Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)

I thank Deputies for their contributions and for their welcome for the Bill.

The intention is that the Bill will be used by judges, probation officers and those working with ex-offenders, including prison officers. Judges when considering what sentence to hand down to a person must have regard to the need to punish an individual, the need to deter others, the need to protect society and to rehabilitate. The Bill is a useful measure which will allow a judge to advise an offender on conviction and sentence that there exists a facility through which he or she can restore himself or herself to society. Equally, it will be a useful measure for those working with offenders.

In general, detention is a last resort in sentencing under our criminal justice system. The Probation Act is widely used by judges and the youth diversion programme is widely used by the Garda Síochána. Also, more emphasis is now being placed on restorative justice. This means that those in custody are not put there lightly. We do not like to detain people and will use this measure only as a means of last resort.

The number of people captured by the Bill, in terms of the six month period set down, is substantial. More than 60% of sentences are on average for six months or less, thus meaning the provision will capture a large category of people. This does not mean that we will give up on the other 40% in terms of rehabilitation, but that this measure will be available to those offenders who have short custodial sentences. There is no doubt but that the recidivism rate in Ireland is high. This Bill does not represent a magic wand which will end this, but it will provide assistance to those people working with ex-offenders.

On Deputy Rabbitte's point, I have met with the Law Society which has its own committee on this issue. I have also spoken with representatives of the Irish Penal Reform Trust and businesses in the community who work closely with ex-offenders. They have given me some useful advice on this matter. On the employment situation, I must point out that although certain employments are excluded, this does not mean a person cannot obtain a job in them. That door is not closed to them. They must, however, disclose any conviction to a prospective employer, including in the public service, Civil Service and all other categories. Such people may still seek work but must, if asked, disclose any previous convictions. That is the only change that will be introduced. However, I will examine the question of the public service and whether we can narrow it down into a more targeted approach so that we can try to ensure individuals can access non-sensitive jobs in the public service and Civil Service.

I will not change the situation regarding sex offenders. Deputy Rabbitte made the point that they may be less likely to reoffend. That is perhaps true but the consequences of them reoffending are so great as to not permit me to ask any employer to take a risk on non-disclosure in those circumstances. In regard to suspended sentences, it is only the custodial part of a sentence that is considered in respect to the six months that is referred to in the Bill.

Regarding adoption, most adoptions currently are inter-country adoptions. Therefore, they are based on agreements with other countries and it would be asking a lot to expect other countries to have agreements with us concerning adoptions by ex-offenders. It may be a step too far. That said, I look forward to the Committee Stage debate on the issue.

Deputy Charlie Flanagan's remark that the rehabilitation period is too long was echoed by others. The thinking behind it is that the Children Act specifies a period of three years and the Law Reform Commission recommended at least double that in respect of adults. However, we will listen to the debate that takes place on those rehabilitation periods to see whether there is a justification for shortening them. There is no question of lengthening them.

The major objective of the Bill is to facilitate the rehabilitation of offenders. That is a worthy objective that benefits not only the individual concerned, but also society at large. It is in the interests of society generally that we break the cycle of crime. There are many ways of doing that but securing steady, gainful employment has been shown to be among the most effective and useful. The aim of the Bill is to reduce the barriers to the re-entry into the workforce of a person who has a conviction for a minor offence.

It is important to be clear about the precise manner in which the Bill approaches the matter of past convictions. The Bill does not entail a deletion or removal of the details of the conviction from the criminal records. Instead, it sets out the circumstances in which such details need not be disclosed. The Law Reform Commission summarised the position very well. Its report debates the balance between the individual and wider society. The individual will feel he has served his punishment and should be allowed to rebuild his life. He will be concerned that his privacy is breached each time he has to reveal an old conviction. However, society, on the other hand, has a proper interest in maintaining a permanent record of criminal convictions, in order to ensure reliable vetting for sensitive employment posts.

Following that debate, the commission has presented us with a proposal which I and the Government think is reasonable and acceptable and which finds the right balance between the interests involved. The proposal respects the needs of wider society while also moving a considerable distance to meet the legitimate concerns of minor offenders. It achieves that by permitting non-disclosure while placing reasonable limits on the circumstances where that may arise. The commission suggests that the limits are justified by reference to the nature of some convictions as well as the requirements attaching to certain types of employment. We all know of certain employments where information about past convictions is always a relevant consideration.

Many public service and Civil Service posts entail the job holder acting in a position of trust in regard to public funds or information that is confidential or sensitive and which must not be revealed either because it is personal or it would not be in the public interest to do so. It is important that the public retains trust and confidence in those to whom they entrust such information or who disburse the public's money. It is, therefore, important that people in public service and Civil Service posts are known and are seen to be above suspicion. Ensuring they have no criminal convictions is an important means of providing the assurance that the public requires.

There are also certain offences that must always be disclosed. Particular offences are selected by reference not just to the offence itself, but also by reference to the employment situations. It would never be acceptable, for example, that a person with even a minor conviction for a sexual offence would be allowed to work with children or vulnerable adults.

The Law Reform Commission's proposals and the Bill build on the regime already in place under the Children Act 2001. Although the regime for children is somewhat broader in terms of, for example, the offences that need not be disclosed, it nevertheless represents the same general approach that is found in the Bill. The difference in treatment can be explained and accepted on the basis of age and the need to avoid branding persons on the basis of their childhood activities.

I am aware that it will be necessary to amend the Bill in several respects and, in the course of my opening remarks, I have already identified several matters requiring amendment. It may take a little while to finalise the amendments. Nevertheless, I have no hesitation in saying that the overall approach being set out in the Bill is a good one that will benefit many thousands of people. The amendments will not alter the overall approach but will help clarify aspects of the Bill. For today's purposes, I am happy to wholeheartedly recommend the Bill to the House.

See this speech in context