Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 17 February 2022
87. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Justice the steps which she is taking to restrict the right to be forgotten under the general data protection regulation, GDPR, by convicted sex offenders; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8375/22]
Amharc ar fhreagraThose convicted in our courts of sexual offences against women and children are having their online records wiped away following requests to Google under EU privacy law. It is completely unacceptable, for the sake of the victims who have had to live with the consequences of those perpetrators' actions and any potential future victims, that court reports are being wiped away online. Those convicted of sexual offences should lose the right to be forgotten permanently.
As the Deputy is aware, the general data protection regulation, GDPR, is an EU regulation, by which Ireland is bound. The European Court of Justice is responsible for the interpretation of European law, including the GDPR. The right to be forgotten is a data protection right, which the European Court of Justice developed in 2014 after the Google Spain case.
In this ruling, the court established that users could ask search engines to hide certain URLs from search results when a search is conducted using their name and when the content on the page the URL points to includes information that is "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive". The right to be forgotten affords individuals the ability to exercise control over their personal data. They can decide the information about them that is accessible to the public through search engines. While it gives people the right to seek the deletion of their data, what it does not do is guarantee this will happen. The court established in the Google Spain case and subsequent cases that the right to be forgotten should not apply in cases of information that is relevant to the public interest, including previous convictions. It is important to stress that there has to be a right for individuals to apply and, as set out clearly in the Google Spain case, it is not an absolute right. In cases where there is a public interest element, including previous convictions, that request may be refused. The court ruled that the companies processing the data must determine in each case whether it is in the public interest to retain the data.
I want to be very clear in saying that the general data protection regulation, GDPR, does not give convicted sex offenders an automatic right to have their previous convictions deleted from search engines. While it is not open to me, as Minister for Justice, to change the application or, indeed, interpretation of the GDPR rules, I understand the Deputy’s concerns and I am determined, as in so much of the other work I do, to prevent serious criminals from hiding their pasts. The Sex Offenders (Amendment) Bill, which, as the Deputy is aware, is progressing through the Oireachtas, will ensure that the system for monitoring sex offenders is robust. The Bill includes a number of amendments to the sex offenders register, specifically in regard to notification requirements, as well as providing for electronic tagging, a prohibition on convicted sex offenders engaging in certain types of employment and other measures.
I accept the point made by the Minister, but the reality is that the court system is structured in such a way that convictions are published, decisions are made and judgements are given in public. Guilty parties should not be in a position where they can request and secure the erasure of this information. They are exploiting the privacy laws and this cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. The Minister is correct in that the European Court of Justice decision of 2014 gives the right to request it, but it also gives the right in the public interest to refuse to delete that information. The reality is that the technology companies are not applying that. Once the request is made and there is a historic element to it, they are granting individuals that right and that needs to be rejected, opposed and blocked.
The response of the Department of Justice is that we must uphold the European laws and regulations that have been set out. If there is a situation in which somebody believes information that should not be removed has been removed, that person, be it Deputy Naughten or anybody else, has the right to make a complaint, which would be address by the Data Protection Commissioner. The law is there. It is very clear. The companies are to adhere to that law and there is a process in place whereby a person can make a complaint if that is not the case. We have to make sure that individuals have a right to privacy. The vast majority of those applying this rule, the right to be forgotten, is in the context of information that should be taken down. There are instances where that should not be the case and it is up to the companies to respond to the law that is clearly set out. There is a mechanism for people to appeal that or to make a complaint where they believe the decision is unjust.
With all due respect, telling people that they can appeal a decision when the information is already taken down is no good. The Minister sits at the table of the European Council of Ministers along with her colleagues. I ask her and her colleagues to provide clarification and direction to the technology companies across Europe on this. In terms of convictions for the assault and rape of children and women and adults in this or any other country in Europe, those individuals should be refused point-blank the right to have these records erased. This cannot be allowed to happen. The only defence Google provides is in regard to the length of time since the information was first put online. Google is not carrying out the assessment that the Minister says should be carried out. It should not be up to the victims to have to appeal that. They are the ones who have been abused in the first place. They should not be the ones to enforce this.
The laws and guidelines area clear. The companies are to adhere to them. I have no problem in restating exactly what the companies are required to do. Individuals must have a right to apply for the right to be forgotten. However, it is very clear where it is relevant to the public interest, including previous convictions, that has to be applied. If companies are not applying this, a complaint can be made. I am clear what the laws and rules are and how the companies should be applying them. I will have no problem restating that when I meet with the companies in the coming weeks.
