Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank sincerely the members of the Technical Group for allowing me some of their time to speak on the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill 2012. Like some of my colleagues who have spoken, while I welcome the Bill, I have reservations that in certain aspects it does not go far enough. Through my work over many years, I have come across what I consider to be very genuine cases. For example, a person may have made a mistake in his or her younger years - something that is possible for all of us. A person could have been arrested for being drunk and disorderly but this now hangs over him like a dark cloud throughout all the rest of his life. This is unfair. I agree there should be ways and mechanisms for cleaning the slate.

An offence committed in youth can have frightening consequences with regard to employment. Garda vetting of personnel is required for quite a number of positions of employment. All prospective employees of the HSE or the State, including contract workers, must be vetted by the Garda Síochána. Many people are unable to comply with the requirements because of a misdemeanour committed in their earlier years which may have been out of character and is a once-off offence. I do not mean that the record should be expunged for what one would call criminals. A previous speaker outlined a harmless type of incident in a person's youth. To think that this would follow a person through all the days of his or her life, is wrong.

There are certain professions for which it will always be necessary to declare a criminal conviction as these professions confer a position of power or of trust on a person. It will remain a legal requirement to ask an applicant about his or her convictions when that person is applying for relevant work as defined by the Bill. All convictions must be disclosed. Relevant work relates to work with children, vulnerable persons and work in certain State agencies and Government Departments. There is no blanket exemption for Civil Service or public service jobs. All convictions must be disclosed when making certain licence applications.

The proposed time period required before a sentence is declared spent ranges from three years for a fine of up to €500, to seven years for a custodial sentence of up to 12 months. The time period is also described as the rehabilitative or waiting period. Only two convictions can be spent for any individual. All other convictions must be disclosed even if the person meets the rest of the criteria for the spent conviction. In cases where a person is convicted of a third offence during the relevant period, then the first and second offences cannot become spent. All of these offences will have to be disclosed. I take exception to some aspects of the legislation dealing with the disclosure of offences. I would have liked to have seen the Bill go further in that regard.

Even though the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, Deputy Shatter, and I, would not agree on a lot of other issues, I welcome his statement that rehabilitation and participation in normal society must be an objective of our penal system and in which a spent conviction regime has a role to play. It is not often that we are both in agreement on certain aspects of his work, considering his support in pushing through the closure of more than 100 Garda stations this year, throughout the length and breadth of this country. The gardaí and the people working in the judicial system are all seeing the effects of this decision. Time will tell that this was a significant blunder.

I am disappointed at the lack of data on the number of individuals who will be eligible for spent convictions as defined in the Bill. Neither is data available from the Courts Service containing a level of detail that allows for a breakdown of the relevant custodial and non-custodial sentences defined in the Bill. The Irish Prison Service statistics provide a partial picture of the proportion of custodial sentences that may come within the scope of the Bill. Because these figures relate solely to those serving prison sentences, they are limited in their application. As defined, also excluded are those who received other sanctions such as community service orders, fines, probation orders and suspended sentences. The Bill proposes that custodial sentences of 12 months or less may be eligible to become spent convictions. However, while the data show information on sentences of less than 12 months, the figures for sentences of 12 months and up to two years are not reported. This means that some eligible sentences are not distinguishable from those that are not eligible. This lack of clarity and paucity of data is not helpful to the aim of this Bill. Data on sentences for sexual and homicide convictions are omitted as they will not become eligible to become spent. This is only right and proper. Serious offences should not be removed from the record of an offender. When a person commits a serious crime such as I have stated, he or she must pay the price and take the sentence with them for the rest of their lifetime.

There has been criticism of the effectiveness of the provision and it is questioned whether it provides a clean slate. It has been argued that the length of time it takes for a conviction to become spent undermines the very objective of the legislation providing for spent convictions. The period in which a clean slate is most required is immediately following completion of a sentence when, for instance, the rehabilitative effect of immediate employment is greatest. A person leaving prison must be enabled to re-integrate into society as quickly as possible. We all know that finding a job is difficult but even charitable or part-time work would be a means of keeping busy. The waiting period as provided in the Bill may mean that a person leaving prison could be left idle. We were always told there is nothing more dangerous than an idle mind. One would have to consider what might happen in the intervening period between leaving prison and being in a position to return to the workforce.

The Bill provides that the minimum period before a current conviction can become spent is three years. The UK law has been changed to shorten the waiting periods for convictions to become spent while at the same time widening the provisions to include convictions for longer sentences of up to four years.

That is fair enough. The Confederation of British Industry - the UK equivalent of IBEC - welcomed the less restrictive system being introduced across the water and said that it gave offenders a better chance of obtaining employment, thereby reducing the likelihood of their reoffending. This is exactly what I have been saying. It has been stated that the UK arrangements offer a more proportionate balance between the seriousness of the offence committed and prospective employers being able to obtain the information necessary to allow them to assess whether employing someone might constitute a risk.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the people who work in the Irish Prison Service. Since becoming a Member of this House, I have made it my business to visit prisons in Dublin on a number of occasions in order to witness, at first hand, the way in which the service is run. I also wanted to see the work being done in order to reintegrate people into society and also to encourage the development of a work ethic among those who may never have had a job before. It may not be noted on many occasions in the House but the governors, prison officers and all of those employed within the Irish Prison Service must be complimented on the work they do. Those to whom I refer work in an extremely pressurised environment. They deal with people who are in a place in which they do not wish to be and, in many instances, with individuals who can be troublesome and who have a lot of issues. The governors and the male and female prison officers work with these people in order to try to get them to a better place in their lives. I accept that there are hardened criminals but that is a another story.

Those who work in the Irish Prison Service are fair and balanced and they do their work in a diligent and honest way. I mean what I say in this regard because it have seen evidence of what I am describing at first hand. As already indicated, I went out of my way to see every aspect of what is involved and those in the Irish Prison Service were kind enough to facilitate me. It is important that public representatives should see - at close quarters - what is happening in our prisons. Great work is being done. There are some excellent programmes for prisoners, who can be engaged in doing practical work and who can be trained and provided with skills - for example, computer skills - which will be of use to them when they leave prison in the context of obtaining employment. There are all sorts of educational and arts and crafts opportunities open to prisoners. I have seen great things being done in our prisons. It is not just a case of throwing people into prison and obliging them to bide their time, with nothing to do but be fed and kept under lock and key. Conditions in our prisons have improved. There are many people who are of the attitude that the latter should not have happened. I am of the view that those who are convicted of offences must serve their time and that our thoughts have to be with the victims of their crimes. Ultimately, we must try to ensure that people do not reoffend. That is what those in the Irish Prison Service are doing.

Section 10 of the Bill provides that anyone applying for or renewing a range of licences, permits or other authorisations, must continue to disclose all previous convictions, including spent convictions. Taxi licences are obviously included in this regard. In the context of the type of offence a person may have committed in the past, it must be stated that being a taxi driver is an extremely responsible job. If a taxi driver picks up a teenage or young adult female late at night, the latter is in his or her care while being transported from A to B in his or her vehicle. It is vital, therefore, that customers should be in a position to know the identify of those who drive taxis. If there are any issues arising, customers should be aware of them. Those who issue licences should be in a position to decide whether someone is a suitable individual to be in charge of a taxi and, by extension, other people's safety.

The position is similar with regard to private security licences and firearms certificates. As a person who has always owned guns, I am aware of the importance of ensuring that all firearms owners know what they are doing. Anyone who wants to be in possession of a firearm could certainly not afford to have a chequered history. I appreciate the merit in that. The other licences, etc., covered under this section include those relating to driving instructors, individuals who work with vulnerable people and those required in respect of the registration and operation of mental health centres and designated care centres and programmes. Obviously, the past history of all individuals contemplated under these provisions must be taken into consideration.

Previous speakers referred to the issue of motor and house insurance. Deputy Tom Fleming and I must have been contacted by the same people because I am also aware that very strict conditions have been imposed via the small print contained in insurance policies. It is beyond belief that the insurance policy of a couple who own their house can be nullified if their son, daughter or some other relative living there has a previous conviction. That is not fair. The position with regard to car insurance is similar. There is a need to give further consideration to the position in respect of this matter. We are always informed that we should be aware of the small print. However, hiding conditions such as those to which I refer in the small print of insurance policies is neither helpful nor correct.

I am aware of people who were denied job opportunities as a result of some misdemeanour they committed in their youth. It could be the simplest of things such as, for example, an assault. While two people may have carried out the assault, only one may have ended up with a conviction in respect of it. Such individuals are tagged for the remainder of their lives, which is unfair. If a person has come to the attention of the Garda on numerous occasions or if he or she is a known troublemaker, that is a completely different issue. We are all human and many people can be somewhat reckless when they are starting out in life. Some of those to whom I refer may go on to become pillars of their communities and respectable family people with children of their own but they continue to have a dark cloud hanging over them. I have encountered several individuals whose careers were really affected in the context of obtaining jobs for which they would have been highly qualified and eminently suitable. Unfortunately, they could not get through the Garda vetting process. I certainly do not want anyone to believe that I am opposed to Garda vetting or anything of that nature. Such vetting is necessary and the form it currently takes is good.

Having said all that, I must admit that nothing is perfect. I do not believe the Bill to be perfect but I support it because the Government and the Department are making moves in the right direction. Everyone must welcome that fact.

It is all about jobs. It is about helping people get back to work, which is where they should be, and allowing those who made errors in the past get back into the mainstream workforce if they are fortunate enough to be able to do so.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I hope it might be tweaked in the future to address the anomalies identified by Members. I took note of the excellent contributions made by other Members also. I thank the Technical Group for allowing me the time to speak on the Bill.

See this speech in context