Garda Síochána (Powers) Bill 2026 [Seanad]: Second Stage Dail Éireann — 2026-09-16 ============================================================ Ken O'Flynn (II), Cork North-Central While modernising police legislation sounds reasonable on paper, this Bill fails to strike the essential balance between public safety and fundamental human rights. It dramatically expands invasive powers such as stop-and-search and seizure of electronic devices without introducing necessary binding legislation with safeguards. Crucially, it lacks mandatory requirements to record ethnic or demographic data during those stops. Without this data we cannot properly monitor or prevent the biometric profiling or disproportionate targeting of an ethnic minority or minority communities. Let us look beyond the text of the Bill. We in this House cannot ignore internal Garda culture, a culture that has deeply tested the public trust over the last number of years, and the question of the very integrity of the Garda institution itself. Following Rita O’Reilly’s “Morning Ireland” interview I am obliged as a Member of this House to ask the critical questions before I can support the expanding of any policing powers. When GSOC was informed on 9 September 2019 that Garda leather holsters made by Declan Clancy Saddlery were not fit for purpose, what action did it take and what action did the Minister’s Department take? In November 2022, when the then Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and the Comptroller and Auditor General were sent detailed protected disclosures concerning the holsters from the saddlery, the Garda armoury and the tragic murder of Detective Garda Colm Horkan, what steps were taken concerning the grave wrongdoings in those disclosures? Those documents, which were in the possession of the Minister, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, show there were cover-ups and orchestrated delays that were outlined specifically in those documents. Furthermore, since 5 March 2026 I have asked both oral and written parliamentary questions seeking for details of the date on which the Government agreed to exercise its collective will on the dismissal of Mr. John Barrett, executive director of human resources and people development in An Garda Síochána. I have received no answer to date, despite the commitment of the Tánaiste to come back to me within a week to reply. I have since written to the Tánaiste, and to members of this Cabinet and the previous Cabinet to inform me about this. One member of the previous Cabinet wrote back and everyone else has ignored those letters, but I tell the Minister those letters are not going away and they are a matter of public record. I am sending these letters because this is not a trivial administration matter. I remind this House the dismissal of a senior civil servant is governed by the statutory framework established under section 5 of the Civil Service Regulation Act 1956, as amended. The failure to provide transparency and accountability on when and how the Government exercised its collective authority in relation to this dismissal raises serious questions and concerns due process, constitutional rights and the protection of the public and senior civil servants. In my view and that of many practising law, this amounts to a breach of human rights and must be properly examined in the context of constitutionality, statutory regulations and government dismissals. This is a growing list of internal disclosures and unanswered parliamentary questions and shows a lack of transparent processes within the Garda and the Department of justice. It makes it impossible to ignore that there is a systemic flaw in the culture of An Garda Síochána. We cannot blindly grant sweeping new powers under this Bill while the existing framework for accountability, human rights, data collection and the basic institutional integrity is consistently failing this House and this State and falling short. Before we grant An Garda Síochána greater powers, this Government must first demonstrate those powers are exercised within a framework of transparency and accountability and in a way that has respect for fundamental human rights. I urge Members to vote against the Bill. Others have mentioned this but while the Minister is here, I implore him to interact with the Law Society. Nobody likes to lose face and nobody likes to lose a battle, but we have people being released from courts having been told “Off you go” as they have no solicitor. We have people turning up to courts and waiting for appointments. They have taken time off work and whatever else. They have no free legal aid available to them. This cannot go on. The Minister has had months of ignoring the Law Society and ignoring solicitors across the country. I would have thought somebody like him, with an understanding of the law, would have engaged. I accept he has written back, a month or two later, to the Law Society, but the Minister has to engage. Only by shaking hands and only by sitting at a table and negotiating will he achieve anything. As a new Member of this House I do not need to teach him how to suck eggs. He is very capable and is one of the more capable Ministers on the Front Bench, but by not entering negotiations, talking to people, shaking the hand of the enemy and sitting down he will not achieve anything. I think the Minister knows that deep down so I appeal to him to get around the negotiating table and talk to the Law Society and to solicitors. Let us build a bridge and get over it. --- 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/dail/2026-09-16/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-09-28T05:50:48+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-09-16