Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)

Records will remain on PULSE when a person emigrates to the USA. Most countries require a person to disclose all convictions, including spent convictions, and we have no control over that. We cannot tell other countries what to ask for.

On sentencing in court cases, the prosecution can refer to previous convictions despite the fact they are covered by this legislation. There was a suggestion a person could apply to the Garda for a certificate but that provision already exists and the Bill provides that where a person requests his record, the spent convictions will be provided separately. There would be two certificates. In reply to Senator Leyden, we were hoping to stay away from that process on the basis that we do not want people going into the system again, but I understand his point.

The Minister for Justice and Equality had to leave because he has been busy in recent days and he asked me to respond and to express his gratitude for the support Members of the House have given to the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill. As the Minister said when he addressed the House earlier, this historic legislation is at one with other initiatives aimed at making our criminal justice system work better for society. We want to reduce crime and see offenders caught and brought to justice. We want them to undergo whatever sanctions the courts impose, not from any desire for revenge but to ensure those who offend against society pay their debt for doing so. When the debt has been paid, however, it is in all our interests that those people do not re-offend and are reintegrated into society as quickly as possible. Senator Leyden's comment that it could be an incentive not to re-offend is well made.

This is an important Bill that resonates with Members on all sides of the House. Those of us in public life have met countless numbers of people whose lives have been blighted by some misdemeanour committed many years previously. We all know decent people who want to move on but feel they will never get an even break when they admit to a conviction, no matter how minor or how long ago. This Bill has the potential to remove the ball and chain a criminal record can represent to people. Even when everyone else has moved on, the person still feels a cloud hangs over him. This is the case even where the cloud relates to a minor misdemeanour that occurred a generation ago. There is a sense, and I am sure Members have encountered this when dealing with the public, that the stain of a criminal record is indelible. While we might wish for a more enlightened society where a person is judged on his own merits, the concern, legitimate or otherwise, of the person is that he will never get a fair chance.

The contributions to this debate have been both thoughtful and thought-provoking. Those contributions have recognised the overall positive aspects of the Bill and understandably have raised questions about its discretionary aspects, such as the length of sentences covered, the length of the rehabilitation periods and the exclusions related to employment. In each of these areas, the Minister has tried to strike a balance between the competing interests of the offender and society. There is no right answer in the sense that where the line is drawn is a matter of judgement. Spent conviction regimes, where they exist across the globe, vary widely. In some jurisdictions, such as New Zealand, only non-custodial sentences are covered. This means that who is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, no matter how short, can never have that conviction disregarded. In addition, the rehabilitation period for all convictions is seven years. Meanwhile in various Australian states, the sentences covered range from six months to 30 months, with a ten year rehabilitation period.

While Britain has recently reformed its regime to make it one of the more liberal, with shorter rehabilitation periods and covering longer sentences, the scheme outlined in this Bill places Ireland at the more generous end of the international spectrum. The safe option would have been to follow the Law Reform Commission recommendations. Instead, the Government made the conscious decision to make the scheme accessible to the greatest number of ex-offenders, consistent with the protection of society at large.

A defining feature of this Bill is that the scheme is self-administered. This means individuals can establish for themselves whether they qualify, and once they have done so they can choose whether to declare a past conviction, as the case may be. The alternative of an application-based system as applies in many countries would involve costly administration for the State and the individual and would in many ways negate the positive aspects of the Bill. The ordeal of having to make a case before a judge to have a conviction declared spent could deter some from availing of the scheme. It is arguably counter-intuitive to force people back into the justice system to escape from it. Instead, we are providing a system where people, in the privacy of their homes, can determine whether they qualify. To my mind that is one of the more appealing aspects of the scheme and one that will recommend itself to those who wish to avail of it.

None of this is to say the Bill cannot be improved, and the Minister said he is open to all proposals that will improve it. He will be bringing forward a small number of amendments on Committee Stage to address some gaps in the Bill, and he looks forward to hearing suggestions as to how the Bill might be improved. Coming at this later than most of the rest of the western world has its advantages. We have their experiences on which to draw and we have been especially fortunate to have the Law Reform Commission report to guide our work. I pay tribute to the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Irish Penal Reform Trust for their work and whose commentaries on the LRC report were taken into account in the drafting of this Bill. The Irish Human Rights Commission has also issued observations on the Bill this week and these will be considered as it progresses through the Houses. From the reaction to the Bill, both in this House and from members of the public, we are satisfied the legislation addresses many of the concerns of people and will allow the majority of law-abiding people to get on with their lives.

There are some who have turned over a new leaf but the seriousness of whose crimes means they will not benefit under the Bill. People convicted of sex offences, people sentenced to more than 12 months in prison and people tried in the Central Criminal Court do not benefit under the Bill. The line has to be drawn somewhere and the reality is the provisions in the Bill go much further than the Law Reform Commission recommended, by doubling the length of sentence covered from six months to one year. By our estimate, in excess of 90% of custodial sentences handed down by the courts are covered, as well as all non-custodial sentences with the exception of suspended sentences of more than one year. While it is difficult to put exact figures on this, it is almost certainly the case that in excess of 95% of all sentences are covered by this spent convictions regime. By any standards, that is the majority of sentences and, except for the serial offenders, the majority of people convicted in our courts.

While the focus of this legislation is on offenders and their rehabilitation, we must never forget the victims of crime. That we might address the plight of ex-offenders is not to suggest in any way that we are any less concerned for victims of crime. Those who commit crimes must be caught, prosecuted and convicted. They must pay their debt to society and, in appropriate cases, to the victims of their crimes. This Bill does not deduct from these principles one iota, but once that debt has been paid and once a reasonable crime-free period has elapsed, society has an interest in allowing the person to move on and contribute fully to society - no more, no less.

I again express my appreciation and that of the Minister for the general welcome the House has given the Bill. I assure Senators that all their suggestions as to how the Bill might be improved will be considered and we look forward to a more detailed discussion of the Bill an Committee Stage. We may have opinions on whether we could have been more liberal or more restrictive, but this is the Bill as proposed. It will be amended and there will be a broader discussion on Committee Stage.