Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I welcome the Minister and the Bill. As an employer, I initially and sceptically questioned whether it was wise legislation. I used to entrust new employees with responsibilities that I would not have given them had I known their histories. One person had a bad history, but we did not check up on it. As an employer, I would have liked to have known whether employees had records.

Having read the Bill and listened to the Minister and Senator van Turnhout, who referred to how a person she called Siobhán took a bar of chocolate and was left with a record, I realise the legislation must change. This Bill is necessary, as it would help people to return to work. Having minor convictions on record can be a sizeable barrier to employment. People may become frustrated. In the worst case scenarios, they may turn to crime or suffer health problems. Employment is key to putting people back on the right track. A record affects employment, training, education, travel and taking out insurance, which means people can face barriers to owning homes.

The Minister explained the Bill well. Should society be judged on how it treats criminals, be they people who made mistakes or committed crimes deliberately and who will consequently suffer for the rest of their lives? We are creating a pool of unemployed people who will have no other option but to live on State benefits.

Recently, the UK Secretary of State for Justice, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, told up to 40 retailers that they should recruit more people fresh from prison. When I read his comments, I wondered whether a retailer would employ someone who was straight out of prison over someone who had never been to prison. Mr. Clarke encouraged them to set up training courses in prisons. A similar scheme was being run by a locksmith and engraving specialist. He stated:

Getting somebody into a steady job upon release from prison is one of the most successful ways of getting them to stop reoffending. With support from organisations like Timpson, we can make a real difference to the lives of prisoners and their families and above all, a reduction in the victims of crime.

Does the Minister agree that there should be such private sector links? Should we do more to foster this work? Having a job plays a large role in breaking the cycle of reoffending and having taxpaying individuals would be a better alternative.

Another recommendation is that 25% of prisoners' gross salaries should go to victims funds, while the remainder of their wages should be used to support dependants or as savings ahead of their release. What about the proposals regarding the making of payments to prisoners? I ask this question in the context of the Irish Prison Service's introduction of a new gratuity regime to reward inmates for good behaviour, while penalising those who are disruptive or refuse to engage with rehabilitative services. We should also ensure everyone convicted of a criminal offence is made aware of the new legislation and offered information and guidance on the long-term impact of having a conviction. Could a person be informed by letter? How does the Minister intend to address this issue?

It has been mentioned that Ireland is the only country that does not have legislation to let criminal convictions lapse after a certain period. From that point of view, the Bill is welcome. By introducing it, we are incentivising people to stay clean, that is, there will be a reward for not committing further crimes. As the Minister explained, this is an essential element. If we continue to label someone as a criminal for the rest of his or her life, it will influence his or her behaviour. We need to remove labels and allow people to move on.

As has been pointed out by the Irish Human Rights Commission, a conviction may be declared spent - that is a good word - for the purposes of the Bill, but information on the existence of the conviction will still be available to employers under the vetting Bill. This seems to be a significant contradiction which will result in barriers for persons convicted of even minor offences who want to return to work.

I am concerned about the length of time a conviction will remain on record. It is not appropriate to have a minor offence or fine on someone's record for up to seven years. Should the commitment in court not to reoffend not count? The report of the Irish Penal Reform Trust reads:

While the limit of 12-months as the maximum sentence to which the legislation will apply is an improvement on the 6-months originally proposed, IPRT believes the Bill should extend to at least 30 months. (In the UK, a 2011 review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (1974) judged the limit of 30 month sentences to be too restrictive.)

The UK example is interesting, in that, under a proposed reform of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, the time after which the convictions of medium-term prisoners would be declared spent would be reduced from ten years to four, while the convictions of short-term prisoners serving sentences of up to six months would be declared spent after two years instead of seven. This reform would cover thousands of persons recently fined or ordered to serve community sentences. They would no longer need to declare their criminal records after one year instead of the existing five. In the United Kingdom a fine would be declared spent one year after being handed down, while a jail term of up to six months would be declared spent two years after the end of the sentence. We should seek to follow this example and help to wipe an offender's slate clean earlier. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch.

We all know that some young people go astray for a number of reasons, including the challenge of growing up. Should we be more lenient on a 17 year old who stole a bicycle and did not know any better? Should we seek to reduce the length of time minor offences are on record for this age group? This might result in them standing a better chance of finding work and turning their lives around. We must try to brighten a younger person's prospects and not end them before they begin.

How does the issue of the publication of convictions relate to archives and online sources which include thousands of reports on trials and convictions? Do people have the right to wipe them clean? It is all well and good that an employer would not see the minor conviction during the hiring process, but he or she could Google a name. This is a complicated matter to which I do not have the answer. There will be a challenge to this provision. I would welcome the Minister's opinions on the matters of privacy and convictions.

Before the Minister of State entered the Chamber, I mentioned that, although I was initially concerned about this legislation, I had come to support and agree with it. However, there are questions to which I would like answers.