenants or disputes that emerge on the streets of our estates when the decent folk in those estates want to maintain law and order. They are trying to support the gardaí and when the gardaí arrive, they should have all of the equipment and manpower necessary to ensure the laws are upheld and people can feel safe in their own homes. I mention in particular older people because an awful lot of older people are living in cities and, indeed, in rural Ireland. They are on their own. I would love to see the structure of the Garda stations around rural Ireland and Carlow-Kilkenny being examined to see whether we can improve what we have at present.

Before responding to the substance of the debate, I will refer to two distinct issues that were raised by Deputies during the course of the debate. First of all, I join Deputy Ó’Murchú in expressing my condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of the solicitor, James MacGuill, who died recently. James was one of the finest solicitors in the country. He was a formidable opponent and he was fearless in representing his clients. Anyone who had the privilege to do a case with James MacGuill, as I did, or indeed against him, would know of his full commitment to his client. He really was a fine example of a hard-working, diligent, conscientious solicitor. He was also very entertaining and engaging company. I will miss the mischief I always experienced when we engaged with each other. Second, during the course of this debate, I got an update from An Garda Síochána in respect of the incident concerning our colleague and friend, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae. I express my best wishes to him and wish him a speedy recovery. Any attack upon a Member of the Oireachtas because he or she is a Member of the Oireachtas is an attack on democracy. We should all resolutely stand together in this House in condemning any such attacks. People are entitled to have different views politically but what we will not tolerate is people being targeted or violence being used against them simply because they do not share the same political views as others. I will now deal with the substance of the debate. This was a very well-informed debate from colleagues. I listened very closely to four hours of debate. I do not have the time to go through the individual comments made by the vast number of Deputies who spoke but I will refer to a number of matters in their generality. I think every person who spoke welcomed the fact that we are codifying Garda powers. I welcome the fact there is broad agreement and a broad welcome for that. We all support An Garda Síochána in this House but it is important to acknowledge that gardaí have very considerable powers. It is important that we set out in legislation what those powers are. Historically, those powers were generated or developed through the common law or, indeed, very sparse legislative instruments. As time has gone on, it is important that the Irish public are aware that if they want to find out what powers a member of An Garda Síochána has, they will be able to look to a piece of legislation to identify that. This legislation will go a long way towards having a codification of some of those powers. I also welcome the fact that colleagues have recognised that there are areas in respect of Garda powers that deserve to be further debated here. As I said, we had a very good debate on this legislation in Seanad Éireann over a period of five days. As I indicated in the Seanad, I am prepared to accept amendments that were brought forward in the Seanad. They will be brought forward here on Committee Stage and I have no doubt colleagues here will put forward recommendations in amendments. A number of colleagues referred to the issue of the "RTÉ Investigates" programme tonight. I have not seen it. I regret to say that because Deputy Carthy and I are due to be in the Dáil in about two and a half hours from now, I may not get to see it. I will, hopefully, have an opportunity to look at it in advance of tomorrow. Let us all approach it without a sense of prejudice. Let us just look at the programme and see what is in it. If there are issues that I need to explain or answer, I will be only too happy to do so. Another issue that was mentioned consistently in the debate was that of oversight of An Garda Síochána. We have very vigorous oversight of An Garda Síochána when we look at the statutory agencies that are in place. First of all, the Commissioner frequently reports to me and, in fact, is obliged to report to me and keep me apprised of important developments. Second, there is the new authority, the Policing and Community Safety Authority, to which the Commissioner and senior gardaí must report. There is Fiosrú, which investigates allegations of Garda malpractice and is responsible for investigating protected disclosures that are made within An Garda Síochána. Then there is the internal Garda board. We have, therefore, put in place a very detailed architecture for Garda accountability, which is very effective and does work in respect of it. When it comes to protected disclosures, we have detailed legislation in place. In an organisation the size of An Garda Síochána, which has at present 14,700 sworn members and around 3,500 staff, we are going to get protected disclosures. It happens in very many of the large State entities. We should not be fearful about the fact that protected disclosures are made. In fact, it is a sign the legislation is working. Turning to some of the other issues that were consistently raised, I welcome Deputies saying they want more gardaí in their communities. In other countries, a lot of communities do not want members of the police force in their societies and communities. Every Deputy here who spoke about the numbers of An Garda Síochána said they want more representation in their communities. That is a very positive sign. The good news is recruitment to An Garda Síochána is going very well. We are at, as I said, approximately 14,700 sworn members of the force. By the end of this year, we will be at, or very close to, 15,000 members and will have the largest Garda force ever. The most important thing, however, is that when we have all of these gardaí, we do not want them stuck in stations. We want to see a very significant proportion out on the streets. We want to see high-visibility policing. That is my political priority when it comes to the Garda. The Commissioner fully supports that objective. I commend Deputy Ó Laoghaire on recognsing the large number of gardaí who went to Cork before Christmas. We now have high-visibility policing in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway. I want to see that rolled out to as many of the large areas and towns as possible and in rural Ireland as well. We all have to be conscious that we cannot have a garda on every street corner but what I would like to see, and what I know everyone in this House wants to see, is the presence of gardaí in the community. That gives a great sense of safety and comfort to members of those communities. Another issue raised was that of journalistic privilege. A number of Deputies said we need to take this legislation carefully and slowly. I also have to take into account that part of the reason this legislation is being brought forward relates to the very significant decisions given by the Supreme Court in the case of Emmett Corcoran and indeed the Quirke decision as well. This legislation is providing protection to privilege. If we look at section 10 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997, I am very concerned about the constitutionality of that provision as it is. The reason I am concerned about it is that, as anyone who reads objectively the judgments of Mr. Justice Collins and Mr. Justice Hogan in the Corcoran decision will know, there is a question mark over section 10. It needs to be amended rapidly because, in fairness to the case taken by Emmett Corcoran, who objected to the fact that the Garda had sought access to his information and did not bring to the attention of the District Court, from which they were seeking a search warrant, the fact that Mr. Corcoran was a journalist working for The Democrat newspaper. The Supreme Court has said there is a legislative urgency to changing this. We need to ensure that section is changed. The proposal I have put in will be very effective and robust and will mean that if a garda is seeking a search warrant against a solicitor or journalist, he or she will know there is a possibility that there could be privileged material there. Under section 17 of the Bill, that detail will have to be brought to the attention of the District Court judge, who will then have knowledge that the warrant has been sought in respect of a journalist, a solicitor or even a TD, as some contributors mentioned in the context of Oireachtas privilege. That is very different from where it is now. More important than that, however, is that the legislation then provides that there is a mechanism for an inter partes hearing for the court to determine whether the material is privileged and deserves to be protected. Obviously, we cannot have a situation where somebody stands up and says, “There's privileged material on that phone and you can't search it.” There needs to be an independent assessment and that is what is contained within this. That is important. There was a lot of commentary about stop-and-search powers and the recording of ethnicity. I am happy to discuss this on Committee Stage but it is important to note that the policy I have is to introduce a unique identifier, which will achieve that objective.