I am pleased to be here to introduce this Bill to Seanad Éireann. I look forward to hearing the contributions of colleagues. I am initiating this Bill in the Upper House and it will go into Dáil Éireann hereafter.

This is an important and necessary piece of legislation. It responds directly to developments in constitutional, European and human rights law, reflecting this Government's commitment to ensuring that policing powers are exercised within a clear, modern and legally robust framework. Much of the recent commentary on it has focused on journalistic privilege, which this Bill addresses carefully. However, the legislation serves a much broader purpose. Electronic devices now feature in almost every serious criminal investigation and the number seized by the Garda reflects their prevalence. These devices are a vital source of evidence to the Garda and their value must not be undermined by uncertainty over the Garda's lawful access under judicially approved search warrants.

In organised crime investigations, the Garda increasingly encounters sophisticated technology. Recent cases have involved satellite phones, global positioning system, GPS, devices, radios and other digital equipment, all central to co-ordinating criminal enterprises. Criminals use this technology to conceal and facilitate serious offences and the Garda must be able to seize and access this information lawfully, subject to appropriate safeguards.

This 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 absolutely essential.

Ultimately, the Bill promotes clarity, fairness and the proper administration of justice, ensuring that lawfully obtained digital evidence can be relied upon in court. It modernises policing powers and reflects the Government's commitment to equipping An Garda Síochána to protect the public while fully respecting fundamental rights.

The general scheme of the Bill was published nearly four years ago in June 2021. It aimed to codify Garda powers, including arrest and detention. Since then, there have been significant judgments from the Supreme Court, particularly the Corcoran and Quirke decisions. They have identified deficiencies in the law on search warrants, particularly regarding electronic devices and privileged material. These judgments highlighted gaps in statutory safeguards, deficiencies in judicial oversight and legal uncertainty for both gardaí and affected individuals. This Bill seeks to address those concerns. On the advice of the Attorney General, the Government decided to expedite the parts of the codification project dealing with stop and search, access to electronic devices and custody safeguards.

At its core, the Bill places Garda powers on a clear statutory footing with judicial oversight and safeguards reflecting the modern reality that evidence is increasingly digital. It does not expand powers in an unchecked way. Instead, it places existing powers on a more constitutionally secure basis and adds safeguards where none previously existed. This balance is particularly important for digital evidence. Much existing law was developed when evidence was physical and easily separable, whereas today a single device may contain vast quantities of sensitive information. The Bill recognises this by distinguishing between seizing a device, preserving or capturing data, screening material for privilege and conducting a forensic examination of digital content. By requiring each step to be explicitly authorised and judicially supervised, the Bill introduces clarity where the law was previously uncertain while properly balancing investigative needs and fundamental rights.

The Bill must also be understood in the context of wider legal developments. As I said, the Supreme Court decisions in Corcoran and Quirke were significant and, along with the Court of Justice of the European Union, CJEU, decision in Landeck, they underscore the need for a transparent, rights-compliant regime for access to digital data, information systems and access codes. It is where digital evidence and privileged material intersect that urgent legislative reform is required. The Bill has been drafted with these judgments to the fore, ensuring compliance with both constitutional and EU law.

I will briefly address some of the concerns that have been raised by journalists and representative bodies regarding Part 3. The reason Part 3 is being introduced is that I am responding to the findings of the Supreme Court in Corcoran. I know it is absolutely essential that we protect journalistic privilege as much as possible. Part 3 does not diminish journalistic privilege. It exists precisely because the Supreme Court found the existing law wanting and expressly called for urgent legislative action. In Corcoran, search warrants were issued under section 10 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997 in respect of a journalist's home and a newspaper's offices without requiring gardaí to tell the District Court judge that journalistic privilege might arise. The Supreme Court, correctly in my view, identified serious shortcomings, particularly the absence of any independent, merits-based judicial assessment of privilege claims, and emphasised that urgent legislative reform was required. Part 3 repeals the deficient framework and replaces it with a structured, judicially supervised process. Gardaí must notify the court of potential privilege claims, including journalistic privilege. Judges may seek additional information or limit or refuse authorisations to ensure access is necessary and proportionate. Where privileged material is involved, a High Court judge makes the determination. Even in cases where privilege was not flagged initially, any later discovery triggers the same High Court determination process. In the vast majority of cases, privileged material will be set aside and not examined. Access is permitted only in rare and exceptional circumstances, and only with judicial approval.

The Bill also strengthens protections around electronic devices, which cannot be accessed without prior judicial authorisation, reflecting the decision of Mr. Justice Charleton in the Quirke decision, where he said that a phone or a computer was a separate digital space.

Taken together, these measures enhance protections for journalists and their sources, placing independent judicial oversight at the centre and aligning the law with constitutional and European human rights standards.

As recognised by the Supreme Court, journalistic privilege is fundamental but not absolute and may in rare cases be balanced against compelling public interests. This Bill strengthens rather than weakens the protections in this regard. I welcome the continued engagement with journalists on this matter and to hearing Senators views in respect of it.

Protections for journalists sit within a broader framework of safeguards that apply to all search and seizure powers under the Bill. From the outset, law enforcement actions are subject to robust judicial oversight. That will continue in the context of this legislation.

The Bill introduces, for the first time, a comprehensive statutory framework for the treatment of privileged material. Legal professional privilege is absolute. Other forms of privilege, including journalistic, follow clear procedures for identification and resolution. This Bill strikes a balance and ensures that those rights are adequately protected.

I will now proceed to talk about the structure of the Bill. In the two and a half minutes remaining, I will provide information on the various sections it contains.

Part 1 is a general provision that deals with definitions. This is standard in most legislation.

Part 2 provides a consolidated statutory basis for Garda stop and search powers. Section 9 allows a member of the force to stop and search a person or vehicle where there are reasonable grounds to suspect possession of a relevant article, a term which is defined in section 7. Section 10 allows for vehicle searches.

Part 2 also 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. Section 15 creates offences relating to obstruction.

Part 3 is a central element of the Bill. It 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 the District Court where there are reasonable grounds to suspect evidence of an indictable offence or a specified summary offence 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 relating to search warrants. Section 19 regulates the search and examination of electronic devices. 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. Sections 22 and 23 allow gardaí to seize material containing both items they may lawfully take and items they may not take if on-site separation is impractical and establish procedures for this.

Sections 24 and 25 establish a clear process for the determination of privileged material by the High Court.

Section 26 allows for applications to extend the validity of a warrant. Section 27 provides for tightly circumscribed powers to conduct a search without prior judicial authorisation.

Part 4 provides a statutory framework for accessing electronic devices and information systems lawfully seized. This part enables a member of the Garda to apply to a District Court judge where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that evidence of an offence has been committed.

Part 5 introduces a modernised and strengthened framework governing the treatment of persons in Garda custody. Sections 30 to 33, inclusive, clarify and consolidate the rights of persons in custody to consult a solicitor and to have a solicitor present.

Section 34 sets out 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 with a solicitor. Section 35 sets out how a person in custody other than a child may waive entitlements. Sections 36 and 37 extend these protections to all persons in custody and provide for custody records to be maintained electronically. Section 38 introduces mandatory electronic recording of interviews.

Part 6 contains miscellaneous matters. Section 39 places the obligation to administer a caution on a clear statutory footing.

Section 40 amends section 9 of the Criminal Law Act 1976 to explicitly apply that provision to misconduct by members of the Garda, thereby responding to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Hyland case. Section 41 amends section 50.

I intend to bring forward a number of amendments on Committee Stage. To ensure coherence and avoid duplication, there will be amendments to repeal existing search warrant provisions across various enactments and fully align them with the new framework of this Bill. Additional technical amendments may follow, including to finalise the schedules of offences, and clarify the recording and management of material seized under warrant. These measures will ensure that the legislation operates effectively in practice.

The 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. I look forward to the debate on it.

I welcome the Minister back to the House. We in Fianna Fáil welcome the opportunity to debate this Bill and fully support the objectives behind it.

This legislation represents a significant and necessary step in modernising and consolidating Garda powers, ensuring that they are exercised within a clear, coherent and constitutionally sound statutory framework. It responds directly to recent judgments handed down by the Supreme Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union that highlighted shortcomings in the existing search warrant regime and underscored the need for greater clarity, judicial oversight and procedural safeguards.

The Bill strengthens and future-proofs the law governing search warrants, particularly in relation to electronic devices and digital data. It introduces a tailored search warrant that explicitly authorises the seizure and examination of electronic devices, ensures that judges are empowered to grant the necessary authorisations for accessing physical and digital material, and provides a statutory mechanism for the examination of devices seized without prior judicial approval. Crucially, no electronic device may be examined without appropriate judicial oversight.

In line with the Landeck judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Bill also enhances the rights of individuals to be informed when authorised access is made to data on seized devices.

A central feature of the Bill is the robust protection of privileged material. This is essential to maintaining public confidence and accountability in policing. In addition, the Bill places on a statutory footing the importance of existing rights and practices, including the right of persons in custody to consult a solicitor before and during Garda interviews, the electronic recording of interviews and the modernisation of the custody framework. These measures enhance procedural fairness and reflect contemporary policing standards.

More broadly, the Bill gives effect to the recommendations of the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland, which called for the consolidation and codification of powers of search, arrest and detention, supported by statutory codes of practice. By bringing together much of the existing law on police powers into a single accessible framework, the Bill improves clarity, transparency and legal certainty for gardaí and the general public alike.

In the Bill, legal professional privilege is recognised as absolute, while other forms of privilege, including journalistic privilege, are addressed through a structured, judicially supervised process, with provision for High Court determination where necessary. These measures reflect the fundamental importance of privilege to the administration of justice, the legal profession and the protection of press freedom.

The Bill also introduces comprehensive provisions governing Garda stop-and-search powers. These provisions are designed to ensure consistency in how such powers are applied by gardaí and how they are understood by the general public. They include a clear statutory basis for stopping and searching persons or vehicles in public places where there is reasonable suspicion of possession of a relevant article, as defined in the legislation, along with a requirement for gardaí to make a formal record of all searches.

At its core, the Bill is grounded in the principle that human rights are the foundation and the purpose of policing. It recognises that the exercise of Garda powers must be justified by the broader responsibility to protect the rights of others, balancing the rights of those suspected or accused of crime with the right of all members of society to live free from violence, abuse, crime and fear. On behalf of our political grouping, I look forward to this legislation progressing through both Houses.

I welcome the Minister and thank him for coming before us today to debate the Garda Síochána (Powers) Bill 2026.

As the Minister said in his opening statement, it has been a long time coming, but it is here and before us now.

In general, I welcome this Bill. I generally support it, but I think there are some concerns. At the very outset, I draw the Minister’s attention to the Bill digest for this legislation. I do not know if the Minister has one to hand, but if not, I will leave one outside. I took up one, because when I referred to these digests previously, Ministers have told me they do not actually get them. They are usually provided to the Members. Needless to say, the Minister’s party has loads of Members in both Houses but I have taken the liberty of copying one off for him with the relevant links. I think it is really important, and I think Ministers can learn a lot from this sort of independent research that is validated through the Oireachtas Library and Research Service to assist us in our parliamentary work. It is a really positive statement. I acknowledge that first.

I also want to acknowledge the engagement of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, of which I am a fan. I do not always agree with what it has to say but it is important. It has taken the time to engage with Oireachtas Members, has written to us and spelled out some concerns and that is important too.

To reiterate what we are talking about, the purpose of this legislation is, of course, as the Minister said, "to provide a modern, clear and comprehensive statutory framework for Garda stop-and-search powers and the execution of search warrants". It is also concerned with ensuring that the statutory framework is coherent, consistent and responsive to the ever evolving operational and legal requirements for An Garda Síochána in the enforcement of the law. As the Minister has said himself, by providing an updated framework, the Bill seeks a balance in terms of operational effectiveness and the protection of individual rights and the underpinning of public confidence, which is critically important.

It is ironic that we are talking about this Bill this week when there are other issues about An Garda Síochána. I support An Garda Síochána. I wish to state clearly that its members have an exceptionally difficult job in administering the law and keeping and maintaining that confidence in policing. I salute them for the work they have done. There are challenges, though, and people can do better. We must never bury our heads in the sand and suggest otherwise.

This is a wide-ranging Bill, as the Minister said, but it is covering those issues I talked about. I was pleasantly surprised to see in the correspondence from the ICCL that I read yesterday that it welcomes the return of this Bill to the Seanad. However, it raises issues in terms of human rights safeguards. It refers to human rights having been removed from the Bill. The ICCL says this is a regressive step considering that the impetus for this Bill was the final report from the Commission on the Future of Policing, with which the Minister will be very familiar, the paramount recommendation of which was that human rights be at the centre of policing. One has to ask the question as to why this appears to be watered down and not included in the Bill. The Minister might deal with that later.

The ICCL also makes the case for the provision of the protection of fundamental rights and the protection of children’s rights. The group's recommendation is that the protection of the rights of persons with impaired capacity should be reinserted. I ask that the Minister would at least look at it. I know he is open to considering matters. He does take the engagement and dialogue in the Senate seriously, so I want to flag these as pointers for him to things I think should be dealt with.

On the stop-and-search data, the ICCL suggests section 13 be amended to allow for records of Garda powers to stop and search under sections 8, 9 and 10. I ask the Minister to please consider this.

Turning to definitions regarding different types of searches, in Part 2, the provision relating to search needs to provide clarity on the different types of searches, as there are no definitions in terms of “strip”, “cavity” or “intimate” searches in this Bill. Definitions should be inserted into the Bill, and I think that makes sense. As a practising barrister and an expert in law, I think the Minister could see the logic that a definition be inserted into the Bill for clarity and to complement what is already in the custody regulations. I think there is an issue around that.

Moving to practice examples in other jurisdictions, we need to look at Scotland and at England and Wales. There are different regimes there. Go to the international scene within Europe, and there are different definitions in relation to “strip”, “cavity” and “intimate” searches, reflecting significant aspects of emphasis, nuance and difference in relation to this area. We are talking about the personal encroachment on people’s fundamental rights. We have got to get the balance right. I am not on for being all softly, softly, but this is important. I am consistent about human rights. If you are a defender of human rights, then you must be consistent in everything you say in these Houses in terms of legislation. I ask that the Minister would look at this concern.

The ICCL also stated that each is potentially justifiable in certain circumstances, so it is not saying it is not justified. The group says each is potentially justifiable in certain contexts, but that there should be legal definitions for these levels of searches. I think that is a fair comment from the ICCL. It is not a blanket “No”. It is saying there are justifiable reasons in certain circumstances and I ask the Minister to take this on board.

On the power of the Garda to search electronic devices, and the Minister will be aware of this, section 19 widens the legal framework for the Garda to search electronic devices and information systems. I understand the need for this to happen. The Minister has clearly set it out and all of us in this Chamber understand those needs. However, it is important that they are cautiously welcomed because of the changes in the provisions since the general scheme of the Bill, because it has varied since the initial general scheme. It is also noted that such searches are only permitted under search warrants following assessment of necessity and proportionality by a judge of the court. The ICCL makes the case that under section 19(1)(f)(i) regarding the power of the Garda to compel someone to provide a password, a PIN code, biometric data or other information necessary to access the electronic device, this should only be exercised under a search warrant. That is the request there, that it only be exercised under a search warrant.

Regarding journalistic privilege, and I am coming to the end of my commentary, the Bill outlines a new framework for how the Garda can search journalistic material. In the Bill’s current form, warrants that will allow the Garda to search a journalist's material will be decided at an ex parte hearing where only a judge is present. In Northern Ireland, such decisions are made in inter partes hearings where journalists and their legal counsel are present to make arguments for the protection of journalists’ privilege. I firmly believe that the Bill should be amended to require inter partes hearings for warranted applications to ensure adequate protection for journalistic privilege and to align with the relevant case law. This is very important. I believe that journalists and journalism are important components of democracy. They report every day on what we do here, so I think this is really important. The Minister, I and every politician in these Houses understands the responsible role of journalism in shining a light and providing greater transparency on how we do our business. How we are prepared to support journalists is a critically important element of this Bill and it is one of the biggest issues for me.

I welcome this Bill generally. I am broadly supportive of it. I think, though, that I have raised some points that warrant further examination by the Minister.

Sinn Féin recognises the importance of this legislation. The Bill seeks to codify Garda powers of stop and search, arrest, detention, searches and seizures, which is something that should have been done many years ago. The Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland made this recommendation back in 2018, yet we are only debating this legislation eight years later. This delay speaks volumes about how slowly justice reform moves in this State.

Clarity in policing powers is not a luxury, but essential. Clear, transparent and legally robust powers protect the public and gardaí and underpin trust in policing. In this regard, Sinn Féin welcomes the codification of powers that were previously scattered across more than a dozen separate pieces of legislation and replaces them with clearer, more coherent provisions. We also welcome the placing on a statutory footing of the right to consult a solicitor before and during Garda questioning, and the move towards the electronic recording of interviews. These are long overdue reforms that strengthen due process and protect suspects and Garda members.

This Bill is necessary, but it is not without flaws. I am sure the Minister knows this, given how he has mentioned that he will table amendments on Committee Stage. When we talk about Garda powers, we must always talk about oversight and accountability. The Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland was clear that stronger powers must be matched by stronger accountability. New oversight structures are now in place, including the Policing and Community Safety Authority, PCSA, which became operational in 2025, and Fiosrú, which replaced the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC.

The PCSA's first assessment of An Garda Síochána, published in December, raised deeply concerning issues, particularly around recruitment and retention, the lack of an effective performance management system, delays in introducing in-career vetting and drug testing, and serious inconsistencies in how domestic violence cases were handled in Garda divisions. Against this backdrop, it is essential that the PCSA rigorously monitor the use of the expanded stop and search powers and arrest powers provided for in this Bill. Codifying Garda powers is only half the job; ensuring they are exercised consistently, proportionately and lawfully is the other half.

The most serious concern we have with the Bill relates to journalistic privilege. Despite recent Supreme Court and EU case law, the Bill fails to explicitly recognise the right of journalists to protect their confidential sources. The Supreme Court was unequivocal in Corcoran v. Commissioner of An Garda Síochána in 2023. Mr. Justice Hogan stated clearly that the "general protection of sources is integral to a free press" and that without that protection, journalists could not reasonably be expected to hold power to account in the manner required by Article 40.6.1° of the Constitution.

Similarly, the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Landeck judgment made clear that prior independent authorisation was required before accessing personal data on electronic devices. Under the Bill, however, gardaí may obtain search warrants without the District Court being explicitly empowered to consider journalistic privilege before granting the warrant. In many other jurisdictions, including the North, courts are required to determine whether journalistic privilege applies in advance, not after the damage is done. The Bill must be amended to explicitly recognise journalistic privilege in statute, require a court hearing on privilege before a warrant is granted, and empower the District Court to fully consider source protection at the point of application. Anything less risks chilling investigative journalism and undermining press freedom in this State.

The Second Stage debate on the Bill also provides an opportunity to speak about the broader reality facing An Garda Síochána. Communities across the State are experiencing reduced Garda visibility, fewer community gardaí, and stretched resources, particularly in rural areas. Response times are increasing and Garda morale is under severe strain. Sinn Féin has consistently raised the recruitment and retention crisis in An Garda Síochána. Last autumn, our justice spokesperson, Deputy Matt Carthy, published a comprehensive set of proposals to address this crisis. These included increasing the Garda training allowance to the equivalent of the minimum wage, expanding capacity at the Garda Training College, introducing a return-to-policing grant, allowing faster progression up the pay scale and other measures. These are practical, achievable measures that would stabilise Garda numbers, reduce over-reliance on overtime, and improve community safety.

Sinn Féin welcomes the long-overdue codification of Garda powers in the Bill, but ours is not uncritical support. The legislation must be strengthened on Committee Stage, particularly regarding journalistic privilege and oversight. Garda powers must be exercised in a framework that robustly protects constitutional rights, press freedom and public confidence in policing. We will engage constructively on the Bill but we will seek meaningful amendments on Committee Stage because effective policing and civil liberties are not opposing values. Rather, they depend on each other.

I welcome Deputy Heneghan, who is accompanied by Margaret Eustace and her family. Margaret is originally from Galway. I hope they enjoy their visit to Leinster House this evening.

I thank Senators for their contributions to this debate on what is very important proposed legislation. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Seanadóir Gallagher as an méid a dúirt sé. Bhí mé ag éisteacht go cúramach leis. I will deal generally with some of the issues identified by my friends Senators Boyhan and Ryan on the right-hand side of the House, because there is support for the legislation on the Government side. Senator Boyhan referred to the Bill's digest documentation and I will certainly have a look at it. The Oireachtas Library and Research Service is invaluable and useful, and it is important for Ministers such as myself to get an alternative perspective on legislation.

Senators Boyhan and Ryan emphasised the need to place human rights at the centre of the legislation. I have to say that, when we look at the policing and community safety legislation I commenced last year, at the heart of it is the requirement that human rights be front and centre of what the Garda seeks to do on behalf of the community. An integral part of everything the Garda does is ensuring that the human rights of all persons on the island are protected. I do not think it is necessary to set it out in every piece of legislation. If I set it out in this legislation, then any other time Garda powers are referred to, or when any legislation in respect of the Garda is referred to, we will have to start referencing human rights. The Senators can take it that it is central to all of the work that An Garda Síochána does.

Senator Boyhan also mentioned intimate searches. There are guidelines and rules in An Garda Síochána as to how intimate searches should be carried out. This legislation is not about that. It is about trying to stop and search individuals who may be carrying relevant articles as defined in the legislation, or individuals suspected of committing an indictable offence or a scheduled offence. I assure the Senator that there are very strong rules in respect of how any intimate searches, should they arise, should be conducted by An Garda Síochána.

Senator Boyhan also mentioned electronic devices. The Supreme Court decision made in Quirke emphasised something that we all generally recognise now. Prior to that Supreme Court decision, it was assumed that if the Garda got a warrant to search a house and if there was a mobile phone in that house, the warrant would authorise the Garda to search the phone as well as the house. Mr. Justice Charleton in the Supreme Court said that we needed to recognise that a digital device was a separate digital space that required its own authorisation if the Garda wished to search it. This is sensible and it is a greater protection for the Irish public. It recognises the fact there is a lot of information on individuals' phones and there should be a separate application if the Garda wants to search a phone or another digital device.

Senator Boyhan also mentioned that he believed it would be preferable if there was an inter partes application for the purpose of assessing journalistic privilege or any other privilege. This is provided for in section 24(2), which states that a relevant person concerned may bring an application in respect of wishing to assert that there is a privilege arising in respect of the search warrant that has been granted. The Corcoran case was instructive.

An Garda Síochána went to the District Court seeking a search warrant under section 10 of the 1997 Act. The District Court was not informed that the search warrant was in respect of Mr. Corcoran, who was a recognised journalist, nor was the district judge informed that the search warrant was also in respect of premises that were the offices of a newspaper, I think it was in Tipperary. When this matter was challenged by Mr. Corcoran after the search warrant was granted, it went the whole way to the Supreme Court, which recognised that section 10 needed to be urgently reformed because there was nothing in it to take into account journalistic privilege or any other privilege that may arise. It happened in that case that there was journalistic privilege and there was no mechanism for seeking to invoke it. It happened in other cases as well in respect of legal professional privilege. Therefore, I fully appreciate the instruction and warning from the Supreme Court that, unless we change section 10 of the 1997 Act, the likelihood is that the Supreme Court will rule in any challenge that it is not compliant with the Constitution. We have been given a warning and that is why I am heeding the words of Mr. Justice Hogan of the Supreme Court that there is an urgency to this matter. That is why I am reforming the law in this area.

Senator Nicole Ryan also mentioned a number of matters that overlap. I might deal with some of them now. She said that there is a lot of delay in justice reform. I want her to know that I am committed to doing as much as possible, as quickly as I can, as Minister for justice. However, it is correct that sometimes proposals are made or reform issues are discussed and are not pushed on. If we want to change things and achieve policy objectives, we have to push on legislation in the Houses and that is why I am here today.

It is also important to point out that one of the advantages of this legislation, particularly when the amendments are proposed on Committee Stage, will be that it will codify search powers. Members of the public should be able to find out what powers An Garda Síochána has to stop and search. They will be able to go to this legislation and I want to ensure this encompasses all the legislation that deals with Garda powers of stop and search. It is a significant power An Garda Síochána has. None of the rest of us can stop people on the street and search them. However, it is extremely important that we set out on a statutory basis the occasions on which An Garda Síochána can stop and search individuals. That is something gardaí want as well. It does not suit the interests of individual gardaí if the laws are vague or if we are relying on some unwritten common law. It is extremely important from the point of view of gardaí that they can look to written legislation that clearly specifies what they can and cannot do. That legislation will only come into place if the elected representatives of the Irish people in this House and the Lower House agree to it.

Senator Ryan also mentioned the recording of interviews. This will be a real benefit. Historically, gardaí have had to waste far too much time transcribing notes of complainants who come before them. It can take a long time. They will now be able record interviews. I also want to be able to progress the prospect of having transcription mechanisms in place, so gardaí do not have to write down every word of the recording, but will have it written down by some of the new software devices that are available.

Senator Ryan also referred to what she called a retention and recruitment crisis. I have to disagree with her. That term was used a number of years ago. The representative associations do not even refer to a crisis now. I am pleased to say that in terms of retention, the number of people who left An Garda Síochána in 2024 was approximately 141 or 142. That is 1% of a force that has 14,500 members now. A 1% departure from a police force is unprecedentedly low, compared, in Ireland, with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, PSNI, and with the UK police force. That is a sign we are doing a good job of retaining gardaí in the force.

I am pleased to say recruitment numbers are looking good. I will be in Templemore on Friday for another passing out ceremony of, I think, 168 or 170 gardaí. They are good numbers. If we can consistently keep getting figures of approximately 200 coming in and out and if we get close to 1,000, we will begin to see, as we are seeing, greater Garda visibility in our communities.

In my last minute, I will deal with the issue of journalistic privilege. It is worth pointing out that this is the first Bill that is expressly designed to deal with the protection of privilege. Senators are correct that it does not mention journalistic privilege or any other particular type of privilege. A number of different types of privilege exist and I did not think it appropriate to specify and define them. However, journalistic privilege is clearly covered by the provisions contained in this legislation. That is one of the reasons the provisions I outlined earlier are being introduced. I recognise, and more important the Supreme Court recognises, that journalistic privilege is a right that exists in Irish law. It is not specified in any written Act, but it is a consequence, as Mr. Justice Hogan said, of the constitutional right to freedom of expression. This legislation is a real advancement of protection of journalistic privilege and journalistic sources and it will ensure a statutory mechanism is in place, if a journalist says that what is being seized or what An Garda Síochána is seeking to search contains journalistic confidential information, for that to be determined by a court.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Next Tuesday.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

When is it proposed to sit again?

Tomorrow morning at 9.30 a.m.

Is that agreed? Agreed.