Aideen Hayden (Labour)

I also welcome the Minister to the House. I congratulate him on the general direction in which he is taking the justice system. The Criminal Justice (Community Service) (Amendment) Bill recognised the importance of using prison as a last resort and this Bill is a step in a similar direction. The Minister's announcement on Limerick Prison is very welcome. We are all well aware that our current prison system is not exactly fit for a modern-day society and it shames us.

It is a bit of a misnomer, however, to use the title, the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill. The fundamental problem with the Bill is that it does not expunge criminal records. The Minister stated that it does not wipe the slate clean and that offences remain on the record but what it does do is allow ex-offenders, after a certain period has elapsed, to move on with their lives, so to speak. I would regard it as a bit like the "don't tell" type of situation in the army in the United States whereby if a person is gay, the argument is that one does not ask and one does not tell. I am somewhat concerned that this legislation is a little bit along similar lines. Were I to ask the Minister one question, it would be to explain to the House why he did not go down the route of expunging the criminal record entirely. The current position is a half-light. One might even call this the "disregarding convictions in certain circumstances Bill". While we must try to weigh the difficulties the Minister faces in terms of media approaches to people with criminal records and the incitement to hatred in the public domain, given fearful headlines about criminals being let loose on society, I am concerned by the extensive exceptions in the Bill, for example, when working with children. Under no circumstances would the sentences covered by the Bill encompass the type of sentence one might incur for having molested a child, etc. Why would someone with a criminal record for the non-payment of a television licence fee or some other minor conviction not be eligible for this type of disregard? The Minister stated that responsible and fair employers should pick the best person for the job and only allow a person's conviction to enter the equation when it is a material consideration. We would love it if employers always behaved appropriately, but we have an entire body of law to ensure that they do because circumstances arise in which they do not.

We live in a modern age in which electronic media is used in a way not envisaged by the bulk of law when the criminal justice system was established in the 19th century. People can discover a wide range of information about other people without their consent. A self-administered system that does not expunge the record of offences will leave people vulnerable to electronic surveillance and electronic disclosures.

I am stating the obvious, as the Minister is well aware of my next point. We are discussing minor crimes. In 2009, 3,601 sentence committals were for road traffic offences and represented one third of the total number of committals. Some 20.8% of sentence committals in 2009 were for offences against property without violence. Although crime rates have decreased, the number of prison sentences quadrupled between 1980 and 2010. Therefore, the number of people to whom this legislation is relevant has increased.

Let us be realistic, in that this is a class issue. Teenagers or people in their early 20s might go on the rampage after a night of drinking and a little bit of committing property damage. I am not trying to undermine this type of offence, but the average prisoner in Mountjoy Prison is statistically likely to be a 28 year old male, with a 16% chance his father went to prison, a 44% chance a sibling served time, only a 7% likelihood he stayed in school after the age of 16 years, a 40% chance he suffers some form of psychological condition, and a 79% chance he is an intravenous drug user. Many authorities, including the school of criminology at UCD, agree there is a link between deprivation and the likelihood of committing a crime. Some 60% of people serving sentences of six months' duration or less are poor and have often experienced homelessness. If we want to give vulnerable people in society a chance, we must be realistic about what that chance is.

The Bill is a step in the right direction, but I would be interested to know why the Minister did not go down the road of expunging sentences entirely. When people have served their punishments, we should cease the practice of discriminating against them. The best way to do so is to clean their records. I do not mean this in the context of non-disclosure, but in terms of cleaning their records entirely. I am sure the Minister has received papers on the same statistics. Some 225 college courses offered through the CAO require Garda vetting. Some may include social work elements. For someone coming from a deprived community who wants to do social work within a deprived community, especially with children, surely it would be better for him or her to be allowed to do so. Will the Minister reconsider the exemption on working with children? If an offence is not a serious one concerning a child, why should disclosing it be obligatory? Minor offences such as failing to pay for a television licence should not be barriers to employment in the case of, for example, driving a taxi. I refer in particular to vulnerable people who have experience of the prison system.

I welcome the legislation. It is a step in the right direction, but will the Minister go further? In the electronic age, the choice not to self-disclose is not a sufficient protection for people with convictions. They would be better served by having their entire records expunged.