Lynn Ruane
University of Dublin · Independent · Ireland
“The chairperson of the board of the Courts Service, Ms Justice Aileen Donnelly, said that the rise in drugs cases of a less serious kind had increased the workload of the lower courts.”
“I remember I could barely write when I started studying addiction. I was 16 when I applied for an addiction studies course. They would not let me on it because they said I was too young and it was for adults. I fought and fought. I did not know how to write an essay. I had not engaged in school since I was about 12.”
“The world is watching how Ireland has done the most extensive interrogation of drugs policy ever seen, and is waiting in hope to see what we do next to make sure that we move with the evidence. It is not just opinion.”
“I join Senator McDowell in thanking all the people we should thank for the efficient and smooth running of these Houses. He ran through them all. Even if we have had a few ding-dongs over rulings on amendments and stuff, other than that, things have moved well, as they always do. I thank the staff across both Houses.”
“There are not many things I will claim some level of expertise in, but this is one where I will claim it. I have been obsessed with it since I was about 16. I look forward to coming back in the new year, and not just for 90 minutes. We need a substantial time to discuss this report, whether three hours, four hours or six hours.”
“It will contain all incidents of prohibited AI practices under Article 5 of the AI Act; all serious incidents of high-risk AI systems in the State, reported under Article 73; high-risk AI systems that are employed in critical infrastructure; and any other AI-related incidents or notifications in the State required to be reported under the…”
The complete record
Every one of 599 lines we hold for Lynn Ruane, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 12.
“The Bill establishes the AI office as the national single point of contact, but many of the substantive enforcement powers reside with sectoral market surveillance authorities. While the distributed model has advantages, questions remain about whether the AI office has sufficient authority to co-ordinate investigations, resolve disputes between regulators and ensure consistency of enforcement. Much appears to depend on co-operation agreements and voluntary co-ordination arrangements. Section 43 of the Bill provides for the establishment of a national AI register containing important information, including prohibited AI practices and serious incidents involving high-risk systems. However, the Bill does not appear to clearly state the extent to which this register will be publicly accessible.”
“The Data Protection Commission recently acknowledged that, apart from amicable resolutions on trivial issues, Ireland has not completed a single EU inquiry into Google or enforced against any big tech firm or its subsidiaries in the ten years since the GDPR was enacted. The effectiveness of the AI office will depend not only on its statutory designation as an independent body but also on whether it is genuinely independent in practice. As drafted, the Bill provides significant ministerial influence over the appointment of the first board and CEO, who may serve for a full five-year term. Given the office’s central role in supervising compliance with the AI Act and co-ordinating enforcement across multiple regulators, there is a strong argument for more robust safeguards around appointments, governance and operational autonomy.”
“For truth, democracy and the rule of law to endure in the era of AI, we have to create robust ecosystems of transparency and accountability. Large tech and AI companies, despite selling promises of innovation and broader societal benefit, monetise and routinely undermine the society they claim to serve. Put simply, they cannot be trusted to self-regulate. Given the track record of the technology industry in this regard, stricter regulation and enforcement are among the clearest ways governments can demonstrate that they serve the public interest first and foremost. Effective regulation also relies on active enforcement, something Ireland has demonstrated, since the implementation of the GDPR, it is unwilling to do.”
“The EU's landmark Artificial Intelligence Act, which must be implemented by 1 August to fulfil the deadlines agreed, was meant to create a comprehensive framework for accountability and transparency on the use of AI in society. However, since its adoption in 2024, we have borne witness to a co-ordinated campaign by industry to undermine its efficacy, with the legislation's protections now at risk of falling victim to the EU's deregulation agenda through the so-called AI omnibus proposals. The EU landmark accountability law for social media and other digital platforms, the Digital Services Act, is also at risk. This agenda is being pushed at the highest levels of the European Commission under the banner of simplification, but the danger posed is that core protections for individuals and communities will be eroded.”
“When it is placed in a Department with a sole focus on enterprise, do we lean the AI legislation or AI conversation more towards industry than those civil society, academic, digital rights bodies frameworks? Government spokespersons often talk about the extraordinary potential presented for our economy by AI and the need for balance to be achieved between this potential and mitigating the many risks posed by technologies to citizens. Like many of the civil society and academic leaders that the joint committee on AI has engaged with, I am of the view that the Government is getting this balance wrong. It is embracing a policy approach to AI that prioritises Ireland's role as a digital hub over the protection of the rights of individuals.”
“As many of my colleagues are aware from previous discussions of AI in this Chamber, I have significant concerns about the development and deployment of artificial intelligence and AI tools in society, with particular regard to the potential impact on privacy, fundamental human rights and equality. I have been a member of the Oireachtas joint committee for over a year and what has stood out in that process, above all else, is the substantial difference in the perspectives of those in government and industry and those in digital rights bodies, civil society and academia. That brings us back to the conversation on which Department AI should be placed in.”
“As a member of the AI committee, I understand our functions as a special committee in that we were not in a position to engage with the legislation. This made it even more important for that engagement to happen in this and the other House because we have Members of both Houses who have spent nine months doing nothing but interrogating the use of AI. Those contributions would be really important given that the AI committee could not work with this legislation and it had to go to a different committee. That is fundamentally bad parliamentary practice. I add a note of caution as we prepare amendments for next week. Yesterday, we only saw six out of 80 amendments discussed in the Dáil. I hope the Minister of State will give us assurances today that this House will be given time to consider amendments to the legislation.”
“I express deep frustration and concern at the extremely rushed nature of our engagement with this substantive and substantial legislation. The Bill was published by the Government on 17 June, with Second Stage taken in Dáil Éireann a week later. Committee and Remaining Stages were taken in the Dáil last evening, with the debate guillotined after the consideration of just six of 80 tabled amendments. That does not give us any sign that there has been legislative scrutiny. Scrutiny improves legislation and we should always view it as such. As the Seanad commences its consideration of the legislation this evening, we are still awaiting the publication of the pre-legislative scrutiny report on the draft heads prepared by the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Tourism and Employment. We want to engage with the Minister of State in good faith.”
“If the Minister is saying that the interests of justice include an automatic assessment of the best interests of a child, I am comfortable that this will cover our concerns. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.”
“We had it in the eighties and nineties in relation to drugs, and we have seen it where paedophiles have lived in communities. I have witnessed this is in my own community. My fear is that in seeking to protect some people, we may risk reducing the safety of others who are living within a household. What does including a person's full address mean for the protection and rights of other people who live with that person?”
“They are already in an unsafe situation if they are in a household with a violent man. Obviously, the ideal solution is to create safety and to remove them from that situation. If they are not removed, however, will a person's name being included on this register lead to minors being exposed? In the worst-case scenario, children in school may become aware that their classmate's father is on a register. They know it is him because the address will be included rather than just the name. People in the community may then descend on the house. What protections or safety plans have been put in place for other people who are living in that house? They obviously need to be protected from that individual, but they may also need to be protected from the public. We have had vigilantism in this country before.”
“Including an address, a date of birth and so on could ensure that people would not be misidentified. However, we also need to understand that people who abuse someone often do not only abuse one person. While they may have a conviction relating to a relationship with someone else, they may go on to create another family with somebody who does not know about that. They may have children. Our concern is whether the best interests of such children will be taken into account if an address is to appear on a public register. While we are creating safety for anybody who encounters and ends up in a relationship with a person that is known to be violent, there may be other family members within that household. What does that do for them? How are they protected? Should we reduce their levels of safety?”
“I move amendment No. 5: In page 4, line 20, after “justice” to insert “, safety, and the best interests of a child,”. We welcome this legislation. We hope that it will bring about a level of safety for people, especially women, who often enter into relationships without knowing the type of people they are entering into relationships with. Women sometimes end up in very complex relationships, even when they do know that the people they have entered relationships with have caused harm in their communities. It can be very difficult to understand the vulnerabilities that exist for women in those complex situations. Our amendment is concerned with a person's address. I understand that the previous Labour amendments wanted to ensure that people were identified accurately.”
“I am not saying that is the fault of the prison officers, whether it is down to the training or how people are taught, I do not know the answer to that. That fact exists that we are now going to layer on an incapacitant spray without addressing what the Council of Europe's committee stated, which was that there is a serious concern in how Irish prison officers currently use restraint. We would probably be better off investing in how we adequately train prison officers in de-escalation and safer restraint as a first step before we consider incapacitant sprays. At this stage, I am not going to convince the Minister to change or review his opinion on the amendments. However, I would like the Minister to acknowledge that population increase is not the primary or only cause of overcrowding in the Prison Service.”
“People often say when they come out of prison from shorter sentences that their engagement in criminality begins again and that they have made wider connections. It is no use. I would like that point to exist there. Not to undermine the professionalism of prison officers but I am not sure whether the Minister is aware - he probably is - of the recent report from the Council of Europe's committee for the prevention of torture, which raised serious concerns around the under-development of training of Irish prison officers in relation to physical restraint, that is, without a weapon or incapacitant spray. The committee for the prevention of torture has already stated that our prison officers are not trained properly on the use of force.”
“Whatever the Minister's comments on the rise in population being the reason, I cannot allow that alone to stand as the reason. It would be good for the Minister to acknowledge that we can also reduce the prison population through how we actually do justice in relation to those community sanction pieces. That would drastically reduce overcrowding, regardless of whether I agree with more infrastructure. My goal would obviously be a world where we do not need prisons at all. While I am not completely naive, I do not support such numbers of people receiving prison sentences for relatively minor convictions where they will not actually receive any sort of rehabilitative measures within that year. If anything, it grows their criminality because people and young people are exposed to all sorts of people from other communities.”
“I thank the Minister for his comprehensive contribution. I disagree with some parts in relation to focusing only on an increase in population as a cause for overcrowding. The Minister's Department is going to support policies and changes which he has announced in relation to community sanctions, which acknowledges that prison is overused. In certain years, between 68% to 75% of people in prison are there for minor convictions. In terms of overcrowding, a greater cause for concern than the population rise is the overuse of sentences of less than 12 months. Nobody receives an intervention in less than 12 months in Irish prisons, regardless of how much work is happening in the prison. Addiction waiting lists are extremely long. A person will not see a psychologist within that 12 months.”
“When there is a potential threat between a prison officer and a person incarcerated in prison, the idea that somebody could reach for incapacitant spray interrupts the potential relationships that could be built between prison officers and those in prison. We could do things that would have a much longer and more sustainable impact on how people and prison officers experience their time in prison, and on how people integrate back into society. If you have endured incapacitant spray within prison, you will have even less trust for authority than you had when you went in. I ask the Minister to consider whether these are logical, evidence-based responses to the issues of overcrowding and over-use of short sentences within the Irish prison system.”
“Can the House imagine that we only have 30% of prison space left for more serious crimes? If we freed up the rest of the space, we would not be talking about introducing incapacitant sprays or weapons or anything like that which can be used. We would be looking at more positive interventions. Rather than thinking of it as a safety concern and deciding that because of overcrowding or prisoner-on-prisoner violence we need incapacitant sprays, I ask the Minister to consider that the answer is to reduce the number of people in prisons so that the relationship between prison officers and prisoners can be further enhanced. The success of an institution like a prison is based on how you build relationships; it is relationship-based.”
“In this context, we fundamentally disagree with the introduction of incapacitant sprays in custodial settings and are therefore seeking the outright deletion of the relevant sections, as was sought by the justice committee. It is important. I regard the Minister as quite a logical man. Overcrowding is the reason we may see an increase in prisoner-on-prisoner violence. The response is to introduce another layer of violence, that is, incapacitant sprays, into the mix rather than reducing the number of people who are in prison. When we reduce the number of prisoners in prison settings, violence decreases. The most logical thing to do would be to ensure the large number of people currently in prisons for minor convictions - up to 70% of prisoners are sent to prison for minor convictions - would not be in prison for those convictions.”
“Figures released by the IPS in 2023 indicated a 14% reduction in the number of physical assaults by prisoners on staff between 2022 and 2023 but, conversely, a significant rise in prisoner-on-prisoner assaults was observed, with an increase of 74%. The 31% increase in prison-on-prisoner assaults in Ireland in 2024 further underscores the correlation between overcrowding and rising violence in the Irish context. How incapacitant sprays will positively interrupt this trend is entirely unclear. Indeed, even the Department of justice in its own policy paper acknowledges the fact that international evidence demonstrates that the introduction of incapacitant sprays in custodial sentences is likely to cause an increase in the number of use-of-force events in Irish prisons.”
“The most recent data on the rates of violent incidents and assaults released by the IPS highlights notable fluctuations during 2023 and 2024. The data demonstrate that there has been a reported 3% decrease in direct physical assaults by prisoners on prison staff, while aggressive and threatening incidents have fallen by 8%. Physical interventions in prisons, where staff must intervene physically, are down by 25%. These figures suggest some improvement in the safety of the prison environment for staff. There has been a concerning 31% increase in the number of direct physical assaults by prisoners on other prisoners over the same period, which is a significant rise. Upon closer examination of the data, it becomes evident that the trends are firmly established in Irish prisons.”
“The future prison capacity working group report, published in July last year, highlighted compromised safety and security in Irish prisons, primarily as a result of chronic overcrowding. Irish prisons are severely overcrowded, routinely operating at 120%, or higher, of the network's capacity. Significant numbers of people in custody are sleeping on cell floors. This is in contravention of both IPS and Council of Europe committee for the prevention of torture safe standards and best practice. Looking again at the UK, research undertaken in England and Wales by the Ministry of Justice has highlighted the link between overcrowding and a rise in prisoner-on-prisoner assaults, with prisoners in overcrowded cells being 19% more likely to be involved in an assault.”
“Looking to the UK, studies have demonstrated that the disproportionate use of PAVA, a type of incapacitant spray, against minority communities in prisons in the UK, including black, Muslim and disabled prisoners, has the effect of normalising the use of violence against particular groups within the prison environment. Being within the prison environment negatively impacts the health and well-being of those in custody, especially when the environment is as chronically overcrowded to the extent that the Irish prisons are at the moment. Adding chemical irritants into mix is a cause for grave concern, given that the chemical irritants can lead to severe health consequences, including death. It is essential to consider the vulnerability of specific individuals to these chemicals especially in enclosed and overcrowded spaces.”
“Ireland is one of a handful of European countries where prison officers are not currently equipped with these sprays, or, indeed, with other weapons, relying instead on their capacity to manage and de-escalate conflict without the use of force or violence. This is much like the majority of gardaí not being equipped with weapons or pepper spray. Ireland's model of policing is by consent, and we should strive to protect that. While the assumed intention behind the introduction of incapacitant sprays is to promote greater safety in our prisons, it is clear from examining the findings in other jurisdictions that the introduction does not positively impact levels of violence in prisons and, in actual fact, can have the opposite effect.”
“I move amendment No. 1: In page 9, to delete lines 15 to 18. Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive - are being considered together because they relate to the deletion of all sections of the Bill that provide for the introduction of the use of incapacitant spray, or pepper spray, by members of the Irish Prison Service, IPS. In that context, I take this opportunity to indicate our opposition to section 5. We believe this is a retrograde and counterproductive step that is likely to negatively impact relations between prison staff and those in custody in Irish prisons, destabilising and undermining relationships that rely on trust and harmony.”
“It is about how we treat people and how we create every opportunity not to compound that harm for people who are already experiencing some of the greatest vulnerabilities and complexities in their lives. I want to remember my friends today and to mark their lives as being part of the journey that I will continue on, as this report is given more life. I thank everyone here who has supported the work to date.”
“The weather is warm at the moment. One of the reasons I have my full arms on display today is to remind myself that every flower on my arms represents a friend of mine who has gone, either directly from overdose or from drug-related issues. Every flower represents the month they died, with the month that flower blooms. While we recognise the international evidence, I acknowledge the promise I made each and every time I kissed each one of them goodbye on the head as they lay in the funeral home, that one day they will not be a criminal purely because they experienced addiction or because they used drugs. I ask as we move forward to consider that report, that we remember it is not about substances, it is about people.”
“I thank my colleagues from across the House who were part of the Committee on Drugs Use. We will get into a more detailed debate when the report comes before the Houses. This week has been quite emotional for me as we acknowledge the work of citizens' assemblies, politicians and Departments. The only reason I am in politics is to achieve decriminalisation. If anybody wants to get rid of me from politics just give me decriminalisation and I will be gone. Decriminalisation of the person who uses drugs is not about a substance. A substance does not go to a jail cell, a substance does not die or sit in its room lonely. People do that. It is not about substances; it is about the person. When decriminalising drugs, we should consider not the drugs but the person. We are decriminalising the person for something that they are experiencing.”
“That argument is so problematic and it definitely should not go out there as something that is creating some sort of fear around us acknowledging the reality of people's experiences and lives, or stop and search, or police practices.”
“To say that and to actually bring that out in the open that those people may feel profiled, make that make sense. Again, that is like the racism - we might support racism instead of actually exposing it - it is saying that we are okay to keep it hidden, that we are okay to not name it, and people can just go around feeling profiled, but God forbid that you may actually give them real recognition for why they feel like that. The Department, or wherever that narrative is coming from, really needs to look at the philosophical underpinning of what that says: the semantics, the language, and the meaning in making those sentences. People may feel profiled if we finally acknowledge that they are profiled. We would rather they go around questioning in a hyper-vigilant way all day if they are being profiled or not.”
“We are supporting institutional racism by saying that statement. It was further backed up in the last couple of sentences in the Minister of State's contribution when she said that in collecting this data people may feel profiled. If we expose that a certain ethnicity or a certain type of person is profiled, they may feel profiled. They already feel profiled by the fact that they are being profiled. It is putting something out into the general world and society where everybody else now understands it when people say "I feel like I am stopped and search more than other people", "Do you think I was stopped and searched there because I am black?" or "Do you think I was stopped and searched there because I am wearing a tracksuit or a North Face jacket?" They carry that all day long. They already feel profiled because they are being profiled.”
“It was said earlier - and I am paraphrasing - that if we collect this data it could be seen as supporting racism; rather than hiding it, exposing it. It was said earlier. We support it by not acknowledging it because the people who already feel racially profiled feel racially profiled. We are looking to expose where that racial profiling is potentially happening. To say that this is supporting racism means that we are allowing this idea that legitimate racism is okay or institutional racism is okay, but God forbid it might stir up some commentators. What we are actually saying there is that we stand over and will hide systemic oppression and racism, but if we name it, God forbid then it would be in public and other people may be enticed to speak about racism or to target a particular group.”
“I need to pick up on the end point there. First of all, the idea was spouted earlier that the census would help us capture data. This was responded to in terms of our amendments, but what will be shared has nothing to do with our amendments. It was said that some work was ongoing with the census, but all that is shared with the census is exactly what the Minister of State has read, and it does not actually solve anything in relation to ethnicity or any of those things because they are not part of the information that is suggested to be shared with the CSO. There is another point I just cannot let the debate finish on. I do not know if the Minister of State is hearing it or if other people can hear it.”
“Is there a suggestion that we should not be recording name, date of birth or whatever, so stop and searches just become completely invisible unless people have been arrested or found to be committing a crime?”
“I am going to speak briefly on that point. Currently, all stops and searches are recorded on the PULSE system. Am I to understand that Senator Byrne is suggesting that people who are stopped and searched do not get added to the PULSE system, because that would be a case of telling them to go on their way, where they do not show up at several different points if they are overpoliced, where it is not just a one-off? Obviously, it matters if it is happening to people more than once. In all the times I was stopped and searched, I would happily say I was female and Catholic and so on, but the stop and search is more invasive in front of one's community. If it is too much to ask for extra data and we are just telling people to go on their way and make it easier, why are they going on to the PULSE system at all?”
“I will not go on too much longer but, before I leave today, I really need to understand a bit more the conversation in respect of the census and the PPS and how it relates to stop and search because it sounds a little bit like being told to go home to ask your ma whether she has the receipt for the radio she bought you a few years ago to stop a garda taking it off you. It sounds as bonkers as that scenario.”
“If we are now saying that PPS numbers are going to be included, it reminds me of that mad scenario where people were asked for receipts and had their goods taken from them. We have to remember the way in which gardaí have used stop-and-search powers. There is sometimes a fear of insulting gardaí, as if they are a protected species. That is not helpful in challenging and changing cultures. It is okay to call out bad practice. It benefits us all. Addressing bad practice benefits society and the police themselves.”
“Standing in the middle of an estate with their radio, 12-year-olds were being asked for their receipts. Were they expected to take out their wallets and find the receipt for a present their ma had bought them? That is the madness of policing practices in some of our communities. You would say that you could go and ask your ma. Most mas probably did not keep receipts for everything. You could have a radio, Walkman or scooter for years but a garda could just decide to take it off you. They would tell you that if you did not have a receipt to show them, they would take it. That is the level of craziness with which people were stopped and searched throughout their lives growing up. That was the nineties and the early 2000s. It was not that long ago really. People had that experience.”
“What if people say they do not know their PPS number or ask a garda to come to their house with them so they can get it? How does the PPS number relate to actual stop-and-search activities? I remember a story from when I was younger. When I start to tell these stories, I sometimes realise how different my experiences are from other people's. The PPS scenario reminded me of an absolutely bonkers policing practice in our community when we were kids. People will remember the culture of bringing your radio or CD player out to a field to sit and listen. Police used to stop and search us and tell us they were taking our radio. When someone would say that it was their radio that their mam had bought for them for Christmas or their birthday, the garda would ask to be shown their receipt.”
“As for the idea that the system is set up to assist gardaí to police, who they police is what we are asking. As for the idea that it would encourage racism, maybe the real fear is that it will expose racism within the practices, not encourage racism in terms of how people view those groups. Senator Joe Conway mentioned religion and ethnicity. There are two separate sets of amendments that capture a few different things, but I did not pick up on the idea of the PPS the first time until Senator McDowell said it. Are we saying that we would ask somebody during a stop-and-search for their PPS and then a determination would be made later? Are we going to say, "We need your PPS", and then that will open us up to all this other data?”
“To add to my earlier points and Senator McDowell's, I think the Minister mentioned that not all stop-and-searches result in arrest. At the point at which you can collect the data, that is the problem: they are being used when nothing has happened. The point is that even if you are not arrested, stop-and-searches are recorded on the PULSE system. You can be stopped and searched 20 times in a year, never have been found in possession of a drug or an article or stolen goods, never have committed a crime, never have done anything, and it is recorded on the PULSE system. It is basically surveillance at that stage because no bar was even met to stop and search the person. That is what happens when certain communities are over-policed. The same people are profiled.”
“We are looking to see how the police make their decisions in terms of how much they use stop and search, in what clusters do they use it and for what reason.”
“We do it because it is the only way you begin to improve policing practices in order that you have a fair, equal and just criminal justice system. If we stand over any legislation or any law that is not applied equally to all people, what it does is it undermines and underserves the justice system and democracy as a whole. We are then bringing in legislation that, when it is implemented and becomes active, will only be used on certain communities. We are not acknowledging that in the legislation because that will never be said out loud unless we actually collect the data so we can better protect and keep people safe. I am confused by what the census has to do with stop and search. We are not looking to see how many people of a certain ethnicity exist in the country.”
“I have just a couple of points. I do not really understand the census comment. Are we saying we will put some categories on the census that ask whether people have been stopped and searched? The comparison feels irrelevant. We are obviously talking about capturing data as it relates to policing methods but also with the idea it would be framed negatively against some communities, we need to be very careful when we say that because that is not what we are trying to achieve at all. If that was the case, I would not be fighting for all of these years to capture data on how much some communities that have been extremely underserved and under-represented for generations are policed. I would be afraid that I might be stigmatised or the people I care about or work for being stigmatised but I am not.”
“Yes but it is in relation to how information about stop and searches is recorded on the PULSE system. If somebody does not give the information, he or she does not give the information but it does not mean you cannot or do not attempt to collect data on it. With the way the PULSE system is set up, you could have a drop-down option that said the person refused to give his or her religion. It would not create an offence. It is more about creating the conditions under which data can be collected rather than it creating an offence for a person who decided he or she did not want to give his or her religion.”
“It is not always necessarily because they are the community that are breaking the rules alone and that everybody else is not. Covid regulations are an example of that where all different types of people for whatever reasons were breaking particular Covid rules, but the fines were very concentrated in particular communities. That shows that policing decisions are made. It is good for us to be able to have a full analysis of how those decisions are made, how they are impacting those communities and how we integrate that understanding into policing methods in Ireland.”
“I do not know why I have mentioned Covid twice in this contribution but I recall statistics that came out in relation to Covid and who received fines. I cannot remember exactly if it was the 5 km rule. When I compared the statistics of the people who received fines in relation to Covid regulations, they were not received at the Forty Foot where there were hundreds of people out swimming, on the beaches or in other communities. The likes of Ballymun and other places were hugely represented in the number of fines in the surrounding areas there. The police acknowledged at that time in the justice committee that the statistics were accurate. What is behind that is a decision. Who makes a decision about where gardaí are placed in any particular moment? Where they are placed is where they are going find reasons to stop and search people.”
“Why would they not be applied here? The police in Scotland pushed back quite heavily around the adding of ethnicity as a category. They said that they do not police that way and do not have discriminatory practices within their policing methods. Just because the police are not sitting around and deciding to search a person because he or she is black, from a particular community or for whatever reason does not mean it is not happening simply because it is not acknowledged out loud. When Scotland's police resisted some of the categories, they were adamant that there were not discriminatory practises. When the recording of that data happened, we saw very quickly what communities are policed and stopped and searched. That is why it is very important.”
“When looking at my amendments alongside Senator McDowell's that names ethnicity, I attempted to mirror some of the information that is already taken on the PULSE system for victims of crime. I am not creating a new category that does exist, which is what initially was said. They just have not been used for stop and search. While nationality does not necessarily capture ethnicity, nationality is currently on the PULSE system for victims of crime. Home circumstances are also included. That can mean whether a person is living with somebody or living on his or her own. There are a few options and there are drop-down categories within that. While it does not get to the heart of ethnicity and class specifically in what I am putting forward, I am saying that currently on the PULSE system there are mechanisms for other ways to record.”