Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

I am sharing time with Deputies Dooley and Browne.

In producing its proposals for reform, the Law Reform Commission undertook a wide-ranging examination of the issues involved in this area, including a review of spent conviction arrangements in other jurisdictions. At present, the only mechanism available in this jurisdiction for the non-disclosure of previous convictions is that provided in section 258 of the Children Act 2001. That section provides for non-disclosure after a period of three years has elapsed in the case of certain convictions for offences committed before turning 18. Offences triable by the Central Criminal Court are excluded. In addition, the section can be availed of only if the person has not been dealt with for an offence in the previous three years. This Bill provides Members, therefore, with the means to put in place a structured system for not disclosing convictions. It is not a charter to avoid the consequences of a crime and I have been careful to include exclusions in the Bill in order to avoid such an unintended consequence.

All Members will agree that in general, people should be allowed to move on with their lives after completing a term of imprisonment or the payment of a fine. In the eyes of many in society, this is equally as legitimate an aspiration as the pursuit of the crime and the paying for its consequences in the first place. Unfortunately, however, practical and vocational experience demonstrates that the possibility of securing employment is greatly reduced once a prospective employer becomes aware of the existence of a criminal record and in the absence of any general statutory non-disclosure arrangement, the prospective employee often is obliged, when asked, to reveal the information recorded on Garda criminal records. The effect of the current position is that a person who was over 18 when an offence was committed must carry with him or her the consequences of even a minor offence long after the debt to society has been repaid. This Bill provides people who have a conviction for a minor offence the opportunity of not disclosing that conviction when seeking employment. It recognises that the most effective means of rehabilitation is through gainful employment.

Employment restores a person's self-esteem, enhances his or her status among family, friends and the wider community and, as has been shown many times, reduces considerably the likelihood of reoffending. Securing employment is a highly effective way of achieving the reintegration of convicted people into society. This Bill, however, also takes account of the wider interests of society and in particular the protection of vulnerable persons. It contains several limitations and exclusions in which disclosure will always be required, the most notable relating to employment in which there is access to children. This Bill does not seek to excuse crime in any way. If one does the crime, one will still do the time under this Bill's provisions. Moreover, it should not be seen as a sop and as a party, Fianna Fáil will continue to advocate, with I am sure the agreement of the House, that the full force of the law be applied to all those who are convicted of any offence.

I wish to cover some of the provisions of the Bill. The effect of a conviction being regarded as "spent" is set out in section 4. Where a conviction is "spent", the person will be treated as a person who has not committed, been charged with, prosecuted for, convicted of or sentenced for the offence in question. The Bill does not entail any deletion of criminal records held by the Garda Síochána. The record will continue to exist and the Bill will merely specify circumstances in which the details of that record are or are not to be disclosed. The Bill will apply only in cases in which a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine or other penalty has been imposed.

The Law Reform Commission report on spent convictions of 2007 gave detailed consideration to the sentence threshold and concluded, based on Irish sentencing policy and practice, that a six-month threshold was appropriate in our circumstances. The possibility of non-disclosure will arise only after seven years have passed without a further conviction when a sentence of imprisonment had been imposed or after five years in other cases. The Law Reform Commission's report also examined this issue carefully and recommended the periods now proposed. Moreover, it noted that a conviction-free period of ten years is required in New Zealand.

As I noted previously, this Bill is not a sop to crime and it sets out a number of exclusions in respect both of offences and certain employments. In the case of offences, convictions for sexual offences must always be disclosed. Similarly, convictions for offences reserved for trial by the Central Criminal Court must always be disclosed. These offences include rape and serious sexual assaults, as well as murder. As for excluded employments, the Bill provides it always should be necessary to declare convictions when seeking employment in specified areas of employment and section 5(2) of the Bill contains a wide-ranging list of such areas, which include employment in An Garda Síochána, the Civil Service and areas dealing with children. Apart from excluded employments, the Bill requires the disclosure of all convictions in certain other specified instances. For example, section 3 of the Bill outlines that a person convicted of fraud, deceit or an offence of dishonesty in respect of an insurance claim shall not be excused by the provisions of the Bill from admitting any such conviction on an insurance proposal or form. The Bill also outlines how previous convictions are to be disclosed at the sentencing stage in criminal proceedings. There are other circumstances in which disclosure may be required, including court proceedings relating to adoption and guardianship of children, as well as cases in which a court considers disclosure to be necessary to ensure justice is done.

The Bill proposes that the entitlement not to disclose a conviction should be automatic once the conditions relating to excluded offences and employments, the sentence thresholds and the conviction-free period have been observed. The case for such an approach has been well argued by the Law Reform Commission and is reflected in the Bill. Automatic application of the arrangements is preferable to other approaches that are more demanding of time and resources. An application system and in particular one that would entail applications to a court, also would present a real risk of drawing attention all over again to a conviction the person had hoped was behind him or her, thereby defeating the purpose of the Bill. The automatic system now proposed avoids such shortcomings and such a system also could be considered in other legislation. The Bill does not provide for any sanction from non-compliance. In general, such a sanction lies in the consequences of being found out, which may, for example, result in the loss of employment.

I look forward to the Minister's response and to the debate in general over the next two evenings. Since the Bill's publication some weeks ago, a current difficulty faced by young people on foot of not having spent conviction arrangements in this jurisdiction has been brought to my attention by colleagues in the House and elsewhere. I refer to those who are applying for employment in other jurisdictions and in Australia in particular. Because of our inability in this jurisdiction to deal with spent convictions, those applying for employment in other jurisdictions, particularly in Australia, are forced to reveal in their visa applications the most minor of offences, thereby excluding them from employment in many jurisdictions. As a consequence of our current economic situation, many of them are forced to look abroad for work and because of our inability to deal with such a minor matter, that employment option is being closed off to them.

This Bill is not perfect by any means. I hope improvements will be recommended and suggestions made during the course of the debate tonight and tomorrow night so that when this Bill is brought to Committee Stage - which I hope will be sooner rather than later - we can deal with any weaknesses identified in the debate on a cross-party basis.

Given the commitment in the programme for Government and that the Minister, in response to a recent parliamentary question from Deputy John McGuinness, has indicated his proposal for a spent convictions Bill, it is unnecessary to divide the House at this stage as this Bill could be regarded as a priority for the incoming justice committee.

Deputy Andrews's Bill was side-tracked in the previous Dáil so it is incumbent on us in the early days of this Dáil to deal with this matter and to address it before the summer recess. I look forward to the debate and I am open to suggestions and recommendations on the Bill. I look forward to the Minister's response.

See this speech in context