Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)

I was interrupted by Deputy Ó Snodaigh so I had to react.

I agree with Deputies Howlin and Ó Snodaigh, drawing on the work of UCD's institute of criminology, that there is much recidivism and more work must be done on it. A statutory framework to deal with rehabilitation must be examined.

Ireland has one of the lowest rates of imprisonment in western Europe, a fact that is lost in many of the arguments. It also has one of the lowest rates of crime. By European standards, our prison capacity is at an average rate. That does not mean we should not be moving along towards issues on rehabilitation.

Finding a job is one of the hardest tasks for prisoners when they leave jail, as they must admit to a criminal record if asked by a prospective employer. Attempts have been made to deal with this in Ireland, to a small extent in the Children Act, and in the UK with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Passed in 1974, at the time it caused much controversy but it allowed ex-offenders to treat their convictions as spent after a set period. As a result, the theory goes, ex-offenders have a better chance of finding work. After the set period, former offenders, if asked by prospective employers if they had a criminal record, could answer "no", effectively permitting them in law to lie.

While I believe the UK legislation is overly-complicated and the rehabilitation period is somewhat short, its advantage is that it only applies to minor offences. A serious offence, under no circumstances, would attract the benefits of the Act. A former offender, who has served a period of detention greater than two and a half years, is not allowed to enjoy the benefit of the Act because the authorities have a serious interest in the employment of that former offender. It excludes certain areas of employment from the operation of the Act, for example, employment where an offender may come in contact with children or vulnerable adults.

In Dún Laoghaire, I have encountered cases of individuals applying for visas to the US. Although, they received a fine for shoplifting as far back as, say, 1972, they must admit they have a criminal record to the US authorities and are, therefore, denied a visa. Some appeal structure in the consular services should be examined.

The 2001 Children Act allows for spent convictions after three years. This runs from the time of the offence, unlike in the UK where the period of rehabilitation runs after the sentence is completed. For a 17 year old who receives a sentence of four years, the period of rehabilitation can be spent before he or she even leaves prison. This is not sensible.

The Law Reform Commission published a consultation paper on the court poor box system which included an analysis of the legislation. It made no recommendations on the rehabilitation of offenders. Nevertheless, there is some activity on this issue on the Government side. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform established the linkage scheme in 1999. Under this system, 273 offenders were placed in employment in 2003. It is wrong to suggest the Government is not addressing the issue of employment for ex-offenders. The linkage system is operating successfully but I believe we need to go further on it. More than half the people released from the prison system will be back in it within four years, a failure of our criminal justice system.

Some Members, particularly before a general election, will talk about vengeance and throwing away the key, talking tough before the electorate. They forget the system is about getting offenders to rehabilitate, deterring re-offending and public safety. If a person has made a sincere attempt to live down a sentence, then he or she should be allowed every opportunity to restore his or her good name and be rehabilitated.

Through a Private Member's Bill, I will propose that a former offender, with a sentence of less than six years, should have to serve a period of ten years rehabilitation before applying, on notice to the victim and Garda, to have the sentence expunged. Similarly, for a former offender who served a sentence of six months to two and a half years, the period of rehabilitation would be 15 years. It would be a way for those with indiscretions in their youth to restore themselves in society. It would be a goal for them to work towards during the course of their rehabilitation.

I accept some serious exceptions arise in such a proposal. The process could not apply to serious offenders, such as sex offenders and those convicted of aggravated assault. In the UK, the respective rehabilitation periods are shorter, five and seven years respectively. However, I would prefer to see our system in operation before any shortening of the periods is considered. Another issue that arises, and Sinn Féin Members have raised it, is the question of former paramilitaries. Should paramilitaries sentenced for offences be entitled to restore their good names, so to speak, and enjoy the benefit of this proposed scheme? It is integral to the Belfast Agreement that we attempt to normalise society North and South. Such a scheme would be useful in this regard in so far as offences are of a minor nature. Conviction for membership of the IRA attracted long sentences in the 1970s and 1980s and such ex-prisoners would not be eligible to apply for the scheme. It is potentially useful in the context of the ongoing peace process.

There is significant support for an increased use of fines to keep people out of prison. Although fines are useful, the statistics indicate that 85% of fine defaulters are back in prison within four years. This is a far higher recidivist rate than that applying to other comparative groups of prisoners. The imposition of fines is a useful alternative to custodial sentences but it will not keep people out of prison. I support Opposition proposals for a scheme of attachment of earnings to replace the standard fine. It is important this is part of any fines legislation.

In the advent of a general election, there is generally much debate about crime. Such debate is generally focused on electioneering and the participants are usually concerned with looking tough on crime and punishment. Some parties have engaged in scaremongering in an attempt to court popular approval. Such activity feeds into people's fear of crime which may, in some cases, be irrational. Crime rates have decreased in the last ten years per head of population. This State is one of the safest places to live in western Europe.

It seems that everywhere we go, however, we are faced with posters and advertisements, including some I saw in Donnybrook today, that feed into this spiral of fear and increase people's anxieties about crime. It is not crime that is the greatest problem but the fear of crime. We must be responsible in our discussion of these issues because our words may cause some people to feel less safe in their homes. We do not want people to experience a level of fear that goes beyond natural caution. Once politicisation enters the debate on crime, the usefulness of that debate is reduced. The reality is that major improvements have been made and that we were operating from a low base of criminal activity.

I am not a supporter of mandatory sentences. Such sentences apply to drug related crime but are often not applied because, for example, the defendant pleads guilty, thus saving the State the cost of a lengthy trial and the victim the ordeal of giving evidence in court. The mandatory sentence may not be applied because the judge is of the view there is absolutely no chance the perpetrators will be able to rehabilitate themselves in prison. Each case is different and should be treated on its merits. It is completely wrong to prejudge; the facts and circumstances of each case are different. We must have confidence in the judicial system and the criminal justice system in general that these matters will be dealt with as fairly as possible.

There has been much debate recently on crime reporting. There is no doubt that some media commentary tends to stoke up fear. We must caution people in the media against being overreactive to instances of crime. The media have a responsibility not to be governed by anecdote but rather to take account of comprehensive evidence to indicate the broader patterns that apply.

We need policies that break the cycle of imprisonment. Our prisons must have adequate facilities and resources to help people move away from a life of crime. The replacement of Mountjoy Prison cannot happen soon enough. It is an inappropriate environment for the provision of the types of services that should be available in a civilised society. Prison is not all about society's vengeance; rehabilitation is equally important. I support this Bill.

See this speech in context