Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this important legislation. The issue of spent convictions has been long spoken about inside and outside this Chamber but has not been matched by the same level of action as conversation. I do not believe any one can question the urgent need to put in place legislation dealing with this issue given Ireland is the only remaining jurisdiction in the EU which does not have in place appropriate legislation to deal with the expunging of criminal convictions. Like many other Members from all sides of the political divide I have read many reports outlining the far-reaching consequences for those convicted of minor criminal offences, be it discrimination in obtaining a visa or clearance for work in the area of security, for a tax licence or accessing employment, education and training. The difficulties experienced by many ex-prisoners in obtaining insurance has resulted in further difficulties for them when applying for mortgages, thus denying them the basic right to own their own home.

The National Economic and Social Forum found in 2002 that only 52% of employers would employ an ex-offender. A similar survey carried out by the Small Firms Association in 2007 found that between 76% and 87% of firms would not employ an ex-offender. When one takes into consideration that the largest proportion of people sentenced in this State receive short-term prison sentences, fines or community based sanctions for non-violent offences, it is all the more shameful that we have not addressed this issue. When an individual is sentenced following a conviction he or she has the right to expect that the sentence imposed will not adversely affect him or her beyond the timeframe set down at sentence. A sentence is time limited as it defines the start and maximum end date. Effective post-release reintegration of offenders into their families and communities once a custodial sentence has been served is essential for prevention of further re-offending and, therefore, community safety. This is in everyone's best interests and is the fundamental reason a minor conviction should not hang over a person for the remainder of his or her life.

One of the primary objectives of any custodial sentence should be to rehabilitate so as to prevent future crime. If that is the case, then part of the emphasis must be on incentives to create crime free lifestyles by ensuring access to gainful employment, education and training for ex-prisoners. Unwarranted barriers and discrimination, whether in law or in policy, must be proactively removed. The extent of this discrimination should not be underestimated. Far from effectively protecting the public, these barriers serve to increase Ireland's already high rate of repeat offending.

Sinn Féin supports a spent convictions regime for non-disclosure of criminal records in order to facilitate post-release reintegration through the measures I outlined earlier. While this Bill attempts to do this, it falls short of what will adequately address the issue. In my opinion, it is conservative and does not actually address the core principle in regard to spent convictions. However, while the Bill falls short of what Sinn Féin would like to see enacted, we will be supporting the Bill as it at least starts the process, which is important. Our concerns in relation to the Bill as drafted can be adequately dealt with at future Stages. For this reason, we will not oppose its progression through the House.

Before outlining where we differ from the current proposal it is only fair for me to highlight the sections of the Bill with which we agree. We welcome the provisions contained in section 3(2)(b) and (c) which deal with offenders complying with any conditions set down at sentencing. We also welcome section 3(3)(b) which excludes those convicted of offences of a sexual nature from availing from the provisions contained in this Bill. However, we do not agree with the proposal contained in section 3(3)(c) which states that an excluded offence is deemed to be "a sentence for a term exceeding six months". That is too narrow and too restrictive. We should, as a starting point, be considering a period of at least 12 months. One might well ask why 12 months and not 18 months, two years or three years. The Criminal Justice (Community Service) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2011 will make it obligatory on judges to consider community service orders as an alternative to custodial sentences, in respect of which a sentence of up to and including 12 months would normally apply. One of the provisions of that Bill is the setting of a time limit for community service orders, which have been extended from six to 12 months. It makes sense, therefore, to ensure all legislation currently before the House deals with custodial sentences in the same manner. If the limit is not extended to 12 months at a minimum we could have the ludicrous situation whereby a person sentenced to a community service order of between and six and 12 months would not be able to have his or her conviction expunged. In other words, such person would always have to disclose he or she had been the subject of a community service order.

It can be argued that the 12 month time limit is not adequate. A recent review of the British Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 found that the current time limit of 13 months is too restrictive. I am aware the Irish Penal Reform Trust has recommended a 13 month time limit in relation to this legislation. It may be necessary to consider the introduction of legislation establishing an independent board to deal on a case by case basis with ex-offenders sentenced beyond the current limit set in this Bill. Sinn Féin also has concerns in regard to section 3(4)(a) and (b). Subsection (4)(a) states that a person who is convicted and has imposed on him or her a custodial sentence not exceeding six months must wait seven years before having that conviction spent. Subsection (4)(c) states that a person in receipt of a non-custodial sentence not exceeding six months must wait five years before having that conviction spent. Under this proposal an individual aged between 18 and 20 years sentenced to six months and one day would be aged between 25 and 27 years before being able to have his or her conviction spent. This goes against everything the Bill attempts to address. For young persons to be faced with employment related discrimination during these crucial years could have life long consequences.

I want to touch briefly on section 5, which deals with excluded employment. While I agree completely that work involving substantial access to children or vulnerable adults be afforded special protection, the list of excluded employments where a person still has to declare a conviction are too broad. For example, under the current proposal before us, anyone who wishes to become a traffic warden would have to declare their conviction and could not avail of the provisions under the Bill. I welcome the Minister's comments in terms of possibly reviewing the range of excluded employments.

In conclusion, I want to focus on one sector of society for which the Bill does not cater, namely, former political prisoners. We are almost two decades on from the Good Friday Agreement and former political prisoners still suffer from discrimination in a wide range of areas. Many of these prisoners are staunch supporters of the peace process and continue to work on its behalf. Given all the advances since the Good Friday Agreement, it is fair to say that the political nature of the conflict in Ireland has now been widely recognised by all. This recognition must be formally extended to ex-political prisoners and discrimination against them needs to end. It is our position that the records of all former political prisoners should be expunged to enable them to participate in all aspects of economic and social life without discrimination. While there is no scope to include this category of individuals in the Bill before us, the introduction of separate legislation consistent with the Good Friday Agreement obligations to deal with this distinct situation of ex-prisoners needs to be considered.

See this speech in context