Garda Síochána (Powers) Bill 2026: Committee Stage (Resumed) Seanad Éireann — 2026-06-10 ============================================================ Jim O'Callaghan (FF), Dublin Bay South I thank all Senators for their contributions. At the outset I wish to clarify that what we are talking about here is grouping C of amendments that are on the list in front of us. That is a group of eight amendments comprising Nos. 6 to 13, inclusive. My amendments are Nos. 8, 10 and 11. The other amendments have been tabled by Senators Ruane and Black. At the outset I will indicate what all of these amendments relate to. They all concern section 7, as Senator Ruane has indicated. More specifically, however, they all relate to the definitions contained within it of the term "relevant article". As we are aware, section 9 sets out the power to stop and search for possession of a relevant article. What the statutory provision allows for is that a member of An Garda Síochána who is in a public place or in another place authorised by law and has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is in possession of a relevant article may, without a warrant, stop and search the person, and it goes into the details of that in paragraphs (i) and (ii). The definition of "relevant article" obviously is central to the functioning of section 9 and the power that is purported to be given to An Garda Síochána. If we look at all of the definitions contained within "relevant article" in section 7 at present we can see it contains eight different definitions of what is included within the term "relevant article". Amendment No. 6 seeks to remove the first definition in section 7, "(a) anything stolen or obtained unlawfully". Amendment No. 7 seeks to remove paragraph (c), which is the "controlled drug" reference the Senator just spoke about. Amendment No. 9 proposes the removal of all of paragraph (f). Amendment No. 13 is a proposal to remove all of paragraph (h). If all of these amendments were given effect, the definition of "relevant article" that we would probably be left with would be explosive material, firearms and, under paragraph (g), a computer programme. We need to recognise that the power of stop and search that gardaí have arises in respect of much broader alleged offences than those covered by explosives and firearms. I will deal with the amendments individually and, if I can, I will then deal with them in the order in which they have been identified. Perhaps I will deal with my own ministerial amendments first, which are very brief and they are amendments Nos. 8, 10 and 11. Amendments Nos 8 and 10 are technical drafting amendments to remove the reference to "in a public place" in section 7(e) and 7(f). This is to remove the location requirement as this is already contained in the underlying offence. Amendment No. 11 is a minor drafting amendment to section 7(f) to address a grammatical issue after "container". I will move on to deal with the amendments from Senators Ruane and Black. They are suggesting deletions on amendments to the definition of "relevant article". Amendment No. 6 proposes to delete in section 7(a) "anything stolen or obtained unlawfully". Items that are stolen or obtained unlawfully are inherently associated with criminal activity and therefore it is appropriate that if gardaí reasonably believe that somebody is in possession of something that was stolen or obtained unlawfully, they should be entitled to stop and search a person in respect of that. For this reason I am opposing amendment No. 6. Similarly, amendment No. 7 proposes to delete the reference to controlled drugs in section 7. Senator Ruane is proposing that we remove paragraph (c) in its entirety. I cannot accept this amendment as this is a restating and reclarification of a power that is already provided for in section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. This enables a member of the Garda to search any person whom he has reasonable cause to suspect is in possession of a controlled drug in breach of the 1977 Act. Controlled drugs remain a central focus of criminal enforcement due to the social health and safety implications. Retaining this subsection allows gardaí to address illegal drug possession, efficiently disrupt distribution networks, and prevent harm to communities. If Senator Ruane's amendment was passed, it would, in effect, mean that there were very limited powers available to An Garda Síochána for the purpose of stopping and searching individuals in order to check if they are in possession of a controlled drug. I heard the arguments that were made. In effect, Senator Ruane is trying to do something she has consistently advocated, which is the decriminalisation of drugs. That is an argument that may be had. I do not agree with it but it is an argument that can be considered and discussed. I do not think a decision of that magnitude should be made by the back door by trying to remove a power that the gardaí have at present, which I believe they should continue to have. If we want to discuss decriminalisation of certain drugs, that can be discussed and debated, and legislation can be brought forward, but if we are bringing forward legislation, let us do something that is intended for the purpose of the legislation. This is about Garda powers. I want to give the gardaí statutory powers to stop and search somebody if the garda has a reasonable suspicion that the person is in possession of a controlled drug. The reason I do it is not in any way to try to target certain communities or anything suggested. The purpose is to try to protect people from the devastation that is caused to lives through drugs. I was interested to hear what Senator McDowell had to say in respect of the 16-year-old and the 19-year-old, and how it would be impossible to keep the drug away from the 16-year-old if it was decriminalised for anyone over 18 years of age. It is also important to recognise the extent to which, since Senator McDowell was in college, the strength of cannabis has grown. This is of significance, particularly with regard to young men, since what we are talking about with respect to decriminalisation is, to a large extent, cannabis. I cannot ignore the fact that the scientific evidence available states that cannabis use has a very significant detrimental impact on the development of young people and their brains. It is damaging to them. We only need to look at what has happened in the United States. In the past decade, 20 states in the United States have made the decision to legalise cannabis for recreational use, not for medicinal use, for people over 21. What we have seen is the incidence of adverse health consequences for users skyrocket----- --- Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted. Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-06-10/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:55:02+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-06-10