Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

My colleagues dealing with previous legislation are clearly wearied after a very long session and as a result we are now dealing with the Spent Convictions Bill.

The Bill started life as a Private Members' Bill and I welcome its principle and commend the Minister of State, Deputy Andrews, for bringing the Bill forward. It is somewhat surprising that it has taken until the last days of 2008 to address this issue. The British Home Office did a survey some time ago of 21 different jurisdictions and, from my memory, only Ireland and Slovenia did not have some form of legislation dealing with the issue of spent convictions. The United Kingdom Rehabilitation of Offenders Act goes back to the mid 1970s — I believe it was 1974 — and it has taken us a long time to bring forward a relatively simple and straightforward measure that has considerable potential in the rehabilitation of young offenders in particular.

In his statement, the Minister of State indicated the central point of the Bill is to provide to persons having a conviction for a minor offence the opportunity of not disclosing that conviction when seeking employment. Any of us with knowledge of people convicted of minor offences know the route back to employment is difficult. It is very well to speak theoretically about rehabilitation and re-integration to society but the way to readjust to normal society is through employment.

We should be honest about the fact that a conviction, albeit for a minor offence of the kind anticipated by the Minister of State, Deputy Andrews, in this Bill weighs heavily on the minds of many prospective employers. They would not proceed to the stage of employment if a young person that might otherwise be suitable has a conviction on record.

For that reason I am concerned about the exclusion of the public service from the provisions. I apologise to the Minister of State as I was not in the House to hear his rationale in this respect but I have difficulty understanding the exclusion of the Civil Service. I know the Law Reform Commission went along with the exclusion but the logic seems to be that it is fine for us to require private sector employers to take this risk of employing somebody with a record but in the State sector, it is not to be considered under any circumstances. I do not know if this is logical.

In his statement the Minister of State went on to indicate that there are several limitations and exclusions where disclosure will always be required. He instances as the most notable of those cases where there is access to children. We must consider the area of limitations and exclusions on Committee Stage. In certain sensitive positions there must be exclusions, but I wonder if the provisions must be as wide as the Minister provides for in his Bill. The exclusion of the Civil Service seems to be a major issue before we get down to discussing the nature of certain offences.

Deputy Charles Flanagan referred to the group that came into existence — it may have been formed as a result of the Minister of State's Private Members' Bill or the Law Reform Commission report — that has done a good deal of work with this issue. It comprises people at the coalface and with direct experience, including lawyers. These include the Coolock law centre. The group has direct experience, especially with young people and of the phenomenon we are addressing here. It has put together quite a significant submission.

I do not know if the Minister of State has met representatives of the group or if he has had the opportunity to study the submission, but I recommend it to him. On Committee Stage we must tease out some of the issues raised by the group, including the exclusionary clauses. For example, it states:

Further safeguards would be introduced by the provision for exclusion from the scheme in respect of sensitive posts, positions or professions so that applicants would be required to disclose all previous convictions when applying for such positions. The group would recommend exclusions along similar lines to those proposed by the Law Reform Commission, including, for example, those working with vulnerable members of society.

So they accept that in certain sensitive cases exclusions are desirable, but we must be very careful. Having brought forward a piece of legislation that was introduced as a Private Members' Bill and has now been adopted by the Government, we are not likely to revisit this issue easily, having left it for so long. The Penal Reform Trust, the Law Society and the combination of organisations in the project group to which Deputy Charles Flanagan referred, have direct experience so they should be heard. I hope that the Minister will engage with them directly. The Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights ought to hear from them directly also because the legislation is now on Second Stage. We owe them that much.

It is sad to see young males, in particular, who cross the line and end up with a criminal conviction, even though it may be for a minor offence. It is sad to see the implications of that early transgression for their future livelihoods and careers. The measure proposed by the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, will expunge that record for some of these young people. However, we could easily settle for a somewhat more radical and inclusive measure.

I was struck by the project group tackling sexual offences head on. As I entered the Chamber, I heard the Minister of State make some reference to that. The group acknowledges that the question of sex offenders is likely to prove controversial. It went on to contend that sex offenders would be entitled to avail of the scheme, stating:

. . . there would appear to be an innate prejudice against sex offenders, no doubt attributable to the heinous nature of their crimes, which leads to an assumption that they are predisposed to offend and are incapable of rehabilitation. This view, however, is not supported by research in this area. A recent UCD study found that sex offenders are less likely to reoffend than most other groups. It must be borne in mind that under the proposed scheme, sex offenders will have to establish before a central authority that they have been rehabilitated and this should go towards reassuring the public.

Quite honestly, I do not know enough about that issue to draw conclusions on it today. I would like to hear evidence on that aspect, however, which has been raised by people who have given some thought to this. Is there not already a provision in the Children Act for expunging criminal convictions for minor offenders?

See this speech in context