Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoir as ucht an deis seo a thabhairt dom labhairt ar an mBille um Chiontuithe Spíonta 2007, atá an-tábhachtach. Nuair a d'fhoilsigh an tAire an reachtaíocht seo anuraidh, ghabh mé comhghairdeas leis. Dúirt mé ag an am cé gur aontaigh mé leis an mBille, ba chóir dó dul i bhfad níos faide. Labhróidh mé mar gheall ar na fadhbanna atá agam leis an reachtaíocht níos déanaí. I dtús báire, díreoidh mé ar ghnéithe maithe an Bhille, atá thar am teacht os comhair na Dála.

This Bill provides for a non-disclosure regime whereby certain convictions would be considered spent rather than expunged and would not need to be disclosed to a prospective employer after a set period of conviction-free living, defined in the Bill as a rehabilitation period. The provision only applies to minor convictions involving a sentence not exceeding six months' imprisonment. Where a custodial sentence is involved, the conviction-free period must be seven years. In the case of a conviction that did not result in a prison order, the period is set at five years. A range of offences and employment types are expressly excluded.

I welcome the Bill, which represents the first time outside the Children Act that the State has recognised that a minor conviction should not hang over a person for the rest of his or her life. People make mistakes. Many of those who will be covered by the Bill made one mistake and suffered the consequences, namely, the courts and the judge's sentence. However, the conviction hangs over them for the rest of their lives. Not only do their choice of jobs become limited, but they are also limited in society.

I hope the Bill is the start of an understanding whereby, if a court finds against someone, the sentence handed down should not incur another sentence thereafter. The Dáil has taken the position that certain sentences must stand forever and be placed on a record of sorts, such as the sex offenders' and drug dealers' registers. I am not suggesting that there should be major changes made to either of those.

The primary objective of a justice policy must be to reduce crime, but it must also prevent re-offending. While the first purpose of handing down a prison sentence is to punish someone for wrongdoing, the second is to try to rehabilitate the individual. I hope the Bill adds incentives to prevent someone from re-offending. Too often, individuals go to prison on a small sentence, fall in with a bad crowd and stay with it when they get out. There does not seem to be an incentive. In their eyes, they have been labelled for life. I hope the Bill will reduce this consequence or explain that, if someone goes to prison on a small sentence or is handed down a non-custodial sentence, the label could be removed if he or she subsequently lives a crime-free lifestyle for a period of seven years or five years, respectively. This will ensure that people who have a desire to acquire gainful employment or some other position will understand that they have a duty to themselves and society to remain crime free. In so doing, they will benefit under the Bill.

Unwarranted barriers to employment and discrimination must be proactively removed. A range of barriers serve to inhibit the rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-prisoners in particular. The fields in which discrimination operates to exclude those with a prior conviction include employment, accommodation, travel and adoption, depending on the sentence. The judge in a number of cases in the 1980s was mindful of the circumstances of those before him and tried to encourage them to leave the State. Instead of giving a sentence, he gave them the Probation Act in case they ever wanted to go to America. It was a blatant hint. The judge gave people the opportunity to emigrate to America because if they had a conviction on record, they would not have been able to do so. Here we are again giving people an opportunity if they have committed a one-off mistake, such as being in the wrong place at the wrong time, fuelled by drink or so on. If they are genuinely remorseful, they will understand the terms set out in the Bill.

People with a conviction are discriminated against. The extent of the discrimination should not be either overestimated or underestimated, but a recent study found that 48% of employers would not employ someone with a criminal record. These barriers serve to exacerbate Ireland's high recidivism rate. If so many employers will not employ someone with a criminal record, irrespective of the nature of that record, the people to be addressed by the Bill will be excluded from a number of areas of employment. The Bill is welcome in this respect.

However, as a first step the Bill is small in scope and late. Britain has had a spent conviction regime since the 1970s, but we are still waiting for one. I hope the Bill will progress quickly so that we can catch up with other regimes. In February, the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, indicated that the Bill would be introduced in a matter of weeks, but it was not to be.

I hope the Bill will pass Second Stage quickly, but we must spend a bit of time on Committee Stage, as Deputy Rabbitte stated, to determine whether we can improve it without labouring the point. It must stand the test of time without being overly restrictive concerning those who have been convicted.

A more complex and proportionate regime than that contained in the Bill should be introduced. A scheme could be introduced whereby the duration of the rehabilitation period required would, depending on the length of sentence attached to the past conviction, vary. The current position is that the rehabilitation period in respect of a six-month sentence is seven years. Might it be possible to consider applying a ten-year rehabilitation period in respect of sentences of less than two years' duration?

Quite a number of individuals, particularly young people, serve sentences of more than six months. In that context, we should consider ways to encourage them to stay away from the characters they meet in prison and those who led them to be in prison in the first instance, and to avoid the type of activity that led to their incarceration. Knowing that their mistakes would be considered a thing of the past after ten years might provide such encouragement. It might then be possible to deal with sentences of more than two years' duration but the rehabilitation period relating thereto would obviously be much longer.

A further age-related tier, linked to the length of the rehabilitation period required, could be introduced in order that account might be taken of the age of those between, for example, 18 and 20 and 20 and 25. Under the overly cautious terms of the Bill, an 18 year old who commits a once-off minor offence may, as a result of the seven-year rehabilitation period, have a conviction hanging over him or her until he or she reaches 27 years of age because the rehabilitation period can commence up to two years after an offence is committed.

The rehabilitation period will only commence following incarceration. However, there are those who are arrested and subsequently convicted who do not avail of bail because they know they have been caught bang to rights and are willing to serve the first six to 12 months of a sentence because they have an idea of what will be the eventual duration of that sentence. These individuals will not benefit because the first 12 months detention before a trial takes place will not be taken into account. Perhaps time served prior to conviction in respect of the offence committed might be taken into account as part of the rehabilitation period.

Facing employment-related discrimination during the crucial years between conviction and the end of the rehabilitation period can be difficult, particularly for young people who may be trying to lay the foundations of a career. There can be lifelong consequences if these individuals are prevented from embarking on a set course of employment for seven years. I accept that such consequences result from the offence committed in the first instance. However, I am of the view that we should consider introducing a shorter rehabilitation period of perhaps five years in respect of those between the ages of 18 and 20.

We can tease this matter out further before Committee Stage, examine how similar regimes have worked in other countries and try to establish whether those regimes were tweaked in order to incorporate proposals such as that which I have put forward. We should also try to establish whether a shorter rehabilitation for younger people assists in reducing the rate of recidivism among them. The recidivism rate among young people in Ireland is one of the highest in Europe. I am not suggesting that we reward people for offences they have committed, I am concerned with ensuring that they do not reoffend and that they are given the opportunity to become upstanding members of society.

The provisions relating to excluded areas of employment in the Bill are too broad. It is crucial that work involving substantial access to children or vulnerable adults should be afforded special protection. No one denies that. However, because of the nature of this exemption from a spent conviction regime, I am of the view that the offence committed should have some relevance. For example, if a person is convicted of committing malicious damage or some similar crime, will he or she be excluded — for the remainder of his or her life or for the duration of the period in question — from accessing the opportunity to become a carer?

Are there offences which, if committed, should exclude people from working as teachers, special needs assistants, carers, youth workers, etc? Some of the individuals in question are often best placed to understand the young people with whom they would like to work because they understand the pitfalls of life better than those who have not been exposed to the justice system. We must be careful that we do not continue the type of exclusion that exists in many instances at present.

The available evidence suggests that the blanket exclusion relating to all posts in health care and the Civil Service and certain legal and financial-related posts is not justified. I accept that there may be certain offences which might exclude a person from taking up a position in the area of finance. For example, very few banks would employ someone who had committed a robbery. However, if the person in question were convicted of a public order offence, should he or she be excluded from occupying financial-related or legal posts? Having gone before the courts and been sentenced, he or she would probably have a better understanding of the legal system than many of those employed in the legal profession at present. Perhaps employing a few more former convicted felons in this profession might shake up the legal system and bring an air of reality to it. Where the nature of a past conviction is not relevant following a rehabilitation period, employers or others should not be presented with the unwarranted opportunity to discriminate.

A range of issues is not addressed in the Bill. The Minister of State must either produce separate legislation or incorporate new provisions in the Bill to address the situation relating to former political prisoners. The British-Irish Agreement was concluded ten years ago, but former political prisoners are still subject to grave discrimination in respect of many areas ranging from employment to adoption. I recently communicated with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in respect of someone who was prevented from becoming a carer because the vetting process announced his former conviction to all and sundry and the HSE took a dim view of the situation. Even though the Minister stated that the conviction did not, in itself, bar it from employing the person, the HSE used it as such.

The Spent Convictions Bill does not go far enough in respect of the people to whom I refer. In light of what is contained in the British-Irish Agreement, the expunging of these records would send out a signal that Ireland has put the past behind us and moved on. The Government must tackle this issue head on.

A former Republican prisoner was annoyed when he and his partner were denied the opportunity to adopt a child based on a conviction which was more than 20 years old. There has been dramatic changes in our society and political make-up during the past 20 years. This person has served his prison time, which is sentence enough, and is now regarded by all and sundry as an upstanding citizen. The political nature of the conflict in Ireland must be recognised and this recognition must be extended to political ex-prisoners against whom discrimination must end.

As I stated, while this Bill may not be the appropriate legislation to address this issue, it nevertheless deals with related matters. I believe the Bill provides us with an opportunity to address that issue, for which I will argue on Committee Stage. In addition, prior to Committee Stage I will try to formulate an amendment which the Government may be able to take on board. Sinn Féin is not alone in arguing this point. The Human Rights Commission has proposed that equality legislation be extended to include the status of ex-prisoners as a prohibitive ground in terms of discrimination. This would also include political prisoners.

I welcome the Bill which, if passed as it stands, will be a welcome step. My desire is to have a better Bill, one that is extended to cover the issues I mentioned. Given the significant cost to the State of incarceration, anything we can do to prevent recidivism and further incarceration of people who have already served a sentence will augur well. By this I mean that we must put in place a proper rehabilitative scheme within the prison system which provides education and training to those wishing to better themselves during the period of their detention, thus benefiting the State thereafter. Unless this is followed up with a regime which permits such people to obtain full employment and to once again become full members of society who are not discriminated against owing to their past records, to the degree they have been to date, that will be money badly spent. This Bill will, it is hoped, save the State money and benefit society as a whole. If the Government takes on board the suggestions I have made, society will benefit and more ex-prisoners will be able to play a better and more productive role in society.

If this Bill is to contribute in a significant way to a long-term reduction in crime, it will require extensive amendment. I made some suggestions in this regard earlier and will make others in the future. The Minister would do well to reconsider prior to Committee Stage the proposals from the Irish Penal Reform Trust. While I could quote chapter and verse in that regard, I do not agree 100% with all that is contained in its submission. It is good that we are having this debate given the current climate outside the prison system. Crime, and in particular violent crime, is on the rise. This is associated with drug taking and drug dealing which is at an all time high. Our society is becoming more violent.

While we send out the message that we will be tough on those who commit crime, we must also send out the message that those people caught up in a once-off situation, who make a mistake and who are genuinely remorseful after an incident, will be given the opportunity to rehabilitate. As I said earlier, this is, at the end of the day, the role of our justice system. We must permit people following completion of a prison sentence imposed by a court to once again become a full member of society. A person against whom society discriminates is not a full member of society. There are offenders who, given their nature and the likelihood of re-offending, in particular sex offenders, must be monitored and tracked to ensure they do not have an opportunity to re-offend. Many people are sentenced to prison for relatively short periods and relatively minor offences. There is no incentive, other than the goodwill of society or the threat of a greater sentence, for them not to re-offend. Often people who have been in their view harshly sentenced have a desire to get back at society. We must ensure that under the new regime there is, as stated by the Irish Penal Reform Trust, sufficient flexibility of proportionality in this regard.

It is hoped that through our discussions on Committee Stage we will succeed in ensuring that the Bill, when passed, will be something of which we can all be proud.

See this speech in context