Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

What does that say for the principle in terms of adults? Do we exclude adults in all cases in this particular category? Am I right in saying there does not appear to be any differentiation in the Bill between suspended sentences and jail sentences? As far as I can see from a quick reading of the Bill, both are regarded as custodial. If that is right, there ought to be a differentiation. That raises the question referred to by Deputy Charles Flanagan about the duration of the period for which someone must be conviction free. Seven and five years' duration seems a very long time indeed. The Law Reform Commission took a fairly conservative position on this matter. I really wonder whether seven and five-year periods are warranted. That is something we will have an opportunity to deal with on Committee Stage.

The fundamental question is why so many young people end up in custodial care for comparatively minor offences. It is a complex issue which we have been debating in other contexts during this parliamentary session, but we seem to have decided to provide more and more prison places rather than addressing questions of rehabilitation and reintegration into society. Some prison accommodation is badly in need of upgrading or replacement. However, the Thornton Hall venture is a massive prison project whose intention, clearly, is that custodial sentences are in prospect for non-violent and relatively minor offences. On the other scale of the criminal justice system, many normally liberal people would say that sentencing policy for far more serious and violent crime is inadequate in terms of the prison sentences meted out. Surely the thrust of our approach ought to be to keep people who are only guilty of minor infractions out of the custodial system. That question is at the very basis of what we are discussing here.

I hope that those who have gone to the trouble of doing some detailed research and who have taken time out to point up what they see as some of the weaknesses in the Bill before us, will be given an audience before we go into committee. On Committee Stage, we will have the opportunity to address in more detail some of the points that have arisen in the context of the Bill. I unreservedly welcome the principle of the Bill. It has taken a long time for us to get this far, but the legislation will be welcomed by tens of thousands of parents around the country whose young fellow, for whatever reason and at a young age, found himself in circumstances where unwittingly he now carries a criminal conviction. For the purposes of future careers, including employment applications, such convictions will be considered spent after a reasonable period. We may have to consider what a reasonable period or timeframe is because not all offences are the same. A six-month sentence threshold seems reasonable, but if one goes beyond that one may have difficulties. However, the significant variations within that rubric of six months should be reflected in the timeframe.

I look forward to the opportunity to tease out some of these issues on Committee Stage. I commend the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, on his effort and on managing to use his position, in a seat I once occupied, to set to one side the claims of his ministerial colleagues and secure time on the floor of the House to introduce this Bill.

See this speech in context