Jim O'Callaghan
Dublin Bay South · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“This relates to section 69 of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann, which amends Schedule 5 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to add the Courts Service to the Schedule.”
“The first four amendments in this group are minor drafting corrections. They corrected the wording in four places so that the Bill reads consistently. It is changing the word "references" to "a reference". They make no change to the substance or effect of the Bill.”
“The ARP scheme was introduced in July 2022 to recognise the generosity of members of the public who opened their houses, whether in their entirety or through the provision of a room, at their own expense to provide shelter to people displaced by the Ukraine war. The Department of Social Protection administers the scheme on my behalf.”
“I have no doubt it will be challenged, and I have to be able to convince a court, if it is being challenged, that this legislation weighs up conflicting interests and recognises there is a mechanism for somebody who has reformed himself to get off the register.”
“The scheme has been a lifeline for people from Ukraine displaced by the conflict, given high rental market rates and scarcity of rental accommodation.”
“I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in the first instance for presiding over these Stages of the legislation. I am very pleased that this legislation has been enacted. I want to thank a few people very briefly. I thank Deputy McAuliffe for introducing me to Jason Poole. I thank Senator O'Loughlin for her work on this issue in the Seanad.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,181 lines we hold for Jim O'Callaghan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 17 of 84.
“I have spoken endlessly about identification and analysis. The important thing is the word "biometric". Biometric analysis can, I agree, ultimately lead to the identification of a person, but it does not lead to the immediate identification. Biometric identification does because it is done against a database. To use Senator Conway's example, an example would be images of people wanted for serious criminal offences of whom there are images on an Interpol or Europol site. When it comes to biometric identification, if they are on a database their names will come up and they can be arrested by the Garda on arrival into Dublin Airport as they are wanted for a serious offence elsewhere. That is biometric identification. However, with biometric analysis there is not a database.”
“I thank all Senators for their contributions. It is important to point out that the purpose of this legislation is to protect people who are victims of crime and to provide An Garda Síochána with tools to investigate serious crimes. One of the crimes that would be most relevant to the biometric analysis when it is enacted is child sexual abuse material which is on video, because it will enable gardaí to use the tools of biometric analysis to see whether or not a child who has been sexually abused in one imagery is the same as a child in another. We need to bring it back to the practical benefits of this legislation in terms of protecting people who are victims. The alternative to it is that gardaí have to go through reams and endless hours of images to see is whether the same child is in that video as is seen subsequently.”
“It is not covered by this legislation, but the former example I gave of biometric analysis is covered by the legislation.”
“This is what biometric analysis is. It is about seeing whether one image of a person is the same as another image of a person elsewhere. It is no doubt the case that if a garda sees the person, it is the case that they are the same person and it is possible to identify that the person getting off the bus goes into a house, that will lead the Garda and the investigations to the house. Ultimately, it will be possible to identify the individual. This is, however, completely different to the process of biometric identification, where, to use the example I gave, a garda is looking at an image, sees a face, checks that face against a database and the database comes up with the name of whoever the individual is. That is what biometric identification is in this legislation.”
“Irrespective of what the AI Act says, here we are establishing a distinction between the two and only biometric analysis is permitted in this legislation. The real difference between biometric analysis and biometric identification is that biometric identification requires the assistance of a database of images. That is not needed for biometric analysis. To go back to the example I gave earlier, biometric analysis arises when a garda is looking, for example, at an incident in the city centre and he sees an image of a person who he does not know and who was involved in the commission of a serious assault or other offence. The garda will then be able to use biometric analysis to determine whether that person is the same as the person who got off a bus in Rathmines 45 minutes later. The Garda will still not know the identity of the person.”
“I thank both Senators for their contributions. When it comes to the application of this legislation, if it is enacted, or its interpretation by a court, both circumstances will require a court or a garda applying it to consider the definitions contained within this legislation. The court and the garda will not be going to a definition of “biometric analysis” or “biometric identification” in the AI Act. For the purpose of this legislation, it is the definition of “biometric analysis” set out here. The part of the legislation we are discussing here is called the carrying out of biometric analysis by members of the Garda Síochána. What is clear from a plain reading of this legislation, if enacted, is that it establishes a distinction between "biometric analysis" and "biometric identification".”
“I am fairly satisfied that there is no inconsistency between what is in this legislation and what is in the AI Act. When it comes to our obligations under the GDPR, I believe this legislation is completely compliant with it as well. As I indicated earlier to Senator Boyhan, there is a procedure set out in section 10 of the Bill for the preparation of codes of practice. That code of practice requires the Garda Commissioner, before it is approved by me, to consult with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and the Data Protection Commission. I am very satisfied that when it comes to the code of practice and, indeed, the primary legislation, there would be complete compliance with GDPR data retention requirements and any human rights obligations.”
“I would have thought, if it was being interpreted by a court, they would say there was obviously some purpose for including a definition of "biometric identification". In fact, the only reason is to exclude it from the definition of "biometric analysis". Senator Ruane also asked why I was not using the definition of "biometric identification" as set out in the AI Act. As I said, biometric identification is defined in this Bill as a type of biometric processing that is not covered by biometric analysis. The definition provides that biometric identification is the comparison of biometric data of an individual against a database of images. The scope of what is being provided for in terms of biometric identification will be clearer in the second Bill. My understanding is that we opted into the AI Act, certainly the policing sections of it.”
“I note that this proposal to remove reference to biometric identification is not accompanied by an amendment that deletes the definition of "biometric identification". This would confuse the Bill's intention and bring ambiguity to the Garda's powers vis-à-vis biometric technologies. The amendment would seem to allow for the possibility for Garda use of biometric identification without any of the accompanying safeguards and oversight. Biometric identification will be provided for in another Bill. I hope to publish its general scheme in the coming months. With the greatest of respect to Senator Ruane, I do not think the amendment serves any purpose. What would happen is that we would have a definition of "biometric analysis" and we would still have within the legislation a definition of "biometric identification".”
“That is not what this legislation is doing. This legislation is analysis, comparing whether that unidentified person is the same as another unidentified person later on. The amendment by Senator Ruane proposes to remove the exclusion of biometric identification from the definition of "biometric analysis". Drafting conventions sometimes require that a term be defined relative to another definition. In this instance, biometric analysis is everything listed in subsections (a) to (c) but it is also, for the avoidance of doubt, not biometric identification. It is of benefit to those who are opposed to biometric identification to know that biometric identification is not included in this legislation. There is no doubt about that. As I say, I will be coming back at another date seeking to introduce it.”
“"Biometric identification" is defined in this legislation as follows: "‘biometric identification’ means, in relation to an individual, the automated recognition of physical, physiological or behavioural human features for the purpose of ascertaining, or attempting to ascertain, the identity of an individual by comparing biometric data of the individual to biometric data stored in a database of one or more named individuals ... The really important distinction between analysis and identification is that when it comes to identification, you are checking somebody against a database. To use the example of the Garda station, if biometric identification is introduced by the Oireachtas in due course, a garda looking at an individual on-screen will be able to check that individual's image - face - against a database of individuals.”
“To put it in the simplest terms, biometric analysis is trying to identify unidentified individuals and figure out whether that person there is the same as the person on the other screen. That is what analysis is. It is also going to be used, however, for the purpose of a missing person. In that instance, you will have the identity of a missing person, somebody will be able to identify a photograph of the child, and you can do biometric analysis by checking different screens to see if that child comes up.”
“The benefit of it is that it will be able to tell gardaí that the person who is on O'Connell Street there is the same person who is getting off a bus in Rathmines half an hour later. They do not know who the person is, but the analysis facilitates them in identifying the movements of that person. If we look at the definition of "biometric analysis", really it is in paragraph (b) of section 43A that we get the specific definition of what I am stating there: in relation to a particular, but unidentified, individual, the automated recognition and categorising of physical, physiological or behavioural human features by the use of specific technical processing of documents obtained by An Garda Síochána in the course of an investigation, in respect of instances of the particular unidentified individual ...”
“However, to describe what biometric analysis is, the best thing is to use an example from An Garda Síochána and the work it is doing, because that is the purpose of the legislation here. If the Garda has a video and video images of a person whom it believes committed a criminal offence, and it has the person on the screen, biometric analysis is going to assist the Garda in figuring out whether that person on the screen is the same person who is on a video later on entering a house in some other area or on a street elsewhere. You do not have a database of individuals against whom you are checking to see if that individual is identifiable on the database. Instead, biometric analysis is simply comparing the images of one person on one screen with another person on another screen.”
“If this amendment went in, we would still find ourselves left with the issue of the definition of "biometric identification". Let me try to deal with it in layman's terms, or the only terms I understand in respect of this issue. Facial recognition technology comes under two headings: biometric analysis and biometric identification. In respect of both of them, we can have either retrospective biometric analysis or identification, or live biometric analysis or identification. What we are talking about in this legislation is the introduction of retrospective biometric analysis. I intend in future, and I am sure it will be more contentious than this, to bring forward legislation that will seek to introduce biometric identification and, indeed, live biometric identification and analysis.”
“I thank the Senator for her amendment and her contribution. Her amendment seeks to make a minor but significant change to section 43A and, in particular, the definition of "biometric analysis". The section we are discussing here seeks to put section 43A into the Act. That is the first section in the new Part that is entitled "Carrying out of biometric analysis by members of Garda personnel". Obviously, it is appropriate that we define what biometric analysis is. Senator Ruane's amendment recognises that the first part of the biometric analysis sets out in three paragraphs a definition of what it is, but then the part that she wants to delete in this amendment is line 33, which states: "but does not include biometric identification;". In the legislation over the page, we then include a definition of "biometric identification".”
“This is a minor technical amendment in section 48A(c) to the definition of biometric analysis to add the word “including”. The definition of biometric analysis is intended to afford gardaí the ability to utilise automated recognition and categorising of physiological or behavioural human features on both known and unknown persons for the purposes listed in the Bill. An added functionality of paragraph (c) is its use in locating a missing person. The addition of the word “including” is intended to make it clear that this is an official purpose rather than the sole purpose of paragraph (c).”
“In the case of any procurement of biometric technologies there are requirements for providers and deployers of AI systems under the AI Act. The Garda Síochána will look to its European counterparts when engaging in the procurement process for best practice in the area. That is what I wanted to say on section 3. I thank both Senators for their contributions.”
“It would mean every time we have a piece of legislation - and I am back here later on this evening for the garda powers Bill - regarding any type of further technology or infrastructure availed by An Garda Síochána, that we would include a public procurement provision in respect of that. I do not think it is appropriate. There are mandatory exclusion grounds where a tenderer has been convicted of a series of offences. That is set out in the public procurement rules. Those rules and regulations provide for a transparent and non-discriminatory process and there are sufficient rules and regulations in place in respect of existing guidelines. Procurement matters generally are not issues that are detailed in primary legislation and I do not think they should be included in the Bill.”
“I will now deal with the issues raised by Senator Collins, whose concern is in respect of issues to do with procurement and the type of products that will be purchased by An Garda Síochána for the purpose of carrying out the biometric analysis. Obviously, it is the case that this is high technology. The Garda will need to purchase the technology used in other jurisdictions, and that is a process it will have to engage in also. My own view is that procurement is governed by EU rules and national regulations. We have very detailed rules in terms of how public procurement operates, particularly for a contract of this magnitude. We generally do not - and I think it would be inappropriate to do so - put into primary legislation rules that duplicate rules concerning public procurement.”
“Although I am a member of the Executive, the checks required by this House are also included within subsection (6). There is a requirement there for the draft code of practice to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas, and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving the draft has been passed by each House. Again, the draft code is prepared by the Commissioner, it then comes to me after he has consulted many others, and I have to approve it. I then have to lay it before the Houses of the Oireachtas, and both the Seanad and the Dáil have ultimate control over whether it comes into effect or not. That is a satisfactory statutory procedure in place which will ensure that all the issues raised by Senator Boyhan will be taken into account.”
“He has also to engage with me, the Policing Authority, the ombudsman, the Data Protection Commission and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, to which Senator Boyhan referred earlier. There is a broad procedure put in place as to how the Garda Commissioner must compile the code of practice in respect of biometric analysis, and he has to engage thoroughly with other persons. That is a process that is going to take a bit of time. He then submits the code of practice to me in accordance with subsection (5) of that section and I can, by order, declare that it is a code of practice for the purpose of this Act. Ultimately, it is the elected official - the Minister - who is the person who determines whether it becomes a code of practice.”
“A draft code of practice may contain different provisions relating to different types of biometric data and analysis, different categories of persons or data, and the circumstances in which biometric data can be used. Although the Garda Commissioner prepares the code of practice, I am the person who, to use the verb, promulgates it. Before the Commissioner sends it on to me, he is required to assess the impact of the proposed draft code on the human rights of individuals, which I know is of particular concern to Senator Boyhan. The Commissioner has to take into account how any draft code will impact on the human rights of individuals. In doing so, he cannot just discuss it in a room with himself and his senior officers.”
“As colleagues and Senators will see from section 47A, which is at section 10 of this Bill, there is a requirement on the Commissioner to prepare one or more draft codes of practice to provide further detail on the operation of Part 6A, which is the use by the Garda of biometric analysis. Obviously, once he produces a draft code of practice, it will have to set out the procedures to be followed by members of An Garda Síochána, the parameters for the use of biometric analysis and details about the confidentiality, retention and storage of this important information, and all of this must be done in a manner that ensures it is compliant with obligations under legislation but also under the Constitution and the convention.”
“As we know, Part 6A is the part that deals with the carrying out of biometric analysis by members of Garda personnel, which is the issue we are looking at. I agree with Senator Boyhan that it would not be appropriate for me to sit back and wait for the Garda to produce a code of practice. In fact, the legislation is done in such a way that the legislation has to be enacted, and then the code of practice comes after it. It is important that the new section 47A will set out thoroughly what is the procedure for the making and approval of a code of practice in respect of the area of the use of biometric analysis by An Garda Síochána.”
“He correctly identified that codes of practice are a very important part of the legislative framework, particularly in terms of how it operates for An Garda Síochána. The reason he mentioned it in the context of section 3 of the Bill which we are discussing at present is because that is where there is reference to the code of practice, which of course means a code of practice that is declared by me by order, under the existing section 47(4) of the recording devices Act, or indeed, if the Houses enact this legislation, in section 47A. If colleagues have an opportunity to look at section 10 of the Bill, they will see there is a whole new section that will go into the recording devices Act governing a code of practice for Part 6A.”
“I thank Senators Boyhan and Collins for their contributions. Before I respond to them, I want to advise the Seanad that it is my intention to bring forward a minor technical amendment to section 8 of the Bill on Report Stage. This is an amendment to section 43B as it relates to international co-operation, and I think I already advised this House on Second Stage of that intention. The amendment is still being considered but I am told that consultation with the Garda and the Office of the Attorney General is coming to a close, which will allow for its consideration on Report Stage. First, I will deal with the issues raised by Senator Boyhan where he referred to codes of practice.”
“In terms of the proposal from the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, I gave consideration to it and have prepared a response in respect of it. I just want the House to know that its scheme is not that different from what I am operating, except that it would have a panel of barristers deciding it, as opposed to a judge. Finally, on the interests of justice, the reason I left it in is because the advice I received is that counselling notes can be very beneficial to the prosecution of sexual offences and rapes. They corroborate what a complainant is saying and are very beneficial in terms of getting people convicted because the counselling notes confirm what the complainant is saying.”
“The first thing I want to say is that I have listened to people in the House. I acknowledge the presence of survivors in the Gallery and I commend them because the law is being changed because of the advocacy of campaigners. We all agree on one thing, which is that the current situation is unacceptable. The current statutory scheme that operates is unacceptable and needs to be changed. It needs to be changed in order to weigh the balance between a fair trial and the right to privacy more in favour of the right to privacy. I believe that is what I am doing. I cannot ban counselling notes. I simply cannot do that because of the legal advice that I have received. The Labour Party recognises that. People in this House recognise that.”
“I considered it, and my concern is that the proposed amendment is seeking to merge and align community service and probation. The Deputy knows they are different statutory regimes. The Probation of Offenders Act deals with a court being able to dispose of a summary offence either by dismissing the charge or by discharging the offender conditionally. Obviously, community service is something different. Having given it consideration, I thought the way the amendment was drafted was merging those two schemes inappropriately. They are distinct. I identify the objective of what the Deputy is doing, and I have no difficulty working with him in the future on proposals to ensure we have schemes in place in respect of community service and community sanctions.”
“I was at the committee hearing as well, as was Deputy Carthy. He got a straight answer from the Minister for Defence when she told him that these proposals were put before the Government before any fuel protest. His suggestion that there is an attempt to link them is completely untenable. I will deal promptly with this because, like others, I want to get to the counselling notes amendment, which is amendment No. 17. I am not going to accept amendments Nos. 13 and 14. I think it is appropriate that the legislation should make express provision for the long-standing role of the Defence Forces when they assist the gardaí. I think that aid to civil power role is better off being set out on a statutory basis.”
“If people start intimidating politicians online the law is there to meet them and if people start to intimidate or harass politicians, or anyone else, physically the law is there and the law is responding to it fairly vigorously. The laws in place are sufficient to ensure that happens.”
“I am not supportive of Deputy Kelly’s amendment. I do not find it frequently the case that my access or the access of many colleagues coming in and out of the Houses of the Oireachtas is blocked. I do not recall ever being blocked coming in or out. I suppose the purpose of it is to say we do not tolerate intimidation of elected Members of the Oireachtas and I think that is valid. It is important to point out that I am aware that since October 2022, there have been approximately ten convictions of people for intimidation or violence against Members of the Oireachtas or people associated with it. We all know the case involving the Tánaiste, there was a case in respect of the Taoiseach and one in respect of Deputy McDonald.”
“The mischief is there where some people are becoming increasingly aggressive to An Garda Síochána notwithstanding the fact that we all know the overwhelming majority of Irish people are very supportive of the Garda. I cannot accept the amendment at this Stage. I would need to give it more consideration, I am afraid, but I will not run away from it in the future.”
“Section 91 of the 1994 Act provides that any person who assaults or threatens to assault a peace officer, including a member of An Garda Síochána, is guilty of an offence. There are very significant penalties there. On summary conviction a fine not exceeding €5,000 or a term of imprisonment of 12 months and on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 years or both or a fine at the discretion of the court. It is an issue I am worried about. I cannot just put it in now because I need to consider the impact on other workers and groups but I will give the Deputy the commitment that I will give further consideration to it. I know he will not be hesitant about bringing this forward again. It is something I am aware of.”
“I did say that and I looked at it. I support the intention behind the legislation to ensure that there is legal recognition of the fact that gardaí deserve to be protected. My problem was that I need to have broader consideration of the legislative proposal in light of other legislation that exists at present. For instance, one of the things that was brought to my attention was that section 19 of the public order Act provides substantive protections for members of An Garda Síochána and other peace officers such as prison officers and members of the fire brigade in the execution of their respective duties. If I am going to introduce this provision, I am going to have to think of what the response will be from those other emergency workers or people who are involved in the prison service or fire brigade.”
“5 and 6 amend the Long Title, consequential on the insertion of the new sections to amend the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and the Family Courts Act 2024.”
“Included in relevant enactments is section 37 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023, which provides for the in camera rule to apply to court proceedings under sections 28 to 30 of that Act, which in turn relates to applications for civil orders where there is the fear of violence or where serious alarm or distress is being caused by a person's behaviour. When I commence sections 96 and 97 of the 2024 Act, they will replace the repeal provisions and relevant enactments will be defined in section 95 of the 2024 Act. However, section 37 of the 2023 Act has not been defined as a relevant enactment for the purposes of the 2024 Act. That is why it is therefore necessary to make these technical but important amendments to fix this lacuna. Amendments Nos.”
“I move amendment No. 5: In page 8, line 11, to delete “and” and substitute “, the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023,”. Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 are small technical amendments to both the Family Courts Act 2024 and the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 that are necessary ahead of the standing up of the first family courts next year. The amendments are to fix a legislative lacuna that will otherwise arise when certain provisions of the Family Courts Act 2024 are commenced. The commencement of section 5 of the 2024 Act will repeal provisions of certain enactments, including sections 40 and 40A of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, which provides for the in camera rule of proceedings under relevant enactments as defined in section 39 of the Act.”
“I can assure Deputy Gannon that it needs to be reformed, but I am happy to come back to discuss it with him if he wants to table it as a Topical Issue matter.”
“If Deputy Gannon wants to table it as a Topical Issue matter, I am happy to come in. The scheme that operates at present means that people get €260 for the first appearance and €60 for every appearance after that. That incentivises inefficiencies. Research has been completed in the Department that shows that the hearing of criminal cases in the District Court which are governed by the criminal legal aid scheme moves much more slowly than those which do not have the benefit of the criminal legal aid scheme. There are a number of anomalies, as I am sure the Deputy is aware, with certificates being granted for a whole series of offences in respect of the same person or indeed for a whole group of defendants who are effectively accused of the same type of offences and the same issue.”
“I hear what Deputy Daly says. The scheme that is being brought in on 1 July is designed to improve efficiencies in the criminal legal aid scheme and the District Court. I fully appreciate the important role played by solicitors under that scheme. I have met the Law Society and Bar Council in respect of it. The system would be greatly improved and there will still be proper payment for solicitors in the very significant work that is done in the District Court. I will take into account what the Deputy said.”
“7 amends section 1(4) of the Bill to provide that the amendment to the 2005 Act, along with the amendment of the Defence Act 1954 in Part 4 of the Bill - introduced on Committee Stage - will be commenced on enactment rather than by ministerial order. I want to flag that I am considering further commencement of the Bill generally and that subject to this consideration, I may introduce amendments in the Seanad to enable other provisions in the Bill to commence on enactment rather than by ministerial order.”
“Section 20 of the 2020 miscellaneous provisions Act, which provides an enabling basis for the transmission of documents and information by electronic means to and from courts and civil proceedings, envisaged the use of the personal public service number, PPSN, to verify the identity of persons transmitting documents and information by electronic means. This is also envisaged in court rules made pursuant to section 20. However, the 2005 Act was not consequentially amended by the 2020 Act to add the Courts Service to Schedule 5. This amendment addresses that gap and means that the identity of relevant court users can be authenticated via the PPSN as envisaged by the 2020 Act. Amendment No. 4 amends the Long Title consequential on the insertion of the new section. Amendment No.”
“I move amendment No. 4: In page 8, line 9, after “1997,” to insert “the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005,”. Amendment No. 69 inserts a new section into the Bill to amend Schedule 5 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 in order to add the Courts Service to the Schedule. This will mean that the Courts Service will be a specified body for the purposes of specified provisions of the 2005 Act relating to the personal public service number, PPSN, and thereby enabled to use the PPSN where permitted in accordance with the 2005 Act.”
“There may be hard cases at the edges and I will give consideration to that in advance of the Seanad but the primary purpose of the Bill is, I think, sound in regard to the ability of people who are living to make an application and also for persons who are nominated by them to make an application on their behalf, or the "relative" definition. It is a very broad definition of "relative" that includes grand-nephews, grand-nieces and others involved. That is why it is important to make people aware of this scheme. There are people who may not be aware that they have a great-uncle who was convicted and they could bring the application.”
“Yes. It could be the case that there are no records. The scheme is flexible enough to permit statements. Another thing the Deputy mentioned was the friend. There is a very broad definition of a "relative", which is contained in the scheme and in section 42. This is going to apply in respect of a deceased person. There are mechanisms whereby it could be considered. The person may have nominated a person who is not a relative to make the application on their behalf after they are deceased. However, legislation necessarily discriminates. You identify a group of people that you want to try to benefit.”
“That is why we will be advertising this scheme. I know everyone in this House will co-operate in regard to making people aware of it. Deputy Kelly also asked if I would give consideration to repeating the apology of 2018. I will consider that and listen to what Deputies and people outside have to say. However, I have to say that if you keep repeating an apology, it sometimes lessens the significance of the original apology. I thought that apology in 2018 was very significant and I do not want to take away from it. Deputy Gannon asked if I was open to considering amendments in the Seanad. Of course I am-----”
“Deputy Ó Snodaigh also mentioned the court documents. The court documents are going to be extremely important. I agree with him in respect of that. Deputy Kelly spoke about the pre-1922 convictions and I have already answered. He spoke about there not being an independent body but it is going through the Department of justice. There will obviously be independent people appointed as reviewers but I think this is the most efficient way to get it operating, acted out and achieving the objective as quickly as possible. I do not want to set up some separate statutory agency that has glossy reports, takes a year to get up and running and has PR. We just want to get this thing done and this is the best mechanism by which to do it. There is an independent process in respect of it. I agree with Deputy Kelly about advocacy being very important.”
“Consequently, it would be dishonest and inappropriate for us to go back and say that we have a responsibility for what happened prior to the declaration of the Irish Republic. Really, 1922 is the year that is picked because that is the time when, in effect and notwithstanding the earlier declaration of the Republic, that Irish people became responsible for their own affairs and we operated our own criminal justice system. That is the reason I made the policy decision, and got the approval of the Government, that we would not be going back into the 18th or 19th centuries and issuing pardons to people where we have no liability for what happened to them. Tone and Emmet were convicted of high treason. Are we going to say that we, in some way, are responsible for their convictions and that consequently we could pardon them? I do not think so.”