Dáil debates

Tuesday, 7 June 2011

Spent Convictions Bill 2011: Second Stage

 

6:00 pm

Photo of Seán FlemingSeán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Spent Convictions Bill 2011. I am pleased that my party, in its new found role in Opposition, is producing constructive legislation.

Private Members' time is traditionally used to attack the Government on the basis of the most recent story in the national media or the latest protest outside the House. While it is important that the business of the House reflects the issues of the day and the views and difficulties of our citizens, a mature parliament such as the Oireachtas should have greater scope to debate Opposition legislation. It is pity Opposition parties must use the 90 minutes available to them on the Tuesday and Wednesday evening of every third week to introduce legislation. It would be preferable if the Government were to provide additional time to deal with legislation tabled by the Opposition. As part of proposals to reform the Dáil, time should be provided each week to allow Opposition parties to introduce Bills.

Private Members' time tends to become repetitive as it invariably features a motion condemning the Government and a Government amendment praising its role in a specific area. The Government of the day always wins when the House divides each Wednesday night. Private Members' time is, therefore, something of a charade because the outcome is a foregone conclusion. This detracts from the serious content of many of the debates held during Private Members' time.

I understand the Minister is generally supportive of the principle behind the Bill, which is welcome. As an Opposition Deputy, the Minister introduced some legislation which received general support from the Government of the day. It is good to note that this positive approach continues. That is not to detract, however, from the adversarial nature of national parliaments. When a Government has such a large majority it is vital that the Opposition, even where its numbers are relatively small compared to previous Oppositions, is focused on the issues of the day. Nevertheless, members of the public are mature and do not want the politicians to squabble constantly over various issues. They see members of the Government adopting positions that are diametrically opposed to the views they expressed while in Opposition. If the same can be said of my party in opposition, it is only to a limited extent because we are careful to ensure our approach remains consistent with the approach we adopted while in government. It is important that the Opposition uses Private Members' time to express its views on the issues of the day. Under Dáil reform it should also have an opportunity to debate legislation on issues such as that addressed in the Bill before us.

Many people will ask what is a spent conviction. To express the purpose of the Bill in layman's terms it proposes that, where it is fair, reasonable and proportionate to do so, a person's previous convictions for minor offences would not have to be disclosed after a certain number of years had elapsed. It does not provide for the expunging of criminal records as these would continue to be held by the Garda Síochána. It would no longer be necessary, however, to wear one's criminal record on one's sleeve.

The legislation seeks to address this matter in the context of a person's employment record. Many people with minor convictions want to be able to move on with their lives. A number of caveats must apply in this regard. A person seeking to have a conviction spent must first pay his or her debt to society, whether by paying a fine, completing community service or serving a prison sentence, and demonstrate good behaviour for several years thereafter. The legislation provides definitive exclusions for sexual and other serious offences or offences that attracted a prison sentence of greater than six months because such offences are, by and large, serious in nature and should be publicly known.

I congratulate Deputy Calleary on working with the former Minister of State, Mr. Barry Andrews, on another, related topic which is not specifically addressed in the legislation, namely, the possibility of applying non-disclosure of certain convictions in the area of local authority housing. All applications for local authority housing include a question on the applicant's previous record. If the Oireachtas adopts a position that a person, subject to the caveats I have cited, should not be required to wear a criminal record on his or her sleeve when applying for a job, a similar provision should apply to those seeking local authority housing. If we want to rehabilitate offenders we must help them to find employment and accommodation. For this reason, non-disclosure should apply in both respects.

The absence of legislation on the issue of spent convictions has caused difficulties for people that are wholly disproportionate to the transgressions of the law for which they were originally convicted. The Minister has spoken on many occasions of the need to make greater use of community service orders. Many people would welcome such a move as it would enable them to see offenders such as vandals pay their debt to society.

All Deputies will have been lobbied about the time required to obtain Garda clearance when people seek to take up employment. Difficulties have arisen in the Garda vetting unit as a result of the public sector recruitment embargo. The Minister has indicated in reply to parliamentary questions that the caseload of the unit in Templemore has increased significantly. His written answers repeatedly refer to the fact that a significant number of staff at the unit are on maternity leave and have not been replaced. I understand, however, that an additional ten staff members have moved to the unit.

I have written to the Minister directly on the issue of Garda clearance but his reply did not address the issue I raised. I refer specifically to circumstances in which one individual must obtain Garda clearance for a number of different activities. The Department has adopted the illogical position that clearance may be required for different purposes. If a person wishes must call to elderly people as part of a FÁS meals on wheels scheme, coach in a local GAA or soccer club and do voluntary work in a youth club or with the Boy Scouts, he or she must apply for clearance in respect of each of these activities. I am informed that the reason for requiring Garda clearance to work with elderly people as part of a FÁS scheme is different from the reason a person would require clearance to coach the local under 12 soccer team or work as a caretaker in a local community hall.

Under the current system, a person may be required to produce three or four Garda clearance certificates. This is unnecessary duplication, as the Department is fully aware. It takes a narrow perspective in focusing on the various organisations in which a person may wish to become involved rather than on the individual seeking Garda clearance. It is individual who must be vetted. I ask the Minister to revisit this issue, which has come to prominence in the past year or two with the introduction of proper procedures for coaches, trainers and other volunteers who work with young people in sporting and voluntary bodies. The issue has only arisen in the past year or so because of the number of requirements concerning jobs in sporting and other voluntary bodies. The latter groups are rightly getting proper procedures in place for trainers and others who coach youngsters in a variety of activities. We welcome stronger measures to protect children, but they have led to a mushrooming of applications. We could deal with such applications better if we did not have some of the unnecessary duplication involved. I take the opportunity to make that point now that the Minister is in the House.

If people serve their time, pay their debts to society, are of good behaviour and do not re-offend, they should be allowed to move on with their lives. That is in everybody's interest. However, if people do not meet the aforementioned conditions they should not get any protection from the law.

The non-disclosure provision would arise after seven years have passed without further conviction when a sentence of imprisonment has been imposed, or after five years in other cases. We are not expunging the record, it is just an issue of non-disclosure. A number of excellent exclusions are listed in the Bill to ensure that the system is not abused. Overall, this proposal amounts to fair and balanced legislation.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.