Ms Clare Daly:

I thank the Deputy and Senator for their input. I am happy to see we are on the same page on many of the headline issues concerning heads 42 and 21. This is great. I take Senator Ward's point. It is a matter that we considered ourselves, but from a different point of view. It is a question of whether, if we specify a penalty, we are watering down in some way. I look at this by asking what safeguards we can put in place to achieve what is intended in the Bill, which is to safeguard fundamental rights in the exercise of Garda duties. My concern is less about the evidence found in a search and more about the safeguards we put in place to ensure the Garda

is compliant with its fundamental-rights obligations. Already we have general statements. Already we have general penalties for breaches of ethics. Do we need to consider something more? I do not know the answer. I believe the Senator is correct in that there are two sides, but I would like some penalty to be considered to put firmly on the plate of An Garda Síochána the seriousness of its responsibility. It is particularly needed in the context of head 68, which gives the impression that it does not really matter if fundamental rights obligations are breached or if evidence is obtained in an abusive way because that evidence could still be admissible. I am aware that the DPP v. JC decision has provided for that, but I do not think our adding to it is very helpful. Those are my thoughts on it, but I agree it is not entirely straightforward.

On stop-and-search arrangements, the points made by Deputy Costello were good in respect of discussing whether the relevant provision is needed at all. It probably is but we need a very tight definition. The aspects on computers as hacking devices and accessing private data are very problematic. Again, I draw the committee's attention to head 16, whereby the Garda is being given new stop-and-search powers, particularly to ask for private data, access information, computer passwords and so on.