Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

I am sorry I did not speak before Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan because his speech is a hard act to follow. He has raised some important issues. We should start our discussion of spent convictions by looking at how people end up before the law and getting convictions in the first place. It is absolutely correct to say there is a culture in the State whereby a connected person with influence is outside the law in some way and can receive privileges and exemptions that are not afforded to people born on the other side of the tracks. Equally, there is evidence to suggest that when people collide with members of the Garda, the position I have described can be abused and they can end up with convictions also.

This important Bill is a start, but it certainly does not go far enough in dealing with this issue, which is at the heart of certain questions. What type of society do we want to live in? What is the basis of the criminal justice system? As other Deputies have said, the idea that incarceration and custodial sentencing represent a way forward as we try to transform society is particularly ludicrous in this era of austerity when there is so much emphasis on cutbacks and so many attacks on public expenditure. It does not stack up on any ground. Given the cost of incarcerating people, substantial savings could be made by taking people out of the prison net. I am surprised that a much greater focus is not being placed on rehabilitation.

We must consider how the system works from the outset - how people are apprehended and trials are conducted, whether sentencing policy is consistent and what goes on in prison. People must have the right to move on when their time is done and their sentences are served. We need to have consistency, transparency and proportionality in the system. While the principle of this legislation is good, the Bill does not go nearly far enough. If this issue is not addressed, a person who was sentenced after something relatively minor happened a long time ago, which certainly does not define his or her current contribution to society, could end up serving a life sentence. If he or she has to carry that conviction, for example, when dealing with prospective employers, it increases the likelihood of him or her becoming a career criminal. A person cannot gain employment if his or her record follows him or her around and taints him or her in this way. That is not a good way forward because it costs society in the long run.

I will not repeat the points made by other Deputies. I do not think the Bill goes far enough. The proposed time period of 12 months is paltry.

Why should it even be 48 months? Why should it not be 60 months to start the ball rolling? That would be legitimate and not cause a danger to anybody else. I agree with the points made by the Irish Penal Reform Trust on having a simpler rehabilitation scheme laid out.

I am concerned about a couple of issues, the first being the question of excluding particular areas of employment. I do not see any basis for discrimination in this regard, given that it is an erosion of human rights. The reference to "relevant work" should be removed from the Bill. If there are concerns because somebody is dealing with children or security issues, they can be dealt with under the vetting legislation, although that in itself raises other issues, given that, under the vetting system, people brought for prosecution may not have ended up with a conviction, but the very fact dthat they were in court can be used against them in applying for a job. To take the issue of public order offences, I will use the example of people who could be served with an adult caution under the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act. If they admit their guilt and accept the order, this does not have to be disclosed. However, if they do not accept an adult caution because they believe they are innocent, choose to go to court to defend the issue, go on trial and are acquitted, the very fact that there was a trial may, in some instances, have to be disclosed and can be used to discredit the person with a prospective employer, which is ludicrous.

Under the vetting system, it is not just convictions that apply but also other specified information, which is highly dangerous, given the question of who defines it and is accountable for it. If, for example, a garda maliciously inputs some information on a person onto the PULSE system and it shows up, will it have to be disclosed? I echo many of the points made by Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan and consider that many of these issues are tied with the governance of An Garda Síochána, of which serious questions have been asked in terms of the lack of independent scrutiny. The reason it is tied with it is that the route to people being convicted starts initially from their contact with members of An Garda Síochána; therefore, their conduct has to be above aboard. I would be very concerned to ensure the non-disclosure aspect was removed for persons called in for interview and internal investigation by members of the Garda. What is to stop malicious information being used?

We had a meeting over the weekend with multiple victims of Garda malpractice who had given definitive evidence about how they had been unlawfully summonsed for no valid reason whatsoever because a garda, or a resident with a connection to a garda, had decided to maliciously take action against them. In one case, a man's jeep was stolen and ended up being involved in a crime and he ended up with a criminal record. The conduct of gardaí is very relevant to how people receive sentences and end up in this position. This protection needs to be built in. We need to look at the Garda Ombudsman system with regard to public accountability and independent scrutiny of the Garda, which would assist in this process.

The other issue concerns rehabilitation. I do not believe there are many people who are beyond rehabilitation. If we were to invest in this process, our society would be far better off. Obviously, part of this is the idea of a spent convictions process.

See this speech in context