I welcome the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, and his officials to the Chamber. I also welcome the Tuam Active Retirement Association, guests of the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Canney. I hope they enjoy their visit to Leinster House today. They are very welcome.

Amendment No. 1 has been ruled out of order.

Do we not need a quorum?

We do.

On a point of order, I received a letter today signed by the Cathaoirleach, which said that amendment No. 1 and amendment No. 26 in my name are being ruled out. I want to explain to the House that this a matter of fundamental democratic importance. Amendment No. 26, as the House will see, refers to a requirement that gardaí who deploy stop and-----

We are on amendment No. 1.

No, I am sorry, I am making a point of order. I am making it very clear to the Leas-Cathaoirleach that, as far as I am concerned, this Committee Stage does not proceed until the point I am dealing with is resolved satisfactorily. I am not going to co-operate with anything. There is going to be a vote on everything. I wish to explain to the House why that is. Amendment No. 26 in my name requires gardaí who stop and search people, in addition to the requirements to make a record which are provided for in section 12 of the Bill, to record the ethnicity and status of the person who has been stopped and searched. This is the law in Northern Ireland. It is the law in all the jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. It is the means whereby policy forces are transparent. If, for instance, black people or Muslims or whoever else are being stopped and searched inordinately often - including in this country, members of the Traveller community - there is a record of the ethnic status of the people who are stopped and searched so that the public knows how stop and search powers are implemented.

This is a basic requirement of democratic accountability and transparency. If the House looks at the Minister's proposals, section 13 states:

(1) A member who carries out a search under section 9 or 10 of a person or a vehicle shall, in accordance with this section, make a record of the search.

(2) A record made under subsection (1) shall contain the following information:

(a) where known, the name, address and date of birth of the person or, as the case may be, the driver of the vehicle concerned;

(b) the time and date of the search;

(c) the reason or reasons for the search;

(d) the provision of this Part under which the search was conducted;

(e) the outcome of the search including, where a search results in the seizure of a relevant article or evidence relating to the commission of an offence, the article or evidence concerned

That is what the Minister proposes should be the record of every stop and search.

Amendment No. 26 in my name adds the following additional subparagraph: "such particulars of the racial, ethnic, nationality or status of the person or persons stopped and searched as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister." I got a letter then from the Cathaoirleach stating the amendment had been ruled out, in other words, we cannot discuss the idea that there would be a record of the ethnic status of people searched. Why? Let me read the letter again. It states that amendment No. 26 has the potential to impose a charge on the Revenue and must be ruled out in accordance with Standing Order 42. It continues that amendment No. 28 is consequential on amendment No. 26, which requires this to be the subject of report, and must consequentially also be ruled out of order in accordance with Standing Order 42. I spoke to the Cathaoirleach about his letter. I am told that this ruling was sought by the Department of justice and the reason it was sought was that it was alleged that the PULSE system, a very clunky system, at present is configured in a way which might require an extra line to be inserted in it, and that this might cost money.

I will say one thing to the Cathaoirleach. The Standing Orders of this House do not permit my amendment to be ruled out in this way. That is a bit like saying that if you take a record, more paper or a biro might be required. I am simply asking that a record of the ethnic status of people who are stopped and searched be made part of the record made by gardaí who stop people in the street and search them. The reason I am doing that is, and the Members and, in particular, staff of the House should know this, that in Britain you are eight times more likely to be stopped and searched if your skin colour is black or brown. Under English equality law and the UK Police and Criminal Evidence Act, guidelines are laid down which require records to be kept of the ethnic status of people who are the subject of these powers being deployed so as to show to the public that the law is or is not being fairly, impartially and in a non-discriminatory way applied in the way intended by parliament.

I normally accept the rulings of this House without question. Sometimes they are a bit dotty but I do not mind. However, if we are being asked to extend Garda powers to stop and search people on the street in the manner that this Bill is proposing to do, and the ruling that has been handed to me says that, among the details required to be recorded for every such deployment, you may not make the Bill clearly state that the Garda shall also tick a box saying this is a black person, a white person, a Traveller or an immigrant of whatever kind, there will be no protection for minorities at all.

The point I am making is this. I have been in politics since 1987. I have sat where this Minister sits and I have never attempted to abuse the rules of the House to prevent a totally defensible and intelligent requirement in relation to a police power, one which requires no extra effort on the part of the garda filling out the report the Minister wants to be filled out to protect people from racial profiling, which is what we are dealing with here. To say that to require this extra line of data would be to impose a charge on the Exchequer is about as ridiculous as saying that it might use up biro ink or more paper. It is completely indefensible. What is worse, and I am sorry to say this, it has been asked of the Chair of this House to rule out my amendment in bad faith. I am ashamed that the Department approached the Chair of this House to exclude my amendment on the basis that it would impose a charge in the Exchequer. It does not impose a charge on the Exchequer. If the Garda has to fiddle around with the PULSE system to accommodate it, so be it. Any report requires paper and biros, and records to be kept. I do not even say in my amendment that it has to be electronically recorded in PULSE. It can be on a separate piece of paper put in a separate ledger in the Garda station, if necessary. It is in the utmost bad faith for the Department to attempt to exclude this amendment by perverting the rules of this House, which are designed to stop me interfering with the budgetary rights of the Government to control the Exchequer. It is the utmost bad faith.

I am staggered by what has been suggested. I am not prepared to go down the road of discussing extending police powers until we sort this out. Can this House demand that a record which prevents racial profiling be kept by gardaí who deploy this power? I am in favour of stop and search powers. I have no problem with them. However, I want it to be known clearly that they are or are not being disproportionately applied to particular cohorts of the community in a discriminatory way. I know, because I have been in this House for ten years and in the Dáil for donkey's years before that, I have been Minister for Justice and I have been Tánaiste, that this application has been made in utmost bad faith. I will not allow, as far as I can do it, the proceedings this morning to progress in any way unless this ruling is withdrawn. I am sorry to say that.

I am not trying to bully anybody but it is so unstateable, unfair, wrong and anti-democratic that I cannot just sit here and come to my amendment and be told politely that it is out of order. Do the Chair and Clerk want me to be removed from the House by ushers? Is that what people want or are they willing to be honest in the rulings that are given here and admit that there is no possibility of excluding an amendment of this kind on the spurious grounds that it imposes a charge on the Exchequer? That is what I want to say. The Leas-Chathaoirleach can do anything she likes but every single point in today's procedure is going to be the subject of ultimate obstruction until I receive basic fairness. I have always been respectful to the Chair in this House and this is a trampling on my rights. It is also a trampling on a bona fide effort to make sure that when we make laws, minorities are protected in the way in which those laws are put into effect.

On a point of order, I want to tell the Leas-Chathaoirleach that. I am not trying to bully anybody but I am saying that I am not going to participate in a legislative farce when the Department of justice - a Department for which I have the greatest admiration - comes to the Chair of this House and says to get rid of this amendment because it involves a charge on the Exchequer. I was shocked this morning to hear that was the basic reason offered, and I only got this letter this morning. It is not sustainable and it is dishonest. It is a dishonest reason for not introducing a basic fairness and accountability measure into this legislation, if it is enacted. I want to make that very clear.

I, too, would like to object to these amendments being ruled out of order. It is very unfair. It is basic information which gives protection to various cohorts in Irish society that evidence has clearly shown need protection. It is about ensuring that we have all the information we need. It only requires another line on the PULSE system. It is not trying to reinvent the wheel, nor does it involve some huge endeavour. It is clear that there is a need for data. As has been said, in the North of Ireland this is in place. Many judicial systems have it in place. It is about transparency and ensuring there is evidence and that people have access to such evidence. I strongly object to this amendment being ruled out of order. I agree with everything Senator McDowell has said. The Department has said that it is being ruled out of order for money reasons. If that is the case, will the Minister take on these amendments and introduce them himself? In that way, we could reach some form of agreement. They have been ruled out of order for money reasons as we submitted them, so if the Minister took them on board-----

To clarify, it is actually not the Department that rules them out of order. It is the Cathaoirleach.

I have spoken to the Cathaoirleach and I know the background. I know his attitude to this and where this came from.

I do not think that anybody believes for a minute that it is the Cathaoirleach. It is clearly coming from the Department of justice. It is clear that the Department has ruled it out of order. There is no reason the Minister could not take on these amendments to allow them to be integrated into the legislation. We certainly disagree with these amendments being ruled out of order. I will support Senator McDowell on this.

I want to be concise in what I say. I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague Senator McDowell. This is as much about how the decision was communicated as the decision itself. I have raised this issue time and again. I am looking at the letter here, dated 14 May. This is not the way to do business. It is not the Minister's fault, per se, but I will come to him in a second. I welcome him and his officials to the House.

Parliamentary democracy is at the core of this and this sort of thing undermines confidence in parliamentary democracy. Without going into it at any great length, we have seen Bills on a whole range of things guillotined since this Government took office. That shows disrespect for the Upper House, the revising Chamber. That is a pity. The record shows the consistency with which the working affairs of our Chamber have been, shall we say, undermined, at best. That is not good enough. Senator McDowell has made a very clear case for reinstating this amendment as valid on the clár, our agenda today. I want to be pragmatic.

The Leas-Chathaoirleach can use her powers under Standing Orders to perhaps suspend the House for a period of five or ten minutes to allow some consultation in the anteroom. We need a way forward; it is as simple as that. I am loath to have robust political debate in a private chamber outside this Chamber but we need to move on at some point. We need to acknowledge that this was not the right thing to do. We all know that the Government has a vast majority in the House. Regardless of any amendment coming on the clár for this Bill, if the Minister decides that he does not want to proceed, the Members vote accordingly. That is the party system. Whether the Minister likes an amendment or not, he is in control. I say that respectfully to the Minister. We do not need this internal, divisive approach. We do not need to curtail Opposition Members who want to engage. I ask that that be noted.

There is a bigger issue here about how the permanent establishment seems to be drawn in or come under pressure in some way to curtail. I do not know if that is the case but I feel that it sometimes is the case. The manner in which this sort of thing is communicated has to change. We need to look again at that.

I will put one question to the Minister. If he has an opportunity and thinks it is appropriate and right, I would like him to share with the House any knowledge he had about his officials approaching any of the staff here, whether the Clerk, the Clerk Assistant or any of the civil servants in the House, to in some way curtail or bring pressure to bear, overtly or covertly, in relation to this amendment? Quite frankly, I do not think that is good enough but maybe the Minister was not aware. Many things seem to happen in Ministers' offices that the Ministers do not seem to be aware of or, conveniently, are not informed about. At some point, the Minister might share with us whether he was aware of it and, if so, if he cautioned against it. Did he think it was the right thing to do or did he say, as the pragmatist he normally is, and I have a lot of respect for him, to leave it on the agenda to be debated and for Members to vote, accordingly, against it. I do not think the Minister is a man who interferes with or curtails debate. However, he is now wearing a different hat. He is now the Minister, the big boy up in the square. I say that respectfully because I like him, which is important, and I believe in him. I think he is a reforming Minister, so I am somewhat disappointed that this should happen on his watch. Again, maybe the Minister was not aware of it but, if he was, I want to know when he became aware of it, if he did anything to stop it, if he advised caution or if he said to proceed with it. Did the Minister come here today prepared, knowing that this was the proposal?

The Minister has indicated that he would like to respond. Three other Senators would like to have their say. I will allow them in first and then call the Minister. Senator Black is first.

I agree with Senator McDowell. We have to challenge the ruling that this amendment is out of order on financial grounds. I think the Minister is saying that this needs a money message. That is wrong and I will say a little on the reason I think it is wrong. This amendment does not appropriate funds. It does not create a scheme, establish an entitlement or set up a new body. It imposes a recording obligation on an existing power. Gardaí already stop and search. All this amendment asks is that when they do, they note the ethnicity. I know my colleague Senator Ruane has an amendment about the locality of the person who is stopped. It is a data field. It is a check-box. That is all it is. The idea that adding a field to an existing Garda recording system constitutes a charge on the Exchequer stretches that concept beyond any reasonable interpretation. I would argue that it is being used here not to protect public finances but to avoid the debate the Government does not want to have.

As others have said, the PSNI records ethnicity in stop and search. It is a standard practice across these islands and across Europe. If it is good enough for policing in the North, it should be good enough here. We already collect equality monitoring data across health, housing and employment. The courts record ethnicity. The State does this routinely. None of this has been ruled a cost to the Exchequer. The cost of not collecting this data is far greater. The cost is paid in litigation, in Fiosrú investigations and in the erosion of trust between An Garda Síochána and minorities, such as the Traveller community. Accountability data does not cost money. It actually saves it. Ireland has binding obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and under EU equality law, so we cannot hide behind a procedural ruling to avoid discharging these obligations.

The cost to the Exchequer mechanism exists to prevent Private Members from raiding the public purse. It was never intended and should never be used to block an accountability and human rights measure like this one. I ask that the Minister reconsider this ruling. This amendment should be accepted today. I really do hope the Minister changes his mind on this.

On a point of order, if I may, respectfully, I have a suggestion that might perhaps move matters on. I am not trying to curtail debate here. I am just wondering whether, if perhaps the Minister came in at this point, it might answer some of the questions the Members have legitimately put forward.

All the questions have not been asked yet.

I beg your pardon.

All the questions have not been asked.

There are only two more speakers.

I have a few more.

The Minister's contribution might help to move matters on.

There are only two more speakers.

It was only a suggestion.

I understand where the Senator is coming from, but I will allow the other two speakers to ask their questions.

I 100% agree with Senator McDowell in relation to this amendment. It is absolutely in order, and it should be allowed. If we need to suspend the House for five or ten minutes to enable people to discuss this and allow the amendment in, that is what we should do. Minorities in this country are already targeted. It has happened to somebody in my family. He was taking a phone call outside a restaurant one day. He happens to be a solicitor as well. He was on the phone and all of a sudden he was surrounded by undercover gardaí who were looking for somebody who looked like him. Those incidents are not recorded and they need to be recorded. That is all I will say. I hope this amendment is allowed in.

Over the last few years, we have heard a huge amount, including in official reports, about the abuse of stop and search among particular communities, not only around ethnicity but also in relation to particular demographics and communities. We grew up being regularly stopped and searched as children. We did not even have to have an adult present. We were stopped and searched while walking to the shop or through the park if there were more than two or three people. If we are not willing to capture that, we are not willing to acknowledge that we have poor policing practices. It does save the State money because if the Garda is going to keep stopping and searching people, that creates a cost on the State even in terms of policing and wasting the time of gardaí on profiling people when they could actually be using policing resources to investigate real crime instead of abusing stop and search.

If there is going to be a moment to reflect on whether ethnicity should be included here or not in terms of it being ruled out of order in the discussion, I would also like to acknowledge that my amendment to repeal section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act has been ruled out of order because it was considered to be irrelevant. That section is mentioned in the Bill we are dealing with today. It provides for a stop-and-search power, the use of which will actually be expanded when the rest of these laws come into force. Section 3 is an integral part of stop and search in this country. The Garda has no bar to have proof of anything to use stop and search under section 3. Now, we also have the ruling-out of an amendment saying it is irrelevant to the Bill - a stop-and-search power irrelevant to the Bill. Who is making these decisions? I have been legislating in this House for ten years and I can tell the Minister now, when I write amendments, I do not write them without taking in the Bill in its entirety and all the other Bills to which this Bill is related. Part 2, on page 9, describes "a controlled drug (within the meaning of section 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977), the possession of which is in contravention of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977". Section 3 is needed for section 2. They do not exist in isolation, yet this House has ruled my amendment out of order and not allowed it even to be discussed. This is one of the main stop-and-search powers that are abused this country. I do not want to wait until we get to that section to bring it up because what I want to acknowledge is that we have a problem here in relation to what is ruled out of order. If we do take a few minutes to discuss the reinsertion of Senator McDowell's amendment, I also need to challenge very hard the fact that it is bad law to stand in this House to say that section 3 is irrelevant to this Bill. It actually makes no sense. If the Department of justice, the police, the Senators in this room or any legislators and drafters do not see the relevance of section 3 in this Bill, this Bill should not come before us at all because they need to understand the Bill in its entirety, and its impact.

I thank the Senator very much. I am going to allow the Minister to come in.

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach. I am very pleased to be back in the Seanad. I was here yesterday discussing the Omagh Bill.

I will be frank with Senators. I was working this morning on the legislation that is going through the House today and because of the pressure of work, I was not concentrating on what amendments were ruled out of order or not. Obviously, if there was communication between the Department of justice and the Cathaoirleach's office, although I was not aware of it, I am responsible for it. There are five amendments that have been ruled out of order. I have no difficulty if all of them are now ruled in order and heard. I am happy to proceed with them. I am instructed, however, that my officials did indicate that they thought amendment No. 1 would involve a charge. Aside from that, however, certainly in respect of amendment No. 26, which is the specific amendment dealing with recording ethnicity, my officials have instructed me that there was not any direction or issue in respect of that. Nonetheless, I will accept whatever responsibility I have in respect of it. If it is possible to put them in order, I would ask that the Leas-Chathaoirleach do so.

I will read out this note because there are precedents to do with some of the reasons the amendments were ruled out of order. After that, we might suspend for approximately ten minutes to discuss it, if that is okay. On amendment No. 1, the precedent is that a similar amendment, No. 3, which was tabled by Senator McDowell on Committee Stage of the International Protection Bill 2026, was ruled out of order for the same reason, as it proposed making the commencement of the Act contingent on an administrative matter to be carried out by the Department and outside the control of the Houses. That is the precedent for amendment No. 1 being ruled out of order.

On amendment No. 26, by way of precedent, Senators should please note that a similar amendment, No. 56, which was tabled by Senators Ruane and Black on Committee Stage of the Policing, Security and Community Safety Bill 2023, was ruled out of order for the same reason, as it proposed obliging the Garda to record and report on certain equality-related demographics, giving rise to a requirement of An Garda Síochána to invest in ICT upgrades to the PULSE system.

Amendment No. 28, to which Senator McDowell referred, must be ruled out of order as consequential to amendment No. 26 and in accordance with Standing Order 42, as it has the potential to impose a charge on the Revenue. I know the Senator highlighted that he-----

It is just the cost of amending the system.

Yes. On Senator Ruane's amendment No. 51 to repeal section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, it must be ruled out of order in accordance with Standing Order 165 as it is not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.

To clarify, no pressure was brought to bear by the Department. I have read out the precedents. I suggest that we suspend the House to discuss this. I ask the Acting Leader to move the suspension for ten minutes.

I might just make one point. I do not believe, I am afraid, any suggestion that the cost of adjusting the computer occurred to the officials at this House without the Department raising it.

I do not believe that. I am not a child. I am not a fool. If the Cathaoirleach and staff of this House by themselves said, "Oh my goodness. This could involve a change to the computer system which might cost money", we would have big trouble in this House. The truth is as I articulated earlier, that the Department made the point that it would have to change its computer system and this House then acted on foot of that representation. The Minister may say it was not pressurised. If that is the point that was made-----

Communicated.

A communication of that fact was put to this House. I am not a child. I am not stupid. I deserve a tiny bit of respect. To say to me that the Department was not involved is childish.

I ask Senator Ahern to move the suspension of the House.

I propose, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders or the Order of Business today, that the House does suspend until 12.30 p.m.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome our guests in the Gallery. You are very welcome here today and I hope you enjoy your visit.

I call on the Acting Leader to make a proposal.

I propose, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders or the Order of Business today, that the House does suspend until 12.50 p.m.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I ask the Minister to address the House.

I do not want to intrude into the rulings or deliberations of this House. However, I have been informed by Senators Gallagher and Ahearn that it is proposed that the House adjourn. If I may, I will make two points in respect of that. First, I came here today prepared to deal with 54 amendments to the Garda Síochána (Powers) Bill. This is extremely urgent legislation. It is urgent not because I am saying it is but because this Bill responds to what are referred to as the Quirke decision and the Corcoran decision of the Supreme Court. Mr. Justice Hogan and Mr. Justice Collins, in the Supreme Court, both said that the situation in respect of search warrants and how they interact with journalistic privilege is a matter that requires urgent legislation attention. That is why, since I have been in this role, I have been trying to expedite this legislation. Unfortunately, as a result of the House adjourning, those very important amendments and, indeed, the legislation itself will be delayed. As I said, that is a matter for the House. As a Minister who always comes respectfully to this House, I am annoyed that we cannot get on with the work here.

Second, a lot of comment was made earlier on. By the way, I have no difficulty with Senators kicking me around the Seanad. As a Minister, I deserve to be properly harangued by Senators when they feel it is appropriate. However, I am concerned that comments were made about officials in the Department of justice, which, I have been informed, were incorrect. In particular, it was suggested that amendments Nos. 24, 26 and 28 were ruled out of order because of communications from the Department of justice to the Cathaoirleach's office. I have been informed and instructed by officials in my Department that that never happened. There was communication in respect of amendments Nos. 1 and 51. There was no communication in respect of the other three amendments.

In fact, as far as I am aware, those amendments were ruled out by the House. I do not want to get involved in a domestic dispute here but it is unsatisfactory from my point of view. While people are entitled to have a go at me, it was unfair to officials to say that they sinisterly went behind people's backs here and got the Cathaoirleach to rule out the three amendments which deal with ethnicity and nationality. It is not true.

I thank the Minister for that clarification.

I call Senator Ahearn.

I propose, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders relative to public business or the order of the House today, that the House now adjourn until 2.30 p.m. next Tuesday, 19 May 2026.

Is that agreed? Agreed.