This is basically the time where we get some discussion on the content of the amendments. As said earlier, I welcome the disregard scheme that is announced. I also welcome those members of the LGBT disregard campaign who are present in the Visitors Gallery. I thank them and other Deputies for all their hard work and for, thankfully, as the Minister has admitted, putting pressure on him, who in turn put pressure on the officials.
Sentiment score: 0.17
We are where we are and we have it before us. Between now and the debate in the Seanad, there may be small technical issues, as there always is with legislation, especially historical pieces. There was a question about why we are not going pre-1922. There have been pardons given by Presidents. Why 1922? Why was it not 1937 with the Constitution? Why not 1948 when the executive authority Act was repealed?
Sentiment score: 0.05
Why not 1916, 1867 or if we want to go back to the first republic of 1626? That is something the Minister will have to answer himself or I will keep raising it. In the main, the value of this is for families who have, in living memory, loved ones who have passed and who have had the smog or shadow of convictions upon them who were affected and those who are still alive, because there were still people before the courts well into the 1980s and early 1990s. The fact they were before the courts hung around like a bad smell on them and affected all of their work. One of the public bodies that may have information is adoption. As someone who sought adoption of a child would be refused if they had a conviction, that may be one of the bodies. I mentioned the mental health institutions. The Department of education was also always very scrupulous about digging out people and throwing them out if they were anyway suspect in its eyes. There is the question of the employment records of people and whether they are kept. I do not know whether it is the Department of public expenditure or whatever. It is one of the provisions here that the Minister shall "as soon as practicable, notify, or cause to be notified, each public body". That is not just the public bodies that I mentioned, it could be other public bodies. It is to ensure that. In the private sector with social media, there exists the right to be forgotten. One of the problems with some of this is that the names, and addresses in some cases, in the convictions are available online if one searches newspapers and so on. It is not necessary that we look for it today but it is something to look at to see whether an equivalent right to be forgotten can be done and that people who had that disregard could approach the social media companies, the newspapers or whoever to blank out those reference in order that they do not come up in a search. I believe that is the method used in the right to be forgotten. That was brought in to protect people with small or low-grade convictions to ensure it was not held against them when they went for employment or through other types of vetting processes. It is welcome. Court documents will be key in this in many ways because when I did the research on convictions, which was only cursory, the newspapers carried very little specific detail. The Minister is right that distinctions have to be made and sometimes they did not make the full distinction of the background of whatever case. The churches are another case in point. They would have records of people. Suicides are another record. If the Minister can manage to stick to the timetable that set out two months for the records to come back from any Department, in this country that would be very interesting. It will not be the Minister but rather the independent assessor and they must then make the judgment within two months of that. I would welcome that. The Minister has set himself a high bar. In addition to access to the National Archives, the other main one is the military services records as well. There are records there. There were people who were not necessarily court-martialed but were cashiered out of the Defence Forces rather than being charged. They would have those records in personnel files. This is not to add a burden; it is just to make sure. It might just be a provision at the end of the list of the public bodies that says, "and any other public body that the independent assessor deems fit". I do not know whether that would cover it. It is just in case there are instances because it might be people in the Coast Guard or in other services. I am not an expert on all of this because, as I said, when one researches this, the research is quite closed. It is welcome that we are trying to close a very dark chapter in our history.
Sentiment score: 0.05