Ar dtús, ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Teachta Ó Snodaigh as an mBille seo. Is Bille fíorthábhachtach é. An bhliain seo caite, bhí díospóireacht idir an Teachta Ó Snodaigh agus mé féin sa Dáil ar an gceist seo. Tar éis sin, chuaigh mé ar ais chuig an Roinn agus dúirt mé leis na hoifigigh gur mhaith liom Bille nua a fheiceáil go tapa. I thank Deputy Ó Snodaigh and the other Deputies who have co-signed this Bill for their consistent work on this issue. Last year, Deputy Ó Snodaigh raised this in, I think, an oral parliamentary question to me and I said I would go back to the Department and try to see whether I could expedite the process of introducing legislation. I was aware at the time that there were plans within the Department to bring in legislation, but, as a result of Deputy Ó Snodaigh raising it, it catalysed that further engagement. After our engagement on the floor of the Dáil, I wanted to see what could be done to speed up the process. I am very conscious that the men who are alive who are affected by this - the numbers may be small, but the point is still very significant - will be of a considerable age, and I think a legislative measure should be introduced as quickly as possible to ensure that a disregard scheme can apply for them. After our engagement in the Dáil, I went back to the Department. I was thinking at the time whether some simple type of scheme could be introduced, in a similar way to a scheme that had been introduced in the UK in respect of the Post Office dispute and scandal that arose over there. There were issues in respect of how that type of scheme could not operate, but one of the benefits of my raising it was that I was able to instruct officials that I wanted to get the legislation enacted as promptly as possible. The effect of that was that I instructed that I wanted it to go as a Committee Stage amendment into the miscellaneous provisions Bill. A lot of work had been done on the Bill already, but my saying I wanted to have it in on Committee Stage in the miscellaneous provisions Bill expedited it, and I acknowledge Deputy Ó Snodaigh's role in contributing to that expediting of the Bill. The Government will not oppose this legislation. There are some issues with it that I will discuss presently. As to where we are, I got approval from the Government a number of months ago - I think two or so months ago - to introduce Committee Stage amendments to the miscellaneous provisions Bill, which has already gone through Second Stage here, that would establish a disregard scheme. It was very good news that approval from the Government had been put in place and that a general scheme for the Committee Stage amendment had been drafted. The drafting is ongoing in the Attorney General's office and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. I am not opposing this legislation. In fairness to Deputy Ó Snodaigh, I know that neither he nor I cares which legislative instrument gives effect to the disregard scheme, provided it works. The scheme being drafted in the Department at present is more robust. Once that is ready to be introduced on Committee Stage in the Dáil we can move promptly after that to get it enacted and to get the scheme up and running. I did indicate to Deputy Ó Snodaigh yesterday that I hoped Committee Stage would take place next month. I am putting pressure on my officials to do so and the fact that I have now said it in the Dáil will put even further pressure on them. This is something I will seek to actively work upon. We are here to discuss Deputy Ó Snodaigh's Bill. It sets out an application-based statutory process for the disregard of historic convictions relating to consensual sexual activity between men. It assigns to the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, the responsibility for reviewing applications and for issuing disregards. In the scheme for which I have approval from Government to introduce, it is not IHREC doing it. It will be another person appointed by me who will be solely focused on the disregard scheme. The objective of Deputy Ó Snodaigh's Bill corresponds with Government policy and specifically the programme for Government commitment to implement legislation to disregard specific historical offences related to the criminalisation of homosexuality. As such, this Bill is consistent with the Government's policy and that is why I will not be opposing it. However, while the intention of the Bill has obvious merit, there are legal, policy and operational issues with this Bill as drafted, which I will outline shortly. As I said, I am working on the scheme to be introduced on Committee Stage. It is also important as Minister for justice that I again acknowledge that the laws which criminalised consensual sexual activity between adult males in Ireland, as in innumerable other jurisdictions, are now widely recognised as a historical injustice, motivated by ignorant and prejudicial societal attitudes. Those laws were introduced under British rule but persisted for some 70 years after the establishment of the Irish State, before finally being repealed in 1993. However, while over 30 years have passed since the applicable offences were abolished, their malign effects continue for all those who were unjustly rendered criminals in the eyes of the State. To this day, consenting adults who were convicted under these laws still bear the unmerited stain of criminal record. It is true that history cannot be rewritten and we cannot change the fact that although convictions occurred, nor undo the hardship, humiliation and lasting pain they caused. What we as legislators can do, however, is find a means by which a conviction of this kind can, in effect, be nullified, such that the person who incurred it is, to all intents and purposes, treated in law as if it never happened. A legislative scheme to enable the disregard of these convictions is long overdue and, as I have said, the Government is committed to its introduction. Unfortunately, this cannot be achieved by way of a simple blanket disregard of all such convictions. That is because the applicable common law and statutory offences did not distinguish in any way between consensual and non-consensual activity, nor between adults and minors. In the eyes of the law, two adult men engaging in sexual activity in the context of a loving relationship were not only committing a crime, but committing precisely the same offence as that of a predatory male who committed the same act with a boy. This further illustrates how deeply inequitable these laws were, but it also has the unfortunate legacy that an across-the-board expungement of convictions under these laws is clearly not viable. Any given case must therefore be assessed on its own merits by reference to whatever records are available. It was in this context that in 2021 the working group was established to examine and make recommendations on an application-based scheme for the disregard of eligible convictions. The working group met on 11 occasions with follow-up research, legal analysis and stakeholder outreach occurring between each meeting. In late 2022, my Department held a full public consultation on key issues relating to the development of a scheme to disregard relevant convictions. This consultation yielded about 150 submissions from individuals, LGBT and other non-governmental organisations, trade unions and political parties and representatives. These submissions were of great value to the working group in its deliberations and helped to inform its final recommendations. The working group's final report, published in summer 2023, contained 95 recommendations on how to establish, operate and promulgate such a scheme, and on key matters such as the range of offences that should be included, the proposed eligibility criteria for a disregard, the legal effects of a disregard, and procedures for applications, record retrieval, decisions and reviews. The report was subsequently referred to officials in my Department to inform the development of legislative proposals that would align as closely as possible with the report's recommendations, while ensuring that the scheme would be legally sound and as accessible as possible. The number of recommendations in the report and the many procedurally and legally novel aspects of the proposed scheme have necessitated a lot of care being taken in the process of legislative analysis, consultation and drafting. However, as I said earlier, the legislation is now in an advanced stage of development and I intend to very shortly bring it before the Houses by amendment to the Criminal Law and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026. Turning to the Bill under consideration today, its Short Title specifically states that it is for the purpose to provide for a disregard scheme. However, the qualifying offences set out in the Bill include the relevant offences that were repealed in 1993, but also any other offences pursuant to statute or common law where the behaviour constituting the offence consisted of consensual same-sex sexual activity. As worded, this would encompass offences which are still in force and hence are not legally appropriate for inclusion in a disregard scheme. More broadly, it would encompass a wide range of public order, morality and indecency laws under which heterosexuals were also liable to prosecution for inappropriate conduct. Even if the scope were restricted to repealed offences, it would be extremely difficult to determine whether a given conviction occurred purely because the conduct at issue happened to be of a homosexual nature. A further issue with the Bill is that it does not clearly or explicitly set out the criteria that are to guide the decision on whether to grant a disregard or an appeal of a refused disregard. While the definition of consensual same-sex sexual activity in section 2 of the Bill appears to be an attempt to set out such criteria, this term is not subsequently used in relation to the consideration of applications. The definition also fails to take due account of various circumstances that might still render a conviction unsuitable for disregard, such as evidence of payment for the sexual activity or evidence that the activity involved a vulnerable person or took place in the presence of a child. Furthermore, the Bill does not make any provision for case records to be obtained from relevant public bodies to inform assessments and decisions on applications. The Bill does contain some well-considered provisions, including measures to support awareness of and access to the scheme. These include the requirement for a public information campaign and an explicit provision that applicants will not incur a fee when making an application. That said, and while there is much merit in the objectives of the Bill and I commend the drafters for the fact that it has catalysed and expedited Government action, I am advised by the Office of the Attorney General that it is not currently of a standard to have it enacted as it is and it would clearly need significant work. Notwithstanding the policy and legal issues with the Bill that I have outlined, I want to reiterate my appreciation to Deputy Ó Snodaigh and others for their work in bringing it forward and for helping to further raise awareness of this important matter. I too want to commend Kieran Rose, Karl Hayden and Brian Sheehan for their consistent campaigning in respect of this issue. They, along with us, will want to ensure that we get legislation on the Statute Book as quickly as possible that can be of benefit to those men who are still alive. Obviously the scheme I am drafting will also apply in a posthumous way and people will be able to apply for disregards in respect of deceased relatives. I am very conscious that those who were unfairly criminalised by these anti-homosexual laws and their loved ones have waited a long time for a scheme by which their convictions can be disregarded. It is clearly a goal that is widely shared in this House. I believe that the legislative scheme I will shortly be bringing forward offers the speediest route to achieving this in a way that is workable, equitable and accessible. It will clearly set out the offences in scope and will be comprehensive in setting out the disregard criteria and legal effects, along with the procedures for making, considering and determining applications, and for independent reviews of refused applications, among other essential matters. As mentioned, I will be bringing forward the scheme as an amendment on Committee Stage to the Criminal Law and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026. I know I will get the support of Deputies when these amendments come through and obviously Deputies may want to put forward their own further amendments in respect of it on Report Stage or even on Committee Stage when they see the amendments coming through. The establishment of the scheme will serve as recognition of the moral wrong that these laws visited upon so many gay men. For those who unfairly incurred criminal records as a result it will provide a basis to finally remove this wholly undeserved stain on their good name. I again thank those who moved the legislation. Deputy Ó Snodaigh's question last year prompted a motivation on my part to ensure the legislation could be enacted as quickly as possible. The best vehicle to do that is the miscellaneous provisions Bill. As I have said before, miscellaneous provisions Bills have huge advantages. You can get a lot of provisions into them. Once this provision comes in, it will provide the remedy that is so needed in this area.

Sentiment score: 0.07

I thank the Deputies who have contributed to this important topic. It is important again to state that there is agreement across the House that we should introduce a disregard scheme to ensure that the unfairness of these convictions that were imposed upon Irish men in the 20th century can be removed and disregarded. As has been indicated, the disregard scheme is different from a pardon. In effect, it means that there should never have been convictions at all. While I accept what Deputy O'Gorman has said, I am very disappointed and disturbed to hear that Ireland is a more threatening place now in terms of potential attacks on gay people. That is a matter of extreme concern to me. I have heard it from others before. We need to emphasise repeatedly that attacking people or targeting people because of inherent characteristics within their personality, sexuality or make-up is completely unacceptable. In a republic, that type of behaviour is abominable. We must completely re-emphasise that. I thank Deputy Ó Snodaigh for introducing the Bill. The next time we will be discussing this issue in the Dáil will be when I am down in the committee room for Committee Stage of the miscellaneous provisions Bill. I want to try to get that legislation enacted as quickly as possible. I want to see the disregard scheme up and running, so that people are aware of it, can be informed about it and can avail of it. We will then be able to respond to the unfairness of those convictions. I want to make one other point. Maybe I am trespassing on territory that is not my responsibility as a legislator or a member of the Government. The Supreme Court decision in the case of Norris v. Ireland is a decision of the Supreme Court that remains standing. The narrow interpretation of the constitutional right to privacy that was set out in the Norris judgment is an issue of concern to individuals. Obviously, that is not a matter for me to look upon. It is a matter for another arm of government if the circumstances should ever arise. I thank Deputy Ó Snodaigh and the other Deputies who have put forward this Bill. Responsibility is now on me to ensure I can bring the Committee Stage amendments promptly before the Dáil to ensure we can get the scheme up and running as soon as possible.

Sentiment score: 0.07