Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

122. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality when he expects the heads to be prepared for the criminal justice (disregard of certain convictions related to consensual sexual activity) Bill to be completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24879/25]

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This question relates to the promise of a disregard of historical sexual offences that was promised by the previous Government. It is on foot of recommendations from the working group that looked at legislation to address the historical sexual offence of homosexuality, which was outlawed up to 33 years ago. What progress is happening at this stage?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy for his question. I am very aware of his long-standing interest and commitment in respect of this issue. I regret that there is a series of legislative priorities within my Department's remit at present. Departmental staff are working on 31 Bills. Officials in the Department, along with their counterparts in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, continue to work on this Bill, and all the other legislation, as promptly as possible. It may not be satisfactory from the Deputy's point of view that I cannot give him a definitive timeline for when the heads of Bill will be published, but it is still very much a clear commitment of this Government, as referenced in the programme for Government, to address the historical wrongs that were done to people who were criminalised under these laws.

I am committed to publishing the relevant heads of Bill in due course. As the Deputy will know, these Victorian-era laws criminalised consensual sexual activity between men until those laws were repealed in 1993. He mentioned that in 2021, a working group was formed to examine the disregard of such convictions. The group met 11 times during its tenure. In late 2022, the Department held a public consultation on key issues related to the development of a scheme to disregard relevant convictions. That consultation process received nearly 150 submissions from wide groups of societal interests throughout the country. Their deliberations were invaluable and helped shape the final recommendations from the group. A summary report of this extensive consultation has since been published.

Then Minister, Deputy McEntee, published the group’s final report in 2023. It contains 95 recommendations. I am committed to translating these recommendations into heads of Bill. I will do so as promptly as I can, but I have to be frank with the Deputy in saying there are so many different competing interests that I would have to take people off another Bill to expedite this Bill in order to get it done as promptly as possible.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am disappointed with the answer. I understand there are delays and competing interests in the Department of Justice in particular, given the wait. However, the urgency of this is similar to other issues, such as thalidomide, when we are dealing with people who are affected by wrongdoing by the State. The longer it is delayed, the less effect it will have in the end because there will be fewer people who have suffered an injustice and, in this case, a heinous violation of their human rights for many decades. The effect will be gone. It was great that decriminalisation came about in 1993 because of the actions of those within the community, including former Senator, David Norris. We need to remember the work he carried out, and that of many others, to get people to understand the wrongs the State was involved in. I urge prioritisation of this legislation, given that people are getting older.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What I will do, although I have not discussed this with the Department, is give consideration to some short mechanism to put some provision in a miscellaneous provisions Bill that would deal with disregarding convictions that were imposed in these types of cases. In respect of the post office scandal in the UK, general legislation was introduced very promptly within a statutory scheme, which stated that for anyone convicted of these offences, those convictions would be disregarded. I will give some consideration as to whether that is possible. However, the Deputy will be aware that this is a complex issue. If we go back and start appraising and assessing many of the convictions from the fifties and sixties individually - to be frank, I am not aware of the number of convictions but for the type of convictions I am aware of - that would probably be problematic. I will see if there is any general statutory provision that could be introduced in a miscellaneous provisions Bill stating that for anyone convicted of an offence, that offence would be disregarded. However, that could be complicated.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand. The campaigning groups, some of which the Minister has probably met over the years, also understand the difficulty with a case-by-case review. The generalised approach is one where a certificate of disregard could be issued. The conviction would not be fully expunged because that has to be done case by case. The general disregard approach was what most people expected and thought that recommendation would be given.

The Minister said he was not aware of the number of cases. I am not either but, for instance, in the town of Tullow alone, there were eight cases from 1969 to 1970. Research has been done on that which is online. Kieran Rose has sent me a copy, which I can forward. That is just one example. Some of those affected were teenagers who may still be alive. They might have been affected, as were their families and everybody around them. It still has an effect today. That is why there is an urgency.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I commend Kieran Rose on the excellent work he has done in this area. He has been in contact with me frequently as well. I would appreciate getting a copy of that research.

We are trying to revisit an injustice that was done to people in a different era. It is commendable that there is agreement in the House that this should be done. What we are discussing is the most appropriate statutory mechanism to do that. The more complex we make it, the more lengthy it will be. I will look to see if any straightforward, simple legislative solution could be introduced. It may require people to apply. Alternatively, we could just apply it across the board, even posthumously to persons convicted of such offences. I will discuss it in the Department. Again, I thank the Deputy for raising the issue.