I move: That Standing Order 194 is modified in accordance with Standing Order 241(2) to provide that it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Criminal Law, Civil Law and Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026 may be recommitted in respect of certain amendments that it has the power to make amendments to the Bill which are outside the scope of the existing subject matter of the Bill in order to: (a) make amendments to the International Criminal Court Act 2006 to: (i) give effect to the ratification by the State of the 2010, 2017 and 2019 amendments to Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court which extend the specified acts that may constitute war crimes to include intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare in a non-international armed conflict and the use of certain weapons, (ii) clarify the legal obligations of Ireland to co-operate with the International Criminal Court with respect to requests concerning all offences under the Court’s jurisdiction, and (iii) enable the Government by order to designate any future amendments or additions to the crimes contained in the Rome Statute as crimes in respect of which Ireland can provide co-operation to the Court, and (b) provide for an application-based scheme to enable the disregard of certain historical convictions and other determinations relating to consensual homosexual activity, and to change the title of the Bill and make other consequential amendments required to take account of the changes above. In my opening remarks on Committee Stage of this Bill I indicated my intention bring these amendments on Report Stage. I will first speak on the proposed amendments to the International Criminal Court Act. These amendments give effect to Ireland's intended ratification of the amendments to Article 8 of the Rome statute, and also ensure that there is an unambiguous basis for Ireland's full co-operation with the ICC in respect of all crimes within the court's jurisdiction, including those that are not offences in Irish law. The amendments have three objectives to ensure that the definition of war crime in the 2006 Act is aligned with Ireland's proposed ratification of the amendments to Article 8. This will have the effect that the offence in Irish law of committing a war crime is expanded to include the use of microbial or other biological agents or toxins, the use of weapons whose primary effect is to injure by fragments, which in the human body escape detection by X-ray, and the use of laser weapons. Additionally, the offence in Irish law of committing a war crime in a non-international armed conflict will be expanded to include the following acts that already come within the definition of a war crime when committed in an international armed conflict: the use of poison and poisoned weapons; the use of asphyxiating poisonous gas; the use of bullets which expand; and intentionally using starvation on civilians as a method of warfare. Expanding the domestic definition of war crimes in this way will enable the State to give full effect to the principle of complementarity. This principle obliges State parties to exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed in their territory or by their nationals so that the ICC is used only as a court of last resort. The second objective of these amendments is to take account of the Kampala amendments on the crime of aggression. The third objective is to make it wholly clear and unambiguous that Ireland's co-operation with the ICC is not to be confined to those crimes that are domestic offences pursuant to section 9(1) of the 2006 Act, namely, genocide, a crime against humanity, a war crime or an ancillary offence, but that such co-operation also extends to other offences within the jurisdiction of the ICC, in particular the crime of aggression or offences against administration of justice by the court. Bringing this legislative clarity will ensure there is no impediment to Ireland fulfilling its obligations under the Rome statute to co-operate with the ICC. Finally, it is also proposed to add into the Act an order-making power allowing the Government to designate any future amendments of the crimes contained in the Rome statute as crimes in respect of which Ireland can provide co-operation to the ICC. This would not criminalise the offences in Irish law but would ensure that in a scenario where Ireland may not yet have ratified such an amendment Ireland would still be able to fulfil its obligations to co-operate with the ICC. I will now turn to the proposed legislative scheme for the disregard of certain historical convictions and other determinations, those other determinations being formal Garda cautions and probation orders. As I have previously stated, the Victorian era laws that criminalised consensual sexual activity between men are now widely recognised as a historical injustice driven by ignorance and prejudice. The offences in question were enacted under British rule but very regrettably continued in force for the first 70 years of the Irish State before finally being abolished in 1993. However, consenting adults who were convicted of such offences still carry the entirely undeserved stain of a criminal record. We cannot rewrite history but we can try to undo the pain and hardship those convictions inflicted upon so many men and their families. What our Legislature can do is create a basis by which such a conviction can effectively be nullified so that its recipient is treated in law as if it never happened. Unfortunately, that cannot be achieved by the expedient of a blanket disregard. This is because the offences in question, and hence the recorded convictions, made no distinction between consensual and non-consensual acts, nor between adults and minors. Any given case must, therefore, be assessed on its merits by reference to information provided by the applicant and whatever records are available. In that context, a multi-stakeholder working group reported in 2023 with detailed recommendations on an application-based scheme for the disregard of such convictions. The proposals now before this House have been carefully crafted to align as far as practicable with those recommendations while ensuring the scheme is legally and procedurally robust and that it is efficient and accessible for those who wish to apply. These proposals are being put forward as a new part of the Bill set out across 14 sections, which variously provide for: the offences within the scope; the criteria for a disregard and who may apply, including where the person who received the conviction is now dead; the appointment of an independent person to consider applications and make recommendations to the Minister; the main processes involved in considering and determining applications and issuing successful applicants with certificates of disregard; the legal effects of a disregard, which are comprehensive; the procedures by which a disregard can be refused or, where it is found to be necessary, revoked; and provisions for the independent review of a refusal or revocation where requested by the applicant. I am confident that these proposals provide a workable, equitable and accessible means by which those who were unfairly criminalised can finally seek the removal of this unwarranted blemish on their good name. They and their loved ones have waited a long time for a disregard mechanism and we now have an opportunity to pass it into law in a matter of weeks. I hope I can count on the support of the House for achieving this objective. I recognise the very significant contributions made by Deputy Ó Snodaigh, Deputy Nash and other Deputies who put forward their own legislation previously. Certainly, their advocacy on this issue was a major catalyst and influence on me in trying to ensure we can get this law enacted promptly. While the amendments to the International Criminal Court Act and to provide for a disregard scheme are obviously completely different from each other thematically, what they have in common is they have each been a long time coming and are time-sensitive in their own ways. Both are also appropriate for inclusion in a miscellaneous criminal law Bill currently before the House. I think this legal instrument offers the most expedient route to get them on the Statute Book and into force. This is why I commend the motion to the House.

Sentiment score: -0.12

Good. We are getting a lot done.

Sentiment score: 0.22

I thank all the Deputies for their contributions. I am not a very philosophical person, but one thing I do know is that ministerial careers come and go very quickly and as Deputy McAuliffe said-----

Sentiment score: 0.18

I am well aware of it.

Sentiment score: 0.27

I hope individuals in this House have the great privilege to be Ministers at some stage in the future-----

Sentiment score: 0.86

-----but it comes and goes-----

Sentiment score: 0.00

-----and the officials, with the greatest respect, are outstanding people but they will be there for many years. If you want to get something done as a politician-----

Sentiment score: 0.40

-----you have to push it through. I know people are, at one level, criticising me because this Bill contains a whole variety of different issues. It does. I have tried to squash as many issues as possible into this Bill because I want to get these provisions enacted for the benefit of people, such as men in Ireland who were convicted of homosexual offences prior to decriminalisation. In fact, it was Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Nash who raised it with me in my earlier days as a Minister and said they wanted this done. I went back to the Department and I recognised that the quickest way to get it done was to put in into a miscellaneous provisions Bill. With the greatest of respect, had I not done that and had I not put it into the miscellaneous provisions Bill, we would not even be near pre-legislative scrutiny at this stage. We have the report that is sitting there. One of the criticisms-----

Sentiment score: 0.07

One of the criticisms that is regularly made is that I am not getting things done and I am sitting on things, as the Deputies are all perfectly entitled and obliged to say to me if things are not being done. I know they are not asking me to, but I am not going to apologise for trying to get important measures that are of benefit to the public enacted as quickly as possible. I think we all agree that the disregard scheme, as everyone has said, is something that should have been done decades ago. I was not going to allow a situation to develop where I found myself, maybe in the third year of being Minister for justice, wondering whether I would get it over the line. I have driven it and I want to get it done. By the way, I appreciate all the contributions that Members in this House make. It is not the case that they have not scrutinised the matter or given me their views on these issues. In many respects, I have been listening to them for the length of time I have been Minister and I hear them all the time in terms of saying what they want to get done. I will deal with some of the other issues that were raised. The most important thing that was raised in respect of the disregard scheme was the issue about military law. Deputies Rice and Nash raised it. In the course of consultation on the drafting of this, there were significant legal concerns about including any case in which a person had been court-martialled for military misconduct. On careful consideration, I concluded that these offences could not appropriately be included. There were two principal difficulties. First, it would be legally questionable but also impracticable to attempt to determine whether a particular court martial was brought purely because of the homosexual nature of an act rather than because it involved a disciplinary infraction, such as abuse of rank, which would equally have been the case had the act been heterosexual in nature. Second, the relevant misconduct offences under the 1954 Act remain in force and, according to the Department of Defence, continue to be used today. Their inclusion will open the possibility of misconduct convictions right up to the present day and into the future being relitigated under a scheme intended to address an historical injustice. Equally, to impose a cut-off date, such as the 1993 decriminalisation, would almost certainly be challenged as arbitrary and unfair. For those reasons, I consider that the inclusion of these offences would not be legally or operationally viable. However, military convictions for the repealed offences of buggery, attempted buggery, gross indecency and importuning are within the scope of the scheme. The second point of principle, which was raised by Deputy Rice, was about including convictions prior to the establishment of the State. This country, this Government, has no responsibility for acts that were done prior to the declaration of the Irish Republic and our Independence. I cannot go back historically and start operating a disregard scheme because of the criminal justice system that operated in Ireland under the crown. I applied that in respect of the granting of pardons as well. It is a different country. This Republic is not responsible for what happened prior to our Independence. I very much welcome the discussion on this. I know there is a lot in the Bill. Everyone in this House wants to get these provisions enacted, not for the benefit of Deputies or Ministers or anyone else but for the benefit of members of the public, who all need to see this legislation enacted.

Sentiment score: -0.02