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

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Is iontach gur shroich muid an Stad seo leis an mBille seo. Bhí sé seo foilsithe ach ní raibh muid ag súil go roghnófaí é go tapa is a bhí don díospóireacht ar an Dara Chéim. The Bill states:

...it is declared and recognised that all those, whether applicants or otherwise, who were prosecuted or convicted of offences arising from consensual same-sex sexual activity between persons of full capacity are entitled to and hereby receive an apology and an acknowledgement that maintaining such offences was, on the part of the State, improperly discriminatory and contrary to human dignity and that it infringed human rights including in particular the right to personal privacy and autonomy.

That is the basis of the Bill I move today. Tá áthas orm an Bille um Neamhaird a Thabhairt ar Chionta Stairiúla i dtaobh Gníomhaíocht Ghnéasach Chomhthoiliúil Idir Fir, 2025 a bhogadh ar an Dara Chéim tar éis don Dáil glacadh leis an Chéad Chéim d’aon guth nuair a foilsíodh é i mí Iúil 2025. Gabhaim míle buíochas leis an LGBT restorative justice campaign, go háirithe na daoine a bhunaigh é, lena n-airítear Kieran Rose, Karl Hayden agus Brian Sheehan. Bhí siad ag brú na ceiste seo chun tosaigh. They addressed TDs and Senators in the audiovisual room of Leinster House earlier this week. Throughout the process, they have been in contact with me and other spokespersons on this issue. Some of them are here in the Gallery this evening.

Gabhaim míle buíochas leo siúd who contributed to the drafting of this legislation, which in many ways I plagiarised from them: Céile Varley, Cillian Bracken and the law firms, Goodbody and Clifford Chance. Gabhaim buíochas leis na Teachtaí eile a shínigh an Bille seo – Teachtaí Ged Nash, Pádraig Rice, Paul Murphy, Roderic O’Gorman agus iarTheachta Dála agus Uachtarán na hÉireann reatha, Catherine Connolly. Is é seo an Bille deireanach a thionscain sí agus tréaslaím léi as an éacht atá bainte amach aici ó shín. Is Bille é seo a chuirfidh deireadh leis an éagóir a rinneadh ar fhir leis na glúnta de réir géarleanúna coilíní.

The fact that this Bill has been co-sponsored by TDs from Sinn Féin, the Labour Party, the Social Democrats, People Before Profit, the Green Party and the Independent Catherine Connolly before her election as President indicates the groundswell of support and consensus across this House on this issue. Not alone was the Opposition united on the need for a disregard process, but the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, indicated at the time that he was not opposed to this. He has also indicated that he will not oppose the legislation on Second Stage and, in fact, intends to bring his own proposals forward in the very near future. I know he has promised that before, but he promised me that it would be within weeks this time. I hope we can then get the Government's approach to the need for this legislation before us and then we can deal with the amendments shortly. This will allow us to put to an end once and for all the wrong committed for many years. Every day wasted is a day where we are failing to account for the nation's dark history when it comes to the persecution of gay men.

That persecution can be traced way back to Act for the Punishment of the Vice of Buggery (Ireland) 1634, which was imposed by a British colonial regime. That law remained on the books in this State until 1993 along with the other draconian laws from the Victorian era that criminalised men who engaged in consensual sexual activity with other men. The first law stated it was for "the detestable and abominable Vice of Buggery committed with Mankind or Beast". Consensual same-sex activity was lumped in with bestiality. It also stated that offenders shall suffer such pains of death and losses as felons be accustomed to.

When the Free State was founded, this homophobic bigotry was enshrined in law again in the running of our Defence Forces where consensual activity was deemed a military offence subject to court martial. That was reinforced as late as in the Defence Act 1954.

When the Government of the day was finally dragged kicking and screaming into decriminalising consensual sex between men in 1993 following the famous case taken by our good friend in these Houses, David Norris, who took the case all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, there was little acknowledgement then or since of the lives that were utterly destroyed by the horrific penal system that existed for generations or of the lived reality of being gay in this State and the climate of fear in which gay men lived or left Ireland to escape. There was no space for people who did not conform.

This was also the time of the Magdalen laundries, the industrial schools, forced adoption and record incarceration in psychiatric hospitals. For gay men, the State was against them, the church was against them and in many cases their communities were against them. At the very least, they feared that their own families were against them. The criminality associated with gay sex meant that there was little support during the AIDS crisis and sometimes homophobic violence was normalised in our society, which meant that they lived in fear of their life with nowhere to turn.

Decriminalisation came ten years after the brutal murder of Declan Flynn in Fairview Park, which sparked the first Pride march in Dublin in 1983. In the ten years leading up to the decriminalisation, the State commenced criminal proceedings in 309 cases, resulting in 94 convictions. Dozens more cases of buggery were known to the Garda in 1993 and more men could well have been prosecuted. We must remember that the mere threat of prosecution was used to blackmail gay men. They would be named and shamed in the newspapers. They might lose their jobs or their families. In some cases, they faced judges whose unbridled homophobia was plain for all to see as they spoke openly about how they would have given a higher sentence if they could.

Some local gardaí also demonstrated particular vindictiveness. Of the 68 criminal proceedings commenced in 1969, 20 were charged in Tullow, in County Carlow, alone, including teenagers aged 15, 16 and 17.

So much for protecting children, when children were in fact being criminalised by the State. Imagine the fear that was felt by those largely working class men and juveniles whose sexual activity became the talk of the town. It was talked of as a crime, and they were expected to pay extortionate bail bonds.

I have done a bit of research since I embarked on this legislation and the passage of First Stage. It is only a cursory snapshot through the papers that are online. These are the files here in my hand, and each one of them is just one story out of one paper, a snapshot in time, but they reflect the attitudes of the day. The attitudes from the first one I have, from 1929, remain the same right up to the last one I have found at this stage. My work is not complete. I am missing two decades of research. This is only from a search for "gross indecency", which was what most men were charged with. I can and will continue, but I hope in all this that we look at this and that when the Minister produces legislation, we get into looking at funding a piece of research to see the level of persecution in the State and the effects it had on people.

In the Irish Independent, on 26 October 1929, it says the following. It is short enough because these were very short notices.

Exemplary Sentence.—Judge Davitt sentenced Victor Furley, who pleaded guilty to a large number of counts of gross indecency, to 15 years' penal servitude, and in commending Det. Officers Madden and Cryan, who had assisted in bringing the accused to justice, said it was revolting that police officers and Irishmen should have to be employed in detecting such crimes.

That is from 1929, and it does not stop there. As I said, this is a cursory glance through snippets in time. I go up to one that I found quite horrendous in The Nationalist & Leinster Timeson 25 March 1950. It records the following case. It is quite a substantial report, which usually is not the case. They were usually one or two lines, but this one went into quite some detail.

His Lordship [that is, the judge] said to the accused that it was sad to see a man of his stamp in court in a case of this kind. As Counsel said, his case was one more for scientific medical treatment than one for ordinary imprisonment.

"Dempsey, are you determined to make a manly effort to cure yourself of this trouble?" his lordship asked.

Prisoner [who was obviously scared to death of what was in front of him]—I am.

That is the type of fear there was. I will not read out any more but I have done a job of work and, as I have mentioned, there was a piece of work done in relation to Tullow. It just shows that, in certain areas, certain gardaí or certain judges had a specific bent towards convicting and persecuting those who they felt were criminal. That was their approach.

This Bill does not accomplish everything that was set out in the report, which was to address our failings. The justice Minister at the time, Charlie Flanagan, and the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, issued apologies on behalf of the State in June 2018 to those affected, but the criminal records of the convictions still remain. A first effort and progress to expunge those convictions using confidential Garda email addresses failed utterly as nobody came forward. It is unsurprising that victims of injustice would feel that they would have to go back to the perpetrators to seek their help.

Between 2021 and 2023, the working group was set up to examine the disregard for convictions. It produced a comprehensive report outlining the harsh realities of this gross human rights abuse. It proposed 95 recommendations for a disregard scheme. As I said, this Bill does not address all of those. It cannot. There are restrictions on us as Opposition TDs. We cannot put a charge on the Exchequer. Such practical things like resourcing and counselling supports cost money. We will hopefully get into some of that when we deal with the Minister's amendments. We address the need for research and redress to find out what the consequences are. Ours is not the only country in the world that has gone down the road of trying to address this hateful persecution. This Bill establishes a process for applying to the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission for a disregard of one's conviction as well as an appeals process and a review of the process within three years, along with annual reporting of the performances of that function. A disregard will provide clarity that there are no grounds for dismissing or prejudicing a person from office, profession, occupation, employment or any other right or privilege which citizens are entitled to on the basis of such conviction.

Acceptance, recognition, justice: no less is deserved by the generation of men who did nothing but take part in the love that dare not speak its name. In this, the land of Oscar Wilde, it is time that love spoke freely and those men were heard.

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

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.

5 o’clock

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.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank my colleague, an Teachta Ó Snodaigh, and the LGBT+ Restorative Justice Campaign for all of the work they have done on this. I will read a newspaper article. It is very brief.

A 24-year-old Blackrock man was remanded on his own bail today on a charge of gross indecency.

He was arrested by Garda John McCormack in Fairview Park on January 6 and charged with "committing an act of gross indecency" with an Englishman in the park.

Solicitor Maurice Walsh told Judge Thomas Fitzpatrick that there was no injured party as such, but that his client was "most abused" in the incident.

The defendant was remanded to February 10 for reports and the DPP's direction.

That was on 27 January 1992. It is quite hard to imagine this was so recent in our past. That was my first year in college. I was 18 years of age. That young man was 24. For most of his adult life he has had to carry and endure that stain. I hesitate to use that word because it should not be a stain or a stigma but that is effectively what was done to him. That was in 1992. Although it is historical, we are not talking about something that is ancient history. It is in our very recent past. It is very shocking to contemplate the fact that homosexuality was only decriminalised in 1993 and yet we have taken so many strides. However, when we take a step forward, we do not always look back to ensure we have tidied up and dealt with all of the consequences. In this instance, we clearly have not.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has responded to the pressure put on by an Teachta Ó Snodaigh, by the campaign groups and by other parties here. It is very good that he is bringing forward his own legislation. However, if it is the case that his legislation is delayed or that there are blockages, there is legislation that can be worked on because that legislation was introduced this evening by an Teachta Ó Snodaigh.

We will all remember the campaign for same-sex marriage in 2015. I know I do. I walked the legs off myself. We knocked on doors and we talked to people. In the main, I found that people's attitudes were good and positive. It surprised me that there were still some conservative elements and some people who had a lot of hate in their heart and who were not able to make that change. However, love is love, or however you want to put it, and there was a majority decision on that day. I was in the city centre and the celebrations were absolutely fantastic. Everybody hugged each other and we all said "We did it." However, it was not done and it was not finished. We need to ensure that we bring everybody along and that we do not leave people like that young man behind or leave them with that stain, stigma or whatever word we might want to use. As we often say, there is still unfinished business.

The discussion we are having this evening, prompted by an Teachta Ó Snodaigh and the campaign group, is very timely given that there has been a noticeable rise in homophobic attacks and abuse. That can be heard in the coarsening of language and seen online, including in that awful place, the manosphere. You also see high-profile people like Brendan Courtney talking about their own experiences. Mr. Courtney was attacked last year and he has talked about the rise of an anti-gay rhetoric. He said that there is anti-gay rhetoric building. We should do everything and anything we can, collectively as a Parliament and as a people, to call a halt to that. Passing this legislation sends a very clear signal not just to those people who are impacted and members of the LGBTQI+ community, but also to those people who seek to participate in the rise of homophobic rhetoric, anti-gay activity and all of that hate and awfulness.

A pardon is not good enough. There must be a disregard. There was never any offence committed so there is nothing to be pardoned. There must be a disregard. We have to be absolutely unequivocal about that. There is cross-party support for this legislation. That can be seen. Other parties have signed it, which is really welcome. The Government has also indicated support for the legislation. If the Minister is going to introduce his own Bill, that is grand. Let him do it quickly and we will work with him to ensure it is passed quickly. If he is not going to introduce his own legislation, I ask that he work with us on our legislation.

It is rare to stand in the Dáil Chamber and find that everyone is agreeing with each other. However, we might look around afterwards and ask, even though we all stood here agreeing with each other, what was the end result? The end result has to be the quick passage of meaningful legislation so that what we all agree was a grave injustice can be righted for those people who were wrongly convicted. An apology is fine but the disregard is what people want. There was never an offence committed so there is no need for any pardon. A disregard is what is needed. I commend an Teachta Ó Snodaigh, the members of all of the campaign groups and the other parties that have signed this legislation. I really do hope that this time next year, or even in a couple of months' time, we will have this legislation passed and that the work will be done. We are all in agreement so there is literally nothing stopping us from doing this.

Máire Devine (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is time Bill was dealt with. It is good to see that the Minister has acted on the prompting of my colleague Deputy Ó Snodaigh. It is good to have this debate in the Chamber. I thank everybody who has got it to this stage, including the guys up in the Gallery who have pushed for it. The Minister promised this would happen in February but he has acknowledged that he is a few weeks behind. I hope he is going to rectify that and get it to Committee, Report and Final Stages.

This about putting wrongs to right and lifting State-imposed burdens that destroyed lives. As a member of the rainbow caucus within the Oireachtas, I will state we seek a speedy resolution to this and urge that the Bill be passed. It is but one of the 95 recommendations set out in a report published in 2023. Today, we are focusing on the establishment of a legislative scheme to enable the disregard of relevant criminal records.

There was violent persecution and entrapment of those suspected of male same-sex intimacy. They were deliberately hunted by the State authorities. They were hunted to humiliate them and their families, to put their jobs in jeopardy, and to cause their landlords, local churches, clubs and so on to learn about them. Every aspect of life was threatened by the State authorities. They were interrogated and fired from their jobs. Moral panic was enthusiastically encouraged, aided and abetted by State agencies. This fuelled further moral panic.

The decriminalisation of sexual acts between men was officially achieved in 1993. As was said earlier, this removed the colonial-era laws of the Brits that had previously been in force here. Among the activists involved was a man with whom I served a term, the bold former Senator, David Norris. He took the legal challenge. He worked on it for 16 years and took the challenge in 1987.

His tenacity and his boldness have to be acknowledged, as do the guys in the Chamber from the LGBT+ Restorative Justice Campaign. They did not let go and did not back down.

We need to acknowledge what happened prior to 1993 and the suffering that the secrecy brought. It is known too well in many sectors in Ireland. We are good at secrets, we are good at hiding, we are good at locking away, we are good at humiliating and we are good at isolating and hunting others who may be perceived as different.

There were 900 odd convictions. Those included young 15- to 17-year-olds who were convicted for intimate behaviour. It was under the British occupation and their rules at the time, but it was also carried on with our own rules within this State. We did not seem to be bothered about having a look at them and trying to change them to make things better from a human rights perspective. It seemed like a throwback to Victorian era, but it is recent and, as Deputy O'Reilly said, it is within easy living memory.

We also had members of the Defence Forces who were convicted in military courts for having same-sex sexual relationships. To be discharged dishonourably and shamed must have been horrific for them.

Like many working class inner-city girls in the 1980s, I did not feel that I had a future in this country. I left and started nursing in Brighton. I did not know about this stuff, but Brighton was like a Mecca for gay and bisexual people to gather and feel safe. It was a safe enough haven. There was a lot of different hatred towards them, but it was a safe enough haven. I was a young student nurse, a Dub from Dublin 8. I told my friend Ciarán about me being present in an admissions ward and the British police came along. They were not arresting me at that time but they came along with a young man who was from the country in Ireland. He was from Tipperary. He was bound by his hands and feet. They literally threw him in the door of the hospital. He had fled from Ireland, as so many others that I met in the small Irish community in Brighton had, because there was nothing there for them. They could not live their lives as they wanted to. They were a shame on their families. As Deputy O'Reilly said, a stigma existed. They fled and were disregarded. They were sent away and exported.

It was also the time of the very beginnings of the HIV epidemic, and it was that double whammy. Some of the poor young men who were struggling with being far from home and being disregarded by home also contracted HIV. The fear that was around at the time was just enormous among all the population. They did not have anybody to turn to. They did not have the comforting warm embrace of a mam, dad, brother or a sister. They survived very much alone and that was an absolute tragedy when I think back on it. I was very upset by it at the time but I did not know what to do because none of us were sure what this epidemic would bring. It brought a lot of sadness to already isolated and emotionally impoverished people.

I have a couple of asks of the Minister of State. The first is that we progress the Bill whatever way we can. The Minister said he would. Whatever way we can, let us progress it urgently. Second, can we please find funding for research into historical cases and the social history - the wrong history - of what occurred in this country prior to 1993?

We need to be very proud when this Bill passes because it will have repercussions internationally. It will reverberate around those countries that still have this criminalisation and show us in a positive light as did the marriage equality referendum. It will send a message to a very disturbed world, a world that has recently risen up with much hate and a lot of chaos. I urge the Minister of State to act with urgency. Let us get this across the line. Tá sé in am.

Paul Donnelly (Dublin West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I really just wanted to be here to show my support for this Bill and to thank Deputy Ó Snodaigh and everybody who participated in this Bill, as well as the people up in the Gallery. It is incredibly important in this day and age. I am really saddened that we are in a situation that there has been a kick back against such a positive move over the past number of years towards understanding and accepting difference. That is really sad. I find it really difficult when I hear some of the horrific language being used by people on protests against immigration, the LGBTQ community and educating children. We are really going down a very dark road and it is something that everyone of us needs to stand up against. This Bill is part of that.

I find it really difficult to understand. I grew up in the north inner city as a teenager in the late 1970s and 1980s. I remember Fairview Park. I was a teenager when a man was beaten to death by people I knew and went to school with. We did not understand because we had been programmed and given information all our lives that this was a horrible thing that these men were doing. A lot of people of my generation and the generations before that believed it. It led to the situation we are in now.

We lived in an extremely oppressive and regressive State for many decades from the reds under the bed with Jimmy Gralton, the only Irishman ever to be excluded from his own country because he a communist, and young working class people, boys and girls, were sent to institutions for the most minor of things. They were sent away from their families for years into the likes of St. Joseph's industrial school in Clonmel and Letterfrack. There were many places. We had the Magdalen laundries as well where some young girls were locked up for the rest of their lives, and for what? That is the regressive and the oppressive State. We should never forget that because the minute we try to gloss over that, that is when we start to have these regressive people coming back and we need to stand up against that.

I Iistened to and read the Minister's statement. I welcome the fact that there has been movement on it, but why do these things take so long? Why did it take a parliamentary question from Deputy Ó Snodaigh for the Department and Minister to say that we need to deal with this? This should have been dealt with.

I read the working group's report. It was one of the main recommendations in the working group. As the Minister said, the number one recommendation was "...a legislative scheme be established to enable the disregard of relevant criminal records and this Bill seeks to deliver on that recommendation". Why did it take so long for us to get something like this done?

It is really important that we get it done as quickly as we can. It is the least that we can do as a Legislature. It is the least that we can do in this country to send the message out to those people who are left and to those who have passed away who did nothing wrong.

It was the State that was wrong, and the State needs to apologise. I hate to use the word "convictions". They need justice. They did absolutely nothing wrong and that is why the State needs to make their voices heard. I appreciate everybody who has taken part in this debate and those who have been part and parcel of bringing the Bill to where we are now. We really need to move on. Some people do not have the time to hear the words that they have been vindicated.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I start by thanking Deputies Ó Snodaigh, Nash, Rice, Murphy and O'Gorman and former Deputy and now Uachtarán Catherine Connolly for sponsoring this important Bill. I thank the LGBT Restorative Justice Campaign, in particular my dear friend, Brian Sheehan, for its incredible campaigning on this over many years. I also want to acknowledge the Minister and Department's commitment and urgency to pass legislation that will realise the aims of the Bill. For that I thank them sincerely.

The Bill is named as a disregard for historic offences for consensual sexual activity between men and aims to clear the names and records of men who historically engaged in sexual activity and were convicted of a crime for doing so. It should be noted by all good-minded people that nothing these men did then in Ireland or now anywhere was immoral or criminal. It hurt no one. Sexual relationships between consenting adults are a normal, natural and healthy part of the human experience, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. By contrast, it was the State that acted criminally and immorally, passing laws to persecute those who loved and celebrated each other and did the normal and natural things that all humans do and have done since the dawn of time.

It should go without saying that the criminalisation of sexual relationships between men has an awful history and, just as awfully, still has support in other parts of the world. Thankfully, Ireland, on the whole, has moved past those times. Thankfully, we recognise that love between adults in all its incarnations is something we should not just tolerate or legalise but embrace and celebrate. Thankfully, we play a major role on the world stage for gay rights. I pay particular tribute to the courageous campaigners who did so much to help Ireland realise that, including people like former Senator David Norris, former Uachtarán Mary Robinson, Tony Walsh, and all of the campaigners for marriage equality in Ireland in 2015.

In 2015, a group of friends and I got together to raise funds for marriage equality between Irish citizens in New York city. We thought it would be a small quiet affair, a humble table quiz, but crowds of people showed up. Companies sponsored prizes and we raised thousands of euro for marriage equality, doing our small bit from 3,000 miles away. I want to pay tribute to my friends Tara Copplestone, Simon McDonnell, Quentin Fottrell and Orla Tinsley for doing this work, among other campaigning, to make marriage equality a reality.

I remember weeks later watching a TV screen in a pub in Manhattan in the early hours as the results rolled in from Dublin Castle, watching the cheering crowds as Ireland proudly declared the to the world that love is love and all you need is grá. It pains me immensely, as it does many others, to think of the generations of people who went before us and did not hear those roars of acceptance, those cheers of jubilation and victory over a law and system that had too long denied them. I think of the men, young and old, who had to hide a part of themselves from society, family or friends and found solace only in private places. The light they shared in those private places kept a light burning for so many that came later, even when it seemed like there was no light at all. It was their courage, fortitude and unapologetic actualisation that led the way for so many. We, as a State, are indebted to them and to the lives they led under a State that treated them so badly.

As the Bill shockingly lays bare in its Schedules, Ireland has had a law against these acts on the books as far back as 1634, by edict of the Parliament at Westminster in England. At many times since then it was a capital offence, punishable by death. Most in this House know it was only decriminalised in 1993. Shockingly, military law still refers to the old 19th century criminal laws which state it is an offence in the Defence Forces under the Defence Act 2007, although in 1993 the then defence Minister, David Andrews, affirmed in the House that it would not be considered in breach of the regulations of the Defence Forces.

Let me be very clear. I unequivocally condemn every administration - British, Free State and Republican - that enacted, defended, enforced and supported these heinous laws over a 359-year time period. To date, no apology for those in the Defence Forces who were stripped of medals, discharged, court-martialed or otherwise isolated or persecuted by their superiors has been forthcoming. No meaningful disregard has occurred. No restoration of good name, military status or military decoration has occurred. That must change with the Bill or other legislation and it must change as soon as possible.

For those men whom these historical laws affected I want, for my part, to extend my sincere apologies that the State has not granted you and your families restitution for the normal act of being gay. It was beyond any human decency to have persecuted you in any way, not to mind in the profession of serving your country. A 2023 report from the Department of Justice specifically pointed out that should a person have been discharged with ignominy from the Defence Forces as a result of any of the above offences, subject to the eligibility criteria, the Department of Defence and Defence Forces consider whether any medals awarded that were withdrawn as a result of this discharge with ignominy may be returned to the affected person or their family if deceased. I strongly support that view as not just a symbol of restitution, but a recompense on behalf of the State for the individuals and their families who served the State so well yet were treated so poorly. As former defence Minister David Andrews said at the time of decriminalisation, the Defence Forces would modify regulations in light of the repeal of anti-gay laws. It stands to reason that any disregards under the Bill or other legislation would also apply to relevant offences under military legislation and rules of conduct. This Bill does that and it is critical that it does. It is of the utmost importance that these crimes of the State against those who served it are remedied. I would be grateful if the Minister and Department would confirm in the remarks at the end of the debate whether, through support of the Bill on Committee Stage or by other means, he and others in his Government will commit to such actions of restitution.

I am conscious that behind each of these laws and convictions there are stories of real human beings living in the world, just being who they were born to be, being human and part of the natural order of things, yet they were forced to undergo horrendous treatment by the State in terms of criminalisation and punishment that no human should have to endure just for being human. It is in sombre recognition of those people and all of that painful history that I support the Bill and commend it to the House for urgent enactment by the Oireachtas.

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To begin, I express my deep appreciation to Deputy Ó Snodaigh for bringing this Bill forward and continuing to put his experience and passion behind this particular issue. I also thank those Deputies who are cosignatories of the Bill as well as the Deputies who have spoken and joined this debate tonight. I appreciate the openness of both the Minister, Deputy O’Callaghan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Troy, to engage with the core principles of this particular Bill and their commitment to bring forward amendments to it. As a cosignatory of the Bill, there is real openness to have a constructive debate on this Bill and look at amendments to see how we can strengthen elements of it.

It is important this is done quickly. While recognising the real achievement of being here and debating this Bill today on the floor of the House, this has taken a long time. It has taken too long. I hope, in the spirit the Minister and Minister of State have come into this House and made commitments to move this swiftly, we see that brought forward.

The reason we are here today with the Bill finally arriving at the floor of Dáil Éireann, despite the elapse of time, is because of the tireless efforts of a number of campaigners over many years. Some of them are here in the Gallery and many are watching online.

I wish to recognise that tireless work on this, and indeed, many issues. The rest of us across the LGBTI+ community and I owe them many, if not all, of the rights that we enjoy today as citizens - rights that had to be fought for. I am deeply grateful to their work over many years.

The consequences of a legal conviction are very real. There is the direct impact on the person who has been convicted in terms of a fine or maybe a prison sentence. There is a social stigma. We know that stigma is one that will continue very often for a long time after a person has served their time and has been released. There is the impact on families. There are very practical issues around the loss of income. There is the practical necessity of separation when somebody is incarcerated. Again, the stigma that attaches to somebody who has been convicted can often attach to their wider family. They can see exclusion within their local community. That power of the State to officially sanction its own citizens has real meaning and real strength. It is one of the true defining factors of a state that it has that power to punish its citizens.

In my time as equality Minister, I had the opportunity to travel to Poland and meet with leaders of Polish LGBTI+ groups. This was at the time when the Law and Justice party was in government there. They were telling me how that party was co-opting and marshalling apparatuses of the state. I was struck by what they said about how the government there had used the ombudsman for children in Poland, as an organisation, and had used the sanction of the state to target LGBTI+ groups that were working with young people. It was casting that work as some sort of act of child abuse or grooming. I know the role that the Office of the Ombudsman for Children plays in this country. Yes, it can be a real thorn of the side of a government, but always in a good sense. It is always trying to make things better for all children, particularly the most vulnerable children. What I learned on my trip to Poland illustrated to me what happens when the weight of power of a state is aimed against someone for something that is so basic and intrinsic for them. The power of the State is very real. That is why a process for lifting or removing State sanction, when that sanction was implemented for the wrong reasons, is so important.

I think we all accept that a person's sexuality is an innate part of their humanity and that the expression of that sexuality is part of a body of rights protected by human rights and constitutional rights. In that context, we have to recognise that Irish law made being gay a crime in this country. It made being in love with another man and acting on that love a crime. It made taking a fancy for a guy and acting on that fancy - something as basic as that - a crime. It criminalised those very basic elements of humanity. The Bill we are debating seeks to make some reparation for that treatment. What we are doing today is entirely consistent with a set of actions that Ireland has taken over the past 15 or 20 years to recognise, and try to make some recompense for, how our State treated other minorities and other vulnerable groups after we gained our independence. We can think of our treatment of women who became pregnant outside of marriage. We can think of our treatment of the children of those women. We can think of our treatment of members of the Traveller community. For each of those groups, certain steps have been taken. There are other groups that the State probably needs to do more to recognise, particularly those who were institutionalised for a disability or for having a mental health illness.

Deputy Donnelly rightly drew our attention to the increasing levels of homophobia and transphobia in our society. Deputy Rice spoke to that issue as well. While it is positive to be here today looking to advance important legislation, it is sad to say that Dublin and Ireland today are less safe for members of the LGBTI+ community than ten years ago. I have seen that retreat in safety in my own lifetime. One naively assumes that progress and enhancement of rights is always going to be one way, but that it is not the case. I saw that in Poland. Hundreds of thousands of Hungarians saw that in their own country, but hopefully the pendulum of progress can begin to swing back now after Sunday's election results. We have seen a retreat in safety for members of the LGBTI+ community in our country. That is a source of real concern to me and many people in this House.

Bearing that in mind today, with the law that is before us we have an opportunity to clearly restate our values as an Oireachtas and as a country. We have an opportunity to recognise and right the wrong that was done to hundreds of our citizens over many decades.

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

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.

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

I wish it was this good all the time. I thank the Minister for his positive comments throughout - from the get-go when I asked the parliamentary question to the First Stage, when I talked to him afterwards and the debate today. I thank all of those who took part, including na Teachtaí Louise O'Reilly, Máire Devine, Paul Donnelly, Eoin Hayes, Pádraig Rice and Roderic O'Gorman agus, dar ndóigh, an tAire féin.

6 o’clock

Gabhaim buíochas leo mar, go minic, bíonn sé deacair daoine a fháil chun páirt a ghlacadh i ndíospóireachtaí tráthnóna Déardaoin. Gabhaim buíochas leo siúd a sheas an fód agus a bhí anseo. Is léir ón oiread daoine a bhí anseo don díospóireacht cé chomh tábhachtach is atá sé mar ábhar. Nuair atá seans againn ceart a dhéanamh nuair atá ciapadh tar éis a bheith déanta ar dhaoine, ba chóir go dtapaímid an deis chun ceart a dhéanamh agus an rud sin a chur i gceart.

It has been a good debate. I thank those who contributed today and those who have been raising our awareness over the years, in particular the LGBT+ Restorative Justice Campaign. I mentioned Brian, Kieran and Karl earlier. Some of them are with us today. There are also the drafters, Céile and Ciaran.

I draw people's attention to the booklet they produced,Disregard and Redress. It is a useful introduction if there are people listening or looking in who are interested in the topic. In its few short pages, it outlines the effects much better than I can on the people affected by the criminalisation of homosexuality in this State and, when people went before the courts, what they were faced with. Mention was made of Declan Flynn. There are a number of them in Rathmines and so on in the seventies. I was a very young child at that stage but I remember the eighties, similar to Deputy Donnelly. The one I remember is when Charles Self was stabbed to death in 1982. It was not the fact of the horrific death. That was bad enough but it was the glee - I do not know whether I am using the wrong word - with which the gardaí took it upon themselves to seek out nearly every gay person in this city, interrogate them, visit their workplaces and hound them day in and day out until they gave their fingerprints or accounted for their movements, just by virtue of the fact they had got it into their heads that a person who was gay had committed the killing and stabbing of Charles Self. I do not think that murder has ever been brought to a conclusion but its effects are explained in this booklet.

The booklet was put together to encourage us as parliamentarians to address this issue. That is when, in many ways, I came to this issue. A redress or disregard process is not something that happens all the time. We have a relatively new State. It is 100 years old and still grappling with the legacy of colonial laws. Every couple of years in this Parliament, we have legislation repealing hundreds or thousands of old colonial laws. We do that but the legacy here is still live. My colleague, Deputy O'Reilly, quoted from a case in 1992. There are probably more.

I have taken a cursory glance through files and shared some of the documentation with others. If people want them, I am happy to share. It is just what is available in this new modern age in the archive of newspapers online. You put in a search and, all of a sudden, get results. I was only searching for two words: "gross indecency". I did not search for the other charges that might have been brought. I have not finished. I have about 80 pages - one page per newspaper article. I have 30 more years to do since the founding of the State. That is me, an amateur historian, throwing in a word.

We need to find out the full effects and we will when the disregard scheme is up and running. We will hear people's stories or, maybe more so, become aware of them, especially those who, as my colleague, Deputy Devine, said, emigrated. There are so many people. I and probably everybody in this Chamber know people who feared prosecution and the persecution that came afterwards, and sometimes before. Even my cursory glance showed people not turning up in court. It is obvious they got the hell out of Dodge before their whole world collapsed. In many cases, it did collapse. They had to leave their jobs and had their full details published in local newspapers and endured the scandal that drew upon them. They then became open to being targeted by conservative elements in small communities. The Valley of the Squinting Windows springs to mind. There was definitely that kind of view in small-world Ireland, not rural Ireland but Ireland as a whole. You had it in urban communities as well. That persecution, prosecution, marginalisation, isolation and ostracisation went with it. We are trying to right that in a small way.

This is not the end of this. There were 95 recommendations. Many have been addressed. There are still some we need to address. By us having this debate today, I hope it sends the message we will not stand by and allow the comments that Deputies O'Gorman and Donnelly referred to. There is now an increase in homophobia again. As a Parliament, we are united on that and will not stand for that. It is not just coarseness in debate or discourse. It goes beyond that to physical attacks now. It seems to be becoming acceptable to attack people who stand up for gay rights or LGBTQ rights or even speak about it. I know that on my Facebook tonight I will be targeted just for having the gall, in their eyes, to stand up and raise an issue. It is easy for me; I just delete, hide, block. I am not the one who has to move around the city and make a display of affection with another man or another woman. That can draw physical attacks from some of these idiots. We have to stand against that type of attitude. We have seen it in other countries in the EU and we will not tolerate it here. We have come a long way and need to stay well away from that which gave us the title of a conservative society. We are not. We are a welcoming society and always have been but there have always been elements which have wished to make us a close-minded, conservative and retrograde society.

Gabhaim buíochas arís le gach duine as a bheith liom sa díospóireacht, go háirithe iad siúd a thug tacaíocht dom leis an mBille ar an gCéad Chéim. Tá a fhios agam nár chóir dom labhairt faoin Uachtarán ach bhí sí anseo nuair a bhog muid an Bille seo ar an gCéad Chéim. Tá súil agam go mbeidh sí i láthair nuair a théann an Bille os comhair an Uachtaráin. Beidh sí an-sásta go raibh sí mar chuid den phróiseas, idir thús agus dheireadh an phróisis.