Garda Síochána (Powers) Bill 2026: Committee Stage (Resumed) Seanad Éireann — 2026-06-10 ============================================================ Catherine Ardagh (FF), Dublin South-Central There is one Government amendment in this grouping, which is amendment No. 25. It intends to make the language in section 13(2)(e) more precise on the basis that something seized will not be evidence relating to the commission of an offence but suspected of being such evidence. I will speak on all four amendments together. It is fair to say that in every walk of life, whether we are medics, politicians or gardaí, a subconscious bias comes into play. If you do not measure it, we cannot fix it. That is part of the context of what we are looking at. As for the PULSE system alone, when it comes to measuring ethnicity and those targeted, whether it be for their race, where they are living, their communities, their gender or their age, it is not the only way to skin the cat and to collect the data. The purpose of recording information under section 13 is to permit the person concerned to get a record of the incident. The individual may require that for a number of personal reasons - this is in relation to the point Senator Byrne discussed - but it is intended to provide clear, factual information on which the person may rely. It was never intended to be used as a basis for reporting on the activity of An Garda Síochána. An example might be if you were driving a company car, you were pulled in and you needed to get evidence for work from the Garda that the reason you were late was because you were pulled in. Certain information they have gathered would be made available to you on an individual basis. That is the rationale for that section. I agree with the Senator on the important work members of the Garda do at the coalface. Daily, they are putting themselves in harm's way. When we are having this debate, we have to remember that and I thank the Senator for putting that on the floor of the Seanad today. I appreciate that. Turning to the race and ethnicity issue, I read the first debate in the Seanad about the amendments being ruled out of order. I went through it and the argument for recording ethnicity in stop and search encounters is recognised by the Department and is often presented to improve transparency, accountability and the identification of discriminatory patterns. There is also a desire to document who is stopped and searched, including age, gender, ethnicity and the justification for the stop. The fundamental issue is not the lack of data but how stop and search powers are used. What matters most is that these powers are intelligence led, proportionate and clearly justified. This Bill focuses on strengthening the requirement for objective justification, improving oversight and accountability and ensuring stop and search is targeted at preventing harm and reducing violence, rather than broad or indiscriminate use. I note the point made that it is broad and indiscriminate but we need the data to back it up so we can gather that information in a very visible way. There are other ways to understand the broader patterns of offending and victimisation without requiring demographic information to be recorded during every stop and search encounter. In Ireland, the Garda and the Government are exploring the use of an anonymised demographic information system, such as ethnicity or place of birth and linked via a PPS number, for serious crimes. This approach is intended for research and policy planning, not operational stop and search, and demonstrates that demographic data can be used safely to identify trends without increasing profiling risks. The policy is evolving on legal advice from the Attorney General. On the proposal for a PPSN-based unique identifier for the criminal justice system, it is very much under consideration by the Department. The Department has sought legal advice from the Attorney General on the proposal. Subject to consideration of the legal advice, once received, it is envisaged that the necessary and appropriate enabling basis would be provided for in a suitable legislative vehicle to take into account race, ethnicity and perhaps where you are living. A programme for Government commitment to introduce a common identification number for individuals engaging with the criminal justice system is a priority. In turn, this will address the lacuna in the implementation of long-standing Government policy, as set out in the national data infrastructure, which seeks to establish the consistent use of unique, trusted identifiers in public service administrative data, focusing on citizens, business and address identification. Turning to the specifics of the amendments as to what and how the information is to be recorded, section 13 already provides for the recording of key information about a person stopped under sections 9 and 10. The person's gender and geographic location of the stop are also collected and recorded on the PULSE system. The nationality is recorded, where known, but during a search, it may not be a question that is asked - especially if an arrest does not follow from the search. The amendments could be read as requiring a member to prolong a stop and search to further collect information as to the person's ethnicity, social characteristics, place of birth, occupation and religion. A person's place of birth, occupation and religion are already captured on the national census. The term "social characteristic" is not. There is a better way and that is the use of a common identification number for individuals engaging with the criminal justice system. As more data is captured on the national census, more information can be reported more frequently without the need to amend primary legislation. On a broader note, the 2025 report entitled An Evidence Review on Ethnic Monitoring in the Criminal Justice System authored by Brandon, Bracken and Pillay, which was commissioned by the Department of justice, reported in one of its findings that concern was expressed by participants that publishing data on minority ethnic groups involved with the criminal justice system could be interpreted negatively by wider society and result in stigmatisation of these minorities. On that basis, I cannot accept the amendments today. --- 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