Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I congratulate the Chairman and members of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality on the work they have done on this issue. In one respect, I am glad I do not sit on that committee because it does such a large amount of work. It has produced a very interesting report which contains many good elements.

I propose to speak on three or four issues. I fear that society pays lip service to the issue of rehabilitation. We lock up and release people without trying to rehabilitate them or address the more fundamental issues that led to their imprisonment.

We should be concerned worried about people taking advantage of the prison system and it developing into an industry because people have taken advantage of the direct provision system to make money over the years. Given the work the Minister of State is doing on this issue, I do not propose to discuss it in detail.

To return to the concept of rehabilitation, Deputy Stanton, the Chairman of the joint committee, referred to the Care After Prison organisation. I have met members of the group's staff on a number of occasions and also attended one of its fund-raising events. It is an excellent organisation whose small staff look after and rehabilitate former offenders. It is the first charity of its kind in Ireland. A pilot scheme run by Care After Prison in 2012 dealt with 280% more people than was anticipated and none of them was subsequently reconvicted. This is exactly the type of successful programme we should support.

While Care After Prison was awarded a small contract by the Irish Prison Service in 2013, it and similar organisations require more funding to prevent further people from re-offending and returning to prison. A small amount of money could make a major difference and would be a smart way to use resources. While the Department has engaged with Care After Prison, I hope it will do much more work with it and will use the organisation to benefit people leaving prison and society as a whole.

The retention of information after arrest is related to the report, albeit tangentially.

1 o’clock

I asked a parliamentary question last year about the timeframe within which An Garda Síochána was required to hold information on a person detained and arrested by them, even where that arrest did not lead to a conviction or a successful prosecution. It seems that in such circumstances, when a criminal investigation has been completed and no charge proffered, An Garda Síochána can retain the information collected and hold onto it for as long as it deems appropriate. I am concerned by this because, based on the response I received from the Department, it seems it can retain information on people indefinitely, even though it has not led to any conviction or prosecution. That issue needs to be examined closely. How long they can retain such information seems to be up to gardaí to decide. Is anybody regulating this practice and who determines the necessity of it? Is the Garda Inspectorate involved?

That leads to the issue of spent convictions. It is important that people's rights be respected. Already we have seen a European Court ruling against the practice in the United Kingdom of retaining fingerprint evidence where people are arrested or detained but which has not led to a conviction or prosecution. I understand the keeping of fingerprints is more serious than retaining information because they can be linked with the individual. The practice of retaining information reflects an attitude on the part of gardaí towards individuals, whereby there is a suspicion of guilt, even though there may be no reason for it or there is no evidence that would lead to an arrest, a conviction or a prosecution. Is that a practice An Garda Síochána should be allowed to continue?

On the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill, since my election to this House I have received significant correspondence from individuals both here and in the United Kingdom. I am concerned about what I understand is the timeframe of seven years in regard to certain convictions. I am concerned that this is unfair on persons who are trying to get past a mistake they have made and trying to find work, both here and abroad, or who wish to travel to other countries. They are trying to rebuild their lives. Their conviction might relate to only a minor offence due to an unfortunate circumstance or sequence of events, but because of how it has been treated, it may have prevented them from re-establishing or continuing with their lives. Therefore, I hope we can move quickly towards clarification on this issue. If seven years is the timeframe in the case of approximately 80% of District Court convictions, we need greater flexibility and the timeframe needs to be reduced. I understand further changes are on the way and perhaps these might provide an opportunity to deal with the issue.

I congratulate the committee on its work and look forward to the debate on its next report.

See this speech in context