Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In response to amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10, given the fact that An Garda Síochána will be organised on a divisional basis and that physically there will be no Garda districts, it is impossible to accept the amendments because they refer specifically to local district Garda Síochána headquarters. Under the new model, the Garda will be organised on a divisional basis and districts simply will not exist. In drafting the legislation we had to take this into account, pre-empting the fact that while it is not in place across the country it will be the situation. That is the reason for divisional headquarters instead of district headquarters.

In amendments Nos. 26, 29 and 30, the Deputy is essentially enforcing that all offenders would engage with psychosexual evaluation and treatment. It is already the case that this type of engagement is taken on board by members of the Parole Board, such as where offenders have engaged in certain types of treatment, where they have shown remorse and where they have engaged and shown that they perhaps want to change. What has been made clear to us is that forcing these types of programmes on people who do not want to acknowledge that what they have done is wrong and who do not want to engage in the programmes does not have any benefit. It is often the case that where they do not engage in any type of programme, be it psychosexual evaluation or otherwise, the Parole Board takes that into account and can ensure that they are not released earlier. It is obviously the Deputy's concern that people would be released early without any type of evaluation. Having looked closely at a number of cases prior to the establishment of the Parole Board, I can assure the Deputy that the board and any recommendations that come forward take into account this type of engagement. However, it is clear from the engagement we have had that where this is forced on individuals it does not have the desired effect which the Deputy has set out clearly and which we all would like it to have. This applies to the number of amendments that are specifically related to this change.

With regard to amendment No. 35, I remember the debate we had about this in the Dáil. As the Deputy said, the right to be forgotten is not an absolute right. What we have done is properly transpose the GDPR. That has been reinforced most recently in the Court of Justice of the European Union, which established in the Google Spain case and in any subsequent cases that the right to be forgotten should not apply to information that is relevant to the public interest, including previous convictions. That is very clear. It is not about us not regulating here but us complying with European law and the transposition of the regulation as it is set out. However, I take on board the Deputy's concern about self-regulation of companies and how important it is that companies such as the ones he has mentioned and otherwise are clear on and understand the law and the requirement to take into account relevant public interest, including previous convictions. Perhaps that is something we can explore further. What I cannot and do not want to do, given the legal advice I have, is to go further than the requirement to transpose the law as it is. We are required to transpose EU law as it is set out. Clearly, we have done that. The law is clear and the companies must adhere to it. To go beyond that is not good practice and is something we are advised against. However, I believe there is a logic in exploring further how we can make sure that it is very clear to all those online companies that this is the law, that it has been clearly set out and that where anybody is in breach of that law, there is recourse there.

Unfortunately, for the reasons I have outlined I cannot accept the amendments. On the last point, however, I would be happy to explore further how we can deal with the fact that while the law is there and is clear, we must make sure that companies adhere to it and they know it is not an absolute right when it comes to the right to be forgotten.